Left Flank

Gary Cooper was never a role model for me, and I had to restart watching Distant Drums after first feeling annoyed. Something about the Creek war paint, or Monk's talk about shaking hands with Indians, set me off the wrong way. I'm not sure about the language, supposedly Muskogee or Hitchiti. But, I sat down to watch it again.

Why, oh why, can't Hollywood leave history alone? In addition to war paint - clothing was satisfactory - there were no African-Americans anywhere on screen! Hollywood eliminated a major cause for the events in the film, a fictitious battle during the Second Seminole War (1836-1842). African-Americans and Seminoles fought together, and African-American slaves often vetoed peace offers. But, alright, it's just a movie!

Gary Cooper plays Captain Quincy Wyatt, a character vaguely similar to Colonel Walter Kurtz. His Creek wife murdered by drunken soldiers, Wyatt goes native and sets up base near Lake Okeechobee with his half-Creek son, another Creek, a scout, Monk, and his veteran guerrillas. His unit specializes in fighting Indian-style, which from appearances means they don't shave or march in formation. It's an aspect of the Seminole Wars the screenplay leaves unexploited. General Zachary Taylor signs off on Wyatt's plan to attack a fort where (Osceola) lurks by crossing Okeechobee with the assistance of the U.S. Navy (another military aspect of the Second Seminole War), which assigns Lieutenant Richard Tufts to provide a launch. Wyatt assaults the fort and rescues some hostages, but Oscala forces him to retreat into the Everglades. The plot is suspenseful, if not accurate, humorous, if not corny, and soaked with alligator-ridden water. A climactic underwater duel between Wyatt and Oscala is well-filmed and entertaining.

I hesitate to call the screenplay's treatment of the Seminoles racist. I would call them props, because no Seminole character is developed beyond a screeching savage. I doubt most of the actors were even Native American. What is racist, though, is complete silence about the role slavery played in the war. Unfortunately, I've had no luck downloading any of other Florida westerns about the Seminole Wars.

Sorry, but Gary Cooper's not for me.

Powered by ScribeFire.

(For a wholehearted endorsement, I enjoyed all of November 7, 2008's «New Rules».)

Bill Maher heaps scorn on religion - and I'm not defending religion in the opposite way Maher ridicules it - when the real «elephant in the room» is money, as a proxy for speech in this constitutional republic, reacting weirdly with organized religion. Joe Queenan has a good point, that some liberals in California, and in Arkansas and Florida, might not be as comfortable with homosexuality as they brag. And, the Mormons put up the money to give them the means and the legal cover to express their discomfort.

On the other hand, I don't blame a majority of African-Americans from not accepting a civil right for homosexuals. As The Economist quipped, «...America remains a largely conservative country, opposed to gay marriage, worried about crime and suspicious of tax rises.» It might be ungrateful, though, because of the support African-Americans received from other civil rights groups. And, perhaps a majority of mainstream Americans are unaware of the fractiousness of all these groups for a «Yes, we can!» moment. Or, how plutocrats-masquerading-as-a civil-rights group, i.e., Mormons, could create a swamp full of their own fetid cash, to make 52% of Californians believe Mormons weren't overrepresented and didn't need to be heard so clearly over the screams of a minority. Chris at TNR offers a sound argument responding to Jeffrey Rosen's contention, that «...the California Supreme Court's decision to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat might trigger a backlash that would overturn the decision by popular initiative.»

If the function of the courts is only to protect suspect groups when the public is also in agreement, or soon to move in that direction, then the courts would not be needed to rule in civil rights cases -- the discriminatory laws would be struck down by the legislature with the support of the people. The purpose of the courts is to guarantee that suspect classes of people, such as racial minorities, women, and gays, are not deprived of their fundamental rights due to the vagaries and whims of the majority. I would argue that is it precisely WHEN the public is in favor of stripping rights that the courts must intervene, and not when public opinion finally shifts in favor of equality.

There's also this misguided reaction to gay outrage at Proposition 8's defeat:

The anger coming from this side of the political spectrum in recent days has been shocking, breath taking. These people are not reasonable activists, willing to accept the outcome of democratic elections, but hateful, angry radicals willing to get rid of democracy altogether in order to accomplish their goal.

One would almost dare these individuals to take it one step further; singling out Mormons is unfair. Do the same, then, for Catholics, white protestants, African Americans and everyone else who voted for Proposition 8. Instead, they show just how biased and intolerant they truly are themselves; their complaints about 'intolerance' from the other side are increasingly hypocritical.

A word of caution to these people - and this is coming from the perspective of someone who believes it should be legal: you'll lose the battle if you try to turn this into a major cultural war. You'll be squashed, destroyed, without any hope of every reaching your goal.

Firstly, talk is cheap - that's why paying for it, or trying to suppress it, is really egregious. No one yelled, «Fire!» Secondly, America is a constitutional republic, not a representative democracy. Minorities deserve an extra measure of protection, regardless of whether I detest esoteric eschatological beliefs. And, thirdly - why I voted against this same amendment in Florida - is, that no one gets to tell me how to define my religious beliefs, especially when the question of where I put my money is involved. I might be alone in this conviction, but I hope as an American, someone doesn't take away my chance to convince others I am not wrong.

Powered by ScribeFire.

John B. Judis offers a striking hypothesis, that highlights the debilitating flip-side of African-Americans' loyalty to the Democratic party: black equals left-wing.

Obama's race reinforces whatever doubts voters might have about his ability to govern. As several psychological experiments have shown, white voters asked to compare white and black candidates of equal accomplishment will tend to view the black candidate as being less competent.

Stanley Greenberg and Democracy Corps make a similar mistake in what is otherwise a brilliant study of how voters in Macomb County, a white working class area north of Detroit, plan to vote this fall. Greenberg found Obama trailing McCain by 46 to 39 percent in this bellwether county, which Bill Clinton won in 1996 and John Kerry lost in 2004. Greenberg found that a third of Macomb voters were worried that Obama «will put the interests of black Americans ahead of other Americans,» but concluded that Macomb's voters «do not seem to be voting predominately on race.» Instead, he contended that Macomb voters are more worried about Obama raising taxes.

Concerns about Obama's race and his being a tax-and-spend liberal, however, are intricately related. Psychological studies showing that white voters will judge a black candidate to be less competent also show that they will judge a black candidate with the same views as a white one to be less moderate and more leftwing. Worries about race reinforce worries about taxing and spending.

So Obama starts the general election with a large handicap that he has to overcome. And as voters have begun to focus on the choice between him and McCain, and as the McCain campaign has gone on the attack against Obama's experience and ideology, these handicaps have become much more serious.

Judis makes another valid point about the Obama «hauteur»:

I want to say one final thing; it's about Obama's oratorical style. In response to the criticisms of his Berlin speech, some Democrats suggested that Obama should tone down his high style and seek a more direct conversational approach, even at the risk of being dull. That would be a tragic error. Obama's mistake was giving an uplifting speech to a huge crowd in Berlin; not giving an uplifting speech. High-flown oratory has always played a very large role in American politics--going back to Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson--and Obama's ability to perform in that manner is one of his greatest strengths. Obama's presentation isn't the problem; it is his message.

That message should cause blood to flow from Republican ears!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Between July 15 and August 1816, a battle fought on the Apalachicola River in northwestern Florida at Prospect Bluff eliminated a unique and very real impediment to American expansion westward. The Negro Fort was a stubborn legacy of the Creek War, abandoned in the summer pf 1815 by renegade Red Sticks, Seminoles, and their British allies, but still garrisoned by the remaining Maroons, or Black Seminoles - the offspring of Seminoles and escaped Georgian African-American slaves. A porous border and the example of independent Black Seminole towns and accomplished chiefs and advisers encouraged even more slaves to escape. The Creek War had ended with the Treaty of Fort Jackson on August 9, 1815, but a few British entrepreneurs, backed by marines and local Caribbean governors and their Spanish ally waiting for another chance to pounce on the United States, had kept the American-Florida border hot with Native raids. Major General Andrew Jackson, observing the Negro Fort's strategic importance, saw a way to rid the United States of a few problems all at once.

The Negro Fort was impressive,and the battle to subdue it underhanded. Generals Jackson and Edmund Gaines planned to send American vessels, two schooners and two gunboats, commanded by Sailing Master Jairus Loomis, up the Apalachicola to force the Maroons to fire first, necessitating a honorable response by a detachment of the US Fourth Infantry, commanded by Colonel Duncan Clinch. Inside the Negro Fort, three African-American leaders, Garzon, Cyrus, and Prince, each with military experience leading or assisting Red Stick or Seminole war parties, commanded 250-300 African-Americans, and also 1,600 Seminoles, Choctaws, and Creeks, and a schooner patrolling the river. The eight-sided earthen fort sported 10 guns, including four 24-pounders atop walls 15 feet high and 18 feet thick. Near the Negro Fort lived about a thousand men, women, and children growing crops. The bombardment of the Negro Fort on July 25 went well for the defenders until a freak accident when one American shell, which were now fired «red-hot», was lobbed from Loomis' gunboats and rolled through the door of the magazine. The explosion was terrific, and the slaughter devastating. In addition, Clinch allowed his Creek allies to slaughter survivors. Clinch acquired 2,500 rifles, 50 carbines, 400 pistols, and 500 swords, and destroyed the countryside. Clinch's own recollections were conveniently less barbarous.

«The explosion was awful, and the scene horrible beyond description. You cannot conceive, nor I describe the horrors of the scene. In an instant lifeless bodies were stretched upon the plain, buried in sand and rubbish, or suspended from the tops of the surrounding pines. Here lay an innocent babe, there a helpless mother; on the one side a sturdy warrior, on the other a bleeding squaw. Piles of bodies, large heaps of sand, broken guns, accoutrements, etc, covered the site of the fort. The brave soldier was disarmed of his resentment and checked his victorious career, to drop a tear on the distressing scene.»

Yet, the impressive display did not mollify the Seminoles for long, and the British returned to sow rebellion. In the next year, the First Seminole War commenced. Sean Michael O'Brien, from whose book, In Bitterness and Tears: Andrew Jackson's Destruction of the Creeks and Seminoles, sums up the the political and economic consequences of the Creek War and First Seminole Wars as «the most disastrous conflicts in Native American history.» The Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the decisive end of the Creek War, resulted in more Native deaths than any single other conflict, and the Treaty of Fort Jackson forced the cession of half of the Creek state, opening up the Alabama and Mississippi for white American expansion. The British and Spanish missed an opportunity to block American expansion by creating a Native border state along the Georgia-Alabama-Florida borders.  And, Southern slave owners' fears of a slave insurrection lost one major manifestation. As DKos' gjohnsit argues:

A consistent theme in the history of slavery is the fear - the fear that the people you are doing wrong are going to learn enough to realize the wrongs being done to them and make you pay for it. It's the manifestations of this fear that are interesting.

What I find compelling is the alternative the Negro Fort offers of another America.

Actually, it's Matthew Yglesias' progressive canonization of Abraham Lincoln, in the process of responding to this bhTV diavlog that really irked me.

Somewhat similarly, when you look back at the record of Abraham Lincoln he said and believed a lot of stuff that would count as unforgivably racist were you to say or believe it today. But he lived in the middle of the nineteenth century and his views were clearly progressive ones relative to the times in which he lived as reflected in the fact that his policies were a boon to African-Americans even though the underlying sentiments didn't always reach the standards of contemporary egalitarianism.

What about John Marshall? Or, Benjamin Franklin?

Liberals toss out the p-word whenever a superlative is warranted. But, Marshall, Thomas Jefferson's second cousin, according to biographer Jean Edward Smith, although he owned household servants, also personally represented pro bono Richmond African-Americans at the bar. interestingly, all these cases might have been referred to him by one of his slaves, who was a prominent leader in the Richmond slave community. In two cases, Marshall established both that slaves were persons, not property, and that the progeny of slaves and Indians were free persons. Like Jefferson, Marshall detested slavery Like Lincoln and Henry Clay, Marshall supported colonization of freed slaves to West Africa, and also was the president of a local colonization society. Marshall, along with Clay and Lincoln represent the moderate position on slavery: contemptuous of abolitionists; disgusted with slave-holders (and, in Marshall's case, Jefferson's views on gradual dissolution).

Benjamin Franklin, according to biographer H.W. Brands, is the Caucasian progressive among the Founding generation. Franklin never owned slaves, and became president of an abolitionist society in 1787. Furthermore, Franklin, unlike Jefferson, who discounted African-Americans' abilities to improve themselves, advocated education explicitly as a condition of emancipation. Franklin deserves the superlative rating, because he saw beyond freedom to the question of how African-Americans could live in a hostile society, a feat Radical Republicans failed to appreciate during Reconstruction.

This all to support the view, that Jefferson's views on slavery were indeed conservative even for his own time, even considering the rise of pro-slavery bigots in the 19th Century in the wake of the invention of the cotton gin. Marshall and Franklin placed respective emphases on the law and education to better the condition of African-Americans, whereas Jefferson was skeptical about improvement. Jefferson's states-rights perspective, as codified in the Kentucky Resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts were also inadequate to protect African-American interests. Both Marshall and Franklin were moderate nationalists.

Yglesias doesn't go far enough in his denunciation of Jefferson. Jefferson was no complicated do-gooder. He was a conservative with detestable views on race and slavery, with incendiary views on political issues tangential to slavery. And, Lincoln was far more moderate and too much of a practical politician even than Franklin or Marshall to consider a more progressive, abolitionist view. The history of this curious, if unsettling, stream of American thought, with the candidacy of Barack Obama, has obviously not exhausted its contemporary significance.

Image via Wikipedia

Perhaps, Senator Obama is bamboozling me?

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one «bargains.» Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

Really, all I want is an intelligible president and national health care!