Here the Earth, river, &c torn with furious convulsions, opens in huge trenches, whose deep jaws are instantaneously closed; there throws a thousand vents sulphurous streams gushed from its very bowels, leaving a vast and almost unfathomable caverns. – William Leigh Pierce, eyewitness

1812 was a year of science.  The discovery of dinosaurs, the electric battery, iodine and many other marvels firmly placed the year within the “Age of Reason.”

Tecumseh, from John Frost's Illustrated Historical Sketches of the Indians

At the same time, new “superstitions” were developing.  One of these was helped by three of the most powerful earthquakes America had ever known.  Some scientists fear such earthquakes could come again, and this time, the devastation could be much greater.

Recent Earthquakes are merely aftershocks of the New Madrid (Missouri) quakes from December 1811 to February 1812.

Were the quakes prophesied by Tecumseh?

The quakes were said to be predicted by the great Indian chief Tecumseh. Tecumseh and his brother were around that time gathering the Indian tribes in America.  The British had armed Tecumseh’s followers and encouraged them to attack American settlers, with the hopes of containing and perhaps repossessing the American colonies. [see The Jefferson from a Canadian Point of View.]

While the British instigated and encouraged the Rebellion, it was Tecumseh’s skills as a leader and speaker that made the rebels a threat to the United States.

“You do not believe the great spirit has sent me.” Tecumseh was reported to have said to Indians who were reluctant to follow him, “You shall know.  I leave Tuckabatchee directly, and shall go straight to Detroit.  When I arrive there, I will stamp on the ground with my foot and shake down every house in Tuckabatchee.”

Then, his half skeptical audience counted the days for him to get to Detroit.  The predicted he would arrive there on 16th December, 1811.  And when his “prophecy” proved wrong, they’d know Tecumseh was a liar.

However, on just that date, a massive earthquake hit the Mississippi river and its surrounding area.  “Every house  in Tuckabatchee” indeed fell.

Tecumseh, suspicious of “whites”, (or more accurately non-Indians, including free blacks and those of Indian descent who adopted Western culture), did not give the speech until there were only Indians in the audience.

Some historians doubt that Tecumseh made such a speech at all, because no white men were present to record the events.   I find such an argument ridiculous.  Furthermore, there were American citizens who did hear Tecumseh speak about those Earthquakes (and lived to tell about it.)

John Dunn Hunter was one such man.  “Brothers, the Great Spirit is angry with our enemies.” he later recalled Tecumseh as saying,  “He speaks in thunder, and the earth swallows up villages, and drinks up the Mississippi.  The great waters cover the lowlands.  Their corn cannot grow, and the Great spirit will sweep those who escape to the hills from the earth with his terrible breath.”

Now, I find no evidence that the Great Spirit has bad breath, but most of the other events did happen.  The earthquake was so great that the Mississippi flowed backwards.

The recorded loss of life among American citizens was relatively low, at a few thousand, but with illiteracy rampant, and the fact that the area was sparsely populated by “Westerners” who have passed their records to us, means we don’t know the full death count.

If anything, Tecumseh’s speech under-states the full destructive power of the Earthquake.  William Leigh Pierce was in his boat when one of the earthquakes struck. “One of the spouts which we had seen rising under the boat would inevitably sunk it, and probably have blown it into a thousand fragments[...]”

Yesterday, with the benefit of hindsight and two centuries of scientific research behind it, the skeptical News Tribune reported that the February 1812 earthquake caused “a portion of the Mississippi River to reverse course for several hours.”

Still, many Indian tribes did not want war, and individual Indians did not see Tecumseh as their leader or his brother as a prophet.  “Great Spirit, Whiskey too much, heap drunk,” one Indian was reported as saying about Tecumseh.

(Unfortunately, many settlers did not know, and often did not care to learn, the difference between a peace loving Indian and a warlike one.  As late as 1890, history records massacres of America’s indigenous population, where civilians were treated like warriors and no mercy was given.  Tecumseh, in contrast, treated his prisoners well, and prevented the more bloodthirsty of his followers from hurting the defenseless.)

So, did Tecumseh predict the earthquakes?  Some speculate that he knew the signs to look for.   He may have listened to old tales from his people, developing a science of predicting the future from memory of the distant past.

Note: Tecumseh himself was never seen as “the” prophet.  It was his brother who held this title.  However, many predictions were attributed to Tecumseh.

His name signifies “flying panther” which is sometimes translated to “meteor.”  Tecumseh was also said to have predicted the coming of a comet, among other natural phenomena.

 Sources:

Books

After the Earth Quakes: Elastic Rebound on an Urban Planet
by Susan Elizabeth Hough and Roger G. Bilham.

The Half-way Pacifist: Thomas Jefferson’s View of War, by Reginald C. Stuart, 1979

Larousse Dictionary of North American History

Illustrated historical sketches of the Indians, by John frost(1837)

Journals and other sources

“Tecumseh” by James Mooney; in The Indian Advocate, (Oklahoma), 1st of August, 1903

Anonymous email and Facebook communications, during January 2012.

British and American historic newspapers.

Contemporary news articles including: the above linked “Geologists see fault in Earthquake fears” from the News Tribune in Illinois, Historic Earthquakes from the USGS website, The New Madrid Earthquake: 200 years later by Ladon Jones, and Earthquakes cause small stir in Lake County from The Pacer in Tennessee.

A woodcutter was going about his business, when he turned around and saw the “monstrous” creature. Naturally the woodcutter was afraid of snakes, so he whacked the animal on the head.

That didn’t stop the snake much, so the woodcutter ran for his life.

After running for “more than thirty yards,” the woodcutter looked back, and saw that the “monstrous reptile” was “close to his heels, with his crest erect, at the very point of springing upon him.”

Then the woodcutter struck again.  He was aided by one of his colleagues, and the snake was “with much difficulty killed.”

(Other than its the size, this doesn’t seem to fit the description of a diamond python.)

Not much else made the papers in Australia in 1812.

“There has been a Theatre in Botany Bay for some time.” Quipped the Ipswitch Journal in England on November 28,  “They have a bank which may be thought equally diverting.”

The running stories in the Sydney Herald that month were linked to current affairs abroad and in Britain, with some of them taken directly from the British papers.

As far as local news went, most of that involved shipping news, including people who were leaving and asking anyone who they owed money to come forward.

There were stories of people being punished for “abominable” crimes, but few details were given other than the names of the criminals and the fact that the populace had little sympathy for them.

The Sydney paper also carried advertisements about missing livestock and absconding workers. (There were warnings not to employ these people, as they “belonged” to another employer.)

The population of Sydney was small, but in the next few decades, it was destined to grow.

Sources:

• 1812 ‘SYDNEY.’, The Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser (NSW : 1803 – 1842), 4 January, p. 2, viewed 1 January, 2012, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article628389
• Other articles and issues of the Sydney Gazette and New South Wales Advertiser

The Alamo, starring Billy Bob Thorton as Davy Crockett, bombed in 2004.   That fact that it only grossed about a fifth of its budget at the box office isn’t unique for a historical film.  Gods and Generals did just about as poorly, and Ghosts of Goya did worse.

However, while Gods and Generals has a loyal following on DVD, and Ghosts of Goya did relatively well in Spain (where the story is set), The Alamo doesn’t have a lot of fans recommending it anywhere.

So, why did the recent Alamo movie (directed by John Lee Hancock), which was about one of the most important battles in American history, bring in so little interest?  Have we forgotten the Alamo?

If we look at cinema history, we find two very popular Alamo films.  The first was made by DW Griffith, perhaps the most famous (or infamous) American director of all time, and considered the father of Hollywood.  The second starred John Wayne, “the duke” who is synonymous with patriotic World War II films and tough guy Westerns.

DW Griffith is best known for his film “Birth of a Nation,” a dramatization of the founding of the Ku Klux Klan from the Klan’s point of view.  Though it admits to being based on a play, many people took it to be Griffiths’s interpretation of history as it actually was.  Birth of a Nation is extremely offensive to modern audiences, but we sometimes forget that it also incited audience back then.  In fact, the film was banned in many parts of the United States.

Despite being banned, it was one of the most profitable films of all time.  Griffith’s ability to grab an audience encouraged investors to finance more films like it.

In 1915, the same year as he made Birth of a Nation, Griffiths created a serial called “The Martyrs of the Alamo.”  This movie (or series of short films) portrayed Santa Anna as “a drug fiend”.    It portrayed the men who fought in the Alamo by class and regional stereotypes, and ignored the complex personalities of the individuals involved.

It’s historical value is not in showing facts about the actual siege or its time.  Like with his other films, Griffiths is not concerned with historical accuracy, he is concerned with story and with turning a profit.  The interesting thing about watching Griffith’s Alamo film is that it shows just how old cultural stereotypes in America, and especially Hollywood, are.

The Alamo makes it appear that the war in Texas was fought over the right to bear arms.  It also makes it appear that the Texans of American descent had no real Mexican allies.  Like Birth of a Nation, the racial nature of the conflict, and its militaristic resolution, implies that white supremacy is the natural order of things.

Also, like Birth of a Nation, it was made when America was deciding to enter the First World War.

At the end of the silent era, attitudes started to change.   By the time of color film, American Indians were the “other” that was most often portrayed as savages.  Later, Germans, Arabs and Russians would take over that stereotype of “fanatical savage.”  Black facing of African American and Latino characters is now a thing of the past, but as most of us know, the stereotypes have not yet completely disappeared.

Years later, John Wayne starred in and directed another Alamo movie.  This film claimed to be historically accurate.  Compared to the DW Griffiths version, it does appear to be.

John Wayne’s Alamo does not cover the disarming of ethnic Americans by Santa Anna.  Nor does it deal with those of Hispanic heritage who fought for independence alongside Davy Crockett.  However, it does not attempt to dehumanize the Mexican adversary.

In John Wayne’s Alamo the heroes fought for “a republic”, not for supremacy.  The heroes of this film fought against people who also thought they were doing the right thing, and were therefore loyal to their country, not against “savages.”

The rowdy nature of Wayne’s Tennesseans is shown in more ways than just Griffith’s raccoon skin caps and unironed trousers.  While Griffth’s heroes are backwoods gentlemen, John Wayne’s Crocket leads a people who sometimes resemble hedonists.

Most importantly, the difference between the two old Alamo films is the reason the men fight.  In Griffith’s film, it seems to be more about revenge for past wrongs and protecting their women.  Griffith’s film is the classic “us verse them.”  In the John Wayne movie, Crocket gets a soliloquy to tell us why he’s fighting.

Crocket’s fighting for a republic “…where men can chose to be drunk or sober…”  This film was made within living memory of prohibition.  But it’s also about freedom in general.

The Billy Bob Thorton Alamo tries to compromise between the political correctness of the John Wayne version and the racially biased patriotism of the DW Griffith series.  However, it is neither politically correct, nor is it patriotic.  The historical accuracy is questionable to.

Trying to be fair to every side, a historian might show a hero in his warts and all.  However, even in long biopics such as Gandhi, there isn’t time to show all of one person’s warts and all of one person’s moral triumphs.  The Alamo concentrates more on showing the warts, as a review of the deleted scenes will show.

These imperfections that make us human can add to the story.  Unfortunately, it seems that almost every imperfection is shown.  Cataloging all the weaknesses of both sides, the filmmakers neglect to show what either side is fighting for.

There are ways that the 2004 film is better than the older ones.  The inclusion of minorities who side with independence show us that it is not a “race war” as Griffith’s film implies.  The effects and camerawork are fantastic and there is great attention to making everything look authetic.  However, the film spends too much energy sullying the characters of the main combatants on either side.

This is the version I learned in school, which seems to be confirmed by a lot of what I’ve read:

The Texans fought to keep their culture.  They wanted to be able to speak their own language, and worship their own religion.  Santa Anna was forcing them to abandon who they were.  They could have gone home, but many had lived in Texas so long that it was their home.

Slavery was an issue, and perhaps that’s why the Alamo is largely forgotten.  The memory that some of our heroes did terrible things for the economic interests, or that others allied with those evil interests, is hard to swallow.

The Mexican-American War was largely criticized as an excuse to expand slavery.  However, the Texas War of Independence (sometimes called Texas Revolution) was supported by some of slavery’s harshest critics.

We should remember in the history books that the different people fought for different reasons.  Sam Houston, leader of the rebellion in Texas and the first President of Texas, later refused to secede from the union and likewise refused to join the confederacy.  The legislature expelled him.

Houston was always looking out for the underdog.  He lobbied on behalf of the Indian tribes, and even became an honorary Cherokee.  Another Cherokee, Stand Watie, joined the confederacy in the Civil War, and the Cherokees nearly destroyed each other in battle.  It must have broken Sam Houston’s heart to see so many of his old friends fight for a cause he did not believe in.  He didn’t live to see the end of the American Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln is said to have supported the Texans in their right to secede from Mexico, though he later opposed “Polk’s War”.

The John Lee Hancock 2004 film shows, unlike previous films, that the Alamo wasn’t about American verses Mexican.  Despite the flaws, at least it shows that Texas is a place all Americans can take pride in.
—-

John Wayne Collection – The Alamo/The Horse Soldiers/Cast A Giant Shadow/Brannigan [DVD]

John Lee Hancock’s The Alamo [DVD]

Towards the top of Senator Orrin Hatch’s report it affirms that “the public debt is one of the greatest dangers to be feared by a republican government.”

On September 3 this year, another politician claimed that Jefferson saw a balanced budget amendment as the solution, and his aids had the quote to prove it.

 “This isn’t my idea, it’s not even a new idea” said Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Christian Scientist who represents Virginia’s 6^th district in the House of Representatives. “Thomas Jefferson expressed strong support for it in 1798.”

The Richmond Times Dispatch reveals Goodlatte’s source. It was a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend John Taylor. (This isn’t the John Taylor. We’re probably talking John Taylor of Caroline. He had at least two contemporaries with the same name who were more famous than him. Whichever Taylor it was, none agreed with Jefferson on everything.)

In the letter, Jefferson said the following words.

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution.  I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution;  I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.

What the aid left out is that the rest of the letter (available here) shows Jefferson’s his stance against war, and against war time censorhip.  (Thomas Jefferson believed that the American people had the right, and the duty, to criticize government’s wars in newspapers and elsewhere.)

As has been pointed out in Captives and Countrymen: Barbary Slavery and the American Public, 1785-1816, Thomas Jefferson didn’t feared that the government over-extened itself in the pursuit of welfare, but it was spending too much on warfare.  Jefferson saw the danger of going down the path of monarchies, were an unending cycle of warfare and debt took power away from the people. Thomas Jefferson was against having a large professional military.

Jefferson had been called the enemy of the navy based on another quote of his taken out of context. In a letter to another of his friends, Thomas Paine (yes, the Thomas Paine this time), he said that he saw the value of gunboats.

The real view of Jefferson was almost what some people today call isolationism. He saw the value of investing in the Louisiana purchase, or a small navy, for the defense of American commerce.

The alternatives to the Jefferson’s defense spending was to pay ransom to pirates, which Jefferson saw as more expensive. (Gunboats were cheaper than frigates too, but they also proved useful in naval operations during Jefferson’s administration.)

Others, including the widow Susan Decatur, later pointed out that Jefferson’s defense measures helped American overseas commerce to grow, as it was unmolested by extortionists.

However, Jefferson didn’t wish to extend military spending over what was necessary to defend American borders and American citizens who sailed the neutral waters.

The founders saw the right to bear arms as a means of citizen volunteers defending their own homes against foreign invaders. This was much cheaper than having a professional military, and a much surer way of preserving a republic than the use of a professional military.  Rome’s republic, they remembered, was overthrown by its military.

Some people like to pretend that Jefferson supported a coalition of small nations banding together for common defense.  Well, what he envisioned was nothing like Nato.  It was merely a device to protect the neutrality of the seas from pirates.

Joint operations were taken out in the Mediterranean, first with the help of a few frigates Sweden and then, after Sweden surrendered, with some sailors and gunboats from Naples.

Neither operation involved a binding treaty, and both were against a pre-defined common enemy.  There were no expensive parades, strategists, high rise buildings, acronyms or unnecessary hierarchies involved in these arrangements.  Most of the paper pushers abroad were pursers aboard the ships.

Later, America’s military grew.  As Jefferson feared, a standing army has become a matter of course in peace time, and wars are carried out when the nation is not threatened.  Military spending is out of control, and the military is mostly made up of professional soldiers.

So would Jefferson have supported a balanced budget amendment?  I imagine he would.

Captives and Countrymen: Barbary Slavery and the American Public, 1785-1816

So, I’ve made my own list of great motion pictures that tell us about the history of Britain.

1.  The Madness of King George

“Everybody” loves a good film about the royals, and this has to be the best one out there.  It’s funny in a dry kind of way, not the laugh out loud American humor.  Witness the tongue-in-cheek vindictive wit that the British are so famous for.

King George III goes crazy.  Those around him don’t know how to react.  I really wish Mel Brooks made a remake, then I’d have a new number 1 (the possibilities are endless).

2 and 3.  Robin Hood, (Men in Tights + Prince of Thieves)

Robin Hood existed, that’s a fact.  Some people say he wasn’t the nice proto-socialist we all make him out to be, but rather a dangerous greedy bandit.   Killjoys!

In 1991, Kevin Costner brought some diversity to Sherwood Forest by bringing in  a Moor who looks nothing like Moors, and by bringing in some rousing speeches to the Merry Men.  Many of the Merry Men had great, authentic, regional accents.   Costner, as Mel Brooks pointed out, didn’t.

Prince of Thieves was enjoyable, included a stellar cast, and would have been my top Robin Hood film is we didn’t have to see Costner’s bottom.

Mel Brook’s Men in Tights has cheap gags, but Costner’s love of his own backside deserved to get ridiculed.

Eventually when everyone got as sick of Friar Tuck as they were of the Sheriff of Nottingham, Hollywood tried to revive bad King John’s enemies with an “accurate” biopic (or one that makes him look like a not-so-nice guy -  apparently accurate history is when we accept all the slander against our heroes-), and it failed.

The problem with the “accurate” pic is that we don’t even agree on what Robin Hood’s real name was.  If you must speculate to fill in the gaps, might as well speculate in an entertaining way.

Another great Robin Hood movie is the one by Disney, and it is accurate in some things.  We all know that Maid Marianne was a fox, but here again, Robin Hood walks around without his trousers.

Lesson from history:  Costner is a great actor and a great producer.  We just don’t want to see the back of him.

4. Time Bandits

History from a British point of view, very British.

Sure, the premise is fictional, but at least this film doesn’t claim to be accurate.  We get to see what the British think of Napoleon.  Oh, and here’s an Thatcherite view of Robin Hood that actually worked.  This follows history as a large section of Brits see it.

I’d add Black Adder, if it were a film.  Same kind of humour, but slightly to the left, and more for adults.   Black Adder is too introspective into the character to be considered a straight history show, but its creators do have a passion for the past.

5. Gandhi.

I do say, if Braveheart qualifies as an English movie, Gandhi surely qualifies as a British film.  With British principal actor, a British director, and told from a British (not Indian) point of view, this film shows how an Indian anti-colonialist became a British icon.

The film starts with Gandhi’s education in England, it follows him to his budding activism in South Africa, and through to Indian independence.

Although the story does cover his assassination, the post-colonial part of his life is more of an epilogue, a kind of lament at the fact that despite all this great man did the world is still violent.

The film doesn’t make Gandhi out to be a deity of any kind.  It does show Gandhi’s struggle with anger, when he hits his wife once, as well as his initial fearful hesitancy in taking up the cause of equality.

However, the personality warts are left to a minimum, in order to let the story flow and the hero shine.  Most of the facts that would make Gandhi less palatable to a British audience are left out.

Lesson from history:  Gandhi was born British and died a citizen of the world.

6.  The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp.

An art film to the core, this isn’t some light-headed spectacle for the fans of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, nor is it a bombastic film about national pride like Pearl Harbor.

No, Colonel Blimp is as close as you can get to an anti-war film for the second world war, made during the second world war.

We start with the younger generation, the “greatest generation” who fought World War II.

Plot:

Youngsters from the home guard are rehearsing ”the war begins at midnight” a little prematurely and running rampant.  The older Colonel Blimp is a victim of this “impudence”, and after a brief stuggle he lands in a swimming pool goes into flashback about the old days.

The most controvertial point of this film is that the “greatest generation” wasn’t really any better than their forebears.

The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp is said to have annoyed Churchill and other powerful people.  It’s also apparently loved by Martin Scorsese and other artists.

Lesson from history:   Great minds don’t think alike.

7-10.  The jury’s still out on these.

Seriously, does the list have to be cemented in stone?  There’s a lot
of movies I haven’t seen yet, and even more that haven’t been made
yet.  I’ve seen other films, like Lawrence of Arabia, Remains of the
Day, and so on, and they just didn’t grab me.

Have a different list?  Why not share it?  Maybe you’ve noticed something that I’ve missed.

However, one man who was “volunteered” to help build the wall thinks it should be preserved “It is important to remember the ignomity of it all, the cataclysm we had to endure.”

Nick Meuller, of the National World War II museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, agrees that the wall documents history. That museum only has a small section of the wall, but even “to see a small portion of what our troops had to overcome to liberate Europe” tells the visitor “what the visitor “a new sense and appreciation of their sacrifice.”

The highliy informative article concluded that “no French government will elevate a symbol of national dishonor.” And thus it will never be elevated to the status of national monument.   But to neglect bad memories ignores the rest of history.

Most monuments throughout the world have started in shameful circumstances.  Concentration Camps turned into Holocaust memorials are the first to come to mind, especially if we limit ourselves to World War II.  Then there are all the monuments related to barbaric practices such as slavery, or the places were great men were martyred.  Tourists line up to see old pagan temples were innocent people were sacrificed and burned alive.

A list of the national monuments in the United States is sure to include the sites of Civil War battles.  Whatever your opinion on the War Between States, few people like the fact that over half a million American soldiers, and who knows how many civilians, died in those terrible years.  But the more a historian dislikes the suffering, they harder that historian will fight to preserve its memory.

History is not a bed of roses.

Not all of the British welcomed the Roman invaders and their collaborators among the Britons, and today many historians prefer the rebellious spirits of Boadicea and Caradog (aka Caratacus). However, if they find a Roman bath or amphitheatre, or yes, even a fort, intact, even the most stoutly anti-Roman historian would endeavour to preserve it.

Now, I understand that many people think that Hitler was the devil incarnate, and everything even remotely associated with him is therefore contaminated with the dregs of hell.  We also live in a society where defeat is perhaps the only thing worse than being associated with this secular devil.  Yet despite this, we are too quick to dismiss his followers as brainwashed zombies of another place who “we” could never become.

It’s easy enough to say that bringing “Hitler’s” wall to the level of monument would somehow glorify the disillusioned old man. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

From my reading of Roman history, Calligula, Nero, Herod the Great, and a quite a few others were terrible men. I can’t trace my family tree back that far, but they probably persecuted some of my ancestors.

However, if we found an old statue of one of those Roman tyrants, I wouldn’t want any old puritans smashing it to pieces. I’d like that statue to be preserved, so we can remember that these monsters were real people, that they weren’t some made up mythological beings.

Then there were those Moorish invaders who attacked Iberia. The Muslims themselves turned against them and helped Christian Spaniards and Lusitanians achieve their independence. Before them the peninsula was occupied by the Vandals, and those Vandals were ruled by a king so tyrannical that this king’s own people invited the Moorish invaders to take them over.

However, as much of their art and society was destroyed, many relics and stories became the stuff of legend, and have been dismissed as such.  Even the records of Muslim witnesses to the devastation left by their armies have been dismissed as exaggerations and those who quote these primary sources have been called orientalists.

The wall surrounding Europe in World War II is a landmark. It is a reminder that the horror was real, and not some mythology.

If we allow the Nazis to become the cartoon villains that they are in Hollywood, we are doomed to repeat history.  The names of the victims and the tyrants will change, they will fight under different banners, but the devastation of the next war will be the same.

The next group of tyrants will not call themselves by the names of villains.  Like other tyrants before them, they will associate themselves with our heroes.  Like other tyrants before them, they will remind us of the martyrs of the past to invoke anger in us, for the crowds are easier to manipulate when in a state of wrath.

Limiting evil to a name and face, or dismissing evil as a series of icons and symbols related to “them” and not “us”, only creates another piece of propaganda to be used at the mercy of wicked men. As memories fade, ignorance increases, and history could be shifted so slowly that we won’t notice it.

The monuments of the past carry with them stories. Like the story of Rene-George Lubat, who once worked on the wall that streched from Scandinavia to the French border with Spain.

“Naturally, we were not enthusiastic, but it is not as if we had any choice” says the 91 year old Frenchman. “Volunteered” by the mayor of his village, Lubat was brought to the Arcachon, an area better known for its beaches than its history.

At first “The conditions were not terrible.” There were no beatings, the workers got paid, and at the start they even got Sundays off.

Things turned for the worse though, after the German occupiers were defeated by the Soviets at Stalingrad. “they put up barbed wire and we were stuck inside the work camp.”

“It felt bad” building defenses for the Germans. However, in context, other prisoners of war built defenses.  Many medieval forts and castles were built by prisoners of war.  American prisoners of war even built a battery in North Africa.  In France, the entire country were basically prisoners of war, in more of an open air prison.

That context wouldn’t have made it any easier for men like Lubat, however.  His two brothers had been a confined prisoner and a deportee.  When they came home, he “did not want to go to the party celebrating their return,” because he felt so bad about the wall he helped to build.

Despite the bad memories, however, Lubat thinks the wall should be preserved. “It is important to remember…”

It is not to just remember who did the deeds of the past, but why they happened and how.

The Cherokee have voted to exclude those who are not on the 1906 Dawes Roll from their tribe. Yahoo News emphasizes the fact that the some descendants of slaves will lose their Cherokee “citizenship.”

It is said that two thousand or so people, who were once considered members of the Cherokee tribe, will lose the right to vote in elections and to medical benefits.  However, tribal websites emphasize that the media have got it wrong.  (And so this post is being corrected to reflect new data.)

Recently adopted tribe members, of any color, may be expelled from the tribe.  Anyone who can prove they have an ancestor on the 1907 Dawes roll, whatever they look like or whatever their heritage, will remain a Cherokee.

The 1500 descendents of slaves who can find ancestors on the Dawes roll will remain Cherokee.

In fact, says the meet the Cherokee website, those who are being “expelled” from the tribe are among those who were granted Cherokee citizenship under a 2006 lower Cherokee court ruling.  This court ruling did in fact pertain to descendents of freedmen, and some white people who married into the tribe.

Some of those affected claim descent from slaves of individual Cherokee, and they claim they have the rights of citizenship under an 1866 treaty with the federal government.   It is said that the Dawes rolls were unfair because some freedmen, including their ancestors, were excluded.

The Cherokees are best known for three things

Sequoya, the Cherokee Cadmus, with his alphabet in his hands

1. Sequoya, an illiterate genius who invented a written language (the Cherokee syllabary), said to be related to at least three American Presidents.
2. The “Trail of Tears”, an infamous forced march, some say genocide, which forced the Cherokee off their land after greedy settlers eyed their resources.
3. Being one of the biggest American Indian tribes that still exists in the United States and the largest in Oklahoma, with population of nearly a third of a million.

The Cherokees have made many treaties with the United States government, and usually these have been broken by the men in Washington.  The Trail of Tears is the most notorious example, but after the American Civil War, a new treaty was imposed on the Cherokee.

In 1831, it was decided that the Cherokee Nation was not a foreign nation, and somehow this meant that the US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. No one would hear their plea. As they, and four others of the “civilized tribes” were forced to move from their homes, thousands of Cherokee died from disease, exposure, and starvation.

On the Cherokee Nation Facts website, it is said that 70 percent of Cherokee men served with the Union army during the Civil War.  The Republic points out, however, that a number of Cherokees fought for the Confederacy.

Whatever the statistics were, the Cherokee fought and died on both sides.  Historians estimate that one third of the entire nation, not just fighting men, perished in the war.

The Union is said to have been hard on the Cherokee, accusing them of fighting for the Confederacy.  After the war, this association with the Confederacy was used as an excuse to take more land from the Cherokee.

When slavery was legal in the United States, some individual Cherokees did hold slaves, although the majority did not.  According to Olive Anderson, who claims to be one of the descendants of these slaves, they were among those who went through the forced march. “We were born into this. Our people were on the Trail of Tears, too.”

This posed a problem when the slaves were freed throughout the United States.

Accusing the Cherokee of siding with the confederacy, the United States modified its treaty with the Cherokees in 1866.  This new treaty said that the freed slaves of Cherokees “shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.”  It also took away a lot of Cherokee land.

Now, there is a debate.  According to a new amendment, which has been brought up to the Cherokee Supreme Court, you’re only a Cherokee if you can prove you had a Cherokee ancestor.  Those ancestors had to be in an old census known as the 1907 Dawes Roll.  By then, the Cherokee nation was diverse and had adopted people from all heritage into their tribe.

However, there appear to be other people who have become Cherokee by association through a court ruling, who weren’t on that Dawes Roll.

The meet the Cherokee website notes that there are thousands of Cherokees, descended from slaves, who retain their citizenship, as their ancestors were on the Dawes Roll.

Those who are excluded from the Cherokee Nation will be excluded from voting in future elections.  Some fear that they may also be excluded from receiving welfare related benefits from the Nation and related citizenship rights.

It has been widely reported that the US department of Housing and Urban Development decided last month to withhold $33 Million from the tribe.  This decision has been linked to the Cherokee court ruling, but it has preceded it.  However, no evidence can be found on the HUD website to support these claims.

It is not clear yet how the Federal Government will react to the Cherokee Supreme Court’s decision.

Perhaps unrelated, but an odd coincidence, some images from the Library of Congress website have been frozen. Users are unable, for example, to download the famous image of Sequoya and his Cherokee syllabary.

I don’t see why we should censor ourselves to please China’s autocracy.

Hollywood won’t even cut its obscenities to please mom and pop.  Why should it care if foreign Big Brother is offended?

One thing I love about Japanese cartoons, and many French films, is that they don’t try to please everyone in the whole world.  I loved Ponyo, Spirited Away, My Best Friend and other films that frankly don’t care about reaching a global audience.

It’s great to see people who make films for their own people, in order to entertain, instead of making disposable films that sell plastic toys at fast food restaurants.

Yes, the critics are right about one thing, American cinema needs to look abroad.  American movies are getting too bland.  They need to be more American.

The same lame insults about Americans not being able to find things on a map are getting old. Yup, that’s what the last whinging article does.  Circle China on a map, and an American apparently won’t find it.

Which American is so stupid that he can’t find anything on a map?  He’s probably the same American who writes all those annoying articles saying that we aren’t “international” enough.

Here’s the great untapped market for you: Americans. I mean it, we Americans need to make more movies for the American market, not bland international pap.

Little Justin at his Easter Party

Once upon a time, there was a little orphan called Justin. He was alone in an old cottage, at the side of the sea.

Little Justin’s entire village had been devoured by the plague, so there was no one left to play with him. No one who could sing lullabies to him.

Little Justin was immune to everything, so he survived the plague.  And Little Justin found plenty of old cartons of milk to drink, and plenty of old crackers to eat, so he didn’t starve. But Little Justin soon grew bored.

Justin wasn’t the only person in that part of the world that was bored.  Across the bay, there was a silly old pirate named Miss Noodles. Miss Noodles used to be one of the fiercest Sea Dogs ever to scour the Atlantic ocean, one of the meanest Filibusters to terrify the Caribbean, one of the nastiest Corsairs to cruise up the Mediterranean and one of the most irritable customers ever to push a trolley down the aisle.

Miss Noodles was someone who would cut your tires with a samurai sword if you tried to drive along side her, let alone pass her.  She had a reputation throughout the world for being the meanest, nastiest, grumpiest lady around.  In fact she was so mean, they wouldn’t even let her be a headmistress at a primary school.

Whenever Miss Noodles took her boat along the shore, the other boats would run away. 

“It is so unfair,” Miss Noodles thought, “everyone has become such cowards and no one ever stays around to fight.”

Then one day, Miss Noodles decided to cruise in a new part of the world.  She decided to go where no one knew anything about her.

Yes, Miss Noodles decided to explore the eighth sea.

Many people think the eighth sea is a legend, but Justin knows it’s not. It’s a little sea, and beside it is a little cove.  Off the shore frome the eighth there once was a little village. 

That village is deserted now.  And do you know who lives in that little deserted village?  No one but the little orphan Justin.

Well, Miss Noodles didn’t know it that the little village off the shore was deserted.  So she took her boat ashore, unsheathed her sword, and raided the empty town.

First, Miss Noodles ran to the church to terrify the local priest, but she found no one there. Then, she went to the market, but all Miss Noodles could found there were a few crazed chickens and lots and lots of eggs.

“Aargh!” Miss Noodles thought, “where should I go next?” She looked up toward Justin’s cottage, and saw a shadow move. “There’s some action” she thought. And with sword unsheathed, Miss Noodles ran toward the little orphan’s home.

Well, outside the cottage Miss Noodles saw some bodies, dead of the plague. “No fair.” exclaimed Miss Noodles. “The Reaper has already raided this town.”

In a fit of rage, Miss Noodles threw her blade on the ground. And then she started to cry. “Why doesn’t anyone want to play any more?” she thought.

You wouldn’t think it, but throwing as the sword hit the ground it made a funny noise. It sounded kind of like the din of a rolling garbage can, and kind of like a bell. Justin liked that noise, it made him laugh.

The laugh echoed out of his house.

“At last!” shouted Miss Noodles “A worthy opponent.”

But as she turned, she only saw the little orphan, not much bigger than a baby. Justin ran to her.

Miss Noodles wanted to shout, she wanted to fight, but something overcame her. She had been lonely all these years of scaring people away. The little boy touched her heart.

After that, Miss Noodles took Justin to other houses in the abandoned village. She found toys for him, a teddy and a rabbit. She even learned to knit, and made Justin a jacket that said “baby pirate.”

Miss Noodles even gave Justin her special golden key. It was the key to the treasure the pirate had stored after decades of raiding and marauding. But that wasn’t the only key little Justin had. He had the key to Miss Noodle’s pirate heart.
And they lived happily ever after, as pirate baby and pirate mommy.

—- The End —

If this is your picture, you have won the prize of the 7 and under age group!  Your work of art is a treasure indeed.

We know who you are, and we have already given you a nice share of ice cream.  Keep drawing, and keep breaking the hearts of grumpy old pirates.

One day, George woke up with a massive headache.  “YEOOWCH!”  screamed George as he rubbed the sides of his head.  “Dw i eisau Moddion, nawr!”

Now, few of the other islanders on Bunny Bay knew what George was talking about, so they brought him a pen and a piece of paper.  George drew a large scribble of his head, but it looked a little like part of Bunny Bay island.  And there was an X in it, to represent his massive headache.

Well, the Bunny Bay pirates took the picture to Miss Interpreter.  Now, Miss Interpreter claimed to speak 7 languages, 13 dialects, six hundred codes, and seven hundred campfire chants fluently. 

She also claimed she could break dance with her eyes closed, but no one would believe that.

Miss Interpreter immediately said what she thought it was.  “That must be a treasure map!”  She exclaimed.  “Bring the old pirate to me.”

When they brought her the pirate, he moaned and groaned.  She came to him, and tried to speak her best Welsh.  “Ble?” she asked “Where?  Ble?” 

The sick pirate pointed to his head.  “Mae’n brifo llawr iawn!  Dw i eisiau moddion!” exclaimed the pirate, complaining about his headache.

“I think he said he remembers where the treasure is.”  Said Miss Interpreter.  “Someone fetch me a shovel.”

So, the other pirates on Bunny Bay island brought their shovels, and another one for Miss Interpreter.  They handed the spare shovel to Miss Interpreter who handed it to Crotchety Old George.  George picked up his shovel.

“Moddion!”  shouted George. 

“Moddion!”  returned Miss Interpreter.  She produced a cleaned up version of what she thought George’s drawing should look like.  But instead of looking like a scribble of a head with an X on it, Miss Interpreter’s interpretation looked like a treasure map.

Well, George thought it was some kind of cruel joke.  But, he went to the part of Bunny Bay island that he thought was marked by the X.  George thought that maybe the moddion, or the medicine, was buried there.

The X marked a spot in the middle of Bunny Bay Island’s mini-golf course, not far from the thirteenth hole.  And that’s where George started to dig.

George dug, and dug, and dug, but his headache wouldn’t go away.

Soon, other pirates came to help him dig.  They were all digging on the same part of the mini golf course. But when George dug, he hit something hard. 

“Yeowch!”  he screamed.  Hitting the hard rock made his headache hurt more.  But that didn’t stop the other pirates from digging. 

They dug until they could see stones.  Then they dug to uncover the stones.

They continued to dig until they could lift up the stones.

What they found were the remains of the old eisteddfod.  There was a list of past winners engraved on an old rock.  It was menhir of some sort.

“This must be worth a fortune!”  Exclaimed Miss Interpreter.

“Dw i eisiau Moddion!”  screamed the old pirate.  And he burst into tears.

“I think it reminds him of the old days.”  lamented Miss Interpreter.  “He must really miss the old Eisteddfod.”

George held his head in despair.  Other than George, no one on Bunny Bay Island understood Welsh.  He pointed to his head and cried.

“It’s alright old man,” said Miss Interpreter.  “Your wrinkly old face may be ugly, but it’s your heart we love.”  Then she gave him a hug.

The pirate wasn’t used to being hugged.  On his old ship, if anyone grabbed him, it meant trouble.  If you grab a pirate, you might throw him overboard, or perhaps you’ll lock him in irons. 

When Miss Interpreter grabbed George, it made him as scared as a wee little child about to get a big spanking.

Suddenly, the fear made George forget his all about his headache.  He stopped crying, and started trying to think of a way to escape from the terrible hug.

But Miss Interpreter thought that the hug was working.  So she hugged him harder.  She grabbed the old pirate and gave him a big squeeze.

“Hon yw’r diwedd nawr!” said the old pirate.  He thought it was the end.  This bear hug was some kind of torture, and George would probably not escape alive.

So, the old man confessed.  He started saying all the terrible things he did as a pirate.  “I put bubble gum under my teacher’s desk.”  he said in Welsh.  “And it was me who put the frog in little Emma’s drawer.  I didn’t know the frog would wee all over her poofy socks and on her pretty pink pants.”

It was no use.  No one understood the old pirate’s confession.  The other pirates were already fighting over the worthless old stones; they thought they were worth a fortune.  And silly Miss Interpreter thought that the hug was making the old pirate feel better.

Eventually, George started  crying :cry: again, but not because of his headache.  He was crying because he felt bad about being so grumpy.  Old George realized that he hadn’t always been the nicest pirate, and so what right did he have to moan and complain all day?

Well, George managed to cry quietly this time, and so Miss Interpreter mercifully let the old pirate go.  He went to pick a nice flower, to give it to Miss Interpreter, and tried to shove it in her face.

“Oh, thank you” said Miss Interpreter, “I’m flattered.”

However, she didn’t see the bee on the flower.  It stung Miss Interpreter and made her shake like a leaf.

After that, Miss Interpreter learned to speak Welsh for real.  And she stopped pretending to understand things that she didn’t.

But she really could break dance with her eyes closed. (or at least that’s what it looked like she was doing after she got stung by that bee.)

- – - T H E   E N D – - -

Is that your picture above?  If so, you are the winner of the under five category in the pirate art contest.  Call now to claim your share of the pirate treasure!