Friday, January 20, 2006

Back To The Future . . . Again

Did you watch "Lincoln" on the History Channel last Monday night? It was a 3-hour psychological biography, an extravaganza of speculation with a paucity of documentable fact. Still, it did have some good points. The most notable of these was Gore Vidal pointing out that Lincoln's abrogation of civil liberties during the Civil War was valid and genuine (after all, the Union's capital city was surrounded by if not "officially" enemy territory, "enemy sympathizer" territory). Most unlike Dubya's so-called War on Terror, making the point that citing Lincoln's behavior in support of Dubya's illegal wiretaps and other present excesses is both improper and invalid.

(Are you listening, Dick Cheney? Probably not, but that's OK. Jay Leno noted last night that having a bad boss increases one's risk of heart attack by about 33%. Cheney is certainly in trouble now.)

Anyway, back to the History Channel. I found a lot of things NOT to like about the program, the least of which was the use of wrong pictures to illustrate battlefield horrors. An oft-published picture of dead Confederates at Gettysburg was used during talk of the battle of Cold Harbor, for instance. There also was entirely too much MTV-type camerawork, hand-held and shaky, ostensibly giving us what Lincoln himself saw on the last day of his life. Trying to outdo Ken Burns, are we? This is not the way to do it.

My most serious complaint, however, is the amount of time wasted on speculating whether Lincoln was gay. The world was a very, very different place in the 19th century; the fact that two males shared a bed for years--and were open about it--most emphatically proves they were NOT gay. All things sexual were taboo in the Victorian Age. The very fact that we know Lincoln and Joshua Speed shared intimate quarters establishes that there was nothing at all sexual in their relationship. Besides, many practical reasons existed for sharing sleeping quarters in those days: heating systems were not so good as they usually are now, for one thing. And in hotels and rooming houses and the like, it was much more affordable to share a bed than to rent two. Heck, we have copious examples of Victorian Age men and women sharing beds without the benefit of clergy, and we know there was absolutely nothing sexual about it in those cases, either. Why should this be any different? To interpret this one case differently because a venerated American was involved smacks more of the interpreter's political agenda that it does of valid historical exegesis.

As for the admitted sentimentality and emotionally open nature of their personal correspondence? Well, again, the 19th century was a different age. Sentimentality was a prized Victorian Age virtue. The fact that men could express their emotional attachment for one another does NOT indicate that they had some deep sexual relationship. It means they were best friends during the middle of the 19th century.

Our rush to put a Freudian interpretation on everything does not serve us well. It speaks volumes about our own collective hang-ups and enlightens not at all when applied to history. We need to remember that Groucho Marx was right: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I must admit that the History Channel did include one historian who noted that all this business was speculative and in the eyes of most traditional historians not worth much, as it has little (if any) support in traditionally-used documentation/evidence. This opinion was, however, insufficiently emphasized given the overall perspective of the program.

One final complaint. The program glossed over much too glibly about how Lincoln had to struggle to get ahead of the curve of public opinion on the issue of slavery and the rights of American blacks. It suggested that Lincoln was always opposed to slavery per se, which is not true. He began his political career opposing not slavery, but the expansion of slavery into what were then US territories. He most emphatically hated Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act, which opened the slavery can of worms in territories North of the Mason-Dixon line, undoing the infamous Missouri Compromise of 1820 and ultimately precipitating the Civil War, which actually if not officially started in "Bleeding Kansas" in 1857.

Lincoln's own pre-1860 speeches and writings establish that he did not consider blacks either the social or civil equals of whites. That Lincoln moved so far ahead of popular opinion in such a short time, and in fact by the end of his life supported voting rights for blacks, was not given enough attention. The program implied he was there from the beginning, and that just isn't correct.

Still, I can't complain entirely. The History Channel did note that it was Lincoln's final public speech, from the balcony of the White House shortly before he was killed, advocating giving voting rights to blacks (OK, black men), that got Lincoln killed in the first place. John Wilkes Booth was there; he heard that speech; he was an avowed racist; he thereupon said that that was the last thing Lincoln would ever say on the subject; he then carried out his heinous plot to assassinate the president.

I must also note that the (mostly black) historians who castigate Lincoln for not being totally against slavery from Day One are just as wrong as are those who omit the evolution of Lincoln's opinions on the matter and who call him the Great Emancipator from Day One. Lincoln was a product of his age, after all. He was born in a slave state (Kentucky); he had his prejudices and misconceptions, as do we all.

Nevertheless, he learned. He grew. He changed his mind as he realized the greater significance of events. Furthermore, he was willing to say so unambiguously and in public. This is what sets Lincoln apart, and this is why I for one admire him so much. He was not perfect. No one is. [As my mother is fond of saying as she stretches her arms from side to side like a cross, "Remember what they did to the last perfect person."--Ed.] But he embodies that striving for "a more perfect Union" that is the very underpinning of the American Experiment.

So the History Channel program was worth watching, and I do recommend it to you when it re-airs, but please: watch it with a sufficiently skeptical eye and your mind engaged.

Riddle Me This

I was watching The Tonight Show last night, which featured Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segment. In case you don't know, this is where Jay goes out on the streets of LA and asks people questions. The answers (the ones aired, anyway) are usually ludicrous, and very often really, really dumb.

There is some greater significance behind this, however. I'm just not sure what it is. Is Jay implying that this is OK because the viewing audience can pat itself on its collective back for being way smarter than these people? Or is Jay implying that it's OK to be a total idiot because it will get you on TV?

I do not think that the people "featured" are just smart-mouthing stupid answers to get their 15 minutes of fame. Frankly, none of them look smart enough to be that devious/clever.

No wonder Dubya is president. >>>shudder<<<

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Puh-leeze!

Craig Ferguson (The Late Show, on CBS) has called the History Channel "The Hitler Channel: All Hitler, All the Time." That, I like. It's funny. But then, so is most of Craig's stuff. Nevertheless, it is not in the strictest sense true. For example, the History Channel frequently airs various programs explaining and extolling the virtues of the so-called "Bible Codes."

I don't pretend to understand the details, but these "Bible Codes" have to do with groups of connected words found hidden within discrete biblical passages when one uses a computer search engine and considers letters a set distance apart. (The searcher sets the distance in each instance; the only rule is that once the distance is set, it cannot be changed within the confines of that search.)

Proponents of these "Bible Codes" say that they are so complicated and detailed that they cannot be accidental, that the hand of God is obviously at work, and that no other literary work can duplicate or even come close to producing similar results. I know of at least one group of scientists who disproved this last point using Moby Dick, but there are substantial other reasons to doubt the presence of the hand of God in these "Bible Codes."

For one thing, just because we can look at clouds or stars and see pictures, patterns, or constellations, does NOT mean that those things are there. They came from our own individual creativity/imaginations.

For another, I cite the magician Penn Gillette, who said (regarding Nostradamus, but the point is just as well taken in reference to the "Bible Codes") that if these things were really there, we should be able to use them to predict, and thus forestall, impending disasters. But if we can see the events only after their occurrence, we again are imposing our vision on something that may or may not--but most probably does not--predict anything.

Hindsight is, after all, 20-20.

So why is it that the History Channel can go from running the occasional informative, smart, and insightful program to running this crap over and over and over? Doesn't anyone there exercise any editorial discretion?

* * * * * * * * * *

I do not frequently find myself in disagreement with Rainbow Rowell, but her column in today's Omaha World-Herald disappointed me. The students at Bellevue East (my alma mater when it was just plain Bellevue, by the way) staged a protest when the faculty and staff started strict enforcement of the school's dress code, and last Friday sent home everyone wearing ripped jeans.

The poor babies! About 200 of them staged a protest on Monday. While I do agree with Rainbow that their organizational skills are impressive, I find I have absolutely NO sympathy for the students and their alleged plight.

I guess I am turning into an old geezer or an old coot, but I remember when the Bellevue Public Schools dress code would not let females wear pants--even in freezing cold weather, girls were not allowed to wear pants while walking to school, even if they changed into proper dresses once at school.

In the ensuing decades, the dress codes have gone from being overly strict to being utterly non-enforced. Now, the pendulum is swinging back to center, and the students of 2006 are paying the price.

Even Rainbow had to concede that jeans so ripped that one's "unmentionables" were visible should not be allowed. I hope that she'd further stop to think that there's no easy way to draw up a dress code that would allow for SOME but not all ripped jeans . . . and so the smart and simple thing to do is to ban ripped jeans, period.

OK. I know the ripped jeans of the "Oughts" are the long hair of the Sixties. Still, long hair could be kept neat and clean, which by definition is impossible to do with ripped jeans (clean, maybe . . . neat? No). I also know that kids want to bug their elders, that they need to bug their elders, and that every generation finds its own "badge of honor" with which to do so.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. I think ripped jeans show an incredible lack of respect for not only the school and one's fellows, but mostly for one's own self. I am appalled that these kids' parents are supporting them and casting aspersions on the school.

On the other hand, I have always said that the Baby Boomers did a generally horrid job raising their children . . . mostly because we wanted to be their friends, not their parents (which doesn't work), and now our children's children are even worse off than we made our kids.

I thus am now officially a coot. Does this mean I have to relocate to Possum Lodge?

(In any case, I still don't see what's wrong with wanting to present oneself with a little dignity, class, and good taste. In that respect, at least, as compared to the students of 2006, who want to be different just like everyone else, I am still an iconoclast. Thank goodness!)