Hulver's site || History of the US

History of the US

Keep listening	1 vote - 33 %
Stop listening	1 vote - 33 %
Go back to the start	1 vote - 33 %

3 Total Votes

Trust the Gene Genie | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Confessions of a sweatshop inspector. by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #1 Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:39:56 AM EST

I liked that a lot. Especially in the hope it gave me that you can find companies that do their ethical sourcing properly.

The wild west era was about 25 years long by lm (4.00 / 1) #2 Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:59:48 AM EST

Despite the mystique of westerns in US culture, the time period they're mostly set in wasn't that long and wasn't that important historically.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Well by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #4 Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:39 AM EST

At 84 lectures they've got plenty of room... 3 years of so per lecture, as opposed to 130 years per lecture for the History of China course. If he can spend an entire lecture on the Populist Party, I think he could spend more than five minutes on the fricking cowboys.

Besides, vast cultural significance popular icons political imagemaking blah blah.
--
"Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."-Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

I'm sure lots of cowboy stuff was in some lectures by lm (4.00 / 2) #5 Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:20 PM EST

The populist part, even if short lived, had a far reaching effect on the US that is hard to overstate. From the idea of an eight hour work day to the graduated income tax, its platform remains the cornerstone of quite a bit of law in the US.

The popular cult of the cowboy, however, comes less from the historical cowboy era and more from the subsequent romanticization of the cowboy era. Many of the events and institutions of the era (such as the pony express) will almost certainly be covered, but a close up focus would be more about Buffalo Bill's Wild West show than about the actual wild west.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

History by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #6 Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST

It'd be a bit like complaining that the History of the Britain didn't spend enough on Robin Hood.

I suspect that there's plenty of history of the events that influenced the mythology in those lectures, like the gold rushes in California and South Dakota, the Oregon trail, the Texas Republic, Wounded Knee, The Pony Express, Roosevelt's Rough Riders, Pancho Villa etc. It's just that in an actual history, these don't all go together in one lecture.

Other events, like the OK Corral, the James Gang, etc. essentially not particularly important from a historical context. The story of Wild Bill getting shot in a poker game may be a good story, but it influenced nothing, had no national repercussions and just wasn't particularly important.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Not really by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #8 Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:10:05 AM EST

Robin Hood never existed. He was a folk myth, whereas the gunfight at the OK corral actually happened. Furthermore, the real-world ambiguities of it were fascinating, as lightly fictionalized in "Warlock" by Oakley Hall. On the one hand, you can see the cowboy faction like the Clantons as a terrifying menace, needing to be brought under control by the Earps. On the other, you can see the Earps as oppressive bullies, overreacting on behalf of business interests.

The cultural impact of events like that has been huge. And when a cultural impact is large enough, it feeds back into reality.

Politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have consciously self-portrayed themselves using cowboy imagery, as sheriffs riding in to clean up the town. It's worth considering how much the need to maintain that image has impacted on their policy.

Consider terrorists: a terrifying force of anarchy, before which the pettifogging previous law is helpless. Sheriff Bush needs to strap on the six-shooter of the Patriot Act and take firm action.
--
"Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."-Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Well by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #10 Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:06:57 AM EST

As I said...the events that inspired the mythology are likely in your lecture series, just not in one convenient place, because many of them were either not actually from the time period or from the actual West.

I also suspect from your comments re:Bush that you are reacting more to the European stereotype of US politics than what actually happens here in the US.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Are you arguing for what I think you're arguing? by lm (4.00 / 1) #11 Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:04:04 PM EST

You seem to be suggesting that the foreign policy of Bush '43 and Reagan administrations was significantly formed due to the self-identification of Reagan and Bush with a mythologized cowboy ethic.

Even if it were the case that a specific form of machismo did actually shape the public policy of these two men, I think the cowboy ethos has enough antecedents in pop culture from Robin Hood to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai to have sufficed.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I don't think it's particularly controversial by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:53:24 AM EST

To argue that people's action are influenced by the culture they inhabit, and the roles they try to play.

Robin Hood is a different deal altogether. He's usually portrayed as an eloquent smooth talker. Cowboys and sheriffs are portrayed as taciturn types who solve their problems with deeds, not words.

Robin Hood is cunning and deceptive, always turning up in disguise. Cowboys are supposedly straightforward.

Robin Hood is an outright outlaw. Cowboys and sheriffs exist in a legal grey area, where they must lay down the law.

Furthermore, Reagan and W. Bush liked to be photographed on horseback or in cowboy boots or cowboy hats. However, Tony Blair and James Callaghan have never been photographed crouching in trees wearing Lincoln green that I recall. They don't try to exploit that imagery in the same way.

IIRC, I first noticed this ages ago, when I was reading an admiring peace by Larry Niven about Ronald Reagan, when he talked about Iranian hostages being released as "the old cowboy took office". This seemed odd to me, since Reagan was an actor who played cowboys, not actually a cowboy. To his supporters though, this distinction seems to be somewhat elided.
--
"Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."-Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

That is far more limited claim by lm (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:20:46 AM EST

That people are influenced by popular culture is not a particularly controversial claim.

But that the foreign policy of a particular president was significantly shaped by a particular aspect of popular culture is a somewhat controversial claim, especially when applied to the policy of two administrations that have a very rigorous intellectual underpinning to the policy in question. (Not one that I agree with, mind you.) Reagan's foreign policy had less to do with cowboy movies and more to do the theoretical framework set up by James Baker, Alex Haig and Cap Weingberger.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Unlikely that there was no influence by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:39:59 AM EST

Reagan in particular seems to have had his political career heavily boosted by his movie career. It seems pretty unlikely that he would have risen to be president from an obscure job.

So too, his supporters wore buttons like My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys and refer to him admiringly as a cowboy.

It seems pretty absurd to believe that the image he needed to maintain had no effect on his actions or policies.

[ Parent ]

I would agree, I didn't say it had no effect by lm (4.00 / 1) #15 Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST

I'm saying is that you've provided much evidence of correlation, little of causation. I've no reason to believe that the cowboy ethos had any substantive effect on Reagan's foreign policy.

We could draw similar parallels between Christianity and the foreign policy of Vlad Tepes. Clearly, Vlad was heavily influenced by the Church of Romania. Also, he heavily referenced Church writings in many of his decrees. Likewise, he was made into a national hero, in part, because of his public displays of piety. But it is not clear that Christian doctrine had any actual effect on his relations with Hungary or the Ottomans. And, in truth, when push came to shove he renounced the Church of Romania for the support of the Holy Roman Empire to try to regain the crown one last time.

What you seem to me to be doing is to conflate the superficial way in which Reagan and Bush communicate their respective policies with why those policies were formed in the first place. I'll allow it is possible that the desire to be a Hollywood style cowboy may have influenced their foreign policy, but I think it far more likely that they formed their foreign policy for other reasons and presented it in cowboy fashion.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

History isn't science by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST

You can never really prove causation in history. You can't run repeated experiments, every event in history has unique aspects, and you can't simulate it.

However, cowboy and western themes have been a highly prevalent, highly prolonged theme in US popular culture. It seems very likely such a resonant theme influences the electorate, and through them the elected, as well as directly influencing the leaders themselves.

I don't know much about Vlad Tepes, but consider for instance the American Revolution. How can we prove that it was influenced by British taxation for instance. We cannot show causation by re-running the event. However, we can look at the slogan "no taxation without representation", and from that conclude that taxation was probably a factor.

Similarly, we can look at slogans like "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" and conclude that a cowboy attitude is probably a factor in the same way.

[ Parent ]

I like your analogy by lm (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:05 AM EST

The US Revolution has many source documents stating the reason for the revolution.

The foreign policy of the Reagan administration has many source documents, none of which mention cowboys.

There is a big difference between `cowboys have always been my heroes' and `I've going to sell arms to Iran to free American hostages because that's what a real cowboy would do.'

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Odd, I don't recall ever saying by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:18:05 PM EST

"I've going to sell arms to Iran to free American hostages because that's what a real cowboy would do."

But the cultural impact of the cowboy archetype does seem to be highly significant.

I think you might lack a sufficiently broad experience to see how unusual the adoption of this kind of cultural imagery is. If you saw a Japanese prime minister walking around in laquered armour, or British prime minister crouching in a tree wearing a hat with a feather in it, you'd recognize a significant and unusual cultural phenomenon. Being too close to it, and habituated to it, you don't see the fundamental oddness of it.

[ Parent ]

IF it is as influential as you say by lm (4.00 / 1) #19 Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST

It should be fairly trivial to point to an example of Reagan era or Bush '43 foreign policy which would obviously be different if everything else was held the same except about Reagan or Bush save for the cowboyisms. But if we take most of their foreign policy stands and they are explicable without recourse to anything cowboy, then it is a bit absurd to insist on the connection.

As for the lacquered armor point, it's a silly point. That cowboys have been culturally influential in the US is not in dispute. The question is whether the cowboy myth has fundamentally altered US foreign policy.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

No it isn't by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:50:05 PM EST

The point is whether cowboys are significant enough to justify more than five minutes of an 84-lecture course on US history.

You're the one who brought up this "foreign policy" strawman. I've never made any claims about it.

The nature of culture is that it's virtually impossible to point to it as a single factor behind a policy decision. But the pervasiveness of culture still makes it a significant force across all decisions.
--
"Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."-Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

I must have misunderstood what you said by lm (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:49 AM EST

``Consider terrorists: a terrifying force of anarchy, before which the pettifogging previous law is helpless. Sheriff Bush needs to strap on the six-shooter of the Patriot Act and take firm action. ''

I thought that to be a clear indication we were talking about foreign policy, the against terrorism of which is a significant part.

But if you don't want to narrow the discussion to foreign policy, that's fine. Point me to any aspect of the Reagan administration's policies that would be substantially different were Reagan not a self-styled cowboy.

``The nature of culture is that it's virtually impossible to point to it as a single factor behind a policy decision.''

Right. I'm not asking for that. But if it is that significant, there will be decisions where the influence is clear. For example, there are spots in al-Farabi's writing where you can clearly see the influence of Islam and there are points in his writing where he differs from Aristotle and Plato whom he usually follows pretty closely. Quite a few of those differences are explicable through the influence of Islam. If Farabi wasn't a Muslim, it is hard to believe that he would have wrote those passages. But that doesn't mean that those passages are solely written because of Farabi's religion.

Likewise, if being a cowboy holds that much sway over Reagan and Bush, then it seems to me that there must be some element of the policy of their administrations that a guy can point to and say, `see, normally you'd expect someone of this particular ideology to say X but because they are cowboys, they said Y.' But if you can't do that, there is no sound basis to say that being a cowboy was anything other than a bit of public posturing.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

: Things are never unambiguous by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:16:24 PM EST

From the "War, Peace and Power" lecture series on diplomatic history, the big divide in diplomatic history is between Idealist and Realist factions. Those are not prescriptive categories, but descriptive: arguments about whether cultural values influence policy, or whether policy is purely pragmatic.
History is not a subject in which causes can be determined with certainty. Any time Historian A says Cause 1 was important, it's possible for Historian B to say, no, that was trivial, it was Cause 2 instead.
Now if you want specific examples where the cowboy role could influence policy, there are obvious things to choose from. Alaskan oil-drilling for example: if your self-image is as a frontiersman, you're more likely to want to explore and exploit the frontier. The disbanding of the Iraqi army is another example: co-opting them would have been the pragmatic thing to do given the lack of stabilizing manpower. But cowboys and sheriffs defeat their enemies, they don't co-opt them (unlike Robin Hood after he beat Little John at quarterstaffs, for instance).
But there's not much point me naming a bunch of instances. There are very many to choose from, and you're just going to say "oh no it isn't" to each one. Possibly you're on the far-Realist edge of the Realist-Idealist spectrum.
--
"Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."-Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Great Caesar's bust by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #3 Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:19 AM EST

I don't know if "most accurate" is correct given that we have one based on his death mask.

What I am concerned about is that the pretty much the same system as the sweatshop system you describe is increasingly being applied to food. It is certainly applied to toys, which is why there've been so many cases of lead paint in toys lately.

lm is correct. The "Wild West" is the dullest part of American history. The conditions that make it good for fiction, the low population, the lack of control from the central government, the large native population, the general wilderness, are all reflections of this dullness. Plus, lots of the "wild west" was frankly just made up by booksellers/showmen at the time.

I suggest that you start the series at the beginning. There's more interesting stuff there.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

learning about DNA by iGrrrl (4.00 / 1) #7 Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:06:16 PM EST

I cannot imagine teaching the subject without visuals. It's spatial, there's a time dimension, and things loop back on themselves. It's so much easier to see it.

"I don't have time for martial law, I have to get to the gym!" zarathus

: Well by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #9 Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:18:41 AM EST

It can certainly look pretty groovy.
--
"Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."-Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]

Trust the Gene Genie | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: