History is written by landsmen.
When a landsman encounters a body of water, he sees an obstacle which must be bridged.
To a seaman, a body of water is a highway and a cornucopia.
It isn't surprising that the landsmen who write our history have insisted that the first Americans must have walked across a land bridge from Asia. They know when it must have happened: during a very brief geological period when the sea level was low and there was an ice-free path available.
Since we know when it must have happened, archaeologists searching for human artifacts and remains wouldn't dig below a certain level, marked by weapon points in the style called Clovis. This was known with certainty (it was thought), even though aborigines reached Australia 60,000 years ago, and there was never a land bridge.
Now archaeologists have found man made tools on the Island of Crete that seem to have been there more than 130,000 years. See yesterday's New York Times article, "On Crete, New Evidence of Very Ancient Mariners." Crete has been an island separated from the nearest land by about two hundred miles for more than five million years.
As Will Rogers pointed out, "it isn't what you don't know that will give you trouble, it's what we know that ain't so...."
I hope American archaeologists have resumed digging.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
What Political Type Are You?
Another way of sorting voters out is by political typology.
Since 1987, the Pew Center on People and the Press has conducted surveys to analyze how many identifiable clusters (people sharing views on political values) there are in the United States. The number generally sorts out to about ten groupings, more or less.
What political type are you?
You can find out by taking the test at the Pew website: http://typology.people-press.org/
After you take the test, you may find it interesting to read the Center's description of the nine typologies identified in 2005.
Since 1987, the Pew Center on People and the Press has conducted surveys to analyze how many identifiable clusters (people sharing views on political values) there are in the United States. The number generally sorts out to about ten groupings, more or less.
What political type are you?
You can find out by taking the test at the Pew website: http://typology.people-press.org/
After you take the test, you may find it interesting to read the Center's description of the nine typologies identified in 2005.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Political Spectrum
Where are you on the political spectrum?
We usually speak of individuals and political parties as though they lie somewhere along a straight-line scale from liberal on the left to conservative on the right. To some observers, this seems an overly limited scheme to describe a complex phenomenon.
A group of scholars have devised a more complex, two-dimensional scheme based on a Cartesian coordinate (x-y) scale. In this scheme, one dimension represents position on economic issues (left-right) and the other dimension represents position on social issues (authoritarian-libertarian).
If you want to know where you fit in a two-dimensional scale, check out the Political Compass web site: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Where do you fit? Take the test. You may be surprised.
Then explore the site. You will see an analysis of where last year's US presidential candidates fit in the scheme and where certain foreign and historical figures come in.
We usually speak of individuals and political parties as though they lie somewhere along a straight-line scale from liberal on the left to conservative on the right. To some observers, this seems an overly limited scheme to describe a complex phenomenon.
A group of scholars have devised a more complex, two-dimensional scheme based on a Cartesian coordinate (x-y) scale. In this scheme, one dimension represents position on economic issues (left-right) and the other dimension represents position on social issues (authoritarian-libertarian).
If you want to know where you fit in a two-dimensional scale, check out the Political Compass web site: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Where do you fit? Take the test. You may be surprised.
Then explore the site. You will see an analysis of where last year's US presidential candidates fit in the scheme and where certain foreign and historical figures come in.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Political Representation: Who Can Vote?
At the time of the first federal census, only white male property owners (about 10 percent of the population) could vote. Some states had a religious qualification. None allowed women to vote.
By 1810 religious qualifications had been removed. By 1850, property owner and tax requirements were eliminated. Almost all white males could vote.
Beginning in 1855, some states imposed literacy tests, in part to limit voting by Irish-Catholic immigrants. From at least that time, there was increasing tension between the effort to expand the electorate and efforts to limit that expansion.
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, candidates for the U.S. Senate from the state of Illinois, debated each other at locations all over the state. We often forget, though, that the only voters in that election were the members of the Illinois State Senate.
After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments granted citizenship rights to former slaves, including the right to vote.
In 1868, women in the Territory of Wyoming could vote, but nowhere else in the United States.
In 1889 Florida adopted a poll tax, followed by ten other southern states. In order to vote, one had to present poll tax receipts for every year from the time first eligible to vote. Most of these states also established literacy tests. It was at the sole discretion of the registrar to decide whether the registrant met literacy standards. This made it easier to prevent African Americans from voting.
In 1913 the 17th Amendment established direct election of senators. In 1920 the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act granted Native Americans citizenship rights, including the right to vote.
In 1944, the Supreme Court banned "white primaries." From the 1950's on, a series of legislative initiatives and Supreme Court decisions eliminated the poll tax and literacy requirements, reduced the voting age to 18, reduced residency requirements and introduced measures making it easier to register and vote.
The work of expanding the electorate goes on.
By 1810 religious qualifications had been removed. By 1850, property owner and tax requirements were eliminated. Almost all white males could vote.
Beginning in 1855, some states imposed literacy tests, in part to limit voting by Irish-Catholic immigrants. From at least that time, there was increasing tension between the effort to expand the electorate and efforts to limit that expansion.
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, candidates for the U.S. Senate from the state of Illinois, debated each other at locations all over the state. We often forget, though, that the only voters in that election were the members of the Illinois State Senate.
After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments granted citizenship rights to former slaves, including the right to vote.
In 1868, women in the Territory of Wyoming could vote, but nowhere else in the United States.
In 1889 Florida adopted a poll tax, followed by ten other southern states. In order to vote, one had to present poll tax receipts for every year from the time first eligible to vote. Most of these states also established literacy tests. It was at the sole discretion of the registrar to decide whether the registrant met literacy standards. This made it easier to prevent African Americans from voting.
In 1913 the 17th Amendment established direct election of senators. In 1920 the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act granted Native Americans citizenship rights, including the right to vote.
In 1944, the Supreme Court banned "white primaries." From the 1950's on, a series of legislative initiatives and Supreme Court decisions eliminated the poll tax and literacy requirements, reduced the voting age to 18, reduced residency requirements and introduced measures making it easier to register and vote.
The work of expanding the electorate goes on.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Political Representation: Not a Simple Matter
We all remember learning the cry of American Colonials: "No taxation without representation!"
But what exactly is representation? This certainly is the basic question in a representative democracy.
We decided early in our history that the basis for representation and voting was geographic. That is, you had to live in the particular locality or district of the elected official to be able to vote.
To us, this seems obvious. But it isn't obvious to everyone. The British Parliament in 1776 believed they represented all the people in the empire, no matter where they lived. The thirteen American colonies disputed this.
Geographic propinquity also wasn't the principal of the French parliament. There, representation was by social and economic class: the three estates. The first estate was the [catholic] clergy; the second estate was the nobility; the third estate was commoners, mainly the more privileged towns.
In modern Lebanon, representation is apportioned by religion.
So there are other schemes.
But ours is geography. And since, unlike most European countries, we have no national gendarmerie and no internal passports, the mechanism for determining eligibility to vote in a particular district is voter registration.
As we enter a new political season, everyone should make sure his or her voter registration is up to date.
But what exactly is representation? This certainly is the basic question in a representative democracy.
We decided early in our history that the basis for representation and voting was geographic. That is, you had to live in the particular locality or district of the elected official to be able to vote.
To us, this seems obvious. But it isn't obvious to everyone. The British Parliament in 1776 believed they represented all the people in the empire, no matter where they lived. The thirteen American colonies disputed this.
Geographic propinquity also wasn't the principal of the French parliament. There, representation was by social and economic class: the three estates. The first estate was the [catholic] clergy; the second estate was the nobility; the third estate was commoners, mainly the more privileged towns.
In modern Lebanon, representation is apportioned by religion.
So there are other schemes.
But ours is geography. And since, unlike most European countries, we have no national gendarmerie and no internal passports, the mechanism for determining eligibility to vote in a particular district is voter registration.
As we enter a new political season, everyone should make sure his or her voter registration is up to date.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Politics Ain't Beanbag
Beginning of candidate filing period in North Carolina calls to mind the aphorism of the fictional Mr. Dooley, creation of the humorist and editor, Finley Peter Dunne.
The part that's frequently quoted says, simply: "Politics ain't beanbag." The reader is left to surmise that there must be a game using bags of beans, not likely to cause lasting damage to the participants.
It is worth recalling the whole quote:
"Politics ain't beanbag: 'tis a man's game, and women, children 'n' pro-hy-bitionists had best stay out of it."
A quick glance at the list of candidates who have filed so far reveals that women are no longer staying out of the game of politics, even if it still "ain't beanbag." And that's a mighty good thing.
The part that's frequently quoted says, simply: "Politics ain't beanbag." The reader is left to surmise that there must be a game using bags of beans, not likely to cause lasting damage to the participants.
It is worth recalling the whole quote:
"Politics ain't beanbag: 'tis a man's game, and women, children 'n' pro-hy-bitionists had best stay out of it."
A quick glance at the list of candidates who have filed so far reveals that women are no longer staying out of the game of politics, even if it still "ain't beanbag." And that's a mighty good thing.
Monday, February 8, 2010
A Really Super Bowl
Our household faced a dilemma deciding who to root for in last night's Super Bowl.
As graduates of Ole Miss, we were mindful of the fact that Peyton Manning's father, Archie Manning, had quarterbacked for Ole Miss in the 1960's, had been drafted by the New Orleans Saints and played superbly for about a decade for what was otherwise a dreadful team. Archie Manning has made his home in New Orleans. Peyton's younger brother, Eli, also played at Ole Miss and quarterbacks for the Giants.
Since there was an Ole Miss/Manning connection to both teams, we decided to go with sentiment and root for the team that had never been to the Super Bowl before. Besides, we had lived in Washington DC when the Baltimore Colts left that town surreptitiously and shamefully relocated to Indiana. In Baltimore (and Washington), that is still seen as perfidy. Like the Dodgers moving from Brooklyn to Los Angeles.
For all of those reasons, we rooted for New Orleans.
The game was a delight to watch. When did you ever see a second half begin with an onside kick? The offensive coaching was daring. The New Orleans defense was superb. Plainly the strategy was to keep Peyton Manning off the field. Good idea.
A game that lived up to the hype.
Can't say as much for the ads. Not up to par.
And the halftime show? My wife remarked that she'd rather have seen marching bands. Would have been more entertaining. Maybe it's a generational thing.
As graduates of Ole Miss, we were mindful of the fact that Peyton Manning's father, Archie Manning, had quarterbacked for Ole Miss in the 1960's, had been drafted by the New Orleans Saints and played superbly for about a decade for what was otherwise a dreadful team. Archie Manning has made his home in New Orleans. Peyton's younger brother, Eli, also played at Ole Miss and quarterbacks for the Giants.
Since there was an Ole Miss/Manning connection to both teams, we decided to go with sentiment and root for the team that had never been to the Super Bowl before. Besides, we had lived in Washington DC when the Baltimore Colts left that town surreptitiously and shamefully relocated to Indiana. In Baltimore (and Washington), that is still seen as perfidy. Like the Dodgers moving from Brooklyn to Los Angeles.
For all of those reasons, we rooted for New Orleans.
The game was a delight to watch. When did you ever see a second half begin with an onside kick? The offensive coaching was daring. The New Orleans defense was superb. Plainly the strategy was to keep Peyton Manning off the field. Good idea.
A game that lived up to the hype.
Can't say as much for the ads. Not up to par.
And the halftime show? My wife remarked that she'd rather have seen marching bands. Would have been more entertaining. Maybe it's a generational thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
