Tuesday 18 June 2024
History and Other Stuff: The Anti-Fascist Cartoons of David Low
My blog has just passed 400,000 views. This post is tops in number of views, with nearly 17,000. I think it speaks to our present peril. History and Other Stuff: The Anti-Fascist Cartoons of David Low: David Low (1891-1963) was one of the great political cartoonists of the 20th century. Born in New Zealand, he emigrated to Britain in 1919. In 1927 he joined the staff of London's Evening Standard. He took the job on condition the paper's owner assured him he would have complete freedom from editorial interference.
Low remained at the Evening Standard until 1950. He is perhaps best remembered for his cartoons of the 1930s and early 40s. lampooning the dictators Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, and British architects of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. In 1937, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels told Halifax that Low's cartoons were damaging German-British relations. Halifax promised to try and restrain Low, with little effect as it turned out. Indeed, Halifax himself became one of the chief targets of Low's satire. To read more and view cartoons, click link above
Friday 14 June 2024
Tuesday 11 June 2024
Sunday 9 June 2024
Saturday 8 June 2024
The Not So Strange Death of Tory England
Coming Soon, assuming the General Election on 4 July secures the UK's independence from the Tories. Imagine it. Make it happen. This may be your last chance to bring about fundamental change.
Wednesday 5 June 2024
A War Between History and Memory: The American Revolution at 250
The sestercentennial (250th anniversary) of the American Revolution and War for Independence is nearly upon us. It is destined to reach new heights of commercialism, with beer companies no doubt leading the parade. Corny commemorations and mythical tales will all be a part of the celebration. Will there be room for calm reflection on the events of 1775-1783? Not much, I fear, especially in the Age of Trump and MAGA.
The revolution will be celebrated as a victory for liberty and equality. That is true in part, though more in rhetoric than in reality. Awkwardly, it was also a war to preserve
slavery. In 1773, High Court judge Lord Mansfield declared in the Somerset Case that slavery had no basis in English law. The Somerset ruling caused panic, especially in the southern, slave-owning colonies, and helped unite them with the northern colonies, where the rallying cry was no taxation without representation.
Alarmed southern slaveholders denied the right of Parliament to pass laws affecting the internal or domestic affairs of the colonies. Slavery, they argued, was a domestic issue. In 1775, on the verge of war, they accused the British of plotting slave (and Indian) revolts as a means of subduing the rebellious colonies. In 1776, they decided that independence was necessary to prevent emancipation and loss of control over enslaved Blacks. 
In that sense the War for Independence had more in common with the Civil War than is generally acknowledged. Looked at from the perspective of the enslaved population, both were wars for liberty. Many Blacks believed the rhetoric of their white masters and saw the Revolutionary War as an opportunity to secure their freedom, by joining the British. Historians estimate that around 100,000 enslaved persons ran off to British lines between 1775 and 1783, 25,000 in South Carolina alone. They were not complacent bystanders, but active participants in the struggles that gave birth to a nation.
History is often unpleasant, messy, and chaotic. It is seldom as simple as we would like it to be. Historical myth is the opposite: neat, generally pleasing -- at least to our prejudices -- and comfortably black and white. The myths are "alternative facts" or "fake history." Not surprisingly, myths tend to dominate if not obliterate actual history in the popular consciousness, or public memory.
By "actual history" I do not mean the "truth" but the result of painstaking historical research, writing, and interpretation. If well done, the result is our best current approximation of the truth. In that sense, history resembles science. Science is a more exact business, of course. Scientists can use repeated experiments to confirm their hypotheses. Historians do not have that luxury. They cannot repeat history. In most cases, they would not wish to.
Historian Lewis Namier wrote that the writing of history "is not a visit of condolence." He might have added that the same is true of reading it. Learning our history is often troubling and confusing. If it never is, we are reading the wrong stuff. Some people avoid the trouble by ignoring history. Henry Ford is alleged to have said that "history is bunk." He didn't say exactly that, but he did reject the past as dead and meaningless, not worth bothering about.
Abraham Lincoln disagreed with Ford. In his Second Inaugural Address he declared, "My Fellow Americans, we cannot escape history." He understood that the terrible war nearing its end was the result of the country's failure to abolish slavery early in its history. Novelist William Faulkner held a similar view: "The past isn't dead. It is not even past." His characters are prisoners of their history, in this case the history of the Deep South.
Karl Marx wrote in much the same vein in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852): "The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living." Marx prefaced that statement with "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." One does not have to be a Marxist to agree with that statement. Our history, like our biology, constrains us, for good or ill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)