Pacifism and Activism: the Examples of Tommy Rodd and Jeanette Rankin - Michael Streich

 

In the September 1966 issue of Esquire magazine, readers were able to catch a brief glimpse into the life of Tommy Rodd, an upper-middle class teenager with a bright future who refused to register for the military draft and fight in Vietnam. Rodd was no coward. Unlike the wars of the 21^st Century, Vietnam, as seen by men like Rodd, was an everyday affair with television footage of jungle carnage and body bags shipped home to the quiet communities of white picket fences and steepled churches. Tommy Rodd was a pacifist who chose federal prison rather than a rifle. He was able to make this choice because the war filtered into every American living room.

 

Pacifism and the Openness of War in America

 

In 1916 Jeanette Rankin became the first woman to be elected to Congress. A Montana Republican, Rankin was one of the few representatives to vote against the war declaration taking the United States into the Great War and sending thousands of troops to the blood soaked battlefields of Europe. She was not reelected.

 

Representative Rankin was not the only person opposed to the futility of the European conflict. Many Americans were appalled by the images of trench warfare and the staggering numbers of casualties. Rankin opposed war on pacifist grounds.

 

Rankin ran again in 1940 and won. War once more lingered in the shadows and despite the protestations of isolationists, other Americans, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt, appeared to be steering the nation toward participation in the conflict. From propaganda to the reality of despotism in Europe and Asia, the openness of war was in every newspaper and magazine. In London, Edward R. Morrow riveted the nation with his radio broadcasts of the Blitz.

 

Rankin Votes against War with Imperial Japan

 

When Speaker Sam Rayburn called for a roll call vote in the House on December 8, 1941, everyone held their breath as he went through the states alphabetically, eventually coming to Representative Rankin. Rankin had attempted several times to gain the attention of the Speaker only to be declared out of order. Her nay vote was the only vote opposing the declaration of war.

 

Korea and Vietnam Cast Doubt on the Righteousness of War

 

The Korean War was fought, ostensibly, to thwart Communist expansion and Americans who opposed the conflict risked being labeled Communist sympathizers. Vietnam, however, was a different war. Some Americans began to question containment and President Johnson’s escalation of the war after 1964 began to attract questions and especially protests, notably among young Americans being drafted to fight.

 

The media abetted these protests by offering a forum to dissenting Americans as well as projecting the images of war on nightly news broadcasts. This increased during the presidency of Richard Nixon who came to see the media as an enemy. For conscientious objectors, the images of war confirmed what many already knew: the government’s explanations were duplicitous.

 

Robert F. Drinan, S.J., who served in the Congress for five terms and sat on a joint congressional committee investigating the Watergate allegations, wrote that, “…the peace community would complain that they had been gagged if the government pressured them to cease their vigorous claims that the government is excessively belligerent and warlike.” But this was only possible as long as the nation’s media accurately reported the course of the war.

 

The Lessons of Pacifism, Activism, and Change through Media Openness

 

Sociologists refer to the success of the “Lilliput Strategy.” Often used to describe anti-globalism, the same coalescence of often disparate groups both during and after Vietnam gave rise to entire new movements. These movements believed that change was possible. For pacifists, it also meant a greater accountability of the U.S. government and a rejection of long held policies supporting despotic regimes.

 

At the same time, war became less visible. Congress replaced the military draft with an all volunteer force and the role of media coverage in conflict areas was curtailed. During President Reagan’s second administration, for example, the Grenada operation was carried out in secrecy, without media coverage.

 

Additionally, 21^st Century wars are remote and media coverage is tightly controlled. The conflicts impose no sacrifice on Americans who, for the most part, cannot even identify Afghanistan or Yemen on a map. Unlike the extensive media coverage of Vietnam at the time Tommy Rodd received his draft card or Representative Rankin’s anti-war votes earlier in that century, military footage today is carefully orchestrated and any hint of a draft is speedily quashed in the Congress. No Americans want another Vietnam.

 

Lifting the Fog of War

 

From protest music to student activism, Vietnam was the last conflict that polarized a nation largely due to media coverage. In 2011, war coverage is carefully scripted despite on-going polls that demonstrate a willingness among many Americans to dramatically cut defense appropriations. As long as war is sanitized by the media, pacifism and activism will be checked and there will be no withdrawal of consent among Americans.

 

Sources:

 

Jeremy Brecher and others, “Globalization and Social Movements,” Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds (Wadsworth, 2012)

Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Can God & Caesar Coexist? (Yale University Press, 2004)

Mark Hamilton Lytle, America’s Uncivil Wars: The Sixties Era From Elvis To The Fall Of Richard Nixon (Oxford University Press, 2006)Bernard Weinraub, “Four Ways to Go: Tommy Rodd Went to Jail,” Esquire, September 1966

[Copyright owned by Mike Streich; reprints require written permission]

December 7th is Pearl Harbor Day. The sudden sneak attack by Japan unified America, igniting a war that would forever change the world. Japan never apologized. I have been to the Pearl Harbor memorial four times and two of those visits observed Japanese students watching the video presentation and laughing. Now, I am a naturalized citizen, born in Europe, yet this still enraged me. After the attack, a popular song went as follows:

 

History in every century records an act that lives forevermore.
We'll recall, as into line we fall,
The thing that happened on Hawaii's shore.

Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we go to meet the foe.
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we did the Alamo.
We will always remember how they died for Liberty.
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
And go on to victory.

 

It can be heard on YouTube Music. Pearl Harbor has been compared to 9/11 and the unification of all Americans after a national tragedy. This is not a call to arms as much as a reflection of who we are as a people and the diversity we cherish. But let's never forget Pearl Harbor and the men and women who died and were wounded in that terrible event.

 

Seen in a local book store/coffee house: "Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Maine, Remember the Alamo...Remember Peace."

 The January 6th Insurrection was America's Gunpowder Plot or Guy Fawkes Day!

 Today is Reformation Sunday! Thank You Dr. Martin Luther! Michael Streich

 

 

The use of congregational singing is an often overlooked aspect of the Reformation period during the 16^th Century. Roland Bainton, is his classic biography of Martin Luther, [1] writes of “singing practices” for entire congregations as well as in Lutheran homes. Singing united people in a common cause and the lyrics served to educate. Bainton quotes a Jesuit who stated that, “the hymns of Luther killed more souls than his sermons.” The greatest of these hymns, the “battle cry” of the Reformation, is A Mighty Fortress is our God.

 

Symbols and Messages

 

Luther wrote the words to the hymn after a reflection on Psalm 46: “God is our refuge and strength.” Twice in the brief Psalm God is compared to a “stronghold.” God fights His people’s battles and, although the “nations made an uproar,” “He raised His voice, the earth melted.” Luther’s hymn, tailored to 16^th century realities, incorporates these symbols into the verses. Bainton refers to Luther’s lyrics as, “richly quarried, rugged words set to majestic tones [that] marshal the embattled host of heaven.” [2]

 

The English translation begins, “A Mighty Fortress is our God, A Bulwark never failing…” Luther’s beginning, however, is far more to the point and allows the singing peasants to identify symbols from their own 16^th Century experiences: Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Ein gute Wehr und Waffen…” Luther begins by comparing God to a fortress, but more specifically a stronghold, a “feste Burg.”

 

The term feste implies an impregnable citadel or stronghold. It brings to mind some of the inaccessible fortresses in the German hills that are often referred to as a festung. In this fashion, Luther emphasizes the absolute power of God over the invading forces, “And He must win the battle.” (End of second verse). The German here reads, “Das Feld muss er behalten.” This is a military phrase – not giving up the “battle field” to the enemy.

 

The use of the Burg is very obvious. A Burg was a fortified town. When invaders approached, the surrounding populace fled to the safety of the walls. In some cases, walled towns had various layers of walls. Residents of the Burg were called burghers. Significantly, they were free citizens of the town. Luther’s analogy is highly appropriate and Protestants, very familiar with medieval and post medieval wars, could easy understand that their God was like the most powerful of all Burgs: nothing could breach the walls.

 

Line two of the first verse is translated as, “a bulwark never failing.” Here again, Luther’s words are far more descriptive. Wehr refers to a barrage or an armed barrier. Another extended meaning in German refers to defending oneself tooth and nail. Waffen relates to weapons or arms. In essence, the Burg is a barrage and a weapon against the invader.

 

Who was the Invader?

 

Throughout the hymn, Luther identifies the invader. It is “the old foe,” the  “prince of darkness” (verse 3) at the head of a legion of devils. His forces are destroyed, however by one “little word,” in the German, “Ein Woertlein.” In contrast to elaborate ritual, the word is simple and is carried to the next verse of the song. The word is God’s truth, simple yet compelling.

 

Luther draws, perhaps, from Job in the last stanza: goods and kindred may go, even life itself, but God’s truth will remain. Luther’s German is more precise, identifying “Kind und Weib” (child and wife). While the English translates “Gut” as “goods,” the term refers more precisely to a manor or estate. Hence, the parallel with Job, who, after losing everything, blessed the name of the Lord.

 

Luther’s hymn was sung boldly as an affirmation of God’s power over forces that sought to disrupt the truth of God. Significantly, Luther wrote the hymn 1527-1529, a time of severe depression for the Reformer. It remains as one of Protestantism’s greatest anthems.

 

[1] and [2] Ronald Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, published originally in 1950. 

 

 

 Holocaust Deniers? There Can Be No Opposing Views! 

Texas Educators: Do Not Become Holocaust Deniers. Michael Streich

 

Ever since the enormity of the Holocaust became a fact after the closing days of World War II, countless books, memoirs, and pictures have decisively documented the most horrendous act of genocide in the twentieth-century. Holocaust survivors have told their stories, the disbelieving can wander the concentration camps throughout Europe – preserved to remind future generations, and hundreds of films have been produced. Yet supposedly responsible individual still, on occasion, deny the Holocaust.

 

The Problem with Holocaust Deniers

 

Anti-Semitism can be traced back in the Western tradition for centuries. The historical record is very clear on the treatment of Jews in Christian Europe. Holocaust deniers not only subvert the historical record, but they encourage continued Anti-Semitism. Far from rational, they ignore the empirical evidence, both written and physical. In the recent case of the rehabilitation of conservative Bishop Richard Williamson by Pope Benedict, the prelate publicly denied the existence of gas chambers used to exterminate millions of Jews.

 

It has been well documented that even during World War II, following the Nazi decision to implement the “Final Solution” at the 1942 Wannsee Conference, that western democracies knew what the Nazis were doing. American newspapers had carried stories of Jewish persecution since the early 1930s following Hitler’s rise to power. Even as the war was ending, heroic men like Raoul Wallenberg publicized the extent of the Holocaust to the rest of the world.

 

Given the mass of evidence that supports the realities of events, denying the Holocaust must stem from other motivations. For Allied leaders during the war, defeating the Nazis militarily was the top priority even when asked to bomb the concentration camp buildings used as gas chambers. Additionally, Anti-Semitism was ripe – and had been even before the outbreak of war, in Europe and the United States.

 

Toward a Greater Emphasis on Education

 

As Deborah Lipstadt writes, “the denial of the Holocaust has no more credibility than the assertion that the earthy is flat.” The Holocaust must remain an integral part of educational efforts from the elementary grades through the college years. The vast evidence, although implicating many non-Germans, rests on the singular truth that Nazi Germany with the willing assistance of its citizens perpetrated the crime known as The Holocaust. Events such as the recent fiasco over Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence in no way affects existing facts that prove the Holocaust.

 

The blue print for Holocaust can be seen in Hitler’s Mein Kampf and in the early propaganda of the rising Nazi Party in Germany. After 1933, a systematic effort, through laws and social policies, further presaged the event. Ultimately, the Final Solution put into practice what the Nazis had been saying for many years. Robert Abzug quotes Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, when shown evidence of the Warsaw Ghetto and the exterminations at Belzec, as saying, “I know that what you have to say is true, but I don’t believe it.”

 

The truth of the Holocaust can be demonstrated by all of the following:

 

Concentration camps like Dachau and Auschwitz still standing

First hand accounts from eye witnesses and survivors

Books, diaries, and memoirs

Pictures and video footage (such as at Babii Yar)

Holocaust museums and memorial exhibitions

The admission of the German people

 

Sources:

 

Robert H. Abzug, America Views the Holocaust: A Brief Documentary History (Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999).

Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (The Free Press, 1993)

 

The author’s personal visits to several camps, talks with survivors, and talks with Germans living at the time.

 

 Is the Monroe Doctrine Obsolete?

American Security and the Monroe Doctrine -Michael Streich

 

 

The Roosevelt Corollary of 1904 expanded the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in order to preserve the integrity and national security of the new United States. Although toothless in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine as it impact national security and the flow of commerce would become the indirect policy of U.S. foreign affairs throughout the 19^th Century.

 

Land Acquisition in the Name of National Security

 

The Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed the limit and curtail European interference in the Western Hemisphere. By 1900, this interference embraced European imperialism in global matters. Secretary of State John Hay published the “Open Door” notes regarding the flow of commerce in China. The United States began construction of the Panama Canal for reasons of commerce as well as national security.

 

A Central American canal was linked to American interests long before President Roosevelt made it a reality. The 1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty attempted to share the canal with Britain, but the issue soon became one of national security. In the late 1870’s, President Rutherford By Hayes warned that, “…The United States must exercise such control as will enable this country to protect its national interests…” Rutherford cited commercial and defense interests.

 

In 1890 Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan published The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1782. A vocal architect of imperialism, Mahan showed the necessity of building the canal in order for the U.S. to maintain global power.

 

The Monroe Doctrine’s Lessons in the 19^th Century

 

The presence of European powers in the Western Hemisphere was always a concern. President James K. Polk threatened war with England over the Oregon Territory and then led the nation into war against Mexico, rivaling Thomas Jefferson’s land acquisitions. Southerners supported the war, fearful that growing British influence in Texas would result in the limitation of slavery in the Lone Star Republic.

 

After the Civil War, the irrepressible Secretary of State William Henry Seward lobbied Congress to purchase Alaska. After 1865, Seward took a hard line against napoleon III of France who was attempting to reestablish a French colony in Mexico.

 

Seward was an avid expansionist but it was Secretary of State James Blaine, the “plumed knight,” whose actions resulted in greater U.S. influence in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

 

By 1900, the United States had acquired Midway, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Samoa with its superb harbor at Pago Pago. Cuba, in the wake of the Spanish War, was ostensibly independent but became a sphere of influence.

 

At the 1900 Republican national convention, arch-imperialism Senator Albert Beveridge told his audience, “Think of Cuba in alliance with England or Germany or France!” Beveridge referred to these powers as rivals. Imperialism broadened the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. Globally, the flow of commerce became intricately tied to national security in the same way President Barack Obama used the phrase to justify U.S. intervention in Libya.

 

The Roosevelt Corollary Expands the Monroe Doctrine

 

Although 19^th Century expansion was in keeping with the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, imperialism opened the door toward a pattern of global U.S. involvement in the name of security and commerce. In 1917, the U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from the Dutch to keep Germany from acquiring the land. Americans enjoyed their isolation but only as long as there were no European encroachments.

 

The Roosevelt and later Lodge Corollaries addressed debt by Central and South American countries. Potential European intervention in Venezuela and the Dominican Republic over debts forced the U.S. to intervene, although some observers found it immoral and many still do.

 

The Monroe Doctrine is not obsolete. The thesis behind the proclamation is still used on a global scale to protect the flow of commerce and national security. Expansionism, whether labeled manifest destiny or imperialism, was the product of this spirit.

 

Sources;

 

Albert J. Beveridge, “The Star of Empire,” The Meaning of theTimes And Other Speeches (The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1968)

Albert Weinberg, Manifest Destiny (Johns Hopkins University Press)

Warren Zimmermann, First Great Triumph: How Five Americans Made Their Country a World Power (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2002)