News Archives 3-03 to 4-03

News Archives

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

chen mei mei - 11/1/2010

[url=]ugg boots uk[/url]|
[url=]ugg boots for sale[/url]|
[url=]ugg classic tall boots[/url]|
[url=]Ugg Classic Short Boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg boots shoes[/url]|
[url=]ugg cardy boots[/url]|
[url=]cheap ugg boots[/url]|
[url=]Ugg Nightfall Boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg handbag[/url]|
[url=]ugg bailey[/url]|
[url=]ugg classic boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg sale boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg boots sale[/url]|
[url=]ugg tall boots[/url]|
[url=]bailey button boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg boots clearance[/url]|
[url=]ugg sandals[/url]|
[url=]ugg Classic Crochet Boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg classic mini boots[/url]|
[url=]Bailey ugg boots[/url]|
[url=]Ugg Classic Metallic Boots[/url]|
[url=]ugg kids boots[/url]|

philippe pierre martin - 7/30/2010

i do think bonaparte is in a tomb unknow in louisiana at betsy abel plantation,not at the invalides in paris

Bill Streifer - 7/11/2009

When comparing Japan's nuclear program (specifically in Hungnam, Korea) against the Manhattan Project, the argument most often used is an economic one. That is, since Japan invested less money in their program than the U.S. did, the Japanese program was "smaller."

I believe a financial argument is not appropriate in this situation, and here's why... Three of the crucial "components" of any successful (uranium-based, gaseous diffusion) atomic program are labor, uranium ore and electricity.

Let's first consider labor. While many of the workers at the various Manhattan Project locations across the U.S. were scientists, most were not. The same goes for Korea.

American laborers, skilled and unskilled, were paid salaries similar to workers at automobile, steel, and other plants across the U.S. How much did Japan pay for labor in Korea? Nothing, or close to nothing.

Japan has recently admitted using slave laborers, primarily POWs, in coal and other facilities. During WWII, coal mines were located primarily in northern Korea, and they still are. Hungnam is in northern Korea.

Now consider uranium. General Groves required a large amount of uranium, which he eventually discovered in the Belgian Congo? Did the U.S. get it for at no cost? I'm not sure about that. However, Japan's source of uranium for its enrichment facility in Hungnam were above-ground, and perhaps underground, uranium mines in close proximity to Hungnam, maybe in Hamhung.

Since Korea had effectively signed away its independence to Japan in 1910 ("Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty"), the cost to Japan of this raw material was zero, and the cost of slave labor (who "dug for uranium on the surface of the ground with their bare hands") was also zero. Incidently, North Korea has a huge supply of uranium, far greater in quantity and quality than the uranium found in South Korea. Hungnam is in North Korea.

Last, consider electricity. It has been said that electrical usage at Oak Ridge National Laboratory was 1/7 that of the entire country... under 300,000 kw (according to an Oak Ridge historian). How much electricity was consumed at Hungnam in mid-August 1945? Answer: 400,000 kw (according to a secret State Department report). That's 25% MORE than was used at the Manhattan Project. Surprised?

A website on a related topic is

Aliro Olave - 2/19/2008

I have just finished reading Spain's road to empire (I follow Kamen's use of the lower case here). I found the book interesting documenting well Kamen's main thesis, ie: Spain (mainly Castilian) was driven to empire by circumstances outside its control. The empire was, in modern terms, a multinational enterprise benefiting from the expertise and manpower of other european countries. Kamen's views on the history of the conquest of Spanish America have been espoused by other historian and it would not be seriously challenged in Latin America today. However, in my view, the book would have gained weight by giving a broader perspective to the conquest and its consequences from Mexico all the way to Chile.
No mention of the conquest of Brazil by the Portuguese, that took place more or less at the same time is given.
More importantly, no comment is offered of the English conquest of North America, that strictly speaking commenced some six to eight generations after the Spanish conquest. The consequences of the Spanish and English conquests were noted some years ago by A. Toynbee for instance, and can be easily observed. In Latin America, pure-indians exists in large numbers in many countries and more importantly, their genes, in different degrees of mixing, are obvious in the majority of the population. In North America on the other hand, the English and their descendant elites were happy to destroy any remains of the indigenous population. Undoubtly they were very successful, with only the token indian alive today. Any mixed blood?
In Australia, the English conquest occurred even later, perhaps another five generations later. The same North American pattern of stealing land and elimination of native populations took place. No mixing was condoned. No Las Casas, no church trying to protect the indians. In 1912, for instance (less than 100 years ago!), the Federal Government of Australia established an Aboriginal Ordinance which authorised the removal of any mixed-race child into "protection". The objective of the English and their descendants in the North American and Australian cases was to create 'white' countries.
Mr Kamen, in my view, history, to be of value, has to be studied in perspective, otherwise is just a story.

Alan Ardy - 1/7/2008

Hi :)

Alan Ardy here. I didn't write that!

But I did once ask for an English language version of 'Fire Over Germany' a book on the fire-bombing of German cities, written by a retired German general.



erin e terrill - 7/20/2007

Very interesting. I have an authentic pair of slave shackles from the Rotherwood plantation. I am interested in selling them. If you would like to see pictures drop me an email.

Peter Rentschler Aikman - 4/7/2007

Besides the Allied terror bombings of 130 German cities and towns which caused the death of more than half a million German civilians, the expulsion of some 15 million Germans, mainly old men, women and children,
from Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe must be recognized. The criminal decision by the Allies to deprive Germany of her Eastern provinces (East Prussia, Silesia, Western Pommerania etc.)resulted in what can only be called a holocaust in which, like the air war, the Germans were the victims. These Germans whose ancestors, in many cases, had lived on these lands for 700 years were ruthlessly driven back into what was left of Germany. Two million died or were killed on the roads. Women and young girls from 8 to 80 were mass raped and men and boys who tried to defend them were shot.
82 million Germans now live in an area the size of Montana, having lost one quarter of their country arbitrarily to the Poles and Russians.
Anyone who knows the truth about the air war and the expulsion will be compelled to recognize the Germans as victims.
The popular portrayal in the United States of World War II as the last 'good war' (compared to Vietnam,Iraq etc.) is a myth. There are more than enough crimes and blood on all sides--German and Allied!

benjamin harris - 2/24/2007

Who were those who participated in the torture and murder Bian Zhongyun and what is the evidence of her/their participation?

Reply here or to my email address Thank you.

Laurie Jean Bond - 12/31/2006

I realize I am getting into this discussion very late -- it's nearly 2007 -- but I found the posts and website because I was following the same train of logic as Mark Safranski -- could mustard gas be the explanation for Hitler's behavior?

Mark, you make a very persuasive arguement, but it's not a perfect fit.

Wasn't Hitler speaking against the Jews prior to his service induction? And as you pointed out, he did have a fairly exemplary service record. Lots of men are radically changed by active service. "Be all that you can be" isn't an idle boast. Many aimless young men have their lives and personalities changed forever by the armed forces. Some return to directionless, undisciplined lives, but many do not. Hitler already knew he had speaking abilities prior to the Great War, but had never tested them out on a large serious audience. He lacked confidence. After the War, he had it.

And your link only discusses forms of depression. Depression is a natural reaction, not necessarily linked to neurological changes.

I think it is tempting to assign psychlogical labels to Hitler because he does not fit in any category of human behavior that is familiar or comfortable to us. One could easily say that Jesus was monomaniacal and a manic-depressive. Hitler shared many of his "monomaniacal" and "manic-depressive" traits with other great men of his time. Look at Churchill and FDR.

The more I read about Hitler, the more I think that that there is no simple explanation for his behavior, except that human beings have the potential to do great evil -- without any outside influence. There is no one who quite compares to Hitler. He displayed too many real emotions to be labeled a classic psychopath, and yet he was responsible for the most unspeakable acts. His name is synonomous with evil, yet he was personally likeable, sincere and even a sensitive individual.

The real Hitler, without the labels and so-called "logical" explanations is just too frightening to contemplate ....

chris william david twerdun - 6/19/2006

it was snowy evans that shot down the baron. he is the only one that had a clear shot and cedric popkins wrote a letter saying his point on what happened and it said that he only fired at the front of the baron and autopsy reports show that the bullet that killed the baron were fired from the right hand side which also knocks out brown because he only fired at the rear of the baron. by process of elimination, it was snowy evans who truly brought down the red baron

con sis tent - 6/18/2006

This theory is quite consistent with the nature of this sick mans life. Although it may have accounted for his madness in his later days, it may well have been the motivating factor in the course of the life he decided to take. Knowing he was infected with a horrible disease; had little time to live; and the anger he must have felt on whomever he believed inflicted this horror upon him and ruined his life.
His obsession with the disease in his writings, and his obsession with whom he perceived to be the cause.

con sis tent - 6/18/2006

.. his lack of normal sexual relations, his hiring of the dermatologist Morell, a specialist in Syphilis; his altering of medical records, and his desire to keep such information secret.

Vin L. G. - 2/8/2006

If Vedas are written by coming `Aryans - Indo-Europeans' during 1500 BC - 1000 BC then that time some Saraswati river of Mother River type of vastness must be in India. And, in Mahabharat ( written by same Aryans ) it's mentioned that Saraswati River is not meeting ocean and ending in land area.Mahabharat is thought by Western Indologists to have been written during 1000BC time.So, in maximum 500 years Saraswati river reduced to non-ocean going dying river.And, during Budhdha & Mahavir's time 600 BC -500BC, there was no big Saraswati river in India.

But geologists have found some ancient big river which must have ceased to flow completely on NW Indian soil atleast before 1900 BC. So, either this is Saraswati river as Indus Valley civilization's till excavated around 70% sites are on this dried riverbed area. Secondly, in Rig-Ved Saraswati & not Indus is prominent river with towns with names along Saraswati river.

Any vast river can not suddenly totally dry up within 500 - 1000 years.

Rigved geographically starts from Ganga - river area and ends in Gandhar area of present Afghanistan.
( In Ancient times Afghanistan was part of India like Pakistan was till 1947 ). In Rig-Ved river names starts East to West from Ganga and ends at Sindhu ( Indus ).

This means Rig-Vedic people's journey is not from Afghan to India but India to Afghan area.

Also, Avestan people's Vendidad Chapter I , mentions passing of Avestan people from Hapta Handu ( i.e. Sapta Sindhu area which is Punjab ), BunEr (VarAna), RaNhA … between the KAbul and the Kurram
..... which clearly ancient Indian area.

So,it seems that Western Indologists have done gobbel's propoganda of defining some Aryan race of Steppes due to Eurocentric superiority thoughts prevailing during colonizing time period.

Mel Chu - 9/25/2005

Regarding the article's part on how Hitler contracted the disease from a Jewish prostitue, thus leading him to rage against them. How old was he then? Can you elaborate on that area? What are some good primary resources regarding this topic?


Mel Chu - 9/25/2005

Regarding the article's part on how Hitler contracted the disease from a Jewish prostitue, thus leading him to rage against them. How old was he then? Can you elaborate on that area? What are some good primary resources regarding this topic?


Piras Peron Promamoiada - 2/23/2005


Andrew Johnson - 2/14/2005

It is really sad to hear any person trying to convince themselves and others that Capt. Brown scared or chased the Baron towards the ground. If any pilot deserved credit, it was the novice May whose straight flight drew the Baron within anti-aircraft fire. The simple fact is that the Baron broke his own rule and flew within ground-fire where any enemy pilot is easy prey for any good marksman; and May flew the Baron into range of three experienced Australian gunners; the Baron would have to have been lucky to survive his mistake.

DeWayne Edward Benson - 2/6/2005

The talk of chemicals used on Iraq, of course being the Poison Gas that Winston Churchill didn't mind being used. The purpose to put down a wayward Iraq colony.

Piras Peron Promamoiada - 1/26/2005

(the truth on the origins of Juan Domingo Peron)
¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? a sardinian enigma in the history of Argentina.
One of the most mysterious and fascinating cases of the modern history of Mamoiada, a village of the central Sardinia in province of Nuoro (Italy), is with no doubt the one of " Giovanni Piras - Juan Peron ":that is to say two names, two individuals, in truth were the same person. Sure, it is hard to believe that mythical General Juan Peron, three times president of the Argentine, was, exactly, Giovanni Piras, that same humble peasant that at the beginning of the century emigrated young in South America.
You will all ask why this Giovanni Piras would have had to change identity or why Juan Peron hid his true origin.
Piras had to create for himself an Argentine birth in order to avoid the call to the arms for war 1915-18 from part of his native land and to escape the officials of the Italian embassy, who searched the emigrant deserters. In that period Giovanni Piras, with the aid of powerful persons that were also friends, found the most suitable situation to creep in: a substitution of person was put into effect, which served also in order to undertake the studies to the Military Academy, granted only to the Argentinean citizens, born and nationalized in Argentine.
To change identity was, in fact, the sole manner to enter the Colegio Militar.
Once he became the President of the Argentine Republic, to greater reason his true identity did not have to be revealed, since the Argentinean Constitution states that the President of the nation must be native of the place.
An irreversible process, a point of no return had been primed; the situation became very serious and dangerous for Peron because with the person substitution a fraud had happened to the State, a serious crime and not only for a politician. To reveal the true identity meant to compromise his credibility, his deep concept of native land, of " betrayal of the native land, and of being a true, genuine and faithful Argentinean ", that he exalted and repeated in many speeches; it meant to lose his rank, his uniform and his power.
To rigor of logic, this was the reason for which he hid his true identity, a much dangerous one for his position; otherwise, Peron would have shown his true origin, as he went proud of it.
Peron justified his great love for Sardinia and the Sardinians saying that the paternal great-grandfather had come from that island, therefore he had Sardinian blood in the veins, but later, his alibi of this declared ancestors did not stand firm.
In one of the books of Enrique Pavòn Pereyra, a personal biographer of Juan Peron, a great enigmatic draw has a sentence (dictated to the writer from the exiled Argentinean in his Madrilenian house) on how he jealously preserved the origin of his birth rate; it reads so: “I have played with my destiny a magical bet, and I was successful until today conserving my origins as deep secret”.
In Mamoiada this is a case debated from almost sixty years: in the 1951 N. Tola by the newspaper “Unione Sarda”; in the 1984 P. Canneddu whith the book “Juan Peron-Giovanni Piras two names one person”; today many doubts have been cleared in the report of Raffaele Ballore an the book of Gabriele Casula “¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? un enigma sardo nella storia dell’Argentina” have illustrated the proofs collected, unmasking and effectively demonstrating plenty of the contradictions of Peron and of the Argentinean historians with documents and photographs, beyond numerous documented oral testimonies and coincidences.
The great Argentine press and the living biographers of general Peron never answered to the appeals to discuss the case. Their indisposition to reconsider objectively and serenely the whole story is to be interpreted like fear of the truth and that their studies on the important personage could be knocked down and mocked.
The case could feed ideological earthquakes or provoke patriotic resentments. The worries for the risk of tearing open this myth are comprehensible, but the historical truth must not have compromises. From the author’s part, to prove the true identity of Peron in no way must be seen as a discourteous action towards the Argentinean people nor a way to lessen the myth of their former President: if he was elected democratically for three times it means that he must have had some merit, indeed, together with Evita he remains a mythical personage in the entire Latin American panorama.
Only after reading the report and the book an objective judgment can be expressed and a conclusion can be attained. The report is documented and deposited, every information is reliable; not only the several oral testimonies are there but, this time, also documentary and photographic proofs.
To receive the long report and the book please write to the e-mail:

Piras Peron Promamoiada - 1/26/2005

(the truth on the origins of Juan Domingo Peron)
¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? a sardinian enigma in the history of Argentina.
One of the most mysterious and fascinating cases of the modern history of Mamoiada, a village of the central Sardinia in province of Nuoro (Italy), is with no doubt the one of " Giovanni Piras - Juan Peron ":that is to say two names, two individuals, in truth were the same person.
Sure, it is hard to believe that mythical General Juan Peron, three times president of the Argentine, was, exactly, Giovanni Piras, that same humble peasant that at the beginning of the century emigrated young in South America.
You will all ask why this Giovanni Piras would have had to change identity or why Juan Peron hid his true origin.
Piras had to create for himself an Argentine birth in order to avoid the call to the arms for war 1915-18 from part of his native land and to escape the officials of the Italian embassy, who searched the emigrant deserters. In that period Giovanni Piras, with the aid of powerful persons that were also friends, found the most suitable situation to creep in: a substitution of person was put into effect, which served also in order to undertake the studies to the Military Academy, granted only to the Argentinean citizens, born and nationalized in Argentine.
To change identity was, in fact, the sole manner to enter the Colegio Militar.
Once he became the President of the Argentine Republic, to greater reason his true identity did not have to be revealed, since the Argentinean Constitution states that the President of the nation must be native of the place.
An irreversible process, a point of no return had been primed; the situation became very serious and dangerous for Peron because with the person substitution a fraud had happened to the State, a serious crime and not only for a politician. To reveal the true identity meant to compromise his credibility, his deep concept of native land, of " betrayal of the native land, and of being a true, genuine and faithful Argentinean ", that he exalted and repeated in many speeches; it meant to lose his rank, his uniform and his power.
To rigor of logic, this was the reason for which he hid his true identity, a much dangerous one for his position; otherwise, Peron would have shown his true origin, as he went proud of it.
Peron justified his great love for Sardinia and the Sardinians saying that the paternal great-grandfather had come from that island, therefore he had Sardinian blood in the veins, but later, his alibi of this declared ancestors did not stand firm.
In one of the books of Enrique Pavòn Pereyra, a personal biographer of Juan Peron, a great enigmatic draw has a sentence (dictated to the writer from the exiled Argentinean in his Madrilenian house) on how he jealously preserved the origin of his birth rate; it reads so: “I have played with my destiny a magical bet, and I was successful until today conserving my origins as deep secret”.
In Mamoiada this is a case debated from almost sixty years: in the 1951 N. Tola by the newspaper “Unione Sarda”; in the 1984 P. Canneddu whith the book “Juan Peron-Giovanni Piras two names one person”; today many doubts have been cleared in the report of Raffaele Ballore an the book of Gabriele Casula “¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? un enigma sardo nella storia dell’Argentina” have illustrated the proofs collected, unmasking and effectively demonstrating plenty of the contradictions of Peron and of the Argentinean historians with documents and photographs, beyond numerous documented oral testimonies and coincidences.
The great Argentine press and the living biographers of general Peron never answered to the appeals to discuss the case. Their indisposition to reconsider objectively and serenely the whole story is to be interpreted like fear of the truth and that their studies on the important personage could be knocked down and mocked.
The case could feed ideological earthquakes or provoke patriotic resentments. The worries for the risk of tearing open this myth are comprehensible, but the historical truth must not have compromises. From the author’s part, to prove the true identity of Peron in no way must be seen as a discourteous action towards the Argentinean people nor a way to lessen the myth of their former President: if he was elected democratically for three times it means that he must have had some merit, indeed, together with Evita he remains a mythical personage in the entire Latin American panorama.
Only after reading the report and the book an objective judgment can be expressed and a conclusion can be attained. The report is documented and deposited, every information is reliable; not only the several oral testimonies are there but, this time, also documentary and photographic proofs.
To receive the long report and informations please write to the e-mail:

philippa mary young - 1/13/2005

I belive that the Spanish critics of Henry Kamen are being completely ridiculous. If they cannot accept that their attempts at colonisation resulted in the complete destruction of two civilisations then they are entirely short-sighted. After reading mere extracts of Henry Kamen's work on the subject i belive his opinion to be valid and well justified. It is about time that countries such as Spain face up to the fact that their ancestors may not have all been brave conquerers whose motives were simply the "greater glory of their country and monarchs" and i feel that attacks on truely objective historians are unreasonable and unnecessary. If Spain wishes to be taken seriously on the 'world stage' then it will first have to cease to teach it's children fairy tales in school. There are other ways to be patriotic other than twisting facts to make the past seem rosier than it in reality was.

Jorge Alonso Ruiz - 12/14/2004

Mr. Kamen has just (Dec 2004)published an article on Spanish foreign policy in Madrid newspaper "El Mundo". In itself it isn't even worth debating (hardly even reading) but as Mr. Kamen repeatedly states in it that "the only MUSLIM State interested in the present Spanish government's policies is ....MONGOLIA! " which anybody with the slightest knowledge of world affairs knows is a mainly lamaist- buddhist country (Buddhist Lamaist 50%, none 40%, Shamanist and Christian 6%, Muslim 4% (2004)) I bring it up as a beautiful illustration of the "thoroughness" of Mr. Kamen's theses, already patent in his former work on Spain.

Tom Brearley - 9/10/2004

It cannot be disputed that what happened under the Third Reich was the darkest period of the 20th Century (if not all of recorded history), but in what sense was the entire nation responsible/guilty? Did all of 'them' deserve to die as a result? Germany was a dictatorship, not a democracy. Did the thousands of children killed in the bombing 'deserve' to die? The thing is ridiculous.

An attrocity cannot be justified simply by saying "they started it" or "they did the same". The bombing of German civilians was misguided and immoral, and 'war crime' is not too strong a word. There were plenty of contemporaries who regarded the policy as highly questionable, not excluding many of the aircrew involved.

The Germans are right to question our double standards.

M. Racine - 7/19/2004

From all the medical reports on Richtofen's body, the bullet(1) entered from the lower right torso and exited through the upper left chest. The only person firing from the right side of the plane that day was Cedric Basset Popkin. Everybody else was to the left or upper left-(Brown). After his(Popkin) second burst the plane was seen to shudder (an unmistakable action pilots did when severely wounded) and turn and dive to the right. (Another reaction to the bullet entry by the pilot when pulling on the joystick with the right hand).

I live close to Roy Brown's hometown but I will put aside home pride and accept facts and logic.

Charles McCant - 7/19/2004

Since Bush knew about this, why did he get us involved in Iraq?

James R. Gunn - 7/19/2004

Some years ago I visited a major downtown Boston church and noted the following inscription in the sanctuary:

May God's great peace, good health, and joy forever fill your home; may you and your descendants know forever God's Shalom!

I thought it said Psalm 128 but that can't be. Could you set me straight and tell me which church carries that and where it comes from?

Thank you very much.

Jim Gunn
Ada, MI

David Curtis Frye - 7/19/2004

Would it be realistic for the Federal government to list the Confdereate Museum as a National Historic Landmark thereby protecting the building from demolition ? My wife and I visited there 2 yrs ago and found it to be a "hidden treasure"! My impression is that the American public is not aware of what the public has available to visit and appreciate. I feel national exposure such as documentaries and live broadcasts from the location by national TV would certainly be a positive move for everyone in the country and an example for the world as to how we got where we are today.

mll 2 1000 - 7/19/2004








nelson maccharles - 7/19/2004

well written, be able to view a transcript of the "executioners" writings would however anoint all to the expanse of consideration the "executioner" placed on his task and those he took out of this realm, we all at different places and times look to the last breath as the enevitable course and track we all run in as any rational human does if allotted the time and age to reach our last breath, could easily relieve some from their fears. thanks for the space to speak here.

Todd Holmes - 12/15/2003

I have been fascinated by Hitler, and whether or not he had syphilis or cerebral palsey, or some other neurologic condition would go a long way in explaining his unyielding and unbending inability to accept reality. Also, as it was pointed out in your article about Deborah Hayden's book, Pox, Hitler seems to spend an inordinate amount of space concerning syphilis, and its causes and treatments....Interestingly, Hitler devotes almost no verbage on the subject of cancer, which as most all already know, his mother died.


Todd Holmes - 12/15/2003

I have been fascinated by Hitler, and whether or not he had syphilis or cerebral palsey, or some other neurologic condition would go a long way in explaining his unyielding and unbending inability to accept reality. Also, as it was pointed out in your article about Deborah Hayden's book, Pox, Hitler seems to spend an inordinate amount of space concerning syphilis, and its causes and treatments....Interestingly, Hitler devotes almost no verbage on the subject of cancer, which as most all of already know, his mother died.


vincenzo de nardis - 11/19/2003

sir, I would like to get in touch with Anthony Beevor through an e-mail. thank you.

vincenzo de nardis - 11/19/2003


steve - 11/12/2003

Ben okafor - 11/10/2003

From Ben okafor
Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire
West africa
E-mail: (

Dear One,

It is my pleasure to introduce myself to your good
self. My name is Ben okafor , I am an orphan
(22 years old man). My late father(mr.Paul okafor) wasthe Managing Director of(COCKTAIL and ASSOCIATES COMPANY) a cocoa export company here in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire until his untimely death on the 2nd of October 2001 . He was poisioned by his business associates and was rushed to a nearby private hospital, he was there for three days before he died, while my mother died of cardiac arrest.

But before he died, he made me to understand that he
has some deposit in a suspense account in a bank here
in Abidjan.I am the only person left and also that
have the knowledge of this. He also made me the next
of kin when he deposited the money in the account.

This is the reason why I am contacting you. I am a 22
years old boy as I told you earlier. I just finished
my high school and I would like to go into
business with this heritage. I am contacting you so
that you can become my business partner by helping me
to transfer the money in any account you can
nominate in your country. After the successful
transfer of the money, I will then move together with
you to your country, where we shall invest the money
in a viable investment. The sum in question is nine
million, five hundred thousand US
dollar(US$9,500,000). I also hope to continue my
education in
your country from this amount as soon as the money and
myself gets to your

Immediately upon the successful transfer of this money
and my subsequent travel to your country, I will
compensate you with 15% of the total sum that
would be transferred for your kind assistance. You
will also serve as a guardian of the joint investment
we are going to operate together.

Please, I pray you to keep this email confidential for
security reasons.

I hope you will understand my plight. I am expecting
your kind response as soon as possible.

May God bless you mightily!!!

Yours sincerely,

Ben okafor .

andy - 11/5/2003,0,1741138.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

mj - 10/30/2003

Fate of Nazi Documents article

Has any additional information been published in reference to this case??

Marty Stevenson - 10/29/2003

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

France is the sort of ally you can always depend on to be right there when she needs you the most -Shannon Petan.

The key to Understanding France is simple, here is all you have to know:

1) France believes the U.N. must rule the world.

2) The French also, believe that Europe should control the U.N.

3) And the French firmly believe that France and only France alone can and should rule Europe.

To understand this principle is to understand completely France's foreign policy.

A Little Insight on French History

France is a country with a divided soul: on the one side, a record of humanistic Enlightenment philosophy and modern art unrivalled by any other nation; on the other side, a record of scandals such as the appeasement of the Nazis from the 1930s until the end of World War II.

It was only a few years ago that historians revealed the unfortunate fact that before D-Day the "French Resistance" was almost entirely made up of Jews, Spanish Republican refugees who had fled across the Pyrenees at the end of the Spanish civil war, North African Arabs, Armenians, and other "un-French" elements.

Elaine E. Henderson - 10/24/2003

Hello! Is it true that one million Americans died to rid the world of facism, and myself, like so many American children at the end of WWII were exposed to malnutrition and starvation, while the food went to Berlin to German children to grow up and hate the world for being alive and cooperating with terrorists against humanity and stealing everyone's money, and radiation and leftover germ warfare, but it's back now, and Germany thinks it can sit cozy and not owe the world the favor of even a reply? I think your leader is a bigger nut than Hitler, he's just another macho idiot! Please tell him I said so!

For not coming to the aid of an end to the madness of nuclear proliferation and an end to the use of oil as a fuel, etc.
he's worst than Hitler, but maybe, he didn't know when he took the job, that the world expected more of him. He's another BIG DISAPPOINTMENT like all my German relatives, hiding out and defrauding everyone, and thinking they can still "pull one over" on lessers!

Why do Germans think they are superior, when the superiors long ago left the nuts in Germany?

MISS ELaine Eure Henderson

This is deep.................LAM

Frederick Stechmann - 10/18/2003

I am in the process of reading "Berlin-The Downfall 1945" and I find you make some interesting if not totally untrue statements regarding the Werhmacht with like comparison to the Soviet Army.
There is no way the German General Staff army would have allowed, rape of women and children. German officers and enlisted men were shot when knowledge was brought forth of their rape of women and/or children. Rape within a structured authority such as the army would only bring about the break down of authority and descipline.

rene lopez - 10/4/2003

Very interesting. Edifiant.
I'm looking for a web site whre I can find statistics and markets forecast.
Can you help me.
Thanks René Lopez.

Ayman Samir Abdul Jaleel - 9/18/2003

Dear Katherine:
I found your comments quite interesting. I agree that the American Education system should develop the cultural awareness of the youths. Also, Saudi Arabia and many other dictorial regimes throughout the Muslim world oppress their populations and unforunately women and children. We must remember that many regimes that rule with iron fists throughout the "Third World" are suppported financially by the "West." Furthermore, your reference to the Qur'an as "Allah cursed Jews and Christians because they are polytheists, and turned them into pigs." This clearly is a mis-translation! The Qur'an urges all Muslims to treat Jews, Christians, and those of all peacefull religions with respect, for Allah truly sees and hears everything. Pertaining to the presentation of ideas through scholastic endeavours, multi-cultural education does not judge its merit in varying "standards," rather it absorbs the depth of the human experience through the boundaries of space and language. Thank you for eyes, may God bless you in all that you do!

MAC - 9/9/2003

Deibler was not the last "public" executioner in France.

His nephew (by marriage) Jules Henri Desforneaux peformed the last public execution in France in June 1939.

He, at his death, was followed by his cousin, Andre Obrecht in 1951. Obrecht retired due to old age in 1976 and was followed by his nephew (again by marriage) Marcel Chevalier.

This last incumbent was made redundant at the abolition of Capital Punishment in 1981, the last execution being in 1977.

Todd McCallum - 9/3/2003

The Palestinians' "suffering" comparable to the Holocaust? I didn't know that Palestinians were persecuted by Muslims and Christians for two-thousand years before they were finally herded up, starved, and then BEATEN into gas chambers by the millions ...

Gimme a freakin' break already!

Dr. Judah Ben-Hur - 8/28/2003

Gaiacomm: Open letter to the People of the United States of America!

It is quite apparent by the events that are unfolding worldwide that a more creative approach is required to “shock” the world into a state of awareness.
We can write essays, try to contact our senators, business leaders, all forms of public and private media to inform, shout on the streets, strap bombs to us and blow up people, fly planes into buildings, play cat and mouse with Terrorist leaders, murder innocent bystanders, lie to the public, hide secrets, and many other atrocities.

Fact: the Jews, (Hebrews) are not the chosen ones and neither is any other race of humans. Jews, (Hebrews) are recognized because they scream and bitch the loudest. What about the American Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Armenians, Gypsies, Russians, Polish, Germans, French, Irish, Africans and its tribes, Dutch, Swedish, Canadians, Pigmies, Mexicans, Spanish, Portuguese, in short all human nationalities of races and religions that inhabit this tiny planet. They all have equal rights as well, which includes male and female of all sexual genders and kinds on this planet.

Freedom is a gift from GOD to all creatures that inhabit this planet. It is the right of anyone who can recognize these facts that our collective freedoms have been systematically eliminated by groups of peoples that have only their self-serving interests at heart and it is our right to rid this planet completely of the atrocities that are being levied on all of us each day.

Fact: A movie star is only a star as long as you buy tickets to see that person. A music star and TV star are in the same category. They are nothing if we do not recognize them as such.

The power is with us not them, they do not care about you, and only the money you spend on them. Can you actually contact and tell your star how you feel, or are they untouchable?
Products in stores, cars on streets, all of the marketing hype that we see each day, even the so-called President of the United States is only as powerful and controlling as WE the People allow. We can only blame ourselves for our woes, because we allow these people to control us by our own selfish pleasures and desires that so many people take advantage.
If we collectively stopped, buying tickets to movies, CD’s, and all forms of media then these stars would fall from the skies and lay in the dirt with us all.

Oprah Winfrey is an idol created by us, not her; she is a simple overweight black woman who gains her freedom thru hard work and creative manipulative media control.

We purchase CD’s from 50 Cents, (crack dealer), and Marshall, (M&M) who hates his mother because we like the message and its ok to be BAD, or be fond of children like Michael Jackson, or even bake cookies with insider trader Martha Stewart.

We take these normal people and make them super gods and we wonder why we cannot have the same fortunes. Millions of dollars are being spent on these people each day while we lie in bed in our one bedroom rented apartment and dream.

Wake up America and the World, the true power of change is in each of us. True freedom is colorblind and accepts all who truly desire its warmth. It is not right for anyone on this planet to be hungry, to be without a place to stay, to have free education, to have a place in society to contribute thru work of some kind, to care for the sick and old without any regard to cost, to eliminate all counterproductive causes that inflict hardships on any human, and to support and carry out a Regime Change to any country that obstructs the freedoms of others to be an individual.

Rise up and be counted not by your leaders but by your peers within your group. Form a coalition of peoples that will standup to the Regimes that control us and replace them completely with one that is truly governed and managed by the people and for the people.

When we all stand up against the regime it will shout loud, but will soon get tired of its voice, then we take our trumpets and march in the streets and blow them until the walls of despair and control come crumbling down around us.

Fact: are Black people in America free? It took a black woman named Isabella to insight the Civil War in America, and by the way, it was a Dutch family that helped her to freedom.

Fact: It was a half black man who looked white named Farad who instigated and formed the Black Muslims of America, which eventually caused the death of Malcolm X, even some of the first black slave instigators for freedom lost their lives thru hanging snitched by their own to the white masters of their plot, the pitiful treatment of women of all kinds by men who are ignorant of their ignorance thru all time, when in fact women are responsible to keep the balance on this planet and need to be recognized that they are equally human too!

America, wake up and smell the coffee, you have lost your freedoms thru manipulative media control and thru impassive reasoning. Your rights have been shifted to the wealthy by signing over your paycheck thru illegal taxation. Your very existence in America is based on collective reasoning and collective representation.

America’s stars are each of us that support this empire thru our hard work. The empire that surrounds us like a succubus slowly sucks away our life force thru persuasive slave master relationships.

America stand up, be counted, and do not allow your fear to win. The controllers control thru our ignorance and fear.

Replace the US government with one that is for the people, all people of any race or creed. Control business thru the withholding of revenue by selective spending.

Do you realize that we outnumber the wolves and can corner the wolves and either banish them or reprogram them for our desire?

Now ask yourself this, are you truly free?

America is the wealthiest nation on earth and cannot even feed, house, educate, employ or reform its people. Look around the streets and see the faces of the homeless. How can America go into other countries and demand submission when we are not in control!

We all sit back and let the “other” handle it, we are afraid of not being able to watch TV or get gas for our SUV, or buy the new dress or something we desire to have to ad to our overwhelming collection of “things”, or we are just trying to find a job, or a place to live for the night, or try to eat for the day. But we say, “oh this can not happen to me”, well I am sure that same thought was in the minds of the people when they were burning alive in the world trade center in New York, or the soldiers in Iraq when they were shot to death, or the homeless person who died alone on the streets, or the people on the bus in Israel when they were blown apart by a suicide bomber, or a lonely old person who died alone in a care center somewhere in America, or someone somewhere on this planet that was murdered, raped, eaten alive by a wild animal, chopped in pieces by a machete by some rival tribe, or some unexpected death or demise.

In America we think that excess is normal! Well let’s see, American soldiers are still being murdered in Iraq and other countries everyday, and we accept that. Israel can get away with murder and bitch to the USA for help. What about that poor American female that was ran over by a tank twice? Did we invade Israel and change its regime?

America, are you that passive that I can come into your house and steal anything I want, oh that is not fair, oh you will call the police because I interrupted your favorite TV show!

A civil war in America is brewing once again except this time you will be involved and not sit on the sidelines and eat hotdogs and be entertained.
Civil unrest and ignorance has caused this new civil war to take form.

Ask yourself, are you willing to die for freedom or would you prefer your neighbor so you can enjoy the comforts of freedom from your neighbors life? Let the other person take the risk as long as my “Americas Idol” program is not interrupted and I can go to work safely each day in my new SUV and not be distracted.

America you have been put on notice!

Dr. Judah Ben-Hur

Ephraim Schulman - 8/22/2003

August 22, 2003
No mention whatsoever of Spain, really amazing. Does Hitchen tell us about Orwell's attempt to overthrow the legally elected and democratic government of Spain, just like Franco in company with Hitler and Mussolini.
Ephraim Schulman

ephraim Schulman - 8/22/2003

August 22, 2003
I love it, remember the Gulag. I am not going to discuss the despicable actions of the "democracies" from World War I on , but will some one give me an explanation as to how it was that it was Stalin's Bolshevik, Communist Atheistic, Soviet, Red Army that played by far, the decisive role that defeated the scourge of civilization and it was Stalin's army that marched into Berlin.
Ephraim Schulman

Dave Thomas - 8/22/2003

Guess history didn't repeat itself. I wonder when "political scientists" disguising themselves as historians will claim that Reagan's zero option and the deployment of Pershing II's missles didn't begin the end of the Cold War.

Alan Ardy - 8/21/2003

Where can I get the book in English?


Alan Ardy - 8/21/2003

Where can I get the book in English?


Mary (history student) - 8/17/2003

All lives lost in wars are regrettable, obviously.

I find the idea of Germans considering themselves victims to be ludicrous in the extreme. Between 50 and 60 million deaths occurred in WWII as a result of German aggression.

The losses in the Soviet Union alone, which western historians have a tendency to play down, are incomprehensible.

There is no doubt that Germans suffered greatly in the allied bombing campaign. They were given a measure of what they had inflicted on others. Their war crimes were abominable, and are the darkest period of the 20th century.

Alan Bock - 6/24/2003

Gus: There was a Part II. Here it is. -- Alan Bock
The rise of Saddam

Jan. 19, 2003
By Alan W. Bock
The Orange County Register

Part I: Last week we summarized Iraqi history from the Sumerian and Babylonian days through Baghdad's days as a Muslim capital, then the domination from the 1500s to 1918 by the Turkish-based Ottoman Empire. After World War I the Europeans carved up the "near east," with Britain getting the mandate to run Iraq and determine the borders. The country became independent in 1932 with a Hashemite monarch, Faisal I on the throne. His chief minister, Nuri as-Said, was the dominant figure into the 1950s, becoming increasingly autocratic. In 1958 a coup led to the assassination of Faisal II. Problems and divisions - Sunni-Shia Muslims, Arabs-Kurds - remained. In 1963 the socialist, secularist Ba'ath party took power but was displaced. It finally took effective power in 1968.


The Ba'ath party of 1968 was better organized and more experienced than in 1963. In addition, its ruling clique was dominated by Sunni Arabs from the northwest town of Tikrit, many related to one another, so there were tribal and familial ties. The main leader, Ahmad Hasan al Bakr, was from Tikrit, as were two more of the five-member Revolutionary Command Council. A key behind-the-scenes operative, Saddam Hussein (some spell it Husayn), was also a Tikriti and a relative of Bakr.

An attempted countercoup by conservative military elements gave Bakr and Saddam Hussein the rationale for widespread purges that consolidated their power, essentially eliminating any effective opponent of Ba'athist rule. By 1969 Saddam was the real power, though Bakr held the office of president. In 1973 Iraq, seeking to develop a deepwater port on the gulf to make the oil trade less subject to pipeline interruption, sought to lease the Kuwaiti islands of Bubuyan and Warbah and made some aggressive moves, but Saudi intimidation forced it to back off.

Saddam sought to neutralize Kurdish insurgency through agreements with Iran that denied Kurdish rebels a safe haven in Iran.

He also took advantage of the 1973 jump in oil prices to sponsor industrial modernization that made increasing numbers of Iraqis dependent on government projects for jobs, and thus more loyal. He also sought to increase his leadership role in the Arab world, seeing the isolation of Egypt after concluding peace with Israel in 1978 as an opportunity.

In the late 1970s, Bakr was beset with illness and family problems, and in 1979 he resigned. Saddam, who had been running things anyway, was named president, secretary general of the Ba'ath Party and commander in chief of the armed forces.


The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 drastically altered Saddam Hussein's plans and ambitions. He had exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, who had lived in Iraq for 13 years, in 1978, reportedly at the behest of the shah. He feared that the emergence of a Shia Islamic Republic in Iran (the shah's regime had been nominally secular) would exacerbate Sunni-Shia hostilities in Iraq.

But Saddam also saw a potentially weakened Iran as an opportunity to regain control over the Shatt al Arab waterway (the traditional and traditionally disputed boundary between the Persian and Arab realms) and access to the gulf.

Hostilities between the two countries didn't emerge immediately. But in spring of 1980 the Iranian-supported Ad Dawah tried to assassinate Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, and was suspected of trying to assassinate another government minister. Saddam rounded up and deported thousands of Iranian-born Shias and ordered the execution of the Ad Dawah leader and his sister. Border skirmishes erupted in September 1980. A few weeks later Saddam abrogated a 1975 Iran-Iraq treaty and announced that the Shatt al Arab waterway was returning to Iraqi sovereignty. Iran rejected this action and hostilities escalated. On Sept. 23, Iraqi troops marched into Iranian territory.

The United States was at first a bystander in the Iran-Iraq war, even though its sensibilities and concerns had been heightened by the Iranian embassy hostage crisis of 1979-1981.

By the summer of 1982, however, the conflict was going badly for Iraq and U.S. officials feared an Iranian victory would destabilize the gulf countries and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps lead to Islamic fundamentalist takeovers in other countries.

Donald Rumsfeld, then a private citizen, was commissioned as a special envoy to the Middle East, with his main mission supplying help for Iraq.

So despite a flurry of reports that Iraq was using chemical weapons on the battlefield, the United States took Iraq off the official list of terrorism-sponsoring countries and began backing Iraq. It provided military intelligence and advice, supplied credits (billions of dollars worth, according to a court affidavit) and facilitated weapons sales through third countries.

Iraq thus received cluster bombs, chemical precursors and steel tubes that can have both military and civilian uses. Biological agents, including several strains of anthrax and insecticides that were suspected of being used for chemical warfare, were sent under Commerce Department licenses, according to a recent Washington Post article based on access to original documents.

The U.S. government was outraged by reports in late 1987 and 1988 that the Iraqis were using chemical agents as part of a scorched-earth strategy against Kurdish rebels who sided with Iran - but not enough to disrupt relations with Saddam. The flow of U.S. military intelligence to Saddam actually increased in 1988.

The Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate in August 1988. Despite awareness of atrocities against the Kurds, the U.S. policy of cultivating Saddam continued right up to the point when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.


Iraq's invasion of Kuwait prompted U.S. officials, apparently concerned about the possibility of a subsequent threat to Saudi Arabia, to liken Saddam Hussein to Hitler and assemble an international coalition to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The allies began military action on Jan. 17, 1991, and it was over in weeks. Some 175,000 Iraqis were taken prisoner and different sources estimate Iraqi deaths (mostly military, some civilian) at 85,000 to 100,000.

Much of the military infrastructure was destroyed, but then-President Bush decided against pushing on to Baghdad. A cease-fire was declared March 3.

The uprising against Saddam many U.S. officials expected was quickly suppressed. International economic sanctions were imposed and U.N. weapon inspectors were deployed. "No-fly" zones were declared in northern and southern Iraq, enforced by U.S. and British warplanes.

In 1998 the weapons inspectors were withdrawn as a preliminary to a December U.S.-British bombing campaign whose results are difficult to quantify, though it did neutralize or destroy some Iraqi anti-aircraft capability.

Now it seems as if a war is inevitable - or maybe not.

For background I talked with Robert Rabil, head of the Iraq Research and Documentation Project at the Iraq Foundation in Washington, where he supervises the study of more than 3 million recent Iraqi and Kuwaiti governmental records and other historical documents.

He had an interesting piece on the History News Network ( on the Iraqi opposition, which, he wrote, despite "its history of perennial infighting ... has made strides toward common unity based on deposing Saddam. But its capacity to foster and pursue democratic principles has yet to be proven."

As a historian, Dr. Rabil told me, "if we're [the U.S.] going there, we'll have to stay a considerable time to show the Arab and Muslim world we're not there just for the oil."

But there's a paradox. The longer the United States stays, the more dangerous it will become for the United States. Occupation forces typically become a focus of resentment, and sometimes attacks or sabotage, eventually. And the longer the attack takes to succeed, the harder it will be for the United States to keep allies supportive and maybe even to succeed militarily.

Rabil's study of documents leads him to believe the regime's power is based almost solely on the security forces, including the Republican Guard. The regular army has as many as 350,000 troops and 2,700 tanks, but most authorities expect it to be ineffective. The RG, special and security forces - many Tikriti and part of Saddam's larger kinship group - are said to be loyal to Saddam and might number as many as 150,000. Saddam will no doubt locate these fighters among innocent people to make it morally difficult for the United States forces to take them out with bombs. How long and how fiercely they will fight is almost impossible to predict.

There. Ready for war?

Bock is a senior editorial writer. Contact him at

Join the Discussion

War and Liberty
State & local budget
The Middle East
Mike Shelton
Alan Bock
Steven Greenhut
John Seiler
Tibor Machan
Essays on Liberty
Readers' cartoons
Letters archive
Critical issues 03
Submission guide
Who we are

Copyright 2003 The Orange County Register | Privacy policy | User agreement
Freedom Communications, Inc.

Maryann - 6/24/2003

This is all just so fascinating. I thought that you would be able to direct me to a source where I can get more detailed information regarding a 4th Century BC manuscript found in Tibet by the Chinese, along with Sanskrit documents. The manuscript is said to contain instructions on the building of an intra-stellar vehicle, instructions on invisibility and making the body weigh as heavy as a mountain. Thanks. ...Where are these disclosed officially?!!

Deborah Council - 6/19/2003

I am finally glad to see so much about the Tulsa race riot which happened in 1921 on Black Wall Street. I heard about this riot more than 20 years ago, and try as I may, I found little and more-so like next to nothing about it. There was so much violence done to us because of the color of our skin (this is AMERICA'S DIRTY LITTLE SECRET) but through it all WE SURVIVED!!!!

America tried to hide it but as my grandmother always reminded us "if it don't come out in the wash, it will in the rinse"

Amalie Termannsen - 6/19/2003

I am currently doing an assignment on Anne Frank, which has been a very interesting study for me.I therefor thank you for this article which has beena lot of use to me.
It pains me to think about it, and it is a shame Anne Frank did die. I would have liked to have met her.

So thank you again,

Markian Pelech - 6/10/2003

There is a double ratuional for revoking Duranty's Prize.
He was an apologist for the Bolsheviks and Stalin from 1921 till 1940 - not out of political convictions but out of opportunism. This has nothing to do with revoling his Prize for "Political opinions."
His Prize-winning articles in 1931 were more of the same with the intent to contradict anti-Sioviet reports and to promote recogniztion of the Soviet Union by the U.S. Duranty is seen as playing a large role in persuading FDR to recognize the USSR.
By 1932 Duranty had violated all the ethical standards of Western journalism. In 1933 he added the denial of the famine to his resume and was instrumental in hiding it from the West. Note that in 1933 Time magazine largely followed the Times in its reporting of the Soviet Union. Time therefore disseminated Duranty's denial of the famine throughout the United States.
This is not a matter of 'punishing' political opinion - Duranty had none.

joreen - 6/4/2003

What name do we give the massacre of jews during World War 2? What do you remember about this?

joreen - 6/4/2003

What name do we give the massacre of jews during World War 2? What do you remember about this?

Patricia Langhurst - 5/28/2003

The truth about the inhumanity of our forefathers, about slavery, and the contribution that African slaves made with their suffering and lives to the success, and wealth of our country, cannot be found in American history books. Every American owes a debt to the shameful, human sacrifice of an entire race of people that we can only begin to repay by reporting the truth of the American history of slavery.

Karen Moreau Bond - 5/22/2003

Looking for Patricia Porter of Decatur, Alabama.
Are you her?

Karen Moreau (Morris) Bond

Thomas D. Broadwater, Sr. - 5/19/2003

We are in the process of developing an idea for a monument to the victims of lynching. We would like to have your input into the process of the design, with the theme of, STRANGE FRUIT. We belive it was the violence that the law permitted during slavery that encourage the lynching of African Americans.


Pianke Nubiyang - 5/19/2003

The celebraton of the Haitian Revolution and the elimination and defeat of the French, Spanish and British oppressors from Haiti ALSO NEEDS TO BE CELEBRATED.

Yet the paradox of history is that while Blacks in Haiti defeated the French and turned Santo Domingo/Haiti into a free Black republic, Napoleon sold the Black Waschitaw's lands in what was the Louisiana Territories to the U.S. 800,000 to one million square miles of land was sold at three cents an acre.

The Black Washitaw Nation of Moundbuilders were driven off their lands and enslaved, while all their lands were "sold." (Read more on this issue from the facinating book, "A History of the African-Olmecs," pub. by 1stbooks Library, 2595 Vernal Pike, Bloomington, Indiana 47404 U.S.A.

Along with the Washitaw, the Black Jamassee of Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and the Northern Florida region who had an important pre-Columbian kingdom in the Eastern U.S., fell victim to Spanish, British and Anglo-American enslavement. Their lands were taken and they were enslaved. Hence, millions of Blacks from California to Florida are descended from Blacks/Africans who were in North America before Columbus and owned lands from California to Florida.

Sad to say, slavery's objective was to destroyi the historical memory of Blacks, that is why Blacks caught reading were brutally attacked, had tongues cut out, and were the victims of the most horrific barbarity. Yet, some survived and told their children the facts. In fact, the grandmother of one lady from Monroe, Louisiana who was a slave knew quite well that Blacks owned parts of the Louisiana Territories since ancient times and that both the French and Spanish recognized an independant Black Washitaw Nation before the Westward Expansion and the selling of Black lands in the Louisiana Territories.


Pianke Nubiyang

DAVE PARKER - 5/18/2003

looking for reference to the emerald room,stolen during ww 2?
any help will be appericated

Tammy Duncanson - 5/16/2003

I'm sorry this does not address article, but I was wondering if you may know of any flag historians I may contact. I am doing research for a friend who has a flag heirloom which has been in her family for generations. The flag is quite impressive and her 11 year old daughter would like to do a school report on it, but I have been unsuccessful at finding any other flags of the same design to date it. My friend thinks it dates back to the Civil War but after looking at numerous Internet sites I think it could possibly date back to the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately I have been unable to find any 13 star flags like it on the Internet. I would greatly appreciate finding any resource that may help me.

Thank You Very Much,
Tammy Duncanson

Benjamin Treuhaft - 5/16/2003

fuck you. What a bunch of sissies.

dasdasda - 5/13/2003


Leo Beilin - 5/1/2003

Notice 2 things:

1.) US is "barbaric" for capital punishment but nowhere does the petition mention the 3 Cubans executed only 3 days after they were caught.When Castro executes someone,they consider it mere political re-education?
2.) This is a petition to protest Cuba's treatment of dissidents,right? I haven't done a word count but it seems like 90% of the petition's text is about the USA & how evil it is. They're less concerned about the dissidents then they are about venting their hate of their own country that considers it the inalienable right of every citizen to circulate petition,no matter what the underlying agenda.
My suggestion to these people--go to Havana and march with placards & set up booths to get additional signatures. To merely do this in the US is preaching to the choir. Do it someplace where it takes real guts.

Richard Dyke - 4/30/2003

I can understand the reasons for this emotionally charged issue, but the Pulitzer Prize Committee would be ill-advised to withdraw a Pulitzer Prize on the basis of a person's political beliefs. ANYTIME that a person becomes committed to a way of thinking, deception (if only self-deception) enters into the equation. If Mr. Duranty was indeed a liar and is guilty of attacking fellow journalists who spoke the truth, that hardly makes him a person to be proud of. But unless his prize was connected to his specific journalistic activities on the Great Famine and was obtained by fraud and deception, there is no basis of withdrawing the prize.

I have always been skeptical of prize-giving, because it highlights the few at the expense of the many with the same talents. Further, as the Bible says, "There is none righteous; no, not one." We would probably be hard-pressed to find saints among awarded Pulitzer Prizes, or any other prize.

NYGuyi - 4/30/2003

Can't believe HNN printed this article after the facts on the Baghdad museum have come out. For one who claims to be an expert Watenpaugh doesn't have a clue to what happened. This topic has been discussed for the past two weeks on HNN and the knowledgeable ones know that the military was deliberately mislead by the academics to enable the thugs who have been active for over 20 years to do their job. This is big business and the end of the war was payoff time for those in the know.

The antique experts said they learned from the first Gulf War and told the military not to warry they had a plan for the museum. Meanwhile the military was mislead by focusing on over 4000 detailed sites provided the experts. As a result the experts had a free hand to give out the keys to the museum and show their friends the looters where the valuable items were, and point out the real thing vs. the imitations. Since they had mislead the military there was no fear of being stopped.

The final part of the plan was to blame the military so the real thugs could get away. Antiques are a big business just like the oil industry. Many in the know profited handsomely from this deception of the U. S. military.

Josh Greenland - 4/30/2003

Yes, do look at the website of the organization for which Dr. Luciuk is research director:

Its main reason for existing is to blunt criticism of and consequences for Canadian Ukrainian immigrants accused of being Nazi-collaborating war criminals. It came into existing in 1984 "to meet the defamatory accusations that "Ukrainian war criminals" were being harboured in Canada."

Since some Ukrainians DID collaborate with the Nazis in WWII, I don't see how a well-founded accusation against one individual can be considered defamation against a whole nationality. It looks to me like the UCCLA is trying to protect Canadian Ukrainian Nazi war criminals.

Editor - 4/29/2003

From: Dr Lubomyr Luciuk is director of research for the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association (see and author of Searching For Place: Ukrainian Displaced Persons, Canada, and the Migration of Memory (University of Toronto Press, 2000). The Pulitzer Prize Committee can be reached at pulitzer@

26 April 2003

The Pulitzer Prizes
Columbia University, 709 Journalism Building
2950 Broadway
New York, NY
USA 10027

Dear Pulitzer Prize Committee:

In just a few days from today’s date, on May Day 2003, thousands of people from around the world will begin mailing postcards to your attention, petitioning for the posthumous revocation of the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for Correspondence awarded to Walter Duranty of The New York Times.

As I am sure you know, Duranty was an apologist for the Soviet regime. He betrayed the most fundamental principle of journalism, which is reporting truthfully on what is witnessed. Before, during and after the politically engineered Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Ukraine he willingly served as a shill for the Soviets, simultaneously smearing the reputations of those who dared tell the truth. Duranty, quite simply, helped cover up what I call genocide. If my use of that term troubles you, feel free to refer to the Great Famine as a communist crime against humanity or even just mass murder. However one defines the famine and no matter how many millions were deliberately starved to death (that millions perished is something no serious scholar disputes), the fact remains that Duranty knew that a man-made famine was devastating Ukraine and adjacent lands and that he went out of his way to cover it up, so securing perks for himself.

Perhaps those who awarded Duranty the 1932 Pulitzer Prize did not know of Duranty’s duplicity. We now do. To try and dodge this issue by suggesting that his prize was given for what he wrote before the Great Famine is a sophistry, for Duranty was already serving Soviet interests by 1931, and would continue doing so for many years thereafter. That he may have been a clever crafter of words is irrelevant. Duranty prostituted his calling for personal gain and, as such, his continuing grasp on a Pulitzer Prize soils all Pulitzer Prizes.

We ask you to revoke Walter Duranty’s 1932 Pulitzer Prize for, as Malcolm Muggeridge famously observed, Duranty was “the greatest liar of any journalist I have ever met.”

Please let me know the results of the Committee’s review of this matter.

Yours truly,

Lubomyr Luciuk, PhD


Clever in crafting words, a bon vivant, ever-engaging as a dinner companion, he was much in demand in certain circles. He satiated other needs as a novice necromancer, pervert and drunkard. His name was Walter Duranty, The New York Times's man in Moscow in the early 1930s. For supposedly objective reporting about conditions there, Duranty was distinguished with the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for Correspondence. What he was really was Stalin's apologist, a libertine prepared to prostitute accuracy for access, ever-ready to write whatever was necessary to secure him in his various cravings.

Much of this was known at the time, hence the deprecating references to him as "Walter Obscuranty." More tellingly, Malcolm Muggeridge, a contemporary, said that Duranty was "the greatest liar of any journalist I have ever met." Despite being one of the few eyewitnesses to the politically engineered Great Famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Ukraine, Duranty nevertheless spun stories for The New York Times dismissing all accounts of that horror as nothing more than bunk or malicious anti-Soviet propaganda.

He knew otherwise. On 26 September 1933, at the British Embassy in Moscow, Duranty privately confided to William Strang that as many as 10 million people had died directly or indirectly of famine conditions in the USSR during the past year. Meanwhile, publicly, Duranty orchestrated a vicious ostracizing of those journalists who risked much by reporting on the brutalities of forced collectivization and the ensuing demographic catastrophe, Muggeridge among them. Even as the fertile Ukraine, once the breadbasket of Europe, became a modern-day Golgotha, a place of skulls, Duranty plowed the truth under. Occasionally pressed on the human costs of the Soviet experiment he did, however, evolve a dismissive dodge, canting "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." Not his eggs, of course.

To hallow the memory of the many millions of victims of this Communist crime against humanity, good men and women are, on this very day, May Day 2003, calling for the posthumous revocation of Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize. From around the world tens of thousands of postcards are being mailed to the Pulitzer Prize Committee in New York, recalling the 70th anniversary of the Terror-Famine, underscoring Duranty's perfidiousness and how his duplicitous reports, as published in The New York Times, helped cover up one of the greatest acts of genocide in 20th century Europe.

There are, I'm told, sophists who shall reply that Duranty's Prize was awarded for what he wrote before he bore false witness about this man-made famine. Those willing to be so indulgent with Duranty seem oddly comfortable with ignoring how he betrayed that most fundamental principle of journalism, the obligation of reporting truthfully on what is observed. However good a scribbler Duranty may have been, the man was a teller of lies, not a reporter of reality. He willingly served as a shill for the Soviets, as millions died. By one calculation the death rate during the Great Famine reached 25,000 souls per day. My home town of Kingston would, at that rate, have been emptied of all life in under a week.

The men and women whose principled labours have earned them the honour and distinction of a Pulitzer Prize should be revolted at knowing that within their ranks there remains a blackguard who, Janus-like, turned a blind eye to one of history's greatest atrocities while casting the other about in wrath against any journalists who reported that truth. Quite simply put, Duranty's continuing grasp on a Pulitzer Prize soils all Pulitzer Prizes.



Editor - 4/29/2003

Cross-Posting H-Diplo

April 21, 2003

From: Keith Watenpaugh <>

H-Levant List et al.:

Like all of you I have found myself at a loss for words at the destruction of Iraq's cultural heritage, especially the libraries.

And while international resources will be mobilized to aid Iraq in the recovery of its pre-Islamic past, I fear that less effort will be brought to bear on behalf of its Islamic Art or its Ottoman and post-Colonial collections.

What is needed, and what the H-Levant community and other H-Net groups can do is begin to think about aiding the Iraqi libraries in the process of rebuilding.

The best model for this project is the Herculean and heroic efforts of Jeff Spurr and Andras Riedlmayer at Harvard. Through the late 1990s they worked to help begin to rebuild the Sarajevo Library which had been deliberately burned in the course of the Balkan war.

Employing a two-step process, Spurr and Riedlmayer identified microform copies of manuscripts known to be from the library in Sarajevo held by private individuals or in public collections, made copies and sent them to Bosnia. They also encouraged presses to forward to the library books from their backlists.

I am certain that many of us have similar microforms and our libraries may also be able to participate. We need to begin to find these.

For example, I have copies of the first year of al-Arab, the first post-Ottoman newspaper published in Iraq, from ironically, the National Library in Aleppo. I am certain that many of you also have Ottoman documents relevant to Iraq from the Bashbakanlik or other central Ottoman sources.

I would also encourage those of you who buy used books abroad be cognizant of the possible Iraqi provenance of the books and consider purchasing them in the hopes of returning them to Iraq.

Those of you interested in exploring how we can help in this process, please let me know and I will begin to collect names and hopefully find a - especially people in library sciences - possible institutional body/affil iate who could help.

In the space of the past few days, the National Museum, the House of Wisdom where the National Library, the National Archives and the rare manuscript collection are housed, were obliterated by looters in Baghdad.

As a historian of the Ottoman Empire I am truly shocked and awed at this kind of national mnemocide that has taken place under the US guns. The National Museum was looted of an estimated 50,000 irreplaceable artifacts dating back thousands of years; the National library and the National archives torched and hundreds of thousands of documents burnt in a frenzy of looting. Most devastating in all of this is the realization that all it took for the Americans to stop the plunder was to place one tank at the front entrance and a platoon of soldiers around each building. Even after pleas by a journalist to stop the on-going carnage, US military command in Baghdad refused to act. This erasure of Iraqi, Arab and world heritage is on a scale of a destruction of La Bibliothèque Nationale and the Louvre in a single day. What happened in Baghdad over the weekend is cultural genocide and responsibility for it must lie with the US. The failure to protect an occupied country's national heritage is a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

A colleague, a professor of Middle East history, at the university of Michigan, has written the following on the matter:

"The US forces were perfectly capable of guarding the *Oil Ministry* buildings, just by stationing a tank outside them. At one point for two hours looting of the Museum was deterred in a similar manner, but then the tank was inexplicably called back. It was not that the US military could not have performed this task because of continued insecurity. Some sort of decision was taken about what was important and what was not.

I personally cannot escape the conclusion that this monumental tragedy for Iraq's national history was the result of Rumsfeld's willful ignoring of All the warnings received and the unilateralism with which the Anglo-American forces proceeded. I put most of the blame on the civilians at the head of the Department of Defense.

I do not think any American can fully understand the emotional shock of it. Not only are thousands of antiquities gone, but so too are all the manuscripts and archival documents on which early modern and modern Iraqi history writing could have been based. Nor do I think the Iraqi intellectual class will soon forget or forgive this travesty.

I suspect for the US to allow the looting of Iraq's archeological and manuscript heritage was in fact a contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The US was the occupying power when the looting occurred, even if there were pockets of resistance (none to my knowledge have been alleged at the Museum site). It is certainly is a contravention of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict ( ). In short, we can say of the complete loss of Iraqi national history: It was foreseen; it was preventable; it was horribly stupid and tragic; it will have long-term negative effects on the Iraqi perception of the US role; and it contravened international law."

That having been said, what actually went on inside the National library? In a recent eye-witness account of the destruction of these world heritage sites in the Independent (, Robert Fisk has asked the question why? Why were these institutions of learning a national memory targeted and looted in such a systematic way?

The museum artifacts will be of immense value in the shadowy world of art dealers and museum agents. Indeed, a colleague at the Royal Ontario Museum here in Toronto has told me that the first artifact from Baghdad's national museum has already been sighted at a Paris auction on Monday!

The American Council for Cultural Policy (ACCP) reportedly contacted the Pentagon and the state department in Washington prior to the start of the invasion of Iraq. This in turn has alarmed academics to who have followed this group's lobbying to facilitate the import of Iraqi and other Near Eastern antiquities into the United States since its inception in 2001. Liam McDougall of the Sunday Herald has researched the membership of ACCP. It counts among its members collectors and lawyers linked to collections and exhibitions of Nazi loot. The president of the Archaeological Institute of American (AIA), Patty Gerstenblith has commented: "The ACCP's agenda is to encourage the collecting of antiquities through weakening the laws of archaeology-rich nations and eliminate national ownership of antiquities to allow for easier export."

The lootings so far do not point into the direction of this group. However, it is improbably that the looting of the museum was the work of an ignorant mob. Apparently, computer indexes of the museum's inventory were deleted during the looting. Now this is not the work of an irate mob but suggests that a plan was underlying the crime. Without an index, it will be impossible to trace the origins of artifacts as they appear at auctions and in private collections. Moreover, the high-security building's vaults were opened not by explosions but from what we hear by a key. Again, I have a strong suspicion that the network of wealthy art dealers has made contacts in Baghdad long before the city was evacuated by the Iraqi army and its leaders.

But why the burning of Ottoman documents, worthless to art collectors and antiquity dealers? Why destroy the raw material of Iraq's social history? Why burn sixteenth-century correspondences between the Baghdad governors with the Sublime Porte in Istanbul, eighteenth-century taxation statistics and nineteenth-century Arabic newspapers? Only years of Ottoman language training and historical research would be able to bring the vitality of five hundred year of history. This week, half a millennium of world history has been willfully destroyed! Says Charles Tripp from the School of African Oriental Studies in London:

"This is really a terrible thing for Iraq," he said. "One of the problems has been establishing an identity, a place in history and in the future. If you lose those documents you are subject to remolding of history which will be extremely dangerous."

How did the Pentagon react to the first questions regarding the mnemocide in Iraq? Characteristically, Secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, dismissed the possibility of a military error of judgment: Today's issue of the New York Times quotes him as saying: "To try to pass off the fact of that unfortunate activity to a deficit in the war plan strikes me as a stretch." Yet, while the Pentagon did head the urgent pleas of archaeologists to include these buildings in their off-target list, the US government insisted that it gave no directives to protect the buildings in question and that "We leave such decisions to commanders on the scene."

For more information see two articles in the New York Times:

Editor - 4/29/2003

A few years ago a non-fiction best seller for several weeks on the NYTimes list was Lynn H. Nicholas, "The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe's Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War." (Random House, 1994). In essence what Nicholas did was trace the history of MFAA (Monuments, Fine Arts & Archives), from its origins in a set of informal committees and commissions Franklin Roosevelt personally established in 1937, through to the completion of its work in 1951.

There are many points of contrast and comparison with the lack of effective planning and execution we have just witnessed in the case of Iraq. FDR's personal introduction to the vast issues probably began with his visit to the Museum of Modern Art for the dedication of the new building in 1937, at which time he was briefed on the "degenerate art" issue, and the debate over whether American Collectors should "save" work being stripped from German Museums for racial or ideological reasons, if the purchase price went into the Nazi coffers. Shortly thereafter FDR put together one of his famous committee-commissions with an elastic purpose to consider arts and monument questions. He recruited the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Harlan Stone, to chair it, he filled the commission with quite junior art historians and wealthy donors such as Paul Mellon, and in 1940 he appointed George Marshall as a member. In 1939 he sent members to Paris and London to learn the basic of wartime security, preservation and particularly advanced planning. After June of 1940 FDR sent personal representatives into Vichy to gather intelligence not only on German Looting, but locations where French and Dutch collections were secreted. When word came that the Dutch Rembrants were getting mold in the dunes, he called for a sample to be sent to curators, and caused a cleaner to be sent underground to the Dutch. To put it mildly, FDR took a very personal interest in all aspects of the issues, even though his personal taste in art went fairly exclusively to the subject of sailing ships.

When the draft was established, Roosevelt ordered Marshall to organize within the Army a unit to work in theatre with MFAA. When Stone resigned, he appointed Associate Justice Roberts to head the commission. Eventually the commission became part of the Department of State -- but with the operational teams being mostly military personnel. Lincoln Kirstein, head of MOMA served for the duration as a private in the unit. After Torch virtually every division going into combat had an MFAA team. During combat preperation officers and non-commissioned officers were briefed on Monuments, and all intelligence as to what might need to be secured and protected. Some commanders resented the MFAA teams, and tried to ignore them, others such as Patton never went anywhere without his "monument men." But since a number of "monument men" had direct access to FDR, and through him to General Marshall -- the expectations if not the chain of command were quite clear.

Without question things were lost and destroyed due to Military Action -- and it took the MFAA men six years after the war to sort out and repatriate everything Germany looted, subsequently found in the British and American zones. But the estimate is that about 92% of what survived was returned to the public institutions, churches, and national collections. Assignment of items such as Torah and Jewish Book collections that had no survivors to claim them, were made to British and American congregations, and to Israel. In 1951 what remained unclaimed was turned over to West Germany for assignment.

The comparison between recent events and what FDR organized could not be more stark. During WW2 the experts committed to preservation and repatriation were in Uniform, and linked to mid-level military combat command. Their sponsor was the President, the Chief Justice and the head of the Joint Chiefs. They were both State Department and War Department. They had full use of OSS for intelligence, and they used it to advise the 8th Airforce on bombing targets. It was not, by any means a perfect program -- but compared to what happened in Baghdad two weeks ago, it certainly was not a "things happen" outfit.

Sally L. Todd Minneapolis

ABOUT - 4/29/2003


Therese - 4/28/2003

Sounds like I would need to read and reseach a bit more to agree with these findings.

Editor - 4/28/2003

Dear Friend,

We are writing to invite you to sign the Campaign for Peace and Democracy's new statement "Anti-War, Social Justice and Human Rights Advocates Oppose Repression in Cuba." The initial signers include Michael Albert, Eileen Boris, Noam Chomsky, Joshua Cohen, Manuela Dobos, Ariel Dorfman, Barbara Ehrenreich, Janeane Garofalo, Barbara Garson, Adam Hochschild, Doug Ireland, Naomi Klein, Jesse Lemisch, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Nelson Lichtenstein, Grace Paley, Katha Pollitt, Stephen Shalom, Adam Shatz, Naomi Weisstein, Cornel West, Reginald Wilson, and Howard Zinn. We are sending this message to everyone who signed our earlier statement "We Oppose Both Saddam Hussein and the U.S. War on Iraq: A call for a new, democratic U.S. foreign policy," and to others. We believe that this statement reflects the same commitment to peace and democratic rights as the first one.

If you would like to sign, go to the CPD website at If you have difficulty accessing the website, reply to this email and let us know. Also, please forward this message to your colleagues and friends, and to listserves with people who might be interested in signing. Sincerely, Joanne Landy, Thomas Harrison, Jennifer Scarlott Co-Directors, Campaign for Peace and Democracy


We, the undersigned, strongly protest the current wave of repression in Cuba. We condemn the arrests of scores of opponents of the Cuban government for their nonviolent political activities, and the shockingly long prison sentences some as high as 28 years -- imposed after unfair trials. According to Amnesty International, the arrestees include journalists, owners of private libraries and members of illegal opposition parties. We condemn as well the trial and execution of three alleged hijackers in a week's time, both for the lack of due process and because we oppose capital punishment on principle.

As anti-war, social justice and human rights advocates, we condemned the brutal Saddam Hussein regime, and we oppose the United States occupation of Iraq. We support civil liberties and democratic rights everywhere, regardless of the country's economic, political or social system. We believe it is imperative to be consistent in opposing repression wherever it takes place, whether in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, Israel or Cuba, Turkey or the United States.

Democratic change in Cuba needs to be achieved by the Cuban people themselves. The Cuban government's violations of democratic rights do not justify sanctions or any other form of intervention by the United States in Cuba. The government of the United States -- which employs the rhetoric of human rights when doing so promotes its imperial goals, but maintains a discreet silence or makes only token protests when U.S. allies are involved, and which fully supports the barbaric practice of capital punishment, routinely inflicted in the U.S. -- is hardly in a position to preach democracy and human rights.

And we recall too the long, criminal record of U.S. interventions in Latin America. This record has included six decades of exploitation and imperial control of Cuba, followed by an attempted invasion and a campaign of international terrorism and economic warfare, that is by now well-documented. Only a government that repudiated this record, renounced any intention of restoring its economic or political domination over Cuba, either directly or through rightwing Cuban-American proxies, and promised to respect the democratic will of the Cuban people themselves would have the moral legitimacy to call for democratic change in Cuba.

As the Bush administration, further emboldened by its military victory in Iraq, threatens to wage "preemptive" wars around the globe we reaffirm our support for the right of self-determination in Cuba and our strong opposition to the U.S. policy of economic sanctions that has brought such suffering to the Cuban people.

At the same time, we support democracy in Cuba. The imprisonment of people for attempting to exercise their rights of free expression is outrageous and unacceptable. We call on the Castro government to release all political prisoners and let the Cuban people speak, write and organize freely.

COMMENT FROM THE CAMPAIGN FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY The text below is not part of the statement to be signed, but a comment from the Campaign for Peace and Democracy on some issues that often arise in discussion about democracy in Cuba. People who agree with the statement itself need not agree with this comment in order to sign the statement.

All the information available to us indicates that, apart from the individuals accused of hijacking, none of the prisoners were charged with violent actions; rather, they have been accused of collaborating with U.S. diplomats to undermine the state, and/or receiving American government funds. Many of them, as well as other Cuban dissidents, have met with James Cason, head of the U.S. Interests Section in Cuba, and some have received duplicating materials, funding or other resources directly from the U.S. government or from NGOs funded by Washington.

One reason dissidents turn to the U.S. for help is that Cubans are not consistently allowed access to the tools necessary to disseminate their views to the public: computers, copying machines, printers, etc. Obviously they would not be as likely to accept American aid, and the political influence that generally accompanies it, if Cuban citizens, whatever their views, were free to acquire these items themselves, without obstacles.

Many dissidents (and non-dissidents) in Cuba look to the United States, some because they actually favor an unbridled U.S.-style capitalist system, others because they sincerely believe that the U.S. is interested in promoting genuine political and social democracy in Cuba. The latter are terribly mistaken, because Washington's interest is in reconstructing a society of private wealth and privilege and in promoting a conservative, and probably repressive, pro-U.S. government in Havana.

But this is a political problem that in no way justifies repression. Rightwing politics and support for the U.S. in Cuba cannot be countered by censorship and imprisonment. Neither the Cuban government nor any other government has the right to stifle or obstruct the free expression of opinions, no matter how repellent or misguided we think they might be. Instead, progressives should try to influence Cubans by simultaneously protesting the Castro government's repression and U.S. interventionism, and exposing Washington's reactionary agenda for their country.

# # # # #

Editor - 4/25/2003

The Herald (Glasgow)

April 25, 2003


HEADLINE: Historians clear three suspects of betraying Anne Frank

Dutch historians trying to find out who betrayed Anne Frank - a riddle for six decades since the Jewish teenager died during the Holocaust - said yesterday they had cleared three main suspects.

Prompted by recent books suggesting new suspects, the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (NIOD) revisited the question of who informed on Frank and seven other Jews hiding in a canal-side house in German-occupied Amsterdam in 1944. The report also said carelessness may have been an important factor in the betrayal, pointing out that those in the annexe sometimes yielded to the urge to peep out of a window.

The hiding place on the Prinsengracht, an elegant canal in the centre of Amsterdam, was visible to many, NIOD said.

The new inquiry concentrated on three main suspects, all dead: Willem van Maaren, a warehouseman at Prinsengracht 263, where the Franks were hiding; Lena Hartog, a house cleaner; and Tonny Ahlers, a Dutch Nazi said to have had business dealings with Frank's father, Otto.

"Our investigation has not led us to the culprit," researchers wrote in the report, due to be presented today but posted on the institute's website yesterday.

Anne's diary, first published in 1947 by Otto Frank - the only one of the eight in hiding to return from German concentration camps - is the most widely read document to emerge from the Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered.

Born in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1929, Anne Frank died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945, just weeks before it was liberated

The teenager's diary has been translated into more than 60 languages and has sold millions of copies.

The house on the Prinsengracht was saved from demolition in 1957, to become one of the most popular museums in Amsterdam.

Editor - 4/25/2003

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 35
April 25, 2003



The National Security Agency says it may be willing to declassify
electronic intercepts concerning the 1967 attack on the U.S.S.
Liberty by Israeli forces, according to the plaintiff in a
Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking their disclosure.

The Israeli attack on the Liberty, a U.S. intelligence vessel,
resulted in the deaths of 34 American sailors. It is officially
deemed an accident of war, but it has spawned lingering
controversy among those who do not accept the official
explanation and believe the attack must have been deliberate and

A. Jay Cristol, a bankruptcy court judge in Miami who has studied
the attack in depth and who concluded it was a tragic mistake,
filed suit against the NSA earlier this year to compel
declassification of electronic communications monitored by or
near the Liberty at the time of the attack.

In response to his lawsuit, "An NSA representative called me and
said 'I have some good news -- they're talking about giving you
some of the material you want'," Judge Cristol told Secrecy News
on April 24.

A reply to Cristol's lawsuit had been due in May. The NSA asked
Cristol for a 60 day extension, until July 7, to complete its
review and its presumptive release of selected documents.

A copy of Judge Cristol's January 21 FOIA lawsuit is posted here:

His web site concerning his book "The Liberty Incident"
(Brassey's, 2002) is here:

The web site of USS Liberty survivors is here:

nancy taniguchi - 4/24/2003

The Wisconsin Historical Society Archives is rich in many areas. I have used their labor history materials for their far-reaching implications on developments in the American West.

Editor - 4/24/2003

Untitled Document



April 24, 2003 (608) 264-6586



Prominent educators, local historians, the country's top historical documentary filmmaker, tourism and preservation organizations, and budding public history professionals are asking Wisconsin's policy makers to recognize the Wisconsin Historical Society's importance and to spare the institution at least some of the drastic cuts proposed in the state's 2003-05 biennial budget.

As Ellen Baker, a UW-Madison graduate and history professor at Columbia University, states in a letter to Gov. Jim Doyle, "…the State Historical Society has a noble mission. It is truly a democratic institution that reaches the people of Wisconsin, from kindergarten to adulthood."

As the Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance begins working on the budget submitted to the Legislature by the governor in February, he and many influential lawmakers are receiving expressions of support for the Society saying that cuts proposed for the Society in the executive budget are overly severe. The budget calls for cutting $1.5 million in each year of the biennium coupled with slashing 30 permanent jobs.

"The vast and unique archival holdings of the Wisconsin Historical Society rank in importance with the collections at the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Huntington, and many other nationally known institutions," says Arnita Jones, executive director of the American Historical Association in Washington, D.C. "It is of the utmost importance to preserve them so that future generations of scholars and students will be informed about the history and culture of this nation and the institutions that help to maintain freedom and democracy," says Jones.

Filmmaker Ken Burns, famous for his six-part documentary history, "The Civil War," and other historical documentaries, echoed those sentiments in a letter to the editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

"The Wisconsin Historical Society is nothing less than a national treasure," Burns writes. "It has spent the past century and a half collecting books, manuscripts, photographs - MORE SEE REVERSE -

Support for the Wisconsin Historical Society - ADD 1

and other documents that represent an indispensable record of the American experience. The films I make wouldn't be possible without such materials."

Budding historian Anna-Lisa Dahlgren, a junior at Memorial High School in Madison, wrote in a letter to the Joint Finance Committee about her recollections of doing research at the Society while in the eighth grade.

"I realized what an integral part of Wisconsin was at my very fingertips," she writes. "With the aid of the Wisconsin Historical Society I was learning above and beyond my classmates. . . . I decided then that I wanted to be a history teacher when I grew up," recalls Dahlgren.

Robert Teske, executive director of the Milwaukee County Historical Society, offers another perspective on the Society's educational mission.

"The Historical Society has taken the lead in educating students about Wisconsin's fascinating past, in providing access to original materials for scholarly researchers, and in captivating adults through exhibitions, historic sites, and public television programs," says Teske in a letter to the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance. These reductions "…will have a serious impact on the ability of local historical societies like mine to serve our constituents," adds Teske.

From the West Coast comes another view of the Society's depth as a national historical clearinghouse.

"As a central depot for protecting the State of Wisconsin's historical and cultural sites, here is the central switchboard for documenting and preserving the raw material from which chronicles, biographies, program analyses, project proposals and literature will be written that will continue to keep Wisconsin on the country's map," writes Peter Nabokov, chair of the Department of World Arts and Culture at UCLA.

"From kindergarten through graduate school here is where the region's students and scholars, local historians and ordinary residents know where to go with the reassurance that their heritage is intact and accessible . . .," Nabokov writes.

"The value of personal testaments such as these is that they put a human face on the consequences of deep budget cuts," said Society Director Bob Thomasgard.

Many of the letters written in support of the Society can be viewed on the Society's Web site at

# # # # #

Daniel Watson - 4/24/2003

Does anyone know of a way to make individual donations toward efforts to recover artifacts looted from the Iraqi Museum and reconstruct the museum itself?

dominik - 4/24/2003

sorry but wreck of Goya was discovered by polish deep divers Grzegorz Banan Dominik who was diving there 29.08.2002
:) this man discovered this ship

Cliff Christman - 4/22/2003

We can't let those, who would change the facts, of history,have control over the sources of that knowledge. If we don' want to repeat history. We must know it, and learn from it.

Sincerely: Cliff Christman

Rhonda Faught - 4/22/2003

I'm curious as to which states use mandated sterilization in relation to child welfare laws. For example: Drug addicted parents who are repeat offenders. I saw a story on a news show a while back about a drug addicted mother who had lost 2 of her children. The state offered sterilization to her and also gave her a small monetary bonus for opting for the sterilization.

We adopted our daughter after being her foster parents. She was born with multiple problems, including Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. But she was the fifth child lost by her biological parents, who just can't seem to learn.

Editor - 4/21/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #17; 21 April 2003)
by Bruce Craig <>
National Coalition for History (NCH)

1. National Coalition for History Adopts "Statement on Iraqi Heritage Crisis"
2. Society of American Archivists Issues A "Statement on Iraqi Archives"

On 18 April 2003, the Policy Board of the National Coalition for History
(NCH) adopted the following resolution regarding the heritage crisis in Iraq:

"RESOLVED, that the NCH Policy Board approve the NCH "Statement on Iraqi
Heritage Crisis" as revised and corrected; that keeping in mind the array
of the NCH's diverse membership, constituent groups are encouraged to adopt
it in whole or in part and to include such relevant portions in their
individual organizational statements."

The "Statement" is as follows:

National Coalition for History
Statement on the Cultural Heritage Crisis in Iraq:

The National Coalition for History (NCH) condemns in the strongest terms
the looting and destruction of cultural heritage in Iraq. The pillaging of
the Museum of Antiquities, the "House of Wisdom" (the Iraqi historical
archives building), the National Library, and the Library of the Korans in
Baghdad, as well as the looting, burning, and destruction of
other museums, libraries, and sites of historical, archeological, and
artistic significance across the country, has shocked and saddened the
American historical and archival communities.

Cultural heritage and material culture inherited from our ancestors and
under the stewardship of nation states are among humanity's greatest
treasures and are a part of the inestimable and irreplaceable wealth of
humankind. As such, it is worthy of our greatest efforts to preserve,
restore, and maintain each nation's heritage.

We recognize that during the fierce fighting in Iraq over the past few
weeks, military leaders and Coalition partners took precautions to avoid
targeting and bombing of cultural sites as well as other non-military
sites. Nevertheless, acts of looting, vandalism, and willful destruction
of heritage sites, institutions, and repositories have taken place.

We call on Coalition forces to use all means at their disposal to stop the
pillaging and protect Iraqi heritage sites and cultural institutions and
repositories. If allowed to go unchecked, already catastrophic destruction
may easily spread to hundreds of more remote, but equally valuable heritage
sites and institutions.

We call for the protection of our colleagues, the Iraqi professionals and
scholars who work in these places, thus enabling them to carry out their
stewardship duties.

We call for the immediate adoption of strict and detailed plans formulated
in cooperation with Iraqi heritage professionals to attempt to recover the
stolen artifacts and archival records and make every effort to reconstruct
the Iraqi national collections. This should be done through strict
monitoring of illicit trade within Iraq and its border nations by Coalition
forces; through police action, international cooperation, import and export
interdictions and other such mean as necessary and appropriate that may
prove effective in this endeavor.

We call on governmental entities, museums, art dealers, auction houses, and
private antiquities and document collectors to adhere to the provisions of
the Convention of the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported
Cultural Objects and other such relevant international conventions and
applicable national laws relating to the trafficking and sale of stolen
property. Museums, archives, and historical organizations in the
United States and throughout the world adhere to established professional
codes of ethics and guidelines governing the acquisition and disposition of
cultural property. These codes establish that museum objects, library
books, historical archival materials, and other cultural property are the
property of respective nations. We call on all such institutions to adhere
to these guidelines.

We call on the governments of the Coalition forces to attend to immediate
priorities -- clean water, hospitals, food and restoration of civil
authority -- but also to insure that funds, including monies provided by
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) destined for
post-war recovery and reconstruction, are used to benefit cultural
resources and institutions, including expenditures for immediate physical
and institutional reconstruction of Iraq's cultural agencies and organizations.

Finally, the NCH in partnership with other heritage organizations is
assessing how our respective communities can be of immediate and continuing
assistance to heritage professionals of Iraq as they address how best to
respond to this tragic situation. To that end, we pledge to continue to
work in full partnership and cooperation with other national and
international entities and organizations to share information, and
coordinate actions in our ongoing effort to address the Iraqi cultural
heritage crisis.

Organizations that wish to "sign-on" to the statement, may do so by sending
an e-mail to that effect to: The statement
and its signatories will be posted on the NCH website and updated
weekly. The Coalition would also appreciate copies of similar resolutions
adopted by organizations.

The following "Statement on Iraqi Archives" has been issued by the Society
of American Archivists:

Statement on Iraqi Archives:
The Society of American Archivists (SAA) is deeply concerned by several
recent news reports that suggest that contemporary and historical records
in Iraq are threatened as a result of the current conflict in that
country. SAA urges that the protection of Iraq's documentary heritage be
made a priority during the reconstruction of Iraq.

Accounts in the news media suggest that there have been deliberate attempts
to destroy the records of oppression in order to hide evidence of past
crimes. Other stories highlight the destruction of records in order to
remove evidence of property ownership, citizenship, or nationality. Still
others describe random acts of violence that threaten the cultural history
of the country.

For Iraq to become a stable, democratic, and prosperous nation, its
documentary heritage must be managed and preserved. Government records
safeguard the rights and freedoms that citizens enjoy and are vital to the
health and well being of a nation.

When a society allows its government to operate in secret, basic freedoms
are gradually eroded. In South Africa, records of the apartheid regime
were consciously destroyed in order to hide evidence of wrongdoing. In the
former Yugoslavia, many documents were destroyed in the process of "ethnic
cleansing," making it almost impossible for rightful owners to assert their
claim to property. The rights of every Iraqi are at risk today and long
into the future by the loss of records.

We all share Iraq's culture and history. Written records first appeared in
the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, the cradle of Western civilization. The
loss of this heritage would not only hurt the Iraq people; it would also
make it harder for Americans to understand our culture and values.

Every effort should be made to locate and preserve in secure custody all
documents and archives relating to the Iraqi state, its security forces,
the daily operation of the government, and the history of the
nation. Emergency measures should be taken to recover records that may
have been discarded, abandoned, looted, or abused. Such an effort will
assist in the prosecution of former officers of the Iraqi regime as well as
provide a firm legal foundation for future economic development.

The new government of Iraq will also need a professionally managed archival
system. SAA urges that reconstruction efforts include funds to rebuild the
archives of Iraq. Once a stable archival program is in place, any
documents that may have been secured for the purpose of short-term
preservation should be returned to Iraqi archivists.

Without records, Iraqi officials cannot be held accountable. Without
records, citizens cannot exercise their rights. Without records, a stable
economic environment cannot emerge. And without records, the Iraqi people
as well as the citizens of the world lose an important part of our shared
cultural heritage. Immediate and substantial efforts must be made to
protect and reconstruct Iraq's documentary infrastructure. American
should cooperate with the International Council on Archives, UNESCO, and
other international organizations working to preserve Iraq's cultural heritage.

Founded in 1936, the Society of American Archivists is the oldest and
largest national professional association of archivists in North America
with 3,600 individual and institutional members. SAA exists to serve the
educational and informational needs of its members and to provide
leadership to ensure the identification, preservation, and use of records
of historic value.

The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE
weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH
Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others
who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of
these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page
at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH
firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You
can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt,
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".

Editor - 4/21/2003

The White House Bulletin

April 18, 2003 Friday


LENGTH: 1720 words

HEADLINE: Presidential Scholars Place Clinton's Criticism Of Bush Within Bounds Of Historical Precedent.

Former President Bill Clinton in recent speeches has sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the Iraq War as well as foreign and domestic policy. For example, earlier this week at a Conference Board event, Clinton said, "Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," adding, "And if they don't, they can go straight to hell." He also said at that event that he would scrap the President's economic plan if he were still in the White House.

At a recent Laborers' International Union of North America convention, Clinton reprised his campaign "politics of greed" rhetoric, saying the current Administration engages in the "politics of ideology, anger and attack." In addition, Clinton suggested the Administration lies to win policy battles, saying, "They know how they want it to come out and they make up the evidence as they go."

The Bulletin asked three presidential scholars for their assessment of how Clinton's actions square with the conduct of other past presidents and how a public campaign of criticizing his successor might affect his own place in history.

Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution told the Bulletin, "Clinton would be a great teacher. He is interesting. He's provocative. He is broadly gauged. He's creative. He's well read. His problem is he doesn't know when to shut up. In other words, he gave what I gather was a truly state of the world, far- ranging conversation in which there was considerable erudition and considerable knowledge of all sorts of modern literature and yet somehow he said a lot of interesting things at the wrong time. And my hunch is that that's going to be his pattern. He is going to be a former president for many years actuarially. He is young. He wants to be involved and he loves to talk and he will have interesting things to say and he will often be accused of putting his foot in his mouth. Strangely I think it was more saying things at the wrong time than malicious intent."

He continued, "To me, this contrasts very distinctly with Jimmy Carter, who strangely has been getting kudos as our best ex-president and indeed he does a lot of useful humanitarian work. But at the same time, consistently, for president after president -- presidents of his party, presidents of the opposition party -- he propounds and advocates what is often a parallel foreign policy. He did this to the degree of actively campaigning against President George Bush in December '91 when he was trying to get a UN resolution passed on the Kuwait situation. Now that to me borders on malicious. That is the distinction I want to make. The irony of it all is that he gets a Nobel Prize not really for his good works but, as we are to gather from remarks in Sweden, because he opposed American policy or opposed an American president."

Hess concluded, "There is nothing wrong with criticizing the president. That is a game anyone can play. The problem is criticizing the president when American troops are in harm's way. That really is what the recent brouhaha was all about. As to Clinton's place in history, frankly I find that presidents have a place in history for the years that they are in office. Everything else after the presidency is a footnote. Obviously a Grant or Eisenhower had a massive role before they came to the White House. William Howard Taft had a massive role after he left office and became Chief Justice of the United States and John Quincy Adams went back to the House of Representatives. Generally, past presidents retire and what happens by-and-large is that they play golf and write their memoirs because they are of an advanced age. The problem with that, and I am putting problem in quotes, is that both Clinton and Carter became ex-presidents too young."

James Pfiffner, a professor at George Mason University and scholar at the Center for the Study of the Presidency told the Bulletin, "Usually former presidents are guarded in their criticism of incumbents and usually they would wait until a certain period of time has elapsed before talking publicly. I guess he (Clinton) must be seeing himself as the leader of the opposition. He is sort of acting like that. I am trying to think of other presidents who have done this. Now, Eisenhower said some unflattering things about Kennedy, but I don't think they were made in public, but became public anyway. I can't remember (the first President) Bush saying much about Bill Clinton. There may have been something, but nothing quite like this."

He continued, "I think Bush 43 has this personal kind of contempt for Clinton, which may be in part why Clinton is willing to do this. Although President Bush doesn't say things publicly, from a number of books people know that he has this contempt for Clinton personally and seems to do a number of things because they have to be different from what Clinton was. So this may be in part what Clinton was reacting to. I guess I do think it is unusual in quite those tones for a former president to criticize someone who is in office and about ongoing policies, but I would suspect that it, in part, has to do with this personal animosity between the two men."

Pfiffner added, "Right now this would seem to be a minor part of his history like the pardons when he left office and the furniture and stuff. I think the broader outlines are what is going to be remembered by history, the impeachment, the economy and stuff like that and so I suspect something like this may color people's perspectives now. Some people will think he is being too harsh or that he shouldn't be critical. Certainly Republicans won't like Clinton criticizing their president at all. But it doesn't seem to me that people are going to look back historically and say, 'Well he was not very gracious as an ex-president.' I don't think this criticism has been really that high-visibility of an event. If it is not real high visibility now, I doubt it will be later on."

Pfiffner concluded, "I think [Clinton's] major problem is he has to find things to do. He can't slow down or be reflective or anything. He has to keep on doing stuff. Reagan was sort of an elder statesman, but didn't really take positions. Nixon remade himself and became in a sense relevant as a senior advisor even to Clinton. Carter made this great reputation for doing good works, but also did participate in some foreign policy things either invited or not invited that had some minor impact. I don't think he had much impact on [the first President] Bush, but he did have some impact on Clinton. Former presidents' presence is important, but their impact on policy doesn't look like it is big to me. But just because they don't have impact doesn't mean they shouldn't be saying what they think. I think it is valuable for former presidents with all that experience to say things that might help the public debate. It is legitimate and OK even though Clinton may have gone a bit far and been a bit harsh about contemporary policies."

Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute told the Bulletin, "This has always been more a matter of etiquette. Former presidents aren't supposed to do this sort of thing. I think it is fairly unprecedented to make criticisms as he has. I mean in public speeches. Previous presidents who criticized their successors always did it privately and then it would leak out. Someone would say, 'Eisenhower thinks what Johnson is doing in Vietnam is stupid.' You would hear that sort of thing, but former presidents rarely if ever say things like that to a public audience that would then get press the way Clinton has. That is sort of unusual. On the other hand for Clinton, his place in history has so many factors in play that this is going to be one of the minor ones I think. There will be the evaluations of his character and the last-minute pardons and Monica Lewinsky and the rest of that is going to loom the largest always."

He added, "But as time goes on and depending on how this whole terrorism thing unfolds and what we find out over the years about what was and was not done during the Clinton years that will put some brackets around anything Clinton has to say on foreign policy right now. You already hear lots of people saying [the Clinton Administration] didn't do anything about it when they could have and should have. We need a long way to go before we know anything for sure about that, but you can see in the early innings how things are starting to unfold."

Hayward continued, "Dick Morris has said that Clinton was not interested in terrorism very much and wasn't very interested in foreign policy generally. Clinton talked tough on Iraq. One question I have always had in my mind is that Hussein threw out the UN inspectors right at the time when Clinton was starting to have all of his Monica Lewinsky problems and you sort of wonder what a president who was not in trouble might have done. That is one of those what-ifs you can never know about, but an undamaged Clinton might have responded differently to all of that. Who knows? One of the odd things was that Clinton's popularity never really suffered all that much during the Monica thing."

Hayward concluded, "I think an interesting parallel case is that John Kerry got in a whole lot of trouble for his regime change remark. Other Democrats have been sort of shouted down by Republicans for criticizing Bush on domestic and foreign affairs. We forget history on this. If you go back to the beginning of the first year of World War II after Pearl Harbor and you actually had a lot of Republicans who were still pretty isolationist then who were complaining quite openly, 'Why are we going to war against Germany? Germany didn't attack us. Japan attacked us. We ought to just fight Japan and we shouldn't get involved in Europe.' And Republicans clobbered the Democrats in the 1942 off-year elections. I think they gained 50 seats in the House or something like that. The point is that partisan disagreements over the conduct of the war are not unprecedented. Partly today it is the mass media. We don't read about things anymore; we see them on TV and hear them on the radio and it magnifies it some."

Editor - 4/21/2003

Muslims for Pipes
The New York Sun

Apr. 21, 2003

Editorial; Page 6

The Washington Post fetched up over the weekend with an editorial calling on the Senate to reject the nomination of Daniel Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of Peace. Mr. Pipes is the director of the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based research group, and is a columnist of the New York Post and a regular contributor to the New York-based journal Commentary. He’s one of the more thoughtful commentators on militant Islamist terrorism, the threat it poses to America, and how our country should deal with it, which is no doubt why his nomination is kicking up such a stir. The New York Sun reported last week that opponents of the nomination have been basing their opposition to him partly on what Mr. Pipes has called a made-up quote from a magazine that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee calls “stridently anti-Israel.” Other quotes cited by some of the Pipes critics are distorted or taken out of context.

The Washington Post argument against the nomination is more sophisticated than the smear tactics used by some of the radical terrorist apologists, but only slightly so. The Post says the nomination should be nixed because it “is salt in the wound” of “U.S. Muslims, who are ever anxious that they are being singularly scrutinized.”

Well, it’s stunning that the Washington Post would make such a sweeping generalization about the views of American Muslims on the Pipes nomination. It’s just not true. The publication Pakistan Today, for example, reported last week that, “Many moderate American Muslims, frustrated by and angry at the extremist policies of militant Islamist organizations in the U.S. and their efforts to portray themselves as the sole voice of Islam, have welcomed the nomination of Daniel Pipes.” The article quoted a Washington-based writer, Jamal Hasan; a medical student, Khurshid Ahmad; a scholar of Islam, Khalid Duran; the president of the Council for Democracy and Tolerance, Tashbih Sayyed; Khurshed A. Chowdhury of Washington; Younus Mansour; and Nonie Darwish — all supporters of the Pipes nomination.

A Senate vote on the Pipes nomination will be a useful way of shining a light on congressional sentiment on these matters. New Yorkers can be proud that one of our senators, Charles Schumer, has already expressed support for Mr. Pipes, telling us that he’d be inclined to back the nomination. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which has jurisdiction over the nomination, includes several high-profile figures, including New York’s other senator, Hillary Clinton; a Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who is scheduled to speak Wednesday night at a black-tie awards dinner of the Arab American Institute. The Arab American Institute has issued an overheated press release calling on the Senate to reject the Pipes nomination for what it groundlessly calls Mr. Pipes’s “racist and bigoted rhetoric” — yet the AAI dinner is sponsored in part by that beacon of tolerance, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Moderate American Muslims, together with Americans of all faiths who care about our security and the terrorist threat posed by militant Islamism, will be watching to see how the Senate votes on the Pipes nomination. It’ll be a test of the senators’ willingness to stand up to what Pakistan Today so accurately called “the extremist policies of militant Islamist organizations in the U.S.”

R. Piper - 4/20/2003

"Anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist extremists"!?

Since when anti-Zionism equates anti-Semitism?
What is an anti-Zionist extremist?

The author obviously needs to spend more time with history books and less with ADL scripts.

Editor - 4/19/2003

Copyright 2003 Agence France Presse
Agence France Presse

April 18, 2003 Friday

SECTION: International News

LENGTH: 223 words

HEADLINE: Britons off to retrace doomed Northwest Passage quest


Eight British explorers set off Friday for Canada's far north to retrace one of the most disastrous Arctic expeditions in history.

They plan to trek through the area where Sir John Franklin perished 156 years ago in search of the Northwest Passage, the fabled waterway through the Canadian Arctic linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. His expedition got stranded in ice in 1847 with Franklin, his two Royal Navy ships and crew of 128 never to return -- prompting his widow to send out more than 30 expeditions over 11 years to find out what happened to them.

Rebecca Harris, 34, a London art director, said she and her seven male companions intended to make a 21-day trek, beginning at Victory Point on King William Island, where Franklin abandoned his ships.

Their destination, Starvation Cove, 320 kilometers (200 miles) away, is where the last traces of some of Franklin's men were eventually found amid the frozen tundra.

"The main reason for the expedition is to learn about what Franklin did and get a better understanding of what happened to his men," Harris said. "There have been so many rumours."

Her team will be facing sub-zero temperatures -- and possible encounters with hungry polar bears -- as they pull sledges weighing 70 kilograms (155 pounds) each.

Editor - 4/18/2003

April 17, 2003, Thursday, BC cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 443 words

HEADLINE: Confederate museum loses fight for ownership in court

BYLINE: By CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writer


The future of a treasure trove of Confederate history got murkier after an appeals court ruled that the museum does not own the building it has called home for 111 years.

On Wednesday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a lower court ruling that gave ownership of red-brick Romanesque Confederate Memorial Hall to the University of New Orleans Foundation.

The museum's backers believe they are being run off the property, located across from the National D-Day Museum, because it has become prized real estate. They also believe the UNO Foundation's backers are anti-Confederate.

The Confederate Museum won the support of Gov. Mike Foster in October when he said that heads would roll if a compromise was not worked out to keep the museum in place.

The UNO Foundation has stated in court documents that it intends to integrate the building into the Ogden Museum of Southern Art, an art complex that is being built on either side of the museum. However, UNO Foundation officials said the Confederate Museum has never been threatened with eviction.

Officials with the university were out of the office and not available for comment.

"Of course, we're disappointed," said James Carriere, the Confederate Museum's lawyer. "We'll pursue any legal remedies that are available to us."

Carriere said no agreement has been worked out between the governor's office and UNO about how to keep the museum where it is.

The museum was set up by philanthropist Frank T. Howard in 1891 to honor Confederate veterans.

The appellate court said Howard never donated the ownership of the building to the museum's operators, at that time a group called the Louisiana Historical Association, or LHA.

"He spoke only of putting the LHA into 'possession' of the building and of the building being for the 'use' of the LHA," Judge Joan Bernard Armstrong wrote in the opinion.

Inside the museum are some 5,000 artifacts, including Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard's uniforms; a crown of thorns given to imprisoned Confederate President Jefferson Davis by Pope Pius IX; letters and photos of black Confederates, and one of four remaining hand-woven Confederate banners.

The building itself is a piece of Confederate history. For 111 years, Confederate veterans, their widows and descendants have been bringing odds and ends to the museum. Because of its church-like architecture, it got the name "The Battle Abbey of the South."

In 1893, 60,000 mourners attended a second wake of Jefferson Davis at the building. A decade later, 30,000 Confederate veterans and their families flocked there and to New Orleans for the largest reunion ever of Confederates.

Editor of HNN - 4/18/2003

April 17, 2003 Thursday

SECTION: International News

LENGTH: 111 words

HEADLINE: German divers find wreck of sunken passenger liner

DATELINE: LEIPZIG, Germany, April 17

German deep sea divers have discovered parts of the wreck of the Goya, an ocean liner which sank in 1945 with thousands of refugees aboard, MDR television said Thursday. The divers, who were being filmed by a documentary team from MDR, found the wreck about 80 metres (265 feet) below the Baltic Sea.

The Goya was carrying more than 7,000 German refugees when it was sunk by two torpedoes from a Russian submarine on April 16, 1945, making it one of the world's worst maritime disasters.

By comparison, around 1,520 people died when the Titanic sank in 1912.

Of those aboard the Goya, only 175 people were saved.



Editor - 4/18/2003

The Washington Post
April 13, 2003, Sunday, Final Edition
HEADLINE: The Month That Shaped a Nation
BYLINE: Michael E. Hill, Washington Post Staff Writer

With perhaps some exceptions, it was a good period for the forces fighting under the Stars and Stripes.

Given the U.S. superiority in men and material and the fact that the enemy capital was under bombardment, the outcome of the war did not appear to be in doubt. The president and his key subordinates were already focusing on how to fashion and form the peace that would follow.

One obstacle to ending the war and forging that peace was the political leader of the opposition forces. He could not be found in his headquarters in the capital and seemed bent on carrying on the war despite his underdog status. He was successfully eluding concerted efforts on the part of the U.S. military to find him. If he was not neutralized, his continued influence might jeopardize the peace and stability the president so hoped for.

The setting could be, more or less, the present day, with President Bush looking ahead to a victory in Iraq and peace in the region. And the elusive leader might have been Saddam Hussein.

But when author and local scholar Jay Winik described this scenario, he was writing history, not current events.

The president he described was Abraham Lincoln. The elusive leader of the opposition forces was Confederate president Jefferson Davis. The capital under siege was Richmond, not Baghdad. The time was April 1865, a pivotal month in American history that became the title of his best-selling history of the period.

The book and its author form the backbone of the History Channel's two-hour account of the closing days of the Civil War. "April 1865" airs Monday at 9 p.m.

"In a nutshell," said Winik, "what the book and the special are about, the question at the core is that throughout history civil wars have ended badly." His favorite examples: Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Middle East. "Our Civil War could have ended as badly, but didn't. Why?"

The answer lies in Winik's fascinatingly detailed book and in the special, which chronicles the opportunities that were exercised and the options that were left unexplored in the waning days of the war. It also was a month of great expectation in the North that turned to fear and apprehension after the assassination of Lincoln.

The History Channel's storytelling unfolds with a combination of testimony from historians, present-day film of a number of historic locations, vintage photography, and a series of reenactments.

Joining Winik on screen are Gary W. Gallagher of the University of Virginia, a familiar face to history documentary fans, and Donald L. Miller, the John Henry MacCracken Professor of History at Lafayette University.

Winik, a senior scholar of history and public policy at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs, is the key commentator. He brings with him not only his authorship but his background in national defense and foreign policy, which included advising former Defense secretary Les Aspin. Winik's work has included assisting in the creation of the United Nations plan to end the Cambodian civil war. His work also has given him a first-hand view of civil strife in Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cambodia.

The American Civil War, Winik points out, could have ended as badly as some others. By the end of the war, 600,000 men on both sides had been killed and a million more wounded. When Gen. Robert E. Lee sat down with Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and surrendered his army, there were still about 175,000 Confederate troops in the field, more than enough to continue hostilities.

"The day before the signing at Appomattox, Lee called a council of war," Winik said. "One of his aides said, We can move to the hills like partridges and rabbits and continue to fight. Davis had already called for [guerrilla fighting] days earlier.

"It could have led to the Vietnamization or the Middle Easternization of America. The consequences were profound. In 1865 we were looking to end this cycle of civil war."

The question before Lee, Winik pointed out, was whether to continue resistance in that fashion and make some marginal gains. There were examples in history of other civil strife that had ended badly. And there was at the time a guerrilla war being waged in Missouri in the midst of the Civil War.

"It was commonplace there for soldiers, terrorists, to wear necklaces of human teeth, fingers and ears as signs of their conquests," he said.

After weighing his options, Lee joined Grant at the peace table. Lee's surrender is one of many scenes described in the book and documentary in detail that is both fine, exciting and moving. When Grant tips his hat to Lee at the conclusion of the proceedings, it is one of the early signs that the Civil War might evolve into a civil peace. Relatively speaking, at least.

"After Appomattox," said Winik, "history tends to telescope and there's a lot that we forget. On that morning, the Chicago Tribune was editorializing that Lee should be hanged."

Lincoln had set the stage for a more unifying and conclusive peace. The president was haunted, Winik said, by the fear that the Confederates might take to the hills and wage a guerrilla war that might last for years.

On the other hand, a more punitive peace might disintegrate into something akin to the French Revolution, conjuring an image of Confederate heads rolling in the streets.

Five days after Appomattox, Lincoln, who had been so huge a figure in the war and who might have been even larger in forging the peace, was shot at Ford's Theater in Washington. The next morning, April 15, he died.

In the aftermath of the assassination, people in the North were angry. And scared.

"It's hard for us to comprehend the chaos of the Union capital at the time," said Winik. "People feared being murdered in their beds, the city being torched. It was the 9/11 of their day."

Conspiracy theories abounded. Would the South take advantage of the Northern disarray? Was there an internal plot? Might someone like Gen. William T. Sherman be behind a Napoleon-style takeover?

Ironically, it largely fell to generals who had waged the war to seal the peace.

Three days after Lincoln's death, Sherman offered Confederate generals Joseph E. Johnston and John C. Breckinridge a peace Lincoln would have endorsed: a general amnesty for the South and an end to slavery. Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who had vengeance on his mind, was incensed.

Meanwhile, Union forces were chasing Davis, one of the war's major hold-outs, all over the South. It would be May 10 before they caught him in Georgia. Sixteen days later the last Confederate army surrendered in New Orleans.

The end of the Civil War formally ended the issue of slavery, a question that had been, in effect, tabled at the signing of the Declaration of Independence about 90 years earlier. For more than a century since then, issues of race and civil rights were still being debated and contested.

The future of African Americans in the aftermath of the war is not dealt with extensively in "April 1865." "Nowhere do I make the claim that a utopia would follow after that," said Winik. "The cruel lesson in history is that you solve one problem and then have to solve others.

"One of the cruel outcomes of April 1865 is that we lost Lincoln, probably our most gifted and wise of leaders. . . . On the last day of his life, in a Cabinet meeting . . . he was thinking about freedmen and how the states would relate to each other.

"I feel had Lincoln lived and seen what happened, he would have wept over all of it," said Winik, "at the treatment of the freedmen and how the Southern states were treated" in Reconstruction. And there's the more optimistic possibility. "Had Lincoln lived," Winik added, "it would all have been dealt with more subtly and more effectively."

Looming large in "April 1865" is the authority and dignity embodied in the figure of Lee. Had he been of the same turn of mind as Saddam, said Winik, "one could imagine the consequences of that. Instead, he gave his word [at Appomattox] and would do anything to defend the peace. . . .

Lee "cast such a powerful shadow over the South. Had he been treated badly after the war, instead of arguing today about such issues as display of the Confederate flag, civil rights and the statements of Trent Lott, these arguments could instead be over continued civil strife and civil war, the same thing we see in other countries."

"April 1865" ends with a reenactment of an event that is not commonly mentioned in Civil War accounts and legends.

At an Old-South church, after the war has ended, a freedman shocks the all or mostly-white congregation by being the first person to rise, walk to the front of the church and kneel at the communion rail. No one else moves. Except for the gray-haired white man who comes from his pew to kneel beside the black man. Yes--Robert E. Lee.


Editor - 4/18/2003

Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)

April 13, 2003 Sunday



On Tuesday he will report to a federal prison in Texas, a new personal and political low for a man who had already fallen far from the political prominence of a decade ago.

BYLINE: By John McQuaid; Staff writer


Louisiana white supremacist David Duke visited the tiny Persian Gulf kingdom of Bahrain in November at the invitation of Discover Islam, a local organization whose mission is, ironically, building cross-cultural understanding between Westerners and Muslims.

Discover Islam paid Duke's travel expenses and lodging at a five-star hotel in Manama, Bahrain's capital. Local papers carried ads announcing the appearance of "Dr. David Duke" (the title thanks to a Ukrainian honorary doctorate). Over three days Duke gave a news conference and two speeches in packed hotel meeting rooms. Then he flew to nearby Qatar and appeared on the talk show "Without Borders" on the Al Jazeera satellite network seen throughout the Arab world.

Duke attacked Israel, Judaism and the U.S. posture toward Iraq. His message included anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that have long been a staple of the right-wing fringe and have more recently taken hold in the Arab world: That Israel is actually running U.S. foreign policy and is the shadowy main mover behind the confrontation with Iraq; and the Israeli intelligence agency the Mossad knew of terrorist plans to destroy the World Trade Center with hijacked airplanes and warned Israelis to get out before the planes hit.

That corner of the Persian Gulf region was abuzz, briefly, over the visit. The U.S. State Department protested to Al Jazeera. Bahrain's expatriate community was outraged. "In a nutshell, he is a racist who does not deserve the notoriety he was initially given here in Bahrain. He will never be invited to Bahrain again, because we won't be fooled again," said Tony Nazzal, an American communications technician who lives in Manama.

In a world plagued by spectacular terrorist attacks and religious and ethnic hatred, Duke can still find audiences for his brand of extremism. In fact, it's much easier for him to grab the spotlight abroad now than at home in the United States. He has spent much of the past several years traveling and making speeches, mostly in Europe and more recently in the Middle East.

The international arena is rife with hostility toward both the United States and Israel, and that offers plenty of platforms for Duke's views, which are harshly critical of both countries. In Duke's universe, the Jews and Israel are the roots of all evil, and the United States bears the ultimate blame for Sept. 11 because of its support for Israel. U.S. foreign policy -- including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- is the result of Israeli manipulation. For Duke, supporting it amounts to treason.

Political eclipse at home

But here, Duke is in political eclipse -- and a felon soon to be behind bars.

On Tuesday he will report to the Federal Correctional Institution in Big Spring, Texas, a low-security prison, to start a 15-month sentence after pleading guilty to charges of tax and mail fraud. Duke admitted to sending letters begging money from supporters that exaggerated his financial problems, then going out and gambling the money away in casinos in Louisiana and along the Gulf Coast.

The prison term marks a new personal and political low for Duke, who had already fallen far from his days of political prominence of a decade ago.

Running as a Republican, Duke won a seat as a Louisiana state representative in 1989, took 59 percent of the white vote in his unsuccessful challenge to Sen. J. Bennett Johnston the next year, and knocked incumbent Gov. Buddy Roemer out of the runoff in the 1991 governor's race. The Louisiana political and business establishments trembled before the threat posed by an extremist becoming a major officeholder. National Republican officials worked overtime to dissociate their party from him. National and international media were riveted on his every move.

But Duke was never able to abandon his extreme ideology or overcome his personality flaws. Instead of trying to build on that relatively brief moment in the limelight, he squandered it with repeated financial chicanery and a migration back to the far fringes of anti-Semitism and white supremacy where he had started his career. Partly to escape his legal troubles, he began spending most of his time abroad. He found his fame opened doors and the media attention was less skeptical.

Even supporters alienated

Duke's political descent and felony plea have alienated even longtime supporters in America, including those who once saw him as the ticket to the mainstream.

"He is a fractured personality. He is morally bankrupt, a tragic character. He had great potential. It's a shame he frittered it away," said Richard Barrett, the general counsel of the Nationalist Movement, a Mississippi-based white supremacist organization that once supported Duke's political career.

Duke's prison stay is a further blow from which he will have trouble recovering, political analysts say. When he gets out of prison, Louisiana law prohibits him from seeking office for 15 years, but he could mount a legal challenge to run for a federal post. His fund-raising ability, already at low ebb, will likely dwindle further, the analysts say.

"I'm sure he'd still appeal to some people. Some will see him as a martyr," Loyola University political scientist Ed Renwick said. "But he hasn't been a major figure for a decade. You never hear of him except for an occasional article in the newspaper. He went so far and he kept going further to the right until he left most people behind. I don't see him major threat to anybody. His political career in Louisiana is probably over."

'Political schizophrenia'

Duke never abandoned his extremism even while he was flirting with the mainstream. He never mentioned Jews while campaigning, for example, but in 1989 he was caught selling Nazi, anti-Semitic and other extremist literature out of his Louisiana legislative office.

"He has this political schizophrenia," said longtime Duke critic Lance Hill, director of Tulane University's Southern Institute for Education and Research. "On the radical right he is an openly anti-Semitic white supremacist, but when he runs for office he puts on this mask of conservatism."

By papering over his more extreme beliefs and past associations, for a time Duke became an appealing vehicle for anger toward government and at liberal welfare-state policies that was festering among a segment of white voters in Louisiana and nationally. He was in some ways a political pioneer, said Carol Swain, a University of Tennessee political scientist and author of the book "The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration."

"I believe he has had a major impact on American politics. He championed at the beginning of his career a lot of issues facing white Americans that were not being addressed by the major parties," Swain said. Though tainted by racism, she said, Duke's attacks on welfare, affirmative action and other issues presaged later mainstream political fights.

During the 1990s, though, Duke dropped this mask. He shifted his focus away from the issues that won him votes and returned to openly promoting a neo-Nazi point of view. He didn't call it that, though he has been calling himself an Aryan and publicly blaming "the Jews" for most of the world's ills in recent years.

Book was turning point

The key event was the 1998 publication of his book "My Awakening," its title evocative of Hitler's "Mein Kampf," German for "My Struggle." The self-published book is part autobiography, part pseudoscientific tract about the supposed genetic roots of racial disparities, part conspiracy theory alleging the Jews control various U.S. and global institutions. Above all, it is a call to action for "Aryans" to protect the white, European heritage by whatever means necessary -- through politics first and if that ultimately fails, through violence.

Publishing and promoting an earnest, 717-page tome was a major statement that Duke could not easily paper over, though he did try during a 1999 run for Congress.

"I think the autobiography was a turning point," Hill said. "It's clear he had given up any hopes of winning public office. He had been criticized on the far right in the campaigns of the early 1990s of compromising his beliefs to win votes. He started his career as leader in neo-Nazi movement in America, and he came back to those roots in the late '90s."

Duke himself is opaque about why he moved in this direction. Some theorize that there was more money to be made tapping support from the far right. "He had to come back to the fringe to get money from the fringe," said conservative radio station owner Robert Namer, who acted as a go-between when Duke sold mailing lists to then-gubernatorial candidate Mike Foster in 1995. "He had to find religion again. You can't be a mail-order priest and then be an atheist -- no one will send you money."

There is a market for what Duke is offering these days. "My Awakening" has apparently sold well, according to Duke and some Duke critics. Duke claims it has sold 50,000 copies in the United States, and many more abroad, where it has been translated into Russian and several other languages.

But the now-obsessive focus on what he calls "Jewish supremacism" --the title of his latest book -- has marginalized him even on the far right. Even his most loyal backers question this focus and his extensive travels abroad, saying they are not the ingredients for political success at home.

"I think his efforts would be better served by giving his attention to matters here at home," said longtime supporter Kenny Knight. "He'd get more mileage out of efforts to deal with issues here in Louisiana and the South: the Confederate flag, race issues, crime issues."

Aside from self-aggrandizement, Duke's practical political aims were never completely clear. He was never a good political organizer. Most of the organizations he founded he eventually abandoned, either through inattention or personal conflicts. His current organization, the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, known as EURO, has a Web site and members scattered across the country. But it's not a force on the far right, according to several hate-monitoring groups.

The odd couple

At home and later abroad over the past decade, Duke has traded on his fame and his skill as a polemicist. He has led a self-indulgent, if not luxurious, lifestyle marked by dalliances with women, daily workouts, gambling for a time and speaking engagements before small, sympathetic audiences.

Duke's odd-couple encounters with controversial British historian David Irving offer a snapshot into the life he was living as he wrote "My Awakening."

Once a respected scholar of World War II Germany, Irving veered increasingly into the "revisionist" camp that questions the Holocaust and reveres at least some elements of the Nazi regime. In 2001 he lost a libel suit he filed in England against American scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who in a book referred to him as "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial."

Lipstadt's attorneys used Irving's own journals to demonstrate he was associating with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis. Duke was exhibit A.

In the journals, Irving writes that Duke approached him at a 1994 book signing and they dined together along with Duke's then-girlfriend Christy Martin. They socialized often over the next several years in Louisiana and at rightist gatherings, sometimes playing tennis and golf and at one point hanging out until 2 a.m. in a St. Petersburg, Fla., disco called Beech Nutts, where Duke picked up a waitress named Dorrie.

Irving did editing work on Duke's emerging manuscript and tried unsuccessfully to hook him up with a New York literary agent. At his request, Duke gave Irving the names of 400 contributors who gave more than $100 each. Duke also lent him $2,000. Nevertheless, Irving viewed Duke with some personal distaste.

"Duke makes rather a lot out of his tennis victory yesterday: crowing slightly more than is funny," Irving wrote while Duke and Martin were staying with him on Key West. "He speaks loudly in a kind of un-modulated American southern croak, which is hard to take after a while. . . . It is also hard to listen politely to his seemingly endless vapourings on the -- to me -- boring subject (of the Holocaust); ditto the Jews and Zionism, although these are admittedly the topics of the chapters he has been writing while down here. He is also insensitive to others: his treatment of Christy Martin, an innocent 23-year-old soul who (wrongly) believes he will marry her, is not above reproach."

Rolling the dice

Several years later, an apparently fed-up Martin approached authorities with evidence that Duke had been lying about his financial situation in fund-raising letters and then gambling with the "personal gifts" sent in by supporters deposited in her bank account, according to news reports and sources close to the investigation.

"My equity, savings and retirement are gone, but my computer is humming, and my word processor is clicking out the book that I know will make a huge difference in the struggle ahead," Duke wrote in one appeal in which he also wrote about being forced to sell his house. But according to prosecution documents, Duke sold his house at a profit and was maintaining a variety of accounts open for noncampaign donations that, while not enormous, totaled more than $400,000 over a five-year period.

Duke had been an avid craps player for years, and prosecution documents indicate he was playing the tables in Louisiana, Mississippi and Las Vegas. In a defense posted for a time on his Web site, Duke wrote that he and some friends developed a computer model that could beat the house at craps, and his gambling forays were made to support his political efforts: "The system that I employed at the casinos was a sincere, if unorthodox, effort to find a way to raise funds for the Cause and not a 'lavish spending spree,' " the statement said.

But Duke's attorney and friend, Jim McPherson, said that the gambling simply got out of hand and he asked Duke to stop. "The gambling industry has learned long ago, if you've got a system, come on down," McPherson said. "At first he won. He was using small amounts of his own money. But then he started losing and started using money he was soliciting from his supporters."

Duke says he hasn't visited a casino since 1998, when the investigation began -- something prosecutors do not dispute.

Taking extremism abroad

With his finances under scrutiny, Duke decided to seek more sympathetic shores and headed overseas. He had been to Europe and Russia before. In 1995, he visited Moscow and met with ultranationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky. This type of exchange wasn't unique. In recent years, driven in part by the growth of the Internet, American far-right organizations have expanded their contacts with counterparts abroad. Anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist extremists have a greater following in some parts of Europe and the former Soviet Union than they do in the United States.

In 1999, Duke said, he began spending time abroad, using the northern Italian mountains near Verona as a base, but making several extended trips to Moscow and other parts of Russia. He was in Moscow promoting the Russian version of his book when the FBI raided his house in November 2000, carting away boxes of documents.

Duke said he visited Ukraine, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, France, Germany and Austria, among other places. Mostly, he did the same things he did in America: speechmaking, writing and meeting with far-right political leaders and organizations, and partying when possible. When in Moscow, Duke stayed in a downtown apartment and frequented a popular disco and striptease bar called the Hungry Duck, according to Lev Krichevsky, then the Moscow director of the Jewish organization the Anti-Defamation League, who monitored Duke's activities.

Duke said he partly paid his own way, but also received travel and other expenses from various host groups.

Audiences were larger

But the audiences were larger and the venues often more respectable than the fluorescent hotel meeting rooms and small book and pamphlet fairs where American extremists gather.

In January 2002, for example, Duke spoke at a conference held at the Moscow Social Humanitarian Academy, a private high school favored by Communist Party members. Titled "Global Problems in World History," it featured revisionist historians and conspiracy theorists. Beginning his presentation with a crisp wave of a wooden pointer, according to a fellow presenter, Duke spoke on "The Zionist Factor in the U.S." Among other things, he said Israeli scientists were genetically engineering viruses to use as weapons. "Only the Jews will be immune to them," he said, according to a story in the newspaper Novy Peterburg.

The press attention was also generally more favorable than he gets in the United States. Sometimes the mainstream press ignored Duke, sometimes it treated him with respect, sometimes with criticism. But he wasn't the political pariah he is in the United States.

"My Awakening" was translated into Russian and retitled "The Jewish Question Through the Eyes of an American." Duke appended several new chapters on the importance of preserving Russian heritage and the threat of "Jewish oligarchs." For a time it was put on sale for 50 rubles -- about $1.70 --in bookstalls in the basement of the Russian parliament building, where it sold at a brisk pace, Krichevsky said.

An embarrassment

Still, he had the capacity to cause embarrassment. In Ukraine, Duke received an honorary doctorate of philosophy from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, a prominent university with a student body of more than 30,000 at its central campus and affiliates elsewhere. According to various sources, the top management of the school has taken a strong anti-Zionist position and produced a series of articles in a university-published magazine called Personnel condemning the Jews and Israel for international mischief-making.

Duke's visit contributed to an ongoing uproar over the university's leadership and its alleged anti-Semitism. Several prominent politicians on the board of the academy have been pressured to resign, including former President Leonid Kravchuk and former Prime Minister Viktor Yuschenko.

"President Kravchuk has made some steps to distance himself, publicly and privately. The former prime minister Yuschenko has made some too," said Jed Sunden, the publisher of the Kiev Post, an English-language newspaper that called for them to step aside. "But they have not made the clean break as you see with politicians in the states -- in the Trent Lott affair, for example."

Effects of Sept. 11

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, had an unusual effect on the right-wing fringe. Some groups crowed enviously over the terror attacks. "Anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill Jews is all right by me. I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude," wrote Billy Roper of the National Alliance, a far-right group with ties to Duke.

Duke took a softer line, but he still blamed U.S. policies abroad, especially its support of Israel, for stoking hatred of the United States that led to the attacks.

The world's intense focus on the Middle East gave Duke's anti-Zionist activities a boost, and he churned out polemics on the topic. His Web site focuses heavily on the issue, with a long screed against Israel and what Duke calls its role in Sept. 11. Duke also claims that the U.S. war in Iraq is done at Israel's bidding.

These sentiments are quite common now across the Arab world, and before long Duke's writings were being picked up by newspapers in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and elsewhere. One article even made it full circle and was posted on the Web site of a New York University student protesting U.S. policy, stirring a campus controversy.

Duke's Internet postings on Israel also led to his invitation to Bahrain, according to Essam Eshaq, a director of the group that hosted him, Discover Islam.

He said that the group knew of Duke's racist views -- among them his belief in the intellectual superiority of people of European descent over dark-skinned people, including Arabs -- but that they decided they still wanted to hear an American politician criticize Israel.

But others say that privately, the group's leaders were taken aback by the uproar the visit caused. "He completely took people in," said George Williams, the editor of the Gulf Daily News, Manama's English language newspaper. "Discover Islam would never admit it, but they were quite embarrassed by this."

Still, Duke's resume is opening doors for him abroad. "If the Republican Party, which is the party in office in the White House today, finds it acceptable to field him as a candidate, what's the big deal in coming and speaking on issues which concern people here?" Eshaq said.

No special protection

A month after the Discover Islam appearance, Duke's attorney and prosecutors finally reached a plea arrangement and Duke returned to the United States from a visit to Austria. As he prepares for prison, some supporters are worried he may be a target of violence. A spokesman at the Big Spring prison said no decisions have been made on whether to provide special protection for Duke.

"It's certainly going to be, I would imagine, a difficult period for me, but no, I am not overly concerned about that," Duke said. "I certainly have apprehension, like anyone going into federal custody. But I'll get through it. I can handle it. I want to make sure the experience makes me stronger and better and affords me a time for self-inspection and hopefully embark upon a good path, an effective path for the rest of my life. I've got a lot of life ahead of me."

Duke says that the charges he pled guilty to were insignificant and maintains he didn't bilk his supporters. He says he took the plea deal because he feared drawing a heavily black jury. "A man identified as a former Ku Klux Klan leader wouldn't have a chance (in a jury trial)," he said. "I was given a choice of doing that or taking a plea."

Duke may find it hard to recover, even on the fringe, which has taken several other hits recently. In the wake of Sept. 11, the FBI and Justice Department have put more pressure on rightist groups. Matt Hale, the head of the hate group the World Church of the Creator, is under indictment for plotting to kill a federal judge. William Pierce, the founder of the National Alliance, died last year.

But Duke will likely be viewed as a martyr by some government-hating segments of the far right. And he will probably retain some cachet abroad that he can still exploit. Duke observers caution that he is a very resourceful figure.

"Is he washed up as a mainstream figure? I don't know. There were at least three other times when I would have said he's washed up, and he wasn't," said Tim Wise, a senior adviser to the Fisk University Race Relations Institute who monitors the far right. "Now he's going to jail, but I've learned to never say when he might be finished. He always manages to reinvent himself, and the movement he's a part of is so desperate for leaders, they keep coming back to him."

Editor - 4/18/2003

Sydney Morning Herald

April 14, 2003 Monday

SECTION: Metropolitan; Pg. 16

HEADLINE: Those Of A Saintly Persuasion

BYLINE: Desmond O'grady


Pope John Paul II has canonised or beatified more than 1000 people of "heroic virtue" during his pontificate. Saintmaking isn't what it used to be, writes Desmond O'Grady.

THE saints have come marching in at an unprecedented rate during John Paul II's pontificate. He has canonised and beatified more than all his predecessors since the Vatican Congregation (ministry) for the Causes of Saints was established in 1588. More are to be recognised soon. Mother Teresa will be beatified on October 19, and others wait in the wings, including Blessed Mary MacKillop who needs to achieve a second miracle before she is recognised as the first Australian saint.

John Paul II has run into criticism for the flood of blesseds and saints during his pontificate: he has created 464 saints and 1304 blesseds, whereas all his predecessors from 1588 created between them 296 saints and 827 blesseds. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog, has said too many of those John Paul has raised to the altars do not "mean a great deal to the majority of believers".

One reason for the high numbers is that reduced requirements (see story below) enabled a backlog of cases to be completed. Another factor is that John Paul has honoured not only individuals but also groups of martyrs from China, Vietnam and the Spanish Civil War.

Moreover, he has been anxious to give models, such as MacKillop or Peter Torot martyred by the Japanese in Papua New Guinea in 1945 to churches or groups who did not have them. One of these groups is married couples. Last year he beatified a married couple for the first time, Luigi and Maria Beltrame-Quattrocchi , who died early last century.

In the sainthood stakes, the trouble with married couples is that each must qualify separately. The trouble with lay people generally is that usually they cannot compete with religious orders for the persistence and the money necessary to push for Vatican certification. Evidence of this was the canonisation last year of the Spaniard Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer , founder of the controversial Opus Dei movement, only 27 years after his death, and of a miracle-working Italian Capuchin Padre Pio only 34 years after his death. In each case the ceremony drew more than a quarter of a million people to Rome.

Some theologians would like to abolish the miracle requirement of sainthood altogether, and others would extend it to moral miracles which would benefit figures such as the Dubliner Matthew Talbot (1856-1925 ), a reformed drunk who has inspired many drunks to mend their ways. In 1975 he became a "venerable", but has not achieved a miracle. The miracle requirement blocks the cases of many other admirable people, such as the 19th century convert, Cardinal John Henry Newman, many of whose ideas inspired the Second Vatican Council.

Those who object to the miracle requirement say it puts the church at the mercy of medical science, but the Congregation of Saints insists on something physical as confirmation by God of their findings.

Martyrs, of whom there were more in the last century than under the Roman Empire, are on the sainthood superhighway. They require only one miracle before canonisation. The first martyrs were killed because they would not renounce the Christian faith to adore false gods but, in recent years, martyrdom has acquired the wider connotation of offering life for faith-founded values, such as charity or justice. For instance, in 1982 Maximilian Kolbe , a Polish Franciscan who took the place of a father condemned to death in Auschwitz, was canonised as a martyr for charity.

Many hope that Archbishop Oscar Romero , of El Salvador, will be recognised soon as a martyr for justice. Romero, who was critical of the violence used by the El Salvadorean government, was assassinated by right-wing extremists while celebrating Mass. Criticism of him from the Vatican's man in El Salvador and some of his fellow bishops resulted in the cause for his beatification getting under way only in 1993, 13 years after his death.

When candidates have a political involvement, the Vatican may make a prudent judgement about when to canonise them: Joan of Arc had to wait a record 489 years before being canonised in 1920 . It is said that possible political repercussions made Pope Paul VI go slow on recognition of the martyrs of the Spanish Civil War, and similar considerations could affect the many candidates from Communist Central-Eastern Europe. The Vietnamese Government was not happy when the Vatican canonised 117 missionaries the government called colonialists, nor was the Chinese Government when, in 2000, the Vatican canonised 120 missionaries and Chinese Catholics.

In some cases, the Vatican pushes ahead with beatifications and canonisations despite fierce criticism. John Paul II has sought to improve relations with Muslims but on April 27 is to beatify Mario d'Aviano , a 17th-century miracle-working friar who, among other things, convinced Christian soldiers to defend Vienna against invading Muslims. In 1998 he canonised Edith Stein, a German-Jewish philosopher who converted to Catholicism, became a Carmelite nun and was killed in Auschwitz. Some Jews objected that she had been killed as a Jew rather than as a Catholic.

Even Catholic historians consider Pius IX (pope from 1846 to 1878) was indiscriminate in his condemnation of the modern world, and popes are judged on their policies as well as their piety. But he was still canonised in 2000. The most controversial figure now is Pius XII who is criticised for his silence about Jewish persecution during World War II. Will the Vatican proceed with his beatification or wait until the debate is less heated?

Dorothy Day is a good example of the fact that potential saints have more to do with passions than plaster. A member of New York bohemia in the 1930s, she had many love affairs, one of which resulted in an abortion. Another led to marriage but she divorced after two years. Yet another resulted in a child and this triggered her conversion. She vowed to live in chastity and poverty, opposed the military-industrial complex, co-founded the Catholic Worker movement, which publishes a periodical, and has opened more than 100 hostels for the needy. When people told Dorothy she was a saint, she replied: "Don't dismiss me so easily."

In 1983, three years after her death, a religious order sought to arouse support for her canonisation. Some of her followers said it would be better to spend the money on the poor but others thought it would make Day more widely known.

Saints are the achieved church, "the Easter people who shared the self-giving love which led Christ to his death on the cross", says the Australian author and theologian, Gerald O'Collins , who teaches in Rome. And potential saints are a wonderful source of stories: Giovanni Palatucci was an Italian police officer who saved more than 5000 Jews during World War II. As a senior police officer, in Fiume (now Rijeka) in Yugoslavia, he confounded the Gestapo by creating bureaucratic confusion which allowed Jews to escape. He continued to foil the Germans until sent to Dachau, where he died at the age of 36. His cause for beatification is under way.

Some would like to start that of victim number 00001 of the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Centre, Mychal Judge, a Franciscan, a homosexual and recovering alcoholic. Several miracles are attributed to him and a website ( ) has been established to promote his cause.

Stefanie Scott - 4/18/2003

I am hereby offering my help with the revival of the Baghdad Museum. I am a trained Museum Technician by California State Parks who lost the mentioned position due to 9/11 Homeland Security budget cuts.
I am currently working as a Museum Security Officer.
As a versatile professional in museum technology and fields related to it, I am prepared to dedicate myself to challenges that will advance the quality of exhibition for the benefit of users: the Baghdad people and the world.
Additionally, I love to organize and clean. Well, that must be the German in me, in which I am also fluent at.
I hope this is the right place to address this matter to, if not, could you please forward this request to the right place?
You can reply at the above mentioned email address.
Stefanie Scott

Editor - 4/17/2003

Los Angeles Times

April 12, 2003 Saturday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News; Part 1; Page 25; National Desk

HEADLINE: Science File; Israeli Kings No Myth, New Data Suggest

BYLINE: Thomas H. Maugh II, Times Staff Writer

New radioactive dating from a major Iron Age site called Tel Rehov in northern Israel supports the biblical tradition that David and his son Solomon, founders of the ancient kingdom of Israel, were real nation-builders and not largely mythical figures, as some revisionist historians have argued.

Recent excavations at Megiddo, 25 miles west of Rehov, had suggested that palaces and other artifacts there once associated with Solomon were built by a later family of rulers called the Omrides. Based on those finds, archeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University established a so-called Low Chronology in which Solomon and David are minor chieftains at best.

But a team led by archeologist Amihai Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in Friday's issue of Science that carbon from olive pits and charred grain from one of three "destruction layers" at Tel Rehov date the layer to 940 to 900 BC. The destruction layers mark times when the site was demolished before being rebuilt.

The new dates correspond to a Sherman-like march across Palestine by the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq, a well-documented event that occurred around 925 BC. According to the biblical books I Kings and II Chronicles, Shoshenq began his invasion five years after Solomon's death. Because Tel Rehov was a 10-hectare urban center, the dating supports the biblical account of Solomon.

Editor - 4/17/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #16; 17 April 2003)
by Bruce Craig <>
National Coalition for History (NCH)

1. Situation Iraq -- Amid Ruins, Heritage Community Acts With One Voice
2. Transportation Law Reauthorization Sparks 4(f) Legislative Battle
3. Legislative Update: Bills Passed, Bills Introduced
4. Bits and Bytes: E-Government Survey Results; Edited Version of the New
Secrecy EO; Lynne Cheney Donates to Museum; Black History Museum Report Issued
5. Articles of Interest: "History Scholars Fight Present War" (The
Philadelphia Inquirer; 10 April 2003); "Not All Freedom is Made in America"
(New York Times; 13 April 2003)

Given the coverage of the war in the nation's press, it is hard not to be
aware of the large-scale looting and destruction of priceless artifacts in
Iraq's Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. The institution's collections
documented the Babylonian, Sumerian, Assyrian, and Islamic
civilizations. Last Sunday (13 April 2003) for example, a front-page story
and poignant photo in the Washington Post showed a tearful Nabhal Amin, the
museum's deputy director, crying as she surveyed the destruction of an
estimated 170,000 artifacts. The museum's collection contained objects
dating back thousands of years and was worth billions of dollars in
monetary terms, but was priceless to scholars of Mesopotamia and Near
Eastern antiquity. The card catalog documenting the collection was also

The National Coalition for History (NCH) has learned that the loss caused
by the frenzy of looting extends far beyond what was initially reported.
First it was the antiquities museum, then came word that the National
Library that housed precious books, had been ransacked, gutted, set on
fire, and left a smoldering shell. Then word that the Iraq historical
archives building -- the "House of Wisdom" -- the repository for a
priceless treasure of Ottoman historical documents, including the old royal
archives of Iraq as well as the documentary evidence of the country's more
recent history, was also ablaze. Eyewitnesses reported flames shooting 200
feet in the air with charred handwritten letters and papers raining down on
streets. Finally, word came that the library of Korans at the Ministry of
Religious Endowment was burning out of control.

For days, near universal scorn poured down on Pentagon officials who,
according to press accounts were apparently "specifically warned" months
ago about the need to protect Iraqi heritage sites including the Museum of
Antiquities. Defense department officials retorted, that Coalition troops
were too occupied by combat to intervene, and furthermore, senior Pentagon
officials stated that the military had never promised that the buildings
would be safeguarded though they were included on the American military's
"no-target list" in response to scholars' warnings. General Richard Myers,
chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later stated that protection of the
museum had been considered but it was assigned less importance than ongoing
combat operations; that the military had acted first to secure oil wells,
dams, and other critical sites ahead of the troops' main advance, and that
once in the city, Coalition forces placed a priority on securing the oil
ministry offices to keep looters there at bay.

In his statement to reporters, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
characterized the loss merely as "the price of liberation" and blamed the
destruction of the museum on "the chaos that ensures when you go from a
dictatorship to a new order...we didn't allow it. It happened and it's
unfortunate." Later, during a press conference, Secretary of State Colin
Powell defended the administration's priority decisions and stated that
"The United States understands its obligations and will be taking a leading
role with respect to antiquities in general, but this museum in
( During a
subsequent Pentagon briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld also declared that the US
had begun that process and was offering rewards for those who return
plundered items or helped in recovering them.

According to one Iraqi museum official though, had five American soldiers
posted at the door of the antiquities museum, "everything would have been
fine." However, some evidence is beginning to emerge that some pillaging
of the museum may have been conducted prior to the rampaging mob by trained
antiquities thieves. Their actions, along with later ransacking of the
building collectively resulted in the theft and destruction.

American heritage officials speculate that a full accounting of what was
lost -- not just at the museum but at the library and archives as well --
will take months. The status of other regional Iraqi cultural institutions
in other parts of Bagdad and in other cities now occupied by Coalition
forces remains unknown. Concerns are very real, as during the Gulf War
nine of Iraq's 13 regional museums were ransacked; items in their
collections later showed up on the international art market.

As Pentagon officials defended American military actions before the press,
the scholarly community throughout the world began to respond. Most
expressed outrage at the seeming "inaction" by Coalition forces. On 14
April, over 250 scholars petitioned the United Nations urging measures be
implemented for the safeguarding of Iraqi cultural heritage
( (Individuals and
organizations that wish to add their names and institutional affiliation
may do so by sending a message to:

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) also quickly acted. UNESCO called an emergency meeting in Paris
to begin to assess the damage and attempt to inventory missing or destroyed
antiquities. Interpol was also alerted and requested to enforce the 1970
UNESCO Convention strictures prohibiting the illicit import, export, and
transfer of ownership of cultural property. Several international
non-governmental bodies such as the International Council of Museums (ICOM)
issued statements warning art dealers, auction houses, collectors, and
museums against acquisition of objects that belong to the Iraqi heritage

In the United States, on 16 April, representatives of 16 heritage
organizations, including representatives of the archaeological, museum,
library, archival, and history communities came together at a hastily
called special meeting of an expanded Heritage Emergency National Task
Force (a loose coalition of many major national heritage organizations in
the United States) at the offices of the American Association of Museums to
discuss what united actions the American heritage community should
take. During the meeting, a representative of one scholarly organization
stated that their members were "outraged" and wanted their boards of
directors to pass strongly worded statements, fixing blame and getting to
the heart of culpability. A letter by Martin E. Sullivan tendering his
resignation as Chair of the President's Advisory Committee on Cultural
Property was also circulated. In that letter, Sullivan stated that in his
view the tragedy could have been prevented but was not, "due to our
nation's inaction."

During a roundtable discussion, it became clear that there were a lot of
unknowns. For example, there was no clear indication of the true extent of
the damage to museums, archives, and other cultural institutions from
voices of heritage professionals inside Iraq. The group believed that more
information needed to be gathered and that it presently was impossible to
determine how best to provide assistance. To rectify that situation, a
recommended course of action was outlined and agreed to

First, the group recognized the need to issue public calls for the
"immediate protection of all forms of heritage in Iraq" by Coalition forces.

Second, there is a need to "communicate with cultural heritage
professionals in Iraq to obtain a list of needs and priorities." The group
felt that this type of interaction with Iraqi colleagues was needed before
American organizations could be of immediate and continuing
assistance. To that end, a team of specialists representing various areas
of heritage expertise may be assembled and sent to Iraq to gather
information and conduct a needs assessment in conjunction with Iraqi
heritage professionals. Several representatives present at the meeting
also reported that their organizations had already started to compile
Internet-based catalogues of stolen/missing artifacts from museums that
would be of use to Customs and other policing officials in reclaiming
stolen goods.

Third, there needs to be a "call for the inclusion of cultural heritage
needs in the U.S. Agency for International Development's list of
reconstruction activities for Iraq." (see The
USIA is one such governmental agency that provides humanitarian and
reconstruction assistance and mitigates the impact of emergency situations.

Fourth, the group recognized that there was a need to identify "private,
business, and government funding to support the cultural heritage
reconstruction work in Iraq." To that end, the Getty Conservation
Institute has already pledged assistance (organizations wishing to
participate in this funding effort should contact the AAM at (202) 289-1818.

The Task Force urged heritage organizations throughout the country to issue
statements reflecting these four consensus points.

Gustavo Araoz, representing the United States Committee, International
Council on Monuments and Sites, (US/ICOMOS) circulated a draft letter to
President Bush signed by over twenty organizations. The letter included
several of the action points agreed to by these organizations. The
US/ICOMOS letter called for: 1) immediate protection of heritage sites
including "historic sites, historic urban districts, cultural landscapes,
buildings of unusual aesthetic values, archeological sites, museums,
libraries, archives, and other repositories of cultural property and human
memory;" 2) immediate protection of Iraqi professionals and scholars who
work in these places and thereby enable them to carry out their stewardship
duties; 3) implementation of the UNESCO Convention for illegal traffic of
stolen goods; and 4) the US government needs to insure that funds destined
for post-war recovery and reconstruction will provide sufficient funds for
the field of cultural resources. On behalf of the American
historical/archival professions, the National Coalition for History became
a signatory to this letter. The letter is posted on the webpage of the
Archaeological Institute of America ( and
should also be soon be available on the USICOMOS webpage
( as well as the NCH webpage

In the very near future the National Coalition for History will also be
issuing a model "Statement" on the Iraq heritage crisis for historical and
archival organizations to consider using as the basis for their own
organizational statements. Organizations wishing a copy may contact the NCH

Historic and cultural resources have been endangered by road-building and
highway projects at least since the inception of the Interstate Highway
System over fifty years ago. Such threats prompted Congress in 1966 to
create special protections for historic, cultural, recreational, wildlife,
and park resources under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
These protections were included in Section 4(f) of the Act and prevented
transportation agencies from using land from historic buildings, sites,
battlefields, parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges for
road-building "unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the
use, and if all possible planning is done to minimize harm."

Historic preservationists report that special interests within the road
building industry are committed to weakening the substantive and effective
protections under Section 4(f) when Congress considers the reauthorization
of surface transportation legislation. Opponents of 4(f ) are capitalizing
on the frustrations associated with the lengthy delays in completing
complex and expensive highway projects, and are spreading the misconception
that environmental and historic preservation reviews are the primary cause
of these big delays.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation and other preservation groups
have expressed "opposition to any legislative provision that would weaken
the protections afforded historic places by Section 4(f) and other
environmental laws." The Trust states that historic preservation
activities do not threaten road building; rather, road building threatens
historic preservation, which is why 4(f) was enacted in the first
place. Second, weakening 4(f) reviews will not speed up the completion of
highway project approvals, but involving citizens and local communities
early on in the planning process can guarantee a path to speedy and
economical completion of road projects. Third, the fault in perpetuating
highway project delays lies not with existing law and 4(f) protections, but
with its implementation and interpretation.

The Trust is urging preservationists to communicate to their senators and
representatives that the broader goals of surface transportation
reauthorization will not be realized if environmental and historic
preservation protections are sacrificed along the way. Individuals and
organizations are urged to contact congressional
representatives. Questions regarding the Section 4(f) provisions or TEA-21
reauthorization in general may call 202-588-6255 or contact the Trust at:

Bills Passed:
McLoughlin House National Historic Site Act: On 8 April 2003, under
suspension of the rules, the Senate/House passed the legislation (HR 733),
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and administer a site
in Oregon City, Oregon, as a unit of the National Park System. The site is
associated with Dr. John McLoughlin -- the so-called "father of Oregon" --
who established the Hudson Bay Company station in Vancouver, Washington, in
1825 and supplied settlers with goods needed to survive. The house is
currently owned by the McLoughlin Memorial Association, which is no longer
able to support and manage the property. Legislation was introduced in the
107th Congress (H.R. 3434) and hearings were conducted by the House
Resources Committee (see H. Rept. 107-652). In the 108th Congress,
legislation was introduced 12 February 2003 by Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR);
action in the Senate is now pending before its Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

Cesar Estrada Chavez Study Act: On 7 April the Senate passed legislation
(S. 164) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special
resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez
and the farm labor movement. Chavez founded the organization that
eventually became known as the United Farm Workers of America. He was
instrumental in the farm labor movement to seek social justice and civil
rights for the poor and disenfranchised. Legislation was introduced by
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on 15 January 2003, and Senate hearings were
conducted 11 March 2003 (see Senate Rept. 108-20). Companion legislation
has been introduced in the House (HR 1034) where the Senate passed bill and
the House measure both now await a hearing.

Bills Introduced:
The following bills have been introduced:
On 11 April, by Senator Judd Greg (R-NH) along with 14 co-sponsors: Museum
and Library Services Act (LSTA) Reauthorization bill (S. 888), legislation
seeking a reauthorization at $250 million; to the House Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

On 25 March, by Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO): "National Heritage Areas Policy
Act (HR 1427), legislation to establish criteria and mechanisms for the
designation of National Heritage Areas (on 13 March 2003 the Senate
conducted hearings on similar legislation introduced in the Senate); to the
House Resources Committee.

On 26 March 2003, by Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-CA), legislation (HR 1442) to
authorize the design and construction of a visitor center for the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.; to the House Resources Committee.

On 31 March 2003, by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton (D-NY), legislation (HR 1524/ S. 749 ) to authorize a
commemorative trails in connection with the Women's Rights National
Historical Park to link properties that are historically and thematically
associated with the struggle for women's suffrage; to the House Resources
Committee and Senate Energy Committee respectively.

On 3 April 2003, by Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) legislation (HR 1589)
to provide grants for the preservation of historic courthouses that are at
least 35 years old; to the House Resources Committee.

On 4 March 2003, by Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA), legislation (HR 1623) to direct
the Archivist of the United States to maintain an inventory of all gifts
received from domestic sources for the President, the White House or a
Presidential archival depository; to the House Government Reform Committee.

Item #1 -- E-Government Survey Results: A new survey on "e-government" --
government services and information online -- by Hart/Teeter Research for
the Council for Excellence in Government reflects new concerns by
American's about privacy and security. While 49% of the general population
believed it appropriate for the government to search databases for
information that would held track down terrorists, 42% disagreed and stated
that "protecting privacy should be a top priority." The report also found
that while people may be familiar with specific online government services,
they do not relate those services to the broader concept of online government."

Item #2 -- Edited Version of the New Secrecy EO: An edited version of the
new Bush Executive Order 13292 on classified national security information
that highlights the additions to, and deletions from, the prior executive
order 12958 is available courtesy of the Information Security
Oversight Office at: <>.
Department of Justice views on the new EO may be found at:

Item #3 -- Lynne Cheney Donates to Museum: Lynne Cheney, wife of
Vice-President Dick Cheney, has presented the National D-Day Museum in New
Orleans with a check for $25,000 -- proceeds from her alphabet book for
children "America: A Patriotic Primer." The museum honors veterans of
World War II. According to Cheney, the museum "shows the heroism of those
who fought to keep us free." To date, Mrs. Cheney has donated more than
$150,000 to various projects across the nation.

Item #4 -- Black History Museum Report Issued: A 122-page report by a
22-member presidential commission charged with developing a plan for the
National Museum of African American History and Culture has announced it
favors an undeveloped five and a quarter acre site near the Capitol for the
museum. The recommended 350,000 square foot facility is scheduled to open
in 2011. Backers of the project hope the museum will become a part of the
Smithsonian Institution. Over $360 million will need to be raised to make
the museum a reality. For the report, tap into: <>.

Two articles this week: In "History Scholars Fight Present War" (The
Philadelphia Inquirer; 10 April 2003), reporter James M. O'Neill reviews
the activities of a relatively new group of historians, "Historians Against
the War;" Tap into:

In "Not All Freedom is Made in America" (New York Times; 13 April 2003),
Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University,
reflects on the war in Iraq and the need to "engage in a dialog with the
rest of the world about the meaning of freedom." Tap into:>.

The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE
weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH
Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others
who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of
these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page
at <>.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH
firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You
can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt,
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".

Editor - 4/15/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #15 - amended; 14 April 2003)
by Bruce Craig
National Coalition for History (NCH)

AMENDED VERSION (Please note revisions to item #1)

1. Senate Committee Holds Hearing on History Teaching Bill
2. Report: OAH Annual Meeting
3. Richmond Lincoln Memorial Unveiled Amidst Controversy
4. SAA Issues Statement on State Archival Programs
5. Bits and Bytes: Yale Historian Robin Winks Dies; Pulitzer Prize for
History Announced; Watergate Papers To Be Housed in Texas Repository;
Historic Preservation Week Dates Announced
6. Articles of Interest: "A Boost for Giving" (Christian Science Monitor;
11 April 2003)

On 10 April 2003, two distinguished witnesses, biographer David McCullough
and the Senate's senior member, West Virginia's Robert C Byrd (D-WV),
appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions that conducted a hearing on Senator Lamar Alexander's (R-TN)
legislation -- "American History and Civics Education Act of 2003" (S.
504/HR 1078). Alexander's bill seeks to establish two-week long
Presidential Academies for teachers of American history and civics,
four-week long Congressional Academies for students of American history and
civics, and a National Alliance of Teachers of American History and Civics
-- an organization that would allow the sharing of ideas and best practices
among American history and civics teachers.

McCullough and Byrd both spoke eloquently about the crisis in history
education especially in elementary and secondary schools. In his statement,
McCullough characterized widespread ignorance of American history among
students as a "major threat to the nation's security." He also urged
teachers not to shy away from dealing with controversy in the
classroom. McCulough highlighted three suggestions that he believed could
improve classroom teaching: 1) revise how history teachers are trained; 2)
revamp dull textbooks; 3) recognize that the burden of teaching history
does not rest just on teachers, but that parents, museums, national parks,
and other cultural institutions have important roles to play in the
educational process.

In his comments, Senator Byrd agreed to join 19 other senators in
co-sponsoring the bill and expressed his hope that Senator Alexander's
program would "complement" Byrd's Department of Education-based "Teaching
American History Grant Program." As the ranking minority member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, Byrd's presence and support for the bill
bodes well for the measure once it is authorized and an appropriation
request comes before Byrd's powerful committee. Byrd rarely co-sponsors
legislation and it is even more unusual for him to testify in favor of a
legislative initiative. As one humanities organization insider stated, "it
virtually commits him to funding the measure."

Administration agency representatives who testified before the committee,
including Bruce Cole, Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities,
Eugene W. Hickok, Undersecretary of Education, and James Billington, the
Librarian of Congress, discussed current efforts of their agencies to
improve Americans' knowledge of an appreciation for American history: Cole
spoke about the "We the People" program and Hickok discussed the "No Child
Left Behind" act, the two-year old $100 million "Teaching American History"
initiative, and the $16.9 million Civic Education program operated out of
the non-profit Center for Civic Education in Calabasas,
California. Billington discussed the Library of Congresses (LC) Digital
Library program, the American Memory program and other such LC activities
that complement the administration's other history education related efforts.

Administration witnesses, however, carefully sidestepped some of the
central issues raised by the Alexander proposal -- a few examples: to what
degree is the proposed program duplicative of existing efforts by
government agencies and non-profits? What department or agency would the
program be attached to, and which one would fund the $25 million program?

A spokesperson for Senator Alexander told the NCH that the senator first
wants this bill to pass, and second he wants to see it appropriately
administered and funded. To that end, he envisions that this program would
be administered through the NEH with new funds being added to the NEH
budget line. Under that scenario, NEH funding in FY 2005 could exceed $175
million with over $50 million being targeted to American history related
initiatives. Humanities insiders express some concern, however, that once
the enabling legislation passes, new money may not be appropriated at the
$25 million level, and the NEH would have to fund the program from existing
funds; this in turn could adversely impact the NEH overall program.

A third panel featured comments by Diane Ravitch, New York University
professor of education. Ravitch noted that only half of the states now have
history standards. Blanch Deaderick, a history teacher from Memphis
Tennessee, and Russell Berg, a student at Trumbull High School in Trumbull,
Connecticut also gave brief statements.

Committee action on the legislation is expected in the near future.

Over 2,400 historians attended the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Organization
of American Historians (OAH) that was held in Memphis, Tennessee, 3-6 April
2003. The opening evening featured an event that is starting to become an
OAH tradition - regional receptions. These informal get-togethers gave
participants the opportunity to reestablish old acquaintances and meet new

Program offerings were particularly strong this year. Participants could
select from a list of over 150 sessions. One panel, "History's Power to
Inspire: A Conversation" a panel organized by Patricia Limerick, included
Catherine and Wayne Reynolds, the embattled Smithsonian donors whose
"Spirit of America" exhibit generated such controversy and ultimately
resulted in the donors rescinding the gift. One last minute addition to
the program was a panel focusing on issues arising from the war in Iraq;
Alan Brinkley kicked off this packed session that was televised live over

Over 50 historians -- Historians against the War -- crafted a resolution in
favor of free speech emphasizing the centrality of dissent during
wartime. The resolution was approved in a slightly amended version by the
OAH Executive Board: "In view of the threat to free speech in the current
climate, the Organization of American Historians affirms the centrality of
dissent in American history, the sanctity of the rights guaranteed by the
First Amendment, and the necessity for open debate of public policy issues,
including United States foreign policy, in order to maintain the health of
this democracy."
Finally, outgoing president Ira Berlin paid homage to a trio of historians
who recently died: Herbert Aptheker, Howard Fast, and Christopher Hill
before delivering his Saturday evening Presidential Address entitled,
"American Slavery in History and Memory."
This last week, 138 years after President Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad
visited the capitol of the Confederacy to begin to begin the healing
process after four years of bitter war, a bronze likeness of the 16th
president was dedicated at the Richmond National Battlefield Park on the
site of the foundry that forged munitions for the Confederate army. The
statue -- the first of Lincoln ever to be erected in any of the 11 former
Confederate states -- is generating considerable controversy.

Commissioned by the nonprofit U.S. Historical Society, the statue is a
life-sized depiction of Lincoln and his son sitting on a bench with the
inscription, "To Bind Up the Nation's Wounds." Some Richmond residents
protested that the funding for project came from people who are not
originally from Virginia, and that "the idea of celebrating Lincoln
somehow goes against the culture of Virginia [and] is just wrong." Robert
Hayes, the state director of the pro-secession League of the South, puts it
more bluntly: the statue is "a second occupation." Others feel that placing
the statue in the former Confederate capitol is "like installing Adolf
Hitler's semblance in Tel Aviv." Proponents, however, say the statue was
placed to recall Lincoln's post-war mission to heal. Cynthia MacLeod, park
superintendent of the Richmond NBP said that the goal of the statue "was to
educate and not open old wounds."

The statue has probably generated such controversy in part because
Confederate heritage advocates in Virginia, as well as elsewhere in the
South are becoming increasingly vocal at the same time that they are losing
political influence and popular appeal. Last year, for example, the state
of Virginia scrapped official recognition of April as Confederate Heritage
and History Month; legislators in South Carolina and Georgia have also
downplayed or eliminated the continued portrayal of the Confederate battle
flag on newly designed state flags. Except in the heart of the old
Confederacy where pro-Confederate sympathies still run high, the American
public, now more diverse and multi cultural than ever before, see little to
admire in the slaveholding South once portrayed so sympathetically in
Hollywood blockbusters like "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone with the
Wind. "Gods and Generals," for example -- a recent film that portrays the
South sympathetically -- has lost over $60 million and apparently has
failed to capture the imagination of the 18-45 year-old crowd that
Hollywood film makers typically target.
In response to proposed cuts in funding of archival programs in states such
as Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and
elsewhere, the Society of American Archivists has issued a "Statement on
the Importance of Supporting State Archival Programs." Individuals and
organizations are encouraged to use language from the statement when
contacting state legislatures in support of archival program funding.

The statement notes that "state governments throughout the nation are
facing severe budget deficits and have been forced to make deep cuts to
programs and services." The statement asserts that in some states "the
worst is yet to come, and decisions impacting the lives of many citizens
must be made in the immediate future...Government records safeguard the
rights and freedoms that all citizens enjoy and, as such, they are as vital
to the health and well-being of state residents as programs that deliver
social services."

The statement concludes, "In summary, our democratic system is founded on
the openness of our government at all levels to public scrutiny. State
archival programs preserve and make available essential evidence
documenting government actions. Without government records, elected
officials cannot be held accountable. Without these records, citizens
cannot exercise their rights. Failing to maintain this documentation
breaks a public trust."

For the entire statement, tap into:

Item #1 -- Yale Historian Robin Winks Dies: Robin Winks a prolific history
professor and former Master of Berkeley College, died at Yale-New Haven
Hospital after a stroke. He was 72. Winks' interests included Canadian
history, detective fiction, environmental history, and espionage. He wrote
or edited 25 books (not including his mystery novels penned under
pseudonyms) but is perhaps is best remembered for "Cloak and Gown: Scholars
in the Secret War, 1939-1961" and "The Historian as Detective: Essays on
Evidence." Winks' diverse interests focused not just academia but he had a
life long romance with national parks. He served as chair of the National
Park Service Advisory Board and as chair of National Parks and Conservation
Association. Winks was particularly proud that he had visited every
national park unit as well as nearly all of the several thousand national
historic landmarks.

Item #2 -- Pulitzer Prize for History Announced: Columbia University has
announced that the Pulitzer for history was awarded to Washington Post
journalist Rick Atkinson for his book on World War II entitled, "An Army at
Dawn: The War in North Africa 1942-1943" (NY: Henry Holt and
Company). Robert Caro won the prize in biography for his study of Lyndon
Johnson, "Master of the Senate (NY: Alfred A. Knopf)."

Item #3 -- Watergate Papers To Be Housed in Texas Repository: The
University of Texas at Austin has purchased the 75 file box Watergate
archives of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for
$5 million. The papers include notebooks, photographs as well as documents
identifying "Deep Throat." The papers will be stored at the Harry Ransom
Humanities Research Center and are expected to be made available to the
public within a year. For the full story, tap into:

Item #4 -- Historic Preservation Week Dates Announced: The National Trust
for Historic Preservation has announced that the 2003 celebration of
Historic Preservation Week will be May 5-12. Since 1971 the Trust event
has been a way to demonstrate grassroots preservation activities in
communities nationwide. This year's theme, "Cities, Suburbs, and
Countryside" seeks to underscore how the preservation ethic is changing to
be more encompassing -- from saving individual landmark buildings to
tackling economic and quality of life issues in various historic settings.
More information on events and how communities and organizations can
participate can be found at and select menu
option, "Support Preservation."

One article this week: "A Boost for Giving" the editors of The Christian
Science Monitor 11 April 2003) state that a new Senate passed bill that
encourages giving "is good news both for charities and Americans who want
to donate." For the editorial, tap into:

The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE
weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH
Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others
who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of
these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page
at .

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH
firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You
can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt,
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".

Editor - 4/15/2003

Washington Whispers 04/21/03
By Paul Bedard
Bookworms, pack rats: nation's secret warriors

Add the nation's bookworms and pack rats to the list of heroes in the fight on terrorism. James Billington, the librarian of Congress, reveals that his staff is helping the government's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and even the rebuilding of Afghanistan. One example: On 9/12, Middle East experts on war alert began rummaging through dusty files and later found a book in which bin Laden describes his terror tactics. Also: Billington's Cairo office got a computer disk version of an al Qaeda document, "The Truth About the New Crusade," detailing when it's OK to kill Americans. And he has provided Afghanistan with the world's largest collection of pre-Taliban Afghan law. This is not the first time. In 1990, as the United States readied for the Gulf War, old files solved the Pentagon's question of whether fine Iraqi sand would support or swallow tanks and aircraft. The answer was in a late 1870s German geologist's report on digs in ancient Mesopotamia, now Iraq. Included: core sample data. "Even the Germans threw that away," says Billington. "We didn't, which supports our `pack-ratism.' "

Editor - 4/14/2003

Knoxville, Tennessee— The Center for the Study of War and Society at the University of Tennessee will host the annual meeting of the Society for Military History, May 1-4, 2003, at the Knoxville Hilton Hotel. The event will feature panels on this year’s theme, “The Military and Society during Domestic Crisis,” as well as other topics related to military history. Over 325 scholars from the United States and Canada are expected to attend, as well as a number of participants from Europe and South America. Dr. Alex Roland of Duke University will deliver the keynote address, with additional lectures by William Doyle, author of An American Insurrection: James Meredith and the Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962, and Dr. Harold Hyman of Rice University.

The scholarly panels reflect a wide range of themes, regions, and time periods. Panels such as “9-11: A Military View from the Pentagon” offer reflections on recent events, while others provide practical insights, like “Military History and Publishing.” Presenters will discuss civil-military relations, technology, and strategy from medieval warfare through the present, from “War and Colonialism in Asia” to “Crime, Social Order, and the Military” in America.

The keynote speaker, Dr. Alex Roland, is a 1966 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who served in the Marine Corps before taking his PhD in History at Duke in 1974. Dr. Roland has served as a NASA historian, and chaired the Duke History Department from 1995-2000. He has held the Harold K. Johnson Chair of Military History at the Military History Institute, U.S. Army War College, and the Dr. Leo Shifrin Chair of Naval-Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy. He is the author, co-author, and editor of several books. Dr. Roland is a past President of the Society for the History of Technology and the current vice President of the Society for Military History.

Published in 2002, William Doyle’s An American Insurrection: James Meredith and the Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962 won the American Bar Association Silver Gavel Award and the American Library Association Alex Award, and was a finalist for the Robert F. Kennedy Book Award. His previous book, Inside the Oval Office: The White House Tapes from FDR to Clinton (1999) was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. He co-wrote and produced a companion special on A&E, which received the 1998 Writers Guild of America Award for Best Documentary. He has served as director of original programming and executive producer for HBO in New York City.

Harold Hyman is a Professor Emeritus at Rice University. Hyman is the Director of the Center for the History of Leadership Institutions at Rice University. He is the author of several books and articles on the Civil War and Reconstruction, Abraham Lincoln, internal security evolution, civilian-military relationships, and the impact of modern law firms. Hyman has lectured and taught at major universities, law schools, and think tanks, and is a past president of the American Society for Legal History.

The meeting will also host the premiere of the documentary film Gold Star Mothers: Pilgrimage of Remembrance. Produced and written by Alison Davis Wood, the film examines the post-World War I government program to send 6,000 women to see their sons’ and husbands’ overseas graves. The documentary was made possible in part by grants from the Illinois Humanities Council, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Illinois General Assembly. The viewing will take place at 8 p.m. on Saturday, May 3, 2003, in the Ballroom of the Knoxville Hilton.

The Center for the Study of War and Society has created a web page to provide further information about events and participation at the meeting. The page can be found at the Center’s website: The Society for Military History, a scholarly organization of over 2,300 members, will hold its next meeting in Bethesda, Maryland in the spring of 2004. Information about the Society, its quarterly publication, The Journal of Military History, and future events can be found at

Founded in 1984 by Professor Charles Johnson, the Center for the Study of War and Society at the University of Tennessee has collected primary materials about World War II from hundreds of veterans. The current director, Associate Professor G. Kurt Piehler, has conducted dozens of oral history interviews with America’s veterans, with the goal of placing them online at The Center also co-produces the annual “Celebrate Freedom!” event with the city of Pigeon Forge, and is hosting the 2003 meeting of the Society for Military History.

Contact Information:
G. Kurt Piehler, Director: (865) 974-7094
Cynthia Tinker, Program Coordinator: (865) 974-0128
Gregory Kupsky, Assistant to the Director: (865) 974-0548

Fed-up Brit - 4/14/2003

Cheese eating surrender monkeys. Nuff said - France NEVER does anything that is not in its direct interest (or even requires an element of guts) even if it means undermining the united strnegth of its so-called allies e.g not giving in to terrorists and paying ransoms on kidnap victims, not allowing US airforce freedom of its airspace for the Libya bombing, selling Exocets to Argentina (and Heavens knows what to enemies of the Western democracies), making a complete dogs breakfast of Indochina etc. Why is anyone ever surprised, and why has this two bit country got any representation on the Security Council and the power of veto? It hardly rates as a World power. Anyone would think they had won WWII rather than dropping their culottes!

Ed - 4/13/2003

For updates on our progress,

Thomas - 4/12/2003

Well, the truth be told, all those post-modern conquistadores might want to put Mr. Kamen's book aside and settled down for an evening of reading Bartolome de Las Casas, A SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WEST INDIES in order to get a contemporary Spaniard's take on "Spain's glorious and epic making empire building" in the "New World"! Mr. Kamen's book is child's play next to Las Casas' eyewitness accounts of the brutal and vicious enslavement and slaughter of the Caribbean island peoples, and those of Central and South America. Don't read Las Casas before going to sleep!

Dr. Ricks

Jerry West - 4/11/2003

Bob Greene wrote:

That the loone left thinks Bush is a murderer and Pipes is bigoted, both LIES without merrit, are only endorcement to this nomination. Keep whining lefties we are winning. You are on the wrong side of history. Baghdad fell today and Iraq rejoices. We were right and you were wrong


I guess whether Bush is a murderer or not depends on how you define murderer. A lot of people have died because of his commands, commands that many consider criminal.

As for Baghdad falling and Iraq rejoicing, more specifically they are rejoicing because Saddam's regime is gone. Most of the left joins Iraq in this rejoicing. Whether the Iraqis are happy that Baghdad has fallen or not, or that their country is crawling with foreign invaders remains to be seen. Only time will tell that one. Source received in my newsroom today indicate that an opposition movement made up of those opposed to Saddam, and now opposed to the US is forming. How true this is we should see in due time.

Thirty years ago the regime in Chile fell, right rejoiced, but unlike now, the left did not. The right rejoicing in the rise of Pinochet and his brutal regime tells you much about their values.

Editor - 4/11/2003

The Independent (London)

April 7, 2003, Monday




BYLINE: INTERVIEW BY DAVID USBORNE Francis Fukuyama (opposite page); a British soldier comes face to face with an Iraqi woman while on patrol in the southern town of Umm Qasr (below)

You might expect, first of all, some kind of apology from Francis Fukuyama, the political economist who famously told us just over a decade ago that, thanks to the collapse of Soviet communism, we had reached "the end of history". The world, he said in the best-selling book The End of History and the Last Man, was becalmed as it converged on the Western model of liberal capitalism and we needed no longer to fear the clashing of great civilisations.

He might similarly find this a good moment to say sorry for putting his name to an open letter sent to President Bill Clinton a few years ago urging him to take action against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The note was co-signed by figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, who were out of government then, but who today - as the top guys in the Pentagon - have been primarily responsible for pushing us into the war in Iraq.

You may be disappointed, however. It is the luxury of academics, as against political leaders, that no humility is ever really needed. Now teaching at the Washington DC-based School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), part of Johns Hopkins University, Professor Fukuyama has no trouble explaining himself. It does not even seem contradictory to him that his most recent book, Our Posthuman Future, which is coming out in paperback this week, includes a section headlined "The Recommencement of History". He would probably like, first, to set the record straight on Iraq. Talking in his book-lined office at SAIS, he baulks, although with placid politeness, at the suggestion that "that" letter was the proof of what some anti-war commentators see as a conspiracy among conservative hawks in Washington to manipulate American foreign policy towards armed aggression against Saddam. Only when President George Bush came to power, with his Republican base, could the plot start to bear fruit.

"In that case, it was one of the most public conspiracies ever hatched," he replies, before taking instant issue with the manner of the response that has taken us into conflict. Indeed, he berates the Bush administration for ignoring world opinion and ordering in the troops without international backing.

"I signed the letter, but I have not been at all happy with the way they have executed this," he begins, shrugging of any responsibility for where we find ourselves now. "The letter did not say you should go into this unilaterally, that you can do this in contempt of the views of the rest of the world. That was not what I signed up to. I don't think Iraq is the single most serious problem in the world and that therefore you can subordinate all of your alliance relationships and goodwill with the rest of the world to this. It is not a good trade-off." As for predicting where we will stand once the fighting is over, Fukuyama demurs.

Now, what about this stasis in history he was on about before? In fact, his apparent about-face in the new book - that history is resuming its march - is not meant as a contradiction of his earlier views at all. His thesis, he insists, is intact, more or less. It is just that something else has raised its head that, well, complicates matters a little. Our Posthuman Future is about biotechnology, psychochemical drugs and the genetic engineering of our bodies, and how such life-science advances threaten to run amok with what it is to be a human being. It is about Ritalin, gay genes and clones.

But that aside, how can he stand by his first book, one that did so well that it reached the best-seller lists in America and was translated into 22 languages? Let's see. Since it came out we have had years of war in the Balkans, the twin towers were knocked down in New York, and now conflagration in Iraq. There is plenty of history there, surely. To be fair, his premise was not that nothing more was going to happen on our planet and that historians - and newspaper headline-writers - were soon to be out of a job. Fukuyama was talking more about history as defined by the German philosopher Hegel as the process of evolution in human society. By the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we had all more or less reached the same conclusion, he wrote - that free-market capitalism, with private ownership, trade and entrepreneurial endeavour, was the model that worked, even if it came in slightly different varieties.

He need not disown his celebrated theory "as long as it is understood properly". He posits: "The End of History was really about the long-term process of modernisation, whether there is basically one broad path to go down, and whether that process converges into a single broadly defined set of institutions. Well, there aren't really a lot of alternative paths to modernisation, and if you look in a long enough timescale, I would say that is right."

Take China, where he has just been on a lecture tour. "That is a society for which much of this is front and centre. As China gets richer, there will be this increasing demand for democracy, regardless of the fact that it was a totalitarian government that got them to this point." Even Iran, an Islamic theocracy now, will get there, he adds.

But surely we are in the very midst of a clash of civilisations today - the collision of Christianity and Islam, or at least the radical elements of Islam? No, he says, that is not quite right either. He suggests, somewhat daringly, that the September 11 attack on New York was a "blip" in the greater scheme of things; nor should the Iraq war deflect us either. "I think that Iraq is kind of irrelevant to this. Neither Arab nationalists nor Islamic fundamentalism, or any of the other alternatives in that part of the world, present a really serious route to modernisation. If the question is, Is this a fundamental clash between two equally valid civilisations in the sense that both show equal promise and 50 years from now we will be out there competing with one another,' then I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is an unequal contest."

Push him, however, and you do wring out a few concessions. "I probably underestimated the strength of nationalism in Europe during the Balkan conflict," he admits, before rapidly arguing that it has ended with a Serbia that is converging with the rest of Europe and has thus taken exactly the evolutionary path he was describing. But, finally, he outlines three scenarios where the "end of history" theory becomes imperilled. The first is not about terrorism in the ordinary sense, but terrorism backed by nuclear weapons. "If you can imagine a world in which nuclear weapons didn't exist, you would say, Yeah, there is terrorism but this big freight train to modernisation in the rest of the world is not going to be derailed by it.' But clearly if regions decide to remain outside this and don't want to get on the train and can use weapons of mass destruction, that is a serious complication."

And what are the other complications? One, he says, is chronic bad governance in some parts of the world, most particularly sub-Saharan Africa and, to a lesser extent, Latin America. The modernisation he speaks of can only be motivated by economic progress, which in turn rests on a minimally effective government. He also, slightly surprisingly, worries somewhat about conflicting ideas of sovereignty between the United States and Europe. The US is much less interested in subordinating sovereignty to broader international institutions than are most European states, he argues, while noting that Britain, when it comes to the Eurozone at least, may be an exception. "And this has been exacerbated by the whole Iraq thing, and I don't really see it subsiding in the future," he says, referring to the debacle of the UN's role.

But he reserves discussion of the biggest kink of all for Our Posthuman Future. Dismissed by some reviewers as "scare-mongering" and hysterical, the book outlines the possible consequences of pharmacists and scientists manipulating our emotions, our minds and, eventually, even our genetic compositions. Attempts at social engineering by economists and political leaders during the 20th century finally failed, he says, because they simply did not fit with basic human nature. "If you try to abolish private property or subordinate private property to the state, people just aren't wired to respond to that kind of system. It just doesn't work, and the collapse of those kinds of systems reflects that," he says, pointing to the old Soviet Union, China and Cuba. But the manipulations that are becoming possible through the life sciences threaten to alter basic human nature itself. "What is going on now is a major revolution in the underlying science, and it's worth wondering where it's going to lead to."

Some of the effects are already being felt, he says. He worries, for instance, about the success we already see in increasing life-spans. The danger is that some countries will become national nursing homes, with the resulting fall-off in productivity and growing financial burdens on the state. The median ages of countries, notably Italy, Spain and Germany, are already soaring, as are the rates of Alzheimer's disease, as more and more people live beyond 85.

The process may become even more acute if scientists figure out how to tamper with the molecular basis for aging. "A fairly basic genetic intervention might not add just a few years to life, but may really dramatically increase lifespans. And that will be a very different kind of society." Will it not therefore be a wiser society? "Or else very sclerotic ones," he responds grimly.

Fukuyama readily acknowledges that rationing access to new drugs as they are developed would not be politically practical, or necessarily even moral. He would like to see at least some restraint, however, when it comes to certain mind-altering drugs that are already in the public domain. Ritalin, he notes, which is meant to slow hyperactivity and facilitate concentration, is already prescribed to about 12 per cent of children between two and four in the United States. Us grown-ups, meanwhile, are finding artificial peace of mind with Prozac.

This is where the notion of shared human experience is being dangerously tampered with, he suggests. It is impairing what he calls our "shared humanity", the ingredients that "have to do with every set of human faculties and emotions that allow us to identify with one another, to share experiences and to communicate. And already with drugs and other kinds of interventions, we are beginning to change that, especially in the emotional sphere." For example, little pills offer us self-esteem. "We should not think of self-esteem as an entitlement. It should be the result of having done something estimable. Now you have this pill that allows you to get the same subjective feeling without actually having to earn it. That's morally very difficult."

Bravely, Fukuyama says that suffering - and even death at the right time - are things we should not forgo. "It is hard to be the representative of the party of pain and death and suffering. But I think that is one of the big issues; whether a fully human life is one that is lived without knowing what it is like to suffer."

It is in the sphere of genetic engineering that Fukuyama gets scary. Certainly, he abhors a future that includes human cloning. By the way, he dismisses entirely the assertions of the company Clonaid, which two weeks ago published pictures of one of the babies it claims to have cloned. "I think they are frauds from beginning to end," he says. Well, that is a relief. In his most extreme passages of the book, he evokes a future where an uber-class of humans in the northern hemisphere has access to genetic advances to screen out offspring that may be weak, diseased or even unattractive. Thus they build a superior race of humans. The eventual consequence could be resentment in the classes that lack such genetic privilege, followed by armed uprising and - yes - the resumption of history and clashes between civilisations. The engineered versus the non-engineered.

In our talk, he admits that this is a nightmare that is a long way off, which in fact may never arrive. But he offers a slightly less incredible scenario, one in which scientists identify what they consider to be the "gay" gene. In rich countries, mothers will be given the chance, in the privacy of their doctor's office, to have a test to screen for the gene. If it is present, they will choose not to deliver the child. "You can imagine that gays would become very rare in a single generation. Do we want to leave something like that simply up to individual choice? My feeling is that we should not."

All of which brings Fukuyama to conclude that when it comes to genetic manipulation, at least, regulation by the state is the only answer, if only to guard against the blurring of the use of biomedicine for therapeutic purposes into one of human enhancement. He notes another difference here between Europe and the US. Regulation is far more in the blood of Europeans - in Britain we already have one agency, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority - than it is in the US. So he is pessimistic about America ever agreeing on the regulations that will be necessary.

But wait. Doesn't that bring us to yet another contradiction in the works of Fukuyama? His career was spawned in the conservative era of Reagan and Bush Sr - and wasn't The End of History a hymn to liberalism, capitalism and unrestricted trade? What is all this talk of state regulation? Is he baling out on the American conservative movement? No, he replies. "I just think that a lot of those ideological labels don't work very well, because I have always had a more complicated vision than that."

Some of us may conclude, all the same, that consistency is not one of Fukuyama's greatest strengths. Provocative thought and writing most certainly are, however.

Editor - 4/11/2003

The Boston Globe

April 6, 2003, Sunday ,THIRD EDITION



BYLINE: By Lucian Kim, Globe Correspondent

BUDAPEST - Few residents would disagree that the capital's newest museum, the House of Terror, is haunted. The museum, in an elegant former apartment building in the heart of the city, was the headquarters of the Hungarian fascist movement during World War II. It was later the nerve center of the dreaded communist political police.

But the ghosts of a turbulent history have not been put to rest. Fourteen years after Eastern Europe shrugged off communism in favor of free elections and free markets, interpreting the past often provokes fierce controversy. Since it opened in February 2002, the museum continues to foster a storm of debate.

Opponents say that the previous rightist government had raced to complete the museum, which is state-funded, so it could be used as a campaign gimmick in elections last year.

Supporters reply that the socialist-led government, voted into office a year ago by a slim margin, is now threatening to slash the House of Terror's budget, reshuffle its executive board, and change its exhibits - if not close it.

"We're very proud of it," said Maria Schmidt, 50, the museum's director. "In the past year it became the most important subject of Hungarian political life."

More than 300,000 people have visited the museum, which is intended to have a powerful effect. Few seem likely to leave without a chill running down their spines.

In designing the exhibits, Schmidt said, planners studied two dozen museums around the world, including the Holocaust Museum in Washington.

The multilevel exhibit is centered on an atrium. An old Soviet tank stands in a shallow pool of water. The monochrome faces of victims of terror rise up in a grid along one side of a courtyard.

In a long room titled "gulag," a large-scale map of the Soviet Union stretches across the floor to give a sense how far from home hundreds of thousands of Hungarians were exiled by the communists after World War II. The wooden walls of the room resemble those of a cattle car; on video screens, the Russian steppe flashes by as if seen from a moving train.

The exhibition begins with the short-lived but brutal German occupation of Hungary in 1944. Yet the main focus is on the early years of communist rule, which began when the Soviet army defeated the Nazis and their cohorts from the Hungarian fascist party, the Arrow Cross. The communist political police, known as the AVO and later as the AVH, took over the Arrow Cross and directed the Stalinist-inspired terror from the very rooms that now house the museum.

The most chilling part of the exhibition are the reconstructed jail cells in the basement, where political prisoners were tortured and often killed. The political police moved out of the building in 1956, the year that Soviet troops crushed the uprising in Budapest.

For some the museum is a slick presentation with little substance. A surly guard outside the building keeps visitors waiting in line as if they were trying to enter a popular nightclub. Foreigners are required to pay twice as much - about $13 - for entry as Hungarians, a relic of communist-era double-pricing in which hard currency was milked from tourists.

Dramatic music, sounding much like a film score, fills many of the rooms.

"It's absolutely professional kitsch. It's something I don't admire, but I look at it with respect," said Laszlo Rajk, 54, a former communist-era dissident.

Even critics of the museum agree that the building is a symbol of both fascist and communist terror and that it warrants some sort of exhibition. But here agreement on the House of Terror ends.

"It's a totally antihistorical, ahistorical, politically organized exhibition," said Laszlo Karsai, 53, a historian at Szeged University in southern Hungary and one of the museum's harshest opponents.

He said the creators had tried to draw a line of continuity between communist torturers of the Soviet era and left-of-center politicians of the present.

"The message is simple: Almost every Hungarian is innocent. The main guilty are foreign forces: first the Germans, then the Russians and very, very few collaborators," Karsai said. "Therefore, today only a collaborator could vote for a socialist or liberal."

Karsai, one of Hungary's top Holocaust scholars, also questioned why only two rooms in the museum are dedicated to fascist terror, which led to the deaths of more than 500,000 Hungarian Jews, while the rest of the exhibition focuses on the Stalinist terror, which is reported to have claimed 3,000 victims.

Museum supporters have replied by pointing out that Budapest's own Holocaust Museum and documentation center is scheduled to open by 2005.

Rajk, the former dissident, said that the House of Terror is one-sided. "The lack of complexity is a problem not only of the Terror House but of the whole approach to communism in Eastern Europe," he said. "Because of a lack of analysis, people fall into the same trap as the communists did 50 years ago."

Rajk's father, also named Laszlo was a hard-line communist interior minister in the late 1940s, and he oversaw the work of the AVO. In 1949, he became the victim of a purge and was executed after a show trial. The young Rajk was only a few months old at the time.

"What bothers me is not that my father is on the wall of the guilty or of the victims or both. The problem is the oversimplification of his career," Rajk said. He complained that rather than explore how many leftist idealists became torturers, the House of Terror brands them as "bad guys."

Probably the most disputed section is a passageway in the cellar covered with several hundred black-and-white photographs of "victimizers," with name, rank, and year of birth. Most, it seems, are alive. Visitors to the House of Terror's website ( can "register" a victimizer.

"It's the most sensitive question about the political transition," Rajk said. "What do you do with the guilty?"

The question continues to plague Hungary today. The Socialist prime minister, Peter Medgyessy, was discredited last summer when it emerged that he had worked for communist-era counterintelligence. But conservative politicians also have had to confess connections to a murky past.

Amid the acrimony, museum director Schmidt says that the House of Terror stands as "a symbol of a democratic country, that not only a leftist or post-communist way of thinking is possible."

But Karsai said that the museum is more symbolic of Hungarian society's polarization.

"I'm very sad. After the collapse of communism, I had the dream to live in a free, liberal, democratic country. . . . But the country is extremely divided, into two or three factions. Between the factions there is no debate, but mutual hate and distrust."

Editor - 4/11/2003

The Jerusalem Post

April 4, 2003, Friday


HEADLINE: Polish archeologists search for famous Ringelblum Archive


WARSAW - Polish archeologists have begun searching for a missing Jewish archive that chronicled the final days of life in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943, a spokeswoman for the Jewish Historical Institute said Thursday.

Workers started digging Wednesday on the premises of the Chinese Embassy in Warsaw in search of the third part of the so-called Ringelblum Archive, said Eleonora Bergman, the deputy head of the Warsaw-based Institute. Named after Emanuel Ringelblum, a Jewish historian who led a group of researchers to record life in the ghetto in Nazi-occupied Warsaw, the archive is believed to include thousands of documents, drawings, diaries and underground newspapers dating from February to April 1943.

Two earlier parts of the archive comprise 30,000 documents and were recovered in 1946 and 1950, and belong to the Institute, but a search at that time for the third part proved unsuccessful, Bergman said in a telephone interview.

The archive has been put on the UNESCO list of world's most valuable documents.

Bergman said the latest effort started after Marek Edelman, the only surviving commander of the April 1943 Ghetto Uprising against the Nazis provided more details about where the papers could be buried.

Editor - 4/11/2003

The Times (London)

April 3, 2003, Thursday

SECTION: Features; Times2; 18

HEADLINE: Screen time for Hitler

BYLINE: Daniel Rosenthal


WHEN THE GERMAN director Caroline Link's Nowhere in Africa (reviewed on page 12) won the Best Foreign-Language Oscar, Academy voters were merely endorsing the verdict of critics and cinemagoers in Link's home country. This magnificent drama, set before and during the Second World War, had already collected five German film awards in 2002 and grossed more than Pounds 4.8 million at the German box office, an exceptionally high figure for a homegrown film.

The win may now focus global attention on a group of German directors, led by Link, Joseph Vilsmaier (Comedian Harmonists) and Max Farber- bock (Aimee & Jaguar), who in recent years have attracted large domestic audiences by dramatising intimate true stories from the Nazi era.

Their freedom to explore the most shameful and dramatic period in their country's past has a complex history. "When I was at school in the 1960s we read books and saw lots of documentaries about the Holocaust," says Peter Herrmann, producer of Nowhere in Africa. "But there was some sort of a taboo about making a fiction film about the Nazi period."

It took an American television production to break this unwritten injunction: Holocaust (1978), an eight-hour, Emmy-winning mini-series about a Jewish family's struggle for survival, starring Meryl Streep. It created a sensation when German television broadcast it in prime time in 1979, says Rob Burns, Professor of German at the University of Warwick.

"Holocaust had huge viewing figures and became a big media event, with panel discussions and phone-ins," he says. "It then created a very clear response from the director Edgar Reitz, who said he was irritated by Holocaust and wanted, as it were, to reclaim German history."

The result was Heimat (1984), Reitz's 15-hour television chronicle of life in the village of Schabbach from 1919 to 1982, later shown by the BBC. Reitz created what Burns calls "an almost de-Nazified version of history, in that Nazism only surfaces insofar as it affects the village".

Another German director, Helma Sanders-Brahms, made an important contribution with Germany Pale Mother (1980), by concentrating on the plight of a mother and her young daughter left alone in Berlin while the husband is away at the Eastern Front.

Burns believes that Reitz and Sanders-Brahms helped to pave the way for Germany's recent crop of films set in the 1930s and 1940s, including Vilsmaier's Comedian Harmonists (1997), a hugely popular biopic about the 1930s singing sextet broken up by the Nazis because three of its members were Jews, and his heavy-handed Leo and Claire (2001), which examined the case of a German Jew executed for his alleged affair with an Aryan woman. In Aimee & Jaguar (1999), Farberbock traced a Jewish-Aryan lesbian affair in wartime Berlin with great sensitivity. But most impressive of all is Nowhere in Africa.

In its telling of a wartime tale, Link's film could have cut back and forth between Kenya and Germany and shown the Jews who appear in the first reel falling victim to Kristallnacht, deportation and worse. Instead, the camera stays in Kenya, while radio bulletins, newspaper reports and brief letters give Walter and Jettel ominous clues as to the fate of their loved ones.

"Caroline and I were determined that although this is a story dealing with the Holocaust we wanted not to show images of the Holocaust," says Herrmann. "If the audience can imagine what is happening to the family in Germany that can be stronger than showing the reality."

But no matter how skilfully films like Nowhere in Africa and Aimee & Jaguar transcend their settings, Burns points out that in Germany "they will always become part of a much wider debate about the Nazi era, in which people take up very entrenched positions. Periodically, German historians or politicians will say 'There is so much discussion of our Nazi heritage in films and literature that we are becoming obsessed. And yet we are in many ways a model democracy. It should never be forgotten, but we must not be too weighed down by it either'."

Some German pundits could argue that Academy voters share this Nazi "obsession".

Of the eight German-language films nominated for an Oscar since 1979, only one had a storyline untouched by the Third Reich: Link's feature debut Beyond Silence (1996), about a young girl's relationship with her deaf parents.

Germany's only other Foreign-Language Oscar winner, Volker Schlondorff's The Tin Drum (1979), viewed the war through the eyes of Oskar, the boy who refused to grow up, and its other nominees include Agniezka Holland's Angry Harvest (a farmer and a fugitive Jewess fall in love in occupied Poland), Michael Verhoeven's The Nasty Girl, whose teenage heroine is ostracised for writing a frank essay about her town elders' murky war record, and Helmut Dietl's Schtonk!, about the Hitler Diaries fraud.

Contemporary German films offer far greater diversity than the country's Oscars record would suggest, from a hip thriller like Run Lola Run to the psychological drama of The Experiment or the gross-out teen comedy of Ants in Their Pants.

Following Nowhere in Africa's triumph, even the most patriotic German commentators may qualify their celebrations by asking "Will we ever win an Oscar with a film that doesn't mention the war?"

Editor - 4/11/2003

The Independent (London)

April 3, 2003, Thursday




The award-winning military historian Antony Beevor, 56, failed his A-levels at Winchester College. He joined the Army, becoming a regular officer with the 11th Hussars. Five years later, he left to become a writer and has since published four novels and six works of non-fiction, including The Spanish Civil War and Paris after the Liberation, co-written with his wife, Artemis Cooper. He hit the bestseller lists in 1998 with Stalingrad, which has been translated into 25 languages and has sold more than a million copies. His most recent book, Berlin: The Downfall 1945, was also a No 1 bestseller. Beevor lives with his wife and two children in London.

Saddam is known to be a big fan of Stalin. Is there any chance that he can turn the battle for Baghdad into his Stalingrad? Sam Hopwood, Southampton

Saddam is indeed obsessed with Stalin. He certainly has fantasies about turning the battle for Baghdad into a Stalingrad on the Tigris. But history never repeats itself, and there's certainly no parallel here. The Iraqi army is not the Red Army. It is certainly not in a position to counterattack and encircle its enemy, as the Red Army managed to do at Stalingrad. So that is pure fantasy. But I'm not saying there will be an easy victory in Baghdad. Saddam is totally ruthless, just like Stalin, in being prepared to sacrifice as many civilians as needed to win the battle. I simply cannot tell how long it will take. War is the most unpredictable of all human activities.

I, too, messed up my A-levels. What's your excuse? And can you give me some tips on how to become a respected intellectual despite my early failings?

Giles Parker, St Albans

Yes, it's true. There was no excuse, except that I was in a stage of puerile revolt against my school at the time. It was basically undirected bloody-mindedness. The strange thing is that careers are totally unpredictable. Nowadays, it's probably a lot more difficult without A-levels, so I would not recommend it. I've just been incredibly lucky.

After a hard day's reading about human slaughter, how do you unwind?

Sally Edwards, by e-mail

Well, not every day is spent reading about human slaughter. But I unwind by reading about other things and by gardening. Of course, it was harrowing to read many of the reports, especially about Stalingrad. It's amazing how, for years after researching the book, I couldn't look at a plate of food without thinking what it would have meant to not just one but a dozen people in Stalingrad. Funnily enough, it hit me again last night - and it wasn't even a particularly large plate. While I was researching, I found the horror of what I was reading would hit me 24 hours or 36 hours later, usually at night. Certainly, towards the end of writing Berlin, I was very close to a nervous breakdown, although that was also due to the pressure of finishing the book.

When and why did you write your first novel? And where is it now?

Paula Smith, Glasgow

The manuscript is firmly at the bottom of a packing case, and even my wife has never been allowed to look at it. I was about 22 years old when I wrote it and, like all first novels, it was totally autobiographical - about a young officer in the Army. God, am I relieved it was never published. But, funnily enough, I may dig it out because I'm going to go back to fiction. I've got four books to do first. But when I've finished them, in about 2014, I'm going to write a novel.

Is British history not bloody enough for you?

Roger Marsh, Colchester

Well, I think I can say without being over-defensive that writing Stalingrad was not my idea at all. My publisher suggested it. I even tried to get out of it. I'd suggested a completely different book, about social change in Britain over the past 15 years. But I won't be writing a book about Britain in the near future. It's an awful thing to say, but I actually find British history rather parochial.

What motivated you to join the Army? Did you see any action?

Fred Parkinson, by e-mail

I thought I'd joined the Army because of patriotism, to extend the frontiers of the free world and all the rest of it. But I think everybody's motives are always far more confused than they think. It wasn't until I'd been in the Army for about five years and had begun to write my first novel that I realised the real reason was the physical inferiority complex I'd had as a boy. When I was small, I had a condition called Perthes disease, which makes the hipbone go soft. It meant I was on crutches between the ages of four and seven and I was bullied at school. I went around with my leg in a sling behind my back. And no, I didn't see any action in the Army. Almost, but not quite.

Which one person who was involved in the fall of Berlin would you most like to have met?

Benjamin Callender, Liverpool

Without a doubt, Hitler. I don't think we are ever going to know what Hitler was really like. Was he mad? Was he evil? One psychiatrist said to me that Stalin could be defined as being a paranoid schizophrenic but Hitler only as having a severe personality disorder. That sets one thinking, "Jesus Christ, what is a personality disorder if it is going to lead to the massacre of millions and millions of people?" I wouldn't have any specific questions for him. I think I would just like to sit there and watch him.

Do you have any plans to write another book with your wife?

Sarah Entwhistle, by e-mail

Well, she's doing a biography of Patrick Leigh Fermor and I'll be doing a little bit on that. Writing together is a huge pleasure. Most people say, "Isn't it an instant route to divorce?" But it's not. It's great. You're never short of anything to talk about the whole time you're writing together. While we were writing Paris after the Liberation the only crisis came right at the end. I had to write the final chapter and when I showed it to Artemis, she said it wasn't right. But she couldn't put her finger on why. Of course, I threw my teddy in the corner. It was our American editor, Jackie Onassis, who worked out what was wrong. It was a month before she died and she was still working. She was fascinated with the book because she'd been in Paris during that period. She was always dismissed as a society airhead, which was unfair because she had a very good eye as an editor.

If you were in the Army now, would you willingly serve in Iraq?

Harriet Osbourne, London

I would have served with very mixed feelings. I think this war is ill considered, for a whole number of reasons. For one, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should have been resolved first, because otherwise, not surprisingly, Arab opinion will believe this war is pure hypocrisy on the part of the West. But once you have confronted a dictator, you have to carry it through, otherwise it will encourage other dictators. The French claim that we could have disarmed Saddam through diplomatic means is sheer sophistry. No dictator will ever disarm voluntarily.

Editor - 4/11/2003

The Times (London)

April 2, 2003, Wednesday

SECTION: Overseas news; 18

HEADLINE: Tiny parchment pieces traced to German epic

BYLINE: Irene Zoech in Vienna

THE oldest existing fragments of the Nibelungen Song, the most famous Germanic text of the Middle Ages, have been discovered by historians.

The ten fragments, which date from the 12th century, are part of an epic saga detailing the rise and fall of the Burgundian Empire through the adventures of the mythical hero Siegfried.

The tale was later adapted by Richard Wagner into his four-opera Ring Cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen -which, with its 12 hours of stirring orchestral homage to the themes of power and honour, became a favourite of the Nazi regime.

Charlotte Ziegler, an historian, found the parchments at the library of Stift Zwettl, an abbey 75 miles northwest of Vienna. She said that they had been placed in a box "probably centuries ago" together with other text fragments from the Middle Ages.

Frau Ziegler said that she had been given the fragments ten years ago, but the language was so hard to translate that it had taken "until now to realise how valuable they are".

The pieces of parchment are all of the same size, about 3cm (1in) by 8cm (3in), and covered in small handwriting.

Frau Ziegler believes that a monk had cut up a larger sheet into pieces to use for binding books and that later the fragments were removed from the spine and kept for reuse.

"I believe the monk did not find the text very interesting and used the parchment for the spine of a new book," she said. "The long-forgotten fragments are very difficult to decipher, but we are absolutely certain the texts are from the Nibelungen."

The fragments, which are being transcribed by Austrian scholars, include Middle High German terms that are typical for the German epic, such as Siverit for Siegfried and swamerole for minstrel.

Karin Lichtblau, an expert on Old German literature from Vienna University, described the discovery as a great find even though it is not clear whether the fragments contain a new version of an already existing saga of the Nibelungen or whether their content is entirely new.

"It is a wonderful discovery. We still have to wait until the texts are transcribed. Of course, it would be utterly exhilarating if the text was new and would add a new twist to the Nibelungen. But it still remains an interesting find, even if the texts are already known," Dr Lichtblau said.

The 2,400-verse Middle High German epic about the warrior Siegfried and his wife, Kriemhild, who possess the Nibelungen hoard of gold, is written in verse, but the recently discovered fragments are in a prose style.

The Nibelungen Song is the most important German epic of the Middle Ages and includes various stories that were passed orally from generation to generation until the first written version was compiled by an unknown poet in the late 12th century.

Five years ago Nibelungen fragments dating from the 13th century were found in Melk Abbey, but Frau Ziegler said that the latest discovery was of the earliest written version of the Nibelungen. "They are the oldest findings referring to the Nibelungen myth," she added.

The Nibelungen epic inspired many composers, writers and artists to offer their own interpretations, but Wagner's opera cyle remains the most famous.

Editor - 4/11/2003

Los Angeles Times

April 2, 2003 Wednesday Home Edition

SECTION: Calendar; Part 5; Page 1; Calendar Desk

HEADLINE: America's eyes and ears on the fields of war; World War II's news correspondents look back at a heady time for journalism.

BYLINE: Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- Charles Collingwood was broadcasting on live radio from Normandy, one of the correspondents assigned to cover World War II for the famed CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow. U.S. troops were landing on Omaha Beach, and Collingwood had 15 minutes of live air time.

His view blocked, his chatter running out, Collingwood -- according to journalist Dan Schorr -- turned to a man in uniform. Thrusting a live microphone in his face, the CBS correspondent asked him how things were going in the D-Day operation. "How would I know, Charles?" the man replied. "I'm with NBC."

War has often made celebrities of correspondents and the soldiers they covered. William Howard Russell's dispatches from the Crimean War for the Times of London made him famous -- and enshrined the British soldiers making the charge of the light brigade. Richard Harding Davis of the New York Journal helped William Randolph Hearst romanticize the cause of the Spanish-American War.

But the generation of reporters most remembered for bringing home the realities of war are those who covered World War II. Modeling their coverage after Ernie Pyle, the nice-guy correspondent who spent his time with the troops, they roved the battlefield in search of a good story.

Now, watching televised pictures of U.S. tanks rolling through the sand-swept Iraqi desert, of bombed-out buildings and downed helicopters, the generation that might be called the Original Embeds is reminiscing. About the grunts they used to cover. About the technological wonders that make today's footage a marvel of 24/7 immediacy. About war.

"I can't tear myself away," said Walter Cronkite, who covered World War II in the Pacific and in Europe for United Press and, after the war, the Nuremberg trials. Asked if he is envious, he replied, "You bet."

Cronkite, now 82, tore his Achilles tendon two years ago and feels the injury would slow him on the battlefield. "I couldn't keep up or I'd be there now," said the former anchor of the CBS Evening News, who retired in 1981. "And if not there, I'd like to be on an anchor desk somewhere."

"If I were 40 years younger, I would be there," said Max Desfor, photographer who covered World War II and Korea, and earned the Pulitzer Prize for his 1951 photo of Korean refugees fleeing along the twisted girders of a bombed bridge. Now 89 and living in Leisure World in Silver Spring, Md., Desfor reminisced about the two-day lag time for photographic film transported from Korea to Tokyo for processing. "Now you have a photographer who shoots a picture, sits down wherever he is, takes out a chip, puts it in a gizmo, shoots it into the sky, and voila," he said. "And the quality is wonderful."

The Original Embeds, accredited to Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces in Europe, wore military uniforms. The only tip to their profession was the green-and-gold patch on a left pocket or shoulder that said "war correspondent." They were not "embedded" for the long haul but roved from battle to battle, returning to a press tent at night or after a few days, to file by telegraph or radio. Their copy had to be cleared by a censor, who usually stamped his approval as long as reporters did not disclose the name or location of the unit they were with, or hint at planned operations. There was no television.

Cronkite said he was "lucky to be chosen for some pretty good assignments." He escorted freighters through a nest of U-boats. Made the landing on North Africa. Covered the air war against France and Germany from London, flying with the 8th and 9th Air Forces. Was with the 3rd Army when the Battle of the Bulge began.

"We were accredited as correspondents but not embedded," he said. "If we really wanted to go to a battle, we simply showed up on the doorstop. The briefing officer would tell us where action would be that day. If we wanted to attend, we picked up a jeep and went. We might stay two or three days, we might live in a foxhole or in a nearby farmhouse or go back to the base to file our stories."

Andy Rooney, the curmudgeonly commentator on CBS' "60 Minutes," was a World War II correspondent for the Stars and Stripes, which he said had a robust wartime circulation of 2 million. "I had my own jeep because I was an Army sergeant," he boasted.

Watching televised images of war now, Rooney said he is "surprised how much I know about war. I really saw it close for a long time." On television, he added, "it looks like some game you got at the toy store."

Richard C. Hottelet, 85, is the last of the "Murrow Boys," the 11 proteges of Murrow who pioneered the use of radio, and later television, for news. A correspondent for UP in Berlin, he survived four months in a Nazi prison in 1941. Later, after a stint in the U.S. Office of War Information in Washington and London, CBS hired him to cover the European theater.

He would go forward with troops and circle back to file. In the fall of 1944, the allied radio broadcasters used a press camp in Spa, Belgium, that he remembers well. "There was a press wireless office, with a microphone in a rudimentary studio for radio broadcasting," he said. "It was a little room in a nondescript building, with blankets around the wall so you wouldn't sound hollow."

Filing conditions were primitive and undependable. "It was a radio circuit," he said. "The notion of getting to New York in two minutes on a satellite phone was inconceivable to us." The radio circuit was "a sometimes thing, because we often had sun spots or interference," said Hottelet, who remembers that "more often than not, you turned up at a wireless studio with a script and were not able to hear New York. So I would just start in blind, in the hope they were hearing me. It often worked, astonishingly enough."

Toward the end of the war, he said, "when were moving fast, to meet the Russians on the Elbe River, I didn't have access to a transmitter so I'd send people back with typed copy to cable to New York." Mostly, said Hottelet, "you just decided where to go to find a story. You talked to people and everybody was free to talk to you."

It is unlikely that any correspondent in World War II talked to more servicemen than Ernie Pyle, whose dispatches of ordinary soldiers doing their jobs remain so vivid that his colleagues are still talking about him. He was famous for making war personal. "Ernie Pyle reported the GIs and they loved him," said Hottelet. "They were very glad to see reporters, especially at the very front. They were totally cut off from normal life. Then somebody comes along and tells their story, asks their hometown."

Rooney said Pyle, who was killed by a Japanese sniper in 1945 on an island off Okinawa, sometimes got his stories by staying on the back lines when other reporters went forward. "Most of us were going to the front but Ernie tended to go back," he said. "I remember one piece where he found a company that was sorting through the effects of soldiers killed. They would separate their stuff, launder the uniforms and send them back for reissuing. It made a great piece."

Clarence Wyatt, a historian at Centre College in Kentucky, estimates that at the height of World War II, there were some 1,600 journalists roving the battlefields in Europe and Asia. Their journey was eased by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower.

In an order issued to all unit commanders of the allied expeditionary force a few weeks before D-Day, Eisenhower insisted the press be given "the greatest possible latitude in the gathering of news." Hottelet has kept a copy of the order, which he digs out to read to a reporter in that sonorous radio voice that kept listeners on the edge of their seats during the war. "They should be allowed to talk freely," he read, "with officers and enlisted personnel and to see the machinery of war in operation in order to visualize and transmit to the public the conditions under which the men from their countries are waging war against the enemy."

John Steinbeck and other famous writers dropped by the battlefield from time to time, but Pyle "gave the foxhole view of World War II, and that is what the embedded journalists are doing now," said Douglas Brinkley, a historian at the University of New Orleans. "At the time of his death, Pyle was in 400 daily newspapers and an endless number of weeklies. The impact was formidable in getting the feel of battle. Today's Scud studs may not have the same reportorial skills but they are showing the same courage and ability in a real-time war."

It was slice-of-life stuff. It was hero worship. And it made celebrities of the journalists.

Pyle was mobbed when he returned home in September 1944. The Murrow Boys became the hottest force in radio, along with names like H.V. Kaltenborn and William Shirer (who later wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"). Some made the leap into the television era. Cronkite left the UP for CBS Television and went on to become the most trusted name in broadcasting -- Uncle Walter, people called him -- the man who informed a generation that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated, that a man had landed on the moon, that Vietnam had become a quagmire. In February 1968, one month after the Tet Offensive, Cronkite concluded a special report by saying, "It seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate." President Johnson commented, "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Mr. Average Citizen."

Cronkite's support was not the only casualty of Vietnam. Some 58,000 Americans died in combat, many drafted into action. And the war soured relations between the military and the media for a generation. With a virtual free run at the battlefield, reporters saw a guerrilla warfare not reflected in the military briefings in Saigon, which they dubbed "The Five O'Clock Follies."

The current Pentagon policy of embedding reporters with the troops represents something of a healing of the breach. It's true, said Rooney, that "a guy's not going to write a lot of negative stories about guys you eat breakfast with."

Nostalgia runs deep among the veteran correspondents and the glut of images from Iraq provoke memories of Europe and Asia. "It put me back some years, particularly in watching the Marines and the 3rd Army division advances and some of the British," said Desfor. "I was with the Marines a great deal in World War II and particularly in Korea, and in Korea I was with the 3rd when it captured Pyongyang."

Desfor, who prefers the photograph to the televised image -- "Maybe I'm prejudiced, but the stills are better" -- finds that even the soldiers look familiar.

"One remarkable difference is the tremendous amount of clothing and gear these guys wear," he said. "I don't know how they can slog through the hills in utter heat. How they're doing it with all this gear in sandstorms, I can't imagine."

Editor - 4/11/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #15; 11 April 2003)
by Bruce Craig <>
National Coalition for History (NCH)

1. Senate Committee Holds Hearing on History Teaching Bill
2. Report: OAH Annual Meeting
3. Richmond Lincoln Memorial Unveiled Amidst Controversy
4. SAA Issues Statement on State Archival Programs
5. Bits and Bytes: Yale Historian Robin Winks Dies; Pulitzer Prize for
History Announced; Watergate Papers To Be Housed in Texas Repository;
Historic Preservation Week Dates Announced
6. Articles of Interest: "A Boost for Giving" (Christian Science Monitor;
11 April 2003)

On 10 April 2003, two distinguished witnesses, biographer David McCullough
and the Senate's senior member, West Virginia's Robert C Byrd (D-WV),
appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions that conducted a hearing on Senator Lamar Alexander's (R-TN)
legislation -- "American History and Civics Education Act of 2003" (S.
504/HR 1078). Alexander's bill seeks to establish two-week long
Presidential Academies for teachers of American history and civics,
four-week long Congressional Academies for students of American history and
civics, and a National Alliance of Teachers of American History and Civics
-- an organization that would allow the sharing of ideas and best practices
among American history and civics teachers.

McCullough and Byrd both spoke eloquently about the crisis in history
education especially in elementary and secondary schools. In his statement,
McCullough characterized widespread ignorance of American history among
students as a "major threat to the nation's security." He also urged
teachers not to shy away from dealing with controversy in the
classroom. McCullough highlighted three suggestions that he believed could
improve classroom teaching: 1) revise how history teachers are trained; 2)
revamp dull textbooks; 3) recognize that the burden of teaching history
does not rest just on teachers, but that parents, museums, national parks,
and other cultural institutions have important roles to play in the
educational process.

In his comments, Senator Byrd agreed to join 19 other senators in
co-sponsoring the bill and expressed his hope that Senator Alexander's
program would "complement" Byrd's Department of Education-based "Teaching
American History Grant Program." As the ranking minority member of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd's presence and support for
the bill bodes well for the measure once it is authorized and an
appropriation request comes before Byrd's powerful committee. The senator
rarely co-sponsors legislation and it is even more unusual for him to
testify in favor of a legislative initiative. As one Hill insider stated,
"it virtually commits him to funding the measure."

Administration agency representatives who testified before the committee,
including Bruce Cole, Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities,
Eugene W. Hickok, Undersecretary of Education, and James Billington, the
Librarian of Congress, discussed current efforts of their agencies to
improve Americans' knowledge of an appreciation for American history: Cole
spoke about the "We the People" program and Hickok discussed the "No Child
Left Behind" act, the two-year old $100 million "Teaching American History"
initiative, and the $16.9 million Civic Education program operated out of
the non-profit Center for Civic Education in Calabasas,
California. Billington discussed the Library of Congresses (LC) Digital
Library program, the American Memory program and other such LC activities
that complement the administration's other history education related efforts.

Administration witnesses, however, carefully sidestepped some of the
central issues raised by the Alexander proposal -- a few examples: to what
degree is the proposed program duplicative of existing efforts by
government agencies and non-profits? What department or agency would the
program be attached to, and which one would fund the $25 million program?

Christine Bannerman, Education Policy Advisor for Senator Alexander, told
the NCH that the senator envisions that the funding for this program would
come from the NEH budget and to that end, he wants to see new money added
to the existing NEH budget line. Under that scenario, NEH funding in FY
2005 could exceed $175 million with over $50 million being targeted to
American history related initiatives. Humanities insiders express some
concern, however, that once the enabling legislation passes, new money may
not be appropriated at the $25 million level, and the NEH would have to
fund the program from existing funds; this in turn could adversely impact
the NEH overall program.

A third panel featured comments by Diane Ravitch, New York University
professor of education. Ravitch noted that only half of the states now have
history standards. Blanch Deaderick, a history teacher from Memphis
Tennessee, and Russell Berg, a student at Trumbull High School in Trumbull,
Connecticut also gave brief statements.

Committee action on the legislation is expected in the near future.

Over 2,400 historians attended the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Organization
of American Historians (OAH) that was held in Memphis, Tennessee, 3-6 April
2003. The opening evening featured an event that is starting to become an
OAH tradition - regional receptions. These informal get-togethers gave
participants the opportunity to reestablish old acquaintances and meet new

Program offerings were particularly strong this year. Participants could
select from a list of over 150 sessions. One panel, "History's Power to
Inspire: A Conversation" a panel organized by Patricia Limerick, included
Catherine and Wayne Reynolds, the embattled Smithsonian donors whose
"Spirit of America" exhibit generated such controversy and ultimately
resulted in the donors rescinding the gift. One last minute addition to
the program was a panel focusing on issues arising from the war in Iraq;
Alan Brinkley kicked off this packed session that was televised live over

Over 50 historians -- Historians against the War -- crafted a resolution in
favor of free speech emphasizing the centrality of dissent during
wartime. The resolution was approved in a slightly amended version by the
OAH Executive Board: "In view of the threat to free speech in the current
climate, the Organization of American Historians affirms the centrality of
dissent in American history, the sanctity of the rights guaranteed by the
First Amendment, and the necessity for open debate of public policy issues,
including United States foreign policy, in order to maintain the health of
this democracy."

Finally, outgoing president Ira Berlin paid homage to a trio of historians
who recently died: Herbert Aptheker, Howard Fast, and Christopher Hill
before delivering his Saturday evening Presidential Address entitled,
"American Slavery in History and Memory."
This last week, 138 years after President Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad
visited the capitol of the Confederacy to begin to begin the healing
process after four years of bitter war, a bronze likeness of the 16th
president was dedicated at the Richmond National Battlefield Park on the
site of the foundry that forged munitions for the Confederate army. The
statue -- the first of Lincoln ever to be erected in any of the 11 former
Confederate states -- is generating considerable controversy.

Commissioned by the nonprofit U.S. Historical Society, the statue is a
life-sized depiction of Lincoln and his son sitting on a bench with the
inscription, "To Bind Up the Nation's Wounds." Some Richmond residents
protested that the funding for project came from people who are not
originally from Virginia, and that "the idea of celebrating Lincoln
somehow goes against the culture of Virginia [and] is just wrong." Robert
Hayes, the state director of the pro-secession League of the South, puts it
more bluntly: the statue is "a second occupation." Others feel that placing
the statue in the former Confederate capitol is "like installing Adolf
Hitler's semblance in Tel Aviv." Proponents, however, say the statue was
placed to recall Lincoln's post-war mission to heal. Cynthia MacLeod, park
superintendent of the Richmond NBP said that the goal of the statue "was to
educate and not open old wounds."

The statue has probably generated such controversy in part because
Confederate heritage advocates in Virginia, as well as elsewhere in the
South are becoming increasingly vocal at the same time that they are losing
political influence and popular appeal. Last year, for example, the state
of Virginia scrapped official recognition of April as Confederate Heritage
and History Month; legislators in South Carolina and Georgia have also
downplayed or eliminated the continued portrayal of the Confederate battle
flag on newly designed state flags. Except in the heart of the old
Confederacy where pro-Confederate sympathies still run high, the American
public, now more diverse and multi cultural than ever before, see little to
admire in the slaveholding South once portrayed so sympathetically in
Hollywood blockbusters like "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone with the
Wind. "Gods and Generals," for example -- a recent film that portrays the
South sympathetically -- has lost over $60 million and apparently has
failed to capture the imagination of the 18-45 year-old crowd that
Hollywood film makers typically target.
In response to proposed cuts in funding of archival programs in states such
as Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Connecticut, and
elsewhere, the Society of American Archivists has issued a "Statement on
the Importance of Supporting State Archival Programs." Individuals and
organizations are encouraged to use language from the statement when
contacting state legislatures in support of archival program funding.

The statement notes that "state governments throughout the nation are
facing severe budget deficits and have been forced to make deep cuts to
programs and services." The statement asserts that in some states "the
worst is yet to come, and decisions impacting the lives of many citizens
must be made in the immediate future...Government records safeguard the
rights and freedoms that all citizens enjoy and, as such, they are as vital
to the health and well-being of state residents as programs that deliver
social services."

The statement concludes, "In summary, our democratic system is founded on
the openness of our government at all levels to public scrutiny. State
archival programs preserve and make available essential evidence
documenting government actions. Without government records, elected
officials cannot be held accountable. Without these records, citizens
cannot exercise their rights. Failing to maintain this documentation
breaks a public trust."

For the entire statement, tap into:

Item #1 -- Yale Historian Robin Winks Dies: Robin Winks a prolific history
professor and former Master of Berkeley College, died at Yale-New Haven
Hospital after a stroke. He was 72. Winks' interests included Canadian
history, detective fiction, environmental history, and espionage. He wrote
or edited 25 books (not including his mystery novels penned under
pseudonyms) but is perhaps is best remembered for "Cloak and Gown: Scholars
in the Secret War, 1939-1961" and "The Historian as Detective: Essays on
Evidence." Winks' diverse interests focused not just academia but he had a
life long romance with national parks. He served as chair of the National
Park Service Advisory Board and as chair of National Parks and Conservation
Association. Winks was particularly proud that he had visited every
national park unit as well as nearly all of the several thousand national
historic landmarks.

Item #2 -- Pulitzer Prize for History Announced: Columbia University has
announced that the Pulitzer for history was awarded to Washington Post
journalist Rick Atkinson for his book on World War II entitled, "An Army at
Dawn: The War in North Africa 1942-1943" (NY: Henry Holt and
Company). Robert Caro won the prize in biography for his study of Lyndon
Johnson, "Master of the Senate (NY: Alfred A. Knopf)."

Item #3 -- Watergate Papers To Be Housed in Texas Repository: The
University of Texas at Austin has purchased the 75 file box Watergate
archives of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for
$5 million. The papers include notebooks, photographs as well as documents
identifying "Deep Throat." The papers will be stored at the Harry Ransom
Humanities Research Center and are expected to be made available to the
public within a year. For the full story, tap into:

Item #4 -- Historic Preservation Week Dates Announced: The National Trust
for Historic Preservation has announced that the 2003 celebration of
Historic Preservation Week will be May 5-12. Since 1971 the Trust event
has been a way to demonstrate grassroots preservation activities in
communities nationwide. This year's theme, "Cities, Suburbs, and
Countryside" seeks to underscore how the preservation ethic is changing to
be more encompassing -- from saving individual landmark buildings to
tackling economic and quality of life issues in various historic settings.
More information on events and how communities and organizations can
participate can be found at and select menu
option, "Support Preservation."

One article this week: "A Boost for Giving" the editors of The Christian
Science Monitor 11 April 2003) state that a new Senate passed bill that
encourages giving "is good news both for charities and Americans who want
to donate." For the editorial, tap into:

The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE
weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH
Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others
who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of
these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page
at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH
firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You
can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt,
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".

Editor - 4/10/2003

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
April 1, 2003 Tuesday Home Edition
HEADLINE: Carter's next: Revolutionary fiction
Chalk up another first for former President Jimmy Carter. The Nobel Peace Prize winner will publish "The Hornet's Nest," his debut novel this fall.
Publisher Simon & Schuster is scheduling a late autumn release for Carter's work of historical fiction.
According to S&S executive director of publicity Victoria Meyer, the novel will "depict the drama of the Revolutionary War as it evolved in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. It describes the causes and dramatizes the struggle for freedom based on detailed accounts by British and American historians, personal diaries of the combatants and what the author knows about the participation of one of his ancestors." When we phoned on Monday, Meyer said Simon & Schuster had not set a publication date but "one should be forthcoming shortly."
Said S&S executive vice president David Rosenthal in a prepared statement: "This is our fourth book with President Carter. We are thrilled he has again chosen to collaborate with us and honored to be his publisher."
In other words, lines routinely wrap three and four times around a Chapter 11 Books whenever the Plains Sunday school teacher has a book signing.

Editor - 4/10/2003

The Independent (London)

March 31, 2003, Monday



BYLINE: KATHY MARKS IN SYDNEY Richard Pearse, left, who took to the air 100 years ago today, and his nephew and namesake Richard Pearse, 83, right, with Jack Melhopt, chairman of the Timaru Aviation Heritage Centre, by a replica of the original aircraft in Timaru, New Zealand AP/Fotopress; Ross Land

AS EVERY schoolchild knows, the world's first powered flight was made by the Wright brothers, taking to the skies above Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in December 1903.

Or was it? Nine months earlier, a little-known New Zealand farmer, Richard Pearse, climbed into a bamboo monoplane and flew for about 150 metres before crashing into a gorse hedge on his South Island property.

The flight was witnessed by family members and a scattering of locals from nearby Waitohi, a small farming community. But no documentary evidence of it has survived. Pearse left no journal or diary. A picture of his plane stuck in the hedge, taken by a local photographer, was lost in a flood. Hospital records relating to a shoulder injury he suffered in the crash were destroyed in a fire. Nevertheless, New Zealanders are convinced that Pearse has been deprived of a place in the history books, and a group of aviation enthusiasts gathered at the weekend at Timaru, near Waitohi, to celebrate the centenary of his flight on 31 March 1903. The Pearse devotees had made two replicas of his plane, which they tried to get airborne with the help of a modern microlight engine.

The air show at Timaru airfield will be dwarfed by the celebrations planned in the United States later this year to mark the centenary of the flight by Orville and Wilbur Wright. But Pearse's family and supporters believe he has been unjustly overlooked. "He got airborne before the Wright brothers," said his 83-year-old nephew, also called Richard Pearse. "He deserves all the recognition that's going."

Geoff Rodliffe, a historian who wrote a book on Pearse, said there were five convincing accounts of his attempts to get airborne between 1902 and 1904. A farm worker, Amos Martin, recorded a flight on 2 May 1903. "It taxied 50 yards, rose 10 to 15 feet, flew 15 yards, then crashed into a hedge," he wrote. "I got on my bike and hightailed off."

On another occasion, Pearse landed in a dry riverbed, alarming a horse. He was, by all accounts, an eccentric man who neglected his farm to pursue his obsession with flying. A self-taught aviator and inventor, he was nicknamed Mad Dick and Bamboo Pears" by his neighbours. He built a bicycle out of bamboo, too. "Pearse was very much a recluse," said Graham McCleary, secretary of the Timaru aviation centre. "He was laughed at by the locals." Pearse designed and built his light-bodied craft, which had a home-made engine and a triangular frame of iron suspended beneath cloth-covered wings fashioned from bamboo. He recycled metal from old tobacco tins, made his own spark plugs and built cylinders for his primitive internal-combustion engines from iron water pipes. His first propellers were wooden; later versions had blades cut from metal drums.

Pearse played down his achievements, saying that the Wright brothers' flight -unlike his - was fully controlled. Not until after he died, in a psychiatric hospital in 1953, was his contribution to early aviation was acknowledged.

Many of Pearse's designs proved ahead of their time, and aviation experts say his plane bears a striking resemblance to modern microlights. Rusted parts from one engine were found on an old rubbish heap, with a propeller. These enabled enthusiasts to construct the replicas.

Pearse's nephew said that his father, Warne, witnessed the flight 100 years ago. "My father used to help him, spinning the propeller to start the engine," he said. The eccentric farmer's ambition had been to fly to Temuka, nine miles away, to go shopping. He never made it.

Editor - 4/10/2003

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)

March 30, 2003 Sunday REGION EDITION




Ambushing your enemy is OK. Pretending to surrender and then jumping him is not. Wearing camouflage to melt into the landscape is fine. Wearing civilian clothes is not.

U.S. leaders have denounced Iraqi actions, such as using "irregulars" in civilian clothing, that break international rules of war. In turn, critics have said that the United States has violated international codes by denying access to legal assistance and other rights to its prisoners of war at Guantanamo.

But if the point of war is to kill and win, what's the rationale of rules? Why shouldn't the United States and Iraq use any means in the fight?

Debate over whether there should be any rules in war and, if so, what they should be, is ancient.

"The Greeks and the Romans had very few rules," said retired U.S. Army Col. John Bonin, a scholar in residence at the Army Heritage Center Foundation in Carlisle, Cumberland County. "They were very ruthless. The common practice was that if you had power you used it and you used it ruthlessly. . . . The rule is, no rules."

Both ancient powers used terror, he said. "If a town revolted, you went in and killed everybody, and used it as an object lesson. The Roman theory was, you won't have to do it very often, and they didn't. Caesar didn't have to use it in every town in Gaul to conquer Gaul."

Taking conquered people as slaves also was common practice.

Both tactics became problematic, Bonin said, as religious and philosophical writers began to question the morality of such slaughter and of slavery. St. Augustine was one of the strongest voices for restraint in warfare and the protection of noncombatants.

"Once all of the countries in Europe are Christian, now you get a moral dilemma," Bonin said. "Hmm, if I kill a fellow Christian do I go to hell? The Crusades provided an out, if you follow. The pope would declare open season on infidels, and it was OK, you could kill them with abandon."

Nevertheless, the morality of limitless warfare was debated. Popes began their transformation from political figures who endorsed and in many cases engaged in warfare to voices against war in general, and its excesses against civilians in particular.

At the same time, the changing political landscape gradually made slaughter and no-holds-barred conflict a less effective tool of power, Bonin said.

What developed into rules of war in the West started as customs among gentlemen fighting one another during the Age of Chivalry.

"There were certain behaviors that gentlemen -- which comes from gendarmes, or men of arms -- did," Bonin said. "The hand salute comes from putting a hand to the visor to demonstrate to your opponent that you aren't wielding your weapon and are going to show your face. The salute was a mark of respect not just between members of one side, but between opponents, who often saluted one another before beginning battle."

Part of the tradition that grew up was that "gentlemen of honor don't fight civilians -- it's unfair, you're armed."

The customs that had built up fell apart during the Thirty Years War (1618-48), Bonin said. "There were mass armies, depredations against civilians, all manner of mercenaries with their own armies and lots of power."

When the leaders of the parties in the conflict finally made peace in the Treaty of Westfalia in 1648, they set the stage for changing the nature of warfare, Bonin said.

"A lot of historians mark [the peace] as the beginning of the rise of the nation state. The princes, kings and nobles got together and decided to change things. It was not altruistic. It was, 'Hey, guys, we destroyed a lot of things and what good is it to seize territory if you've destroyed it?' They all decided it was not in their best interest to destroy the infrastructure. They decided it's in all of our best interest to just put soldiers at risk and preserve the rest."

The idea of strictly national armies took root, along with rules that were agreed upon within and among armies. "They decided, 'We're going to avoid civilians, we're going to fight in fields, we're going to get together ahead of time and decide where we're going to fight.' "

Two roads to the rules

The modern rules of war, then, have been shaped by two impulses -- moral questioning and practical considerations.

Maj. Mike O. Lacey, an authority on international law, described the tension between the two in an article in a journal published at the U.S. Army War College.

"The law of war has developed and will continue to develop driven by two radically different perspectives, that of the utilitarian or warrior and that of the humanitarian," he wrote. "These two schools of thought have long battled for preeminence among policymakers, the political elite, and the society that they both serve."

Henry Dunant, who founded the International Red Cross and started the Geneva Conventions, was a humanitarian seeking to blunt the harshest consequences of warfare.

In Italy in 1859, 40,000 men were killed and wounded in a single day in the battle of Solferino. Dunant argued that any soldier removed from the fighting because of illness or injury deserved humane treatment, regardless of which side he fought for. He called on the international community to draft an agreement on the treatment of battlefield casualties. His efforts led to the 1864 adoption of the first Geneva Convention for the protection of wounded and sick combatants.

More conventions were adopted over the next century, as well as other international rules that were responses to an essentially humanitarian, moral impulse.

The model for much of the modern rules of engagement comes from the navy, which had much more pragmatic reasons for formulating them, Bonin said. "Navies, for years, had to have detailed instructions because once they went to sea there was no communication. They had to think about all the things that could happen ahead of time and create a detailed set of instructions."

When the rest of the services decided in the post-Vietnam era that standard rules would be useful, they used the navy's as guidelines.

Rules of war depend on the acceptance of all warring parties, of course.

In the Revolutionary War, the British followed a set of traditions that were not adhered to by their opponents. They wore their lobster-hued uniforms and marched in formation, easy pickings for colonial combatants hidden behind trees.

They used the style of conflict agreed upon at Westfalia. It turned out to be poorly suited to handling insurrections and guerrilla warfare.

The British were outraged by the colonialists' failure to stand up and fight in columns. They responded by suspending their own rules, hanging or shooting on sight enemies they believed were not fighting according to code.

In World War II, the United States came up against the Japanese military code, which had evolved into a complex set of rules, just as the West's had.

"The Japanese had a very honorable style of warfare that developed from the Samurai," Bonin said.

Surrender was the supreme dishonor. Soldiers were expected to fight to the death and commit suicide, if necessary, to avoid the humiliation of surrender.

During World War II, the clash of arms was also a clash of cultures. "They despised our soldiers who surrendered," partially explaining the extremely harsh treatment accorded American POWs, Bonin said.

The short answer to which set of rules prevails, of course, is "those of the winner."

"That's what you call cultural imperialism. We impose our standards" on defeated opponents, Bonin said.

The burden of fairness

In the midst of conflict, playing by the rules can be to an army's disadvantage, particularly in fighting an opponent who has nothing to lose.

The troops loyal to Saddam Hussein have little motive not to use tactics such as fake surrenders or attacking out of uniform. After all, the threat of being tried for war crimes down the road probably pales to the threat of imminent death.

People with their backs to the wall may not care about the distinctions made by international bodies between "permissible deception" (which can include camouflage, decoys, mock operations, ambush, false signals and "perfidy" (improper use of the white flag, feigned surrender, or pretending to be a civilian).

Attempting to minimize destruction to the civilians of the opponent also can be to an army's disadvantage, Bonin said.

"That is a theory, just get it done and get it done quick. One can argue that the quicker we do this more lives saved. But we have to try to make a morally correct decision as well."

Practical considerations also figure into strategy.

"We need to think through how to accomplish the mission, and in this case, the mission includes restoring order in the country, which means you can't ignore the civilians."

Neither is it pragmatic for an army to ignore world opinion.

"In the short term following rules can cause problems," Bonin said. "In a particular firefight, these rules may put you at a disadvantage. But I would argue these rules are beneficial."

Lacey contends that the United States has followed an essentially utilitarian line in terms of law of war, tending to be suspicious of the humanitarians. He sees both sides as essential.

"The history of humanity is one of war and frequent acts of unlimited brutality. The history of humanity also reveals a persistent and growing effort to limit the nature of warfare. This conflict is a manifestation of humanity's will to survive."

Editor - 4/10/2003

The Times (London)

March 29, 2003, Saturday

SECTION: Home news; 22

HEADLINE: Warfare may have changed but its outcome is always unknown

BYLINE: Antony Beevor

Antony Beevor, Britain's leading military historian, looks at the changing face of conflict. Despite new concepts of battle, older methods against despots still have a role.

OF ALL the realms of human activity, warfare is probably the most likely to confound the predictions of the experts.

Generals used to be famous for their determination to tackle the next war with the tactics of the last. Now, the most technologically advanced countries expend huge resources on computerised crystal-ball-gazing, but then run the danger of overlooking lessons from the past and the eternal factor of human perversity.

Nowhere is this more true than in the vital field of Intelligence. In the 19th century, British officers in native garb roamed the Middle East and Central Asia, reporting back on foreign intrigue and tribal power struggles. Local agents, of varying degrees of reliability, fed their foreign masters with rumour and fact, but at least the complexity of the local situation and the range of eventualities was never ignored. Nobody had any illusions about the unpredictability of regime change and its side-effects.

Today, the paucity of human intelligence (Humint) constitutes a dangerous defect.

The emphasis is on satellite intelligence (Satint) and signals intelligence (Sigint) from intercepted radio, and even mobile telephone traffic. Not surprisingly, this creates its own problem of information overload, a phenomenon first experienced by the Americans in Vietnam.

There are many paradoxes. Just over a decade ago, after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, many military experts predicted that the day of the tank was over. The future lay with the "light army" -special forces and peacekeeping. Yet within two years our television screens were filled with the 7th Armoured Brigade charging across the Kuwaiti desert in 1991 as if it were a replay of El Alamein. The lesson is that military developments seldom proceed in a straight line. History never repeats itself, but there are curious loops, in which patterns appear to revert to a previous age. After the murderous excesses of the Thirty Years War, whose religious fanaticism provided a striking foretaste of the total warfare of the Second World War, came the princely era that evolved in the century after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Campaigning was limited and ritualised to an extraordinary degree, probably as an instinctive form of control after the horrors that had gone before. Armies marched and counter-marched in chess-like manoeuvres.

Towns were besieged and then surrendered with due ceremony. Prisoners were exchanged and a peace treaty at the end ceded a province or a small principality.

In those days before income tax, state revenues were small and soldiers, many of them imported mercenaries, were very expensive, (just as fighter pilots and other military technicians are today). It is no surprise, therefore, that bloodbaths were avoided.

The American revolution in the 1770s -a civil war as well as the first anti-colonial struggle -first exemplified the idea of patriotic and idealistic warfare. The French revolutionary war took the process further and introduced the levee en masse, the beginning of conscription. French peasant society, with many children and limited land, provided the initial reservoir of cannon fodder for mass conscripted armies. By 1914, the swollen cities, at a time of rapidly rising population, also provided their share of "disposable sons", in Edward Luttwak's phrase, for mass warfare. This age of vast conscripted armies continued right through the First and Second World Wars. It did not come to an end until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and there are some vestigial remains even today in a number of countries. The Iraqi Army is an obvious example.

The ending of the Cold War produced an optimistic re- examination of military needs and identity. Everyone started to speak of the "Peace Dividend". Yet few people saw that the Cold War had been keeping the world in a straitjacket for nearly half a century. When it suddenly fell away, national and ethnic hatreds began to resurface. Ethnic cleansing by paramilitary groups in the former Yugoslavia shocked the West. And we must not underestimate the possibility that Iraq, following the collapse of the Saddam regime, will also have to be policed to prevent another inter-ethnic conflict, with Kurds, Sunni and Shia Muslims all at each other's throats in another vicious legacy of post Versailles diplomacy.

In the 1990s, Nato armies found themselves in the world of the so-called "CNN curve", -of the something-must-be-done syndrome. In more official language, this was defined as "armed humanitarianism" in the UN Security Council Resolution 794 of December 1992. Whether or not "armed humanitarianism" works as it was supposed to -Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo are not entirely encouraging examples -it has at least provoked intense discussion on the new role of the soldier in the 21st century. Luttwak compared the future role of peace- enforcers to those of heavily armoured Roman legionaries in outposts along the frontiers of the civilised world. This, however, perhaps revealed more about the American attitude to peace-enforcement at the end of the 20th century: a high-tech/low-bodybag, arms-length operation, more often than not conducted with the use of air power. This attempt to police the world from the air is not only morally questionable -as General Morillon said just as the ultimatum over Kosovo expired: "Who are these soldiers who are prepared to kill, but are not prepared to be killed?" -it is also exceedingly dangerous in the long term.

The British Army view tends to be more robust, and ground-orientated than that of the United States. It is also rather more down-to-earth in other ways. The British Army doctrine on the subject maintains that Nato forces should never be deployed on peace-enforcement operations unless there is a clear demand from a majority of the local population for their intervention.

For example, events in East Timor showed what a well-trained and well disciplined body of troops can achieve in saving a civilian society from appalling treatment by paramilitary gangs. Sierra Leone is another example. But can just a few advanced nations police the rest of the world on an ad-hoc basis? Few army commanders are gung-ho today. They know that getting out of a peace enforcement operation is far harder than going in. The president of the French Senate's Armed Forces Committee remarked to me only half-jokingly: "The problem today is that it is the generals who are the pacifists."

We are living in a world not just of ethnic conflict, but also one in which drug barons or mafia-style gangs, often working hand-in-hand with corrupt politicians or generals, can take over a small or vulnerable country. So, what sort of soldier is needed in this post-Cold War world? A conflict resolution counsellor in a blue beret, or the soldier of more conventional wars?

The truth, as events in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq have shown all too cruelly, is a decidedly illiberal one. Tyrants and ethnic cleansers do not respond to reasoned argument, UN resolutions or appeals to their better nature. Any idea of achieving the peaceful disarmament of a murderous dictator through diplomacy is quite simply a contradiction in terms. There is only one thing to which a bully responds and that is superior force. The lesson should have been learnt after the Sarajevo killings and the Srebrenica massacre. It is not white Toyotas and UN flags you need, but war-fighting troops with armoured fighting vehicles, spearheaded by the supposedly redundant tanks. If politicians are not prepared to deploy their Armed Forces decisively, then they must ignore the media clamour to save ethnic or religious minorities, and they must explain clearly why their Armed Forces cannot become involved. The whole area of post-Cold War intervention is, of course, morally and legally confused. International law has always respected national sovereignty, but now, without any clear change in law, attempts are made to impose a new international political morality based on Western democratic values and human rights.

Unfortunately, the UN is reluctant to face up to the debate because rather too many of its own members have terrible human rights records themselves. And when one of its members does take a stand, as happened recently with the French determination to veto a second amendment, then they usually have ulterior motives as well. The armies that have to implement these policies are also in a state of flux. They are having to conform to new politically correct ideas that do not sit easily with traditional military values, which naturally tend to be retrospective, because war and preparation for war is intimately linked to atavistic qualities.

It may appear to be a paradox in post-Cold War democracies that we should still need to train people to fight. But we certainly do. In fact, one might well argue that the day that the British soldier becomes a model of caring citizenship is the day that he can no longer be counted on to hold the pass against the thug and tyrant.

These developments may prove a greater problem than we can yet assess, both operationally and socially. From an operational point of view, there is a strong possibility that the true experience of war after all the electronic gadgetry, both in official training simulators as well as in the amusement arcade, may be even more disorientating and shocking than at present. There is emotional, as well as operational, chaos when sophisticated systems fail. The fantasy diet of the film industry has also led the younger generation to believe that it can have incredible adventures without real physical danger. The popular press, meanwhile, has encouraged people to believe that we should be masters of our destiny, and that if anything goes wrong, such as casualties from "friendly fire", then somebody else must be responsible. We live in an age when people and governments believe that anything hazardous, from food poisoning to sport, should be controlled. Yet an army has to recruit and train for the most unpredictable and dangerous of all occupations. Many of the recent changes in warfare, however, do not just come from a quantum leap in electronic wizardry. Few professions have undergone such a sudden change in the past dozen years as the profession of arms during the multifaceted revolution -social, economic and geopolitical, as well as technological -that began in the mid-1980s. This may not seem so momentous in our daily lives, as we become accustomed to its effects, but historians of the future will be fixated with the end of the last century and the start of this one.

For a start, this combination of changes appears to constitute the first revolution in history to be neither religious, nor primarily ideological in origin. Unlike the revolutions of the past, which appealed to ideals and self-sacrifice, this one is motivated mainly by self-interest, the very element that sapped or destroyed revolutionary regimes in the past. But we should be cautious on this as yet speculative assessment, especially when one thinks of Zhou Enlai's comment on the French Revolution, that we are too close in time to judge.

It will take many years before we can tell for sure whether the astonishing changes in the course of less than a decade -economic Big Bang, the sudden collapse of communism, the invention of the internet and the leap in communications, the fragmentation of society, globalisation, the collapse of collective values in the West and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism -were intrinsically connected or purely coincidental. Yet one point is becoming clear.

The dramatic advance in the military technology of the West and the comparative stagnation of Armed Forces in Islamic countries and the Third World has a striking and partially linked parallel.

The Islamic world, by instinctively rejecting the competition of international markets for spiritual and cultural reasons, is increasing the divide created by economic globalisation. Just as the economic power of the West, especially the United States, is loathed, so, too, is the technological supremacy of its Armed Forces. The ability to fire missiles with pinpoint accuracy when out of range of conventional forces is seen as cowardly and arrogant. This is why so many Arabs feel that it is perfectly justifiable, if not heroic, to respond to the smart bomb with the suicide bomb. I see no sign of this state of affairs changing. In fact I fear that we may have passed the point of no return.

Editor - 4/10/2003

Newsday (New York)

March 29, 2003 Saturday ALL EDITIONS


HEADLINE: Ruling on WWII Sex Slaves


Tokyo - Japan does not have to compensate or apologize to a Korean woman forced into sexual slavery for seven years by the military during World War II, Japan's top court ruled Friday.

The Supreme Court said Japan does not have to pay $1 million to 80-year-old Song Shin-do because the 20-year statute of limitations for her claim has expired, top court spokesman Mitsuhiro Miyamoto said.

Friday's ruling by the top court was its second this week rejecting compensation demands by women forced to become sex slaves to Japanese soldiers. On Tuesday, it dismissed claims by a group of former South Korean sex slaves.

Song testified that the Japanese army tricked her in 1938 into accompanying soldiers to China, where she was forced into prostitution for Japan's troops until their defeat in 1945.

Song, the only resident in Japan disclosing her past, originally sued in 1993. "I waited patiently, hoping the court may do something for me," Song told Kyodo News agency Friday. "Japan is a dishonest country where neither politicians nor the courts take responsibility." Miyamoto said the ruling replicated a lower court ruling three years ago.

In November 2000, the Tokyo High Court acknowledged Japan's legal responsibility for Song's suffering had she sued years earlier. But under international labor laws, a violator who forced someone into sexual slavery was not obligated to provide compensation, the court said.

Historians say some 200,000 women, mostly Koreans and Filipinos, were forced into wartime sex slavery by the Japanese military.

Editor of HNN - 4/10/2003

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 31
April 10, 2003


Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday said it was "unfair" to
characterize the Bush Administration as opposed to openness. To
the contrary, he said, the Administration is "commit[ted] to the
free flow of information."

The Vice President spoke at a meeting of the American Society of
Newspaper Editors and was responding to a question from
Cleveland Plain Dealer editor Douglas C. Clifton, who noted that
"There's a growing perception among librarians, academicians,
researchers, historians, reporters, editors, publishers,
broadcasters that the Bush administration is a foe of openness
in government."

Cheney defended the conduct of his Energy Task Force and his
refusal to disclose the identities of those he consulted with.
"I think it restored some of the legitimate authority of the
Executive Branch, the President and the Vice President, to be
able to conduct their business."

"In other areas, if we talk about openness, I can't think of
anything that better demonstrates our commitment to the free
flow of information about very important events than this whole
exercise we're in the middle of right now, with respect to
embedding the press corps with U.S. military forces," the Vice
President said.

See an excerpt from the Vice President's remarks here:

Yet clashes over Bush Administration secrecy continue to erupt on
a nearly daily basis.

Two news stories today detail separate disputes between the
executive branch and Republican committee chairmen whose
congressional committees have been denied access to information.

House Commerce Committee Chairman W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-LA)
warned the Securities and Exchange Commission that he will
subpoena certain SEC documents that have been withheld for nine
months if they are not promptly delivered. See "House Panel
Tells SEC It Will Subpoena Papers" by Kathleen Day, Washington
Post, April 10:

Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight describes
the efforts of House National Security Subcommittee Chairman
Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) to overcome Energy Department
resistance to release of documents that his subcommittee
requires concerning security at nuclear weapons facilities. See
"Stonewalling Security" by Danielle Brian,, here:

Editor - 4/10/2003

To: Wisconsin Members of the American Historical Association
From: Bill Cronon, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison
and Arntia Jones, Executive Director, American Historical Association


As you undoubtedly already know, the severe budget crisis in Wisconsin
poses a severe threat to the Wisconsin Historical Society, unquestionably
one of the nation's leading historical institutions and owner of the
world's largest freestanding library dedicated solely to North American
history. Although all state agencies in Wisconsin, including the
University, will undoubtedly have to share the fiscal pain, the cuts that
have been proposed for the Historical Society are much greater than any
other part of state government has been asked to bear (and these come on
top of a terrible cut that has already taken place during the current
fiscal year). The cumulative consequences for all of us who care not just
about the history of Wisconsin, but the history of the United States and
Canada, can only be disastrous.

If you can possibly spare the time, PLEASE take the time now to communicate
with Governor Jim Doyle to let him know how much these cuts concern you.
If you could also forward this email to anyone you know who shares our
concern and would also be willing to contact legislators, please do so
immediately. If you know people around the State of Wisconsin who might be
willing to write or call legislators from their own district--especially if
such legislators are on the Joint Finance Committee--so much the better.
We have only a very short time to push back against these cuts before they
do irreparable harm to the Society. Act this week if you possibly can.

I've included below key pieces of information about the Society and about
the proposed cuts for you to use in conveying your views. Please remember
that when communicating with legislators it's best to put these arguments
in your own words. Merely copying the text below will drastically diminish
the impact of your message. Also phone calls, letters, FAXes, and direct
personal contact are far more effective than email for such communications.
Better still would be to appear before one of the hearings that the Joint
Finance Committee has scheduled at locations around the state.

This crisis is very real. Please do what you can to help.

Bill Cronon

Frederick Jackson Turner Professor
of History, Geography, & Environmental Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Arnita Jones
Executive Director
American Historical Association



The Wisconsin Historical Society is the principal historical agency in
Wisconsin, and plays a vital role in educational and cultural life of the
state. The Historical Society is the leader in preservation of artifacts,
documents, photographs, properties and other aspects of the history and
cultural heritage of Wisconsin, and because of the scope of their
collecting for 157 years, the American nation.

The Wisconsin Historical Society receives 60 percent of its funding from
the state. That funding will be drastically cut in the 2003-2005 state
budget by $3 million ($1.5 million annually) a 15 percent cut. In
addition, 30 of the Historical Society s 124 taxpayer funded positions will
be eliminated. That is one in every four positions, a 24 percent cut. No
other state agency with an educational mission is being asked to cut such a
large portion of their taxpayer funding or workforce. These cuts are
permanent, and they will cripple this vital institution. (More details on
the Historical Society' budget cuts can be found at

Time is very short. Please take a moment today to write or call your own
legislator (by Friday, April 11) and urge them to support a reduction in
the Wisconsin Historical Society s budget cut. (E-mail, unfortunately, is
not as effective as a phone call or personal letter.) Your own words are
the best. Describe why the Wisconsin Historical Society is important to
you and to state history. Be respectful and polite. If you legislative
representative is a member of the Joint Committee on Finance, it is even
more vital that you make a contact. This important legislative committee
can take action on reducing the Historical Society s budget cuts in the
2003-2005 budget.

If you live outside Wisconsin and don't know the name of which legislator
to contact, send your communications to

Governor Jim Doyle
115 East State Capitol " Madison, WI 53702
608-267-8983 (Fax)





1) EDUCATION: In Wisconsin, we believe in education. The Society educates
kindergartners to adults through

· curriculum for teachers, including its acclaimed History Day program
· more than 40,000 copies of Society-created student materials in
Wisconsin classrooms
· more than 75,000 school children served at its Museum and Sites
· 200,000 on-site visitors to Society archives and library, including UW
· 1.5 million discrete visitors to its website in calendar 2002

2) RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP: In Wisconsin we believe in protecting our
resources, both natural and cultural. The Society serves as steward for
the state's historical resources by protecting

· 115 historic and 138 nonhistoric buildings owned by the Society
· historic sites at eight locations around the state
· 500,000 historic artifacts
· 3.8 million items in the world's largest North American history library
· 325 million pages of archival material
· more than 21,000 historical and archaeological resources listed on the
National Register of Historic Places

3) SELF-HELP: In Wisconsin, we believe in self-help. The Society uses a
relatively small amount of tax dollars and relies on private support, by

· acquiring almost 40% of its budget from private sources
· growing membership by 78% in two years, from 7,000 to more than 12,500
· raising increasing amounts of gift funds
· obtaining nearly all collections (except for some library materials)
through donations.
· leveraging paid hours to obtain more than 250,000 volunteer hours each

4) FAIRNESS: In Wisconsin, we believe that we all should help solve
problems by fairly sharing the burden. The Wisconsin Historical Society is
bearing a disproportionate part of the budget reductions.

· The 2003-2005 state budget eliminates $3 million ($1.5 million annually)
from the Wisconsin Historical Society budget, and 30 out of 125 tax-dollar
supported jobs. No other major state agency is being asked to cut a higher
percentage of its workers, namely 1 of 4 jobs.
· The Society has the same size staff as it had 20 years ago. The growth
in state government has not been at the Society
· The Society experienced a 13% permanent state tax revenue cut in 2002-3,
elimination of 15 positions, and returned $618,700 in admission fees and
other earned revenues to the state treasury during the current biennium

April 3, 2003

Bob Greene - 4/9/2003

The professional Pipes bashers never rest. I am delighted that President Bush has appointed one of this nations finest middle east historians to the Institute for peace. That the loone left thinks Bush is a murderer and Pipes is bigoted, both LIES without merrit, are only endorcement to this nomination. Keep whining lefties we are winning. You are on the wrong side of history. Baghdad fell today and Iraq rejoices. We were right and you were wrong

T Herzl - 4/9/2003

This is an extraordinary, Orwellian moment. G W Bush, the murderer of a thousand innocent men, women and children has an "Institute of Peace," and to it he has appointed one of the most consistently bigoted newspaper columnists published in NYC.

I thought that the Right was for journalistic objectivity? Since when it is objective to accept politica appointments while a journalist?

Editor - 4/7/2003

New York Post April 6, 2003

President Bush proved yet again last week that he is serious about fighting terror - and fostering a more peaceful world - when he nominated Middle East expert Daniel Pipes to the board of directors at the U.S. Institute of Peace. Not everyone is a fan of Pipes. Terrorists and their apologists loathe him.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, for example, calls Pipes an "Islamophobe." It's troubled with his estimate that as much as 15 percent of Muslims sympathize with militant Islam.

But of course CAIR would object.

Pretending to be a "civil-rights" group, CAIR has defended terrorist gangs, like the Taliban and Hamas.

In 1998, it criticized a billboard that called Osama bin Laden "the sworn enemy" and sponsored a rally where one of its speakers praised jihad and those who support it.

But Pipes, who we're proud to have as a weekly columnist, also rattles liberals who value political correctness and tolerance for (likely) terrorists above all else.

He's warned of the threat posed by militant Muslims in America, noting the many who are already under arrest or being investigated for ties to terror.

In doing so, he's carefully - courageously - documented their backgrounds and their roles in various plots.

Pipes' aim is not to smear Islam or Muslims; indeed, he takes pains to distinguish between Islam, which he respects, and its hijacked militant form.

Rather, Pipes seeks greater vigilance (even if it's politically incorrect) in identifying the source of violent hostility.

What he understands is that peace can't always be gained through tolerance and dialogue; sometimes it must achieved by confronting the enemy, and defeating it.

As America is doing now in Iraq.

As America should have done pre-9/11.

Whether Pipes is right or wrong in his estimate of Muslim sympathy for terror, surely, the Institute of Peace will be well-served by hearing his view.

And Bush deserves extra credit, given that Pipes has criticized even him for meeting with apologists of militant Islam.

The Senate should confirm him quickly.

Editor - 4/7/2003

HNN News Bulletin:

On the morning of April 6, 2003 the Organization of American Historians, at the recommendation of the Executive Board, endorsed the following resolution:

In view of the threat to free speech in the current climate, the Organization of American Historians affirms the centrality of dissent in American history, the sanctity of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the necessity for open debate of public policy issues, including United States foreign policy, in order to maintain the health of this democracy.

The resolution was adopted unanimously at the annual business meeting of the organization at the end of its four-day 2003 convention in Memphis. More than fifty members were in attendance.

The resolution was proposed by Historians Against the War at a meeting held on April 4.

editor - 4/6/2003

HNN Breaking News

On the afternoon of April 5, 2003 the Executive Board of the Organization of American Historians backed a resolution proposed by Historians Against the War in defense of free speech.

The resolution affirms the importance of dissent in American history and the necessity of opeen debate about issues involving United States foreign policy.

The board, convening during the annual meeting of the OAH in Memphis, recommended that the business committee approve the resolution at a meeting scheduled for Sunday April 6, 2003 at 8am. Only the business committee can pass a resolution on behalf of the organization's membership. Normally, these meetings attract relatively few members. But because of the controversial nature of the resolution, many members are expected to attend.

Click here to read about Historians Against the War.

Rick Schwartz - 4/5/2003

And we also call upon the United States military to refuse orders to...

gang rape women and children in order to intimidate their parents into obeying the state...

gouge out the tongues of folk who talk too much...

put people feet first through plastic shredders and then feed the resultant hamburger to the fishes...

use women and children as shields to prevent incoming fire from the enemy...

force Iraqi men into fighting for your side by threatening to shoot their wives and children...

editor - 4/4/2003

The Scotsman

March 28, 2003, Friday



BYLINE: Paul Gallagher

SCOTTISH Television is to broadcast the "antidote to Simon Schama" with a documentary series telling the history of Britain from the point of view of the Celts.

Schama's BBC series A History of Britain was criticised for being too anglocentric and brushing over the influence of the vanquished ancient Britons in the story of the British Isles.

The alternative view will be given in The Sea Kingdoms, a ten-part documentary series to be broadcast in a prime-time slot from next month.

Based on a book by Alistair Moffatt, the presenter, the series describes the origins of modern Britain by visiting the western and northern areas of the British Isles, where traces of the ancient Celtic culture are most visible today. Mr Moffat said: "In the early history of Britain, the sea played a key role. That was how people travelled and communicated because there were no roads. The sea is the main character in the series. It is the sea that binds the Celtic races together and it was by the sea that the culture flourished.

"This series is in many ways the antidote to Simon Schama, who took a very land-based view - and a very English point of view - of our history."

The Sea Kingdoms describes the stories of traditionally overlooked historical characters such as Urien, the king of North Rheged in the sixth century who is regarded as the most powerful Celtic King.

"He narrowly failed to chase the Angles out of northern England and, if he had succeeded, would have been one of the best-known figures of our history," Mr Moffat added. "As it is, Urien is hardly mentioned in traditional histories of Britain."

Another subject examined is the Lordship of the Isles, which was strung between Scotland, the Isle of Man and Ireland.

Welsh and Cornish history also plays a major part in the series, with an examination of Gaelic languages and also the Celtic traditions which survive in the western and northern fringes of the nation.

Mr Moffat believes the failure of historians to examine Celtic history has resulted in the subject being associated with "romantic, new-agey elements", which he hopes to avoid.

He said: "Early Celtic society was non-literate and history progressed through memory and recital. There are oral histories and legends but it is still real history. There is a history of Celtic Britain which has largely been unwritten.

"We don't look at the progression towards the United Kingdom as an inevitability," he added. "It did not have to happen.

"We also don't look at the division between England and Scotland. There is only a split between Celtic Britain and Anglo-Saxon Britain. And, of course, England is far more of a Celtic nation than it realises."

Mr Moffat acknowledges that the reason Celtic history is overlooked is because it is the tale of the vanquished. "The English won the war for Britain and the Celts lost again and again. We have set out to find out what Celtic Britain is and to report that it does exist."

Schama's series A History of Britain was a popular and critical success, attracting an average audience of 4.4 million and propelling his accompanying books into the bestseller charts. But it was questioned by some historians for its concentration on the trials and tribulations of royalty and for sidelining the contribution of the Welsh, Scottish and Irish .

When figures such as James VI and I and Bonnie Prince Charlie were mentioned, it was for their impact on English history - and seen as further proof of Schama's concentration on royalty.

Christopher Harvie, a professor of British and Irish Studies at Tuebingen university in Germany, and Neil Evans, a Welsh historian, criticised Schama's treatment as the "Hello! history of England", and suggested the series could be challenged under the Trades Descriptions Act for calling itself A History of Britain.

"Wales and Scotland existed in the series only when the English looked at them," Prof Harvie said. "I want to know why the BBC has sponsored such an insensitively anglocentric production."

Prof Harvie complained that the final volume of Schama's trilogy had only 11 index references to Scotland in its 560 pages. "We have an over-centralised media and publishing structure which doesn't connect with any life north of the M25," he argued.

He also complained about Schama's reference to devolution by comparing it with the disintegration of nations in the Balkans. "Why should post-imperial Britain not resemble the happy patchwork of nations that is post-communist Yugoslavia?" Schama wrote.

Other leading Scottish historians joined the disapproval, with Professor Ted Cowan, of Glasgow University, saying: "Instead of pretending England is the most important, we should be taking a more measured look at history. It is very much a one-man show which is an old-fashioned way to do things. We should have debates between historians instead of having one man blathering away about England."

Schama hit back at his critics by saying it would be wrong to produce a "tokenistic" history. He added: "The programme on Britannia Incorporated began with Glencoe and ended with Robert Adam and Adam Smith. Five out of 15 programmes dealt in a significant way with Scottish history."

He also pointed out that the series discussed Robert the Bruce and William Wallace extensively and devoted a whole episode to Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots.

editor - 4/3/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #14; 2 April 2003)
by Bruce Craig <>
National Coalition for History (NCH)

[Note to Readers: An early and slightly shorter posting this week as the
editor will be attending the Organization of American Historians annual
meeting in Memphis.]

1. Rep. Ose Introduces Bill to Revoke PRA Executive Order
2. NEH Awards $25.2 Million in Grants
3. Restriction on Clinton Pardon Data Upheld
4. Bits and Bytes: Gods and Generals -- Another 'Lost Cause'?; Moynihan
Report Re-posting; Women's History Conference Announced
5. Articles of Interest: "Rethinking Historic Preservation" (Planetizen;
24 March 2003)

On 27 March 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) along with a bi-partisan group of
seven other members of the House Committee on Government Reform, introduced
legislation (H.R.1493) that revokes President George Bush's Executive Order
13233 of November 2001. That order, "Further Implementation of the
Presidential Records Act" imposed new procedures and restrictions on the
implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

This is one of the shortest and simplest bills on record -- under 100
words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. REVOCATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. Executive Order number 13233, dated
November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 56025), shall have no force or effect, and
Executive Order number 12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Reg. 3403) shall
apply by its terms."

In his floor statement introducing the bill
( Ose stated that Bush EO
"is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with
NARA's codified implementing regulations." Furthermore, it "violates not
only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It
undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government
operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and
its confidence in our government."

Legislation (H.R.4187) the "Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2002"
was introduced in the 107th Congress by Rep. Steve Horn (R-CA) whom since
retired. Ose was an original co-sponsor of the Horn measure. Last year,
the Government Reform Committee held several hearings on the Bush EO and on
9 October 2002, the Committee reported an amended version of this bill (see
House Rept. 107-790). The session ended, however, before the full House
could act on the measure. Horn's bill tried to rectify aspects of the Bush
EO, by contrast Ose's legislation simply nullify's the entire EO -- a
preferred solution to many historians and archivists. Hearings on the
pending legislation have yet to be scheduled.

The National Endowment for the Humanities announced that $25.2 million in
grants have been made to 288 museums, colleges and universities, and other
educational organizations in 42 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. The grants fall in four programmatic areas: preservation and
access, research, education, and public programs.

These are the first grant awards since the NEH launched the "We the People"
initiative last year. Readers will recall that in September 2002, President
George W. Bush announced this new NEH initiative which included a call for
NEH grant applicants to explore significant events and themes in our
nation's history. According to NEH Chair Bruce Cole, "many of these grants
contribute significantly to our citizens' understanding American history
and culture." Cole noted that the "We the People" related grants "will
broaden access to significant documents, support our nation's scholars and
teachers, and deepen our understanding of our nation and the world in which
we live."

A sampling of grants awarded in this funding cycle include: grants to
public libraries in 29 states to support a traveling exhibition and related
public programs that reexamines President Abraham Lincoln's efforts to
abolish slavery during the Civil War; a grant to the Bill of Rights
Institute in Washington, D.C., to create a teachers' guide, pilot workshop,
interactive Web site, and other teaching aids to improve students'
knowledge of the contributions of the founding generation of American
democracy; a grant to the Maine Humanities Council, Portland, for an
exemplary education project that will conduct seminars and develop
interactive curricular resources for Maine teachers who will study the work
of poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and his influence on American identity;
a grant to the Illinois State Historical Library, Springfield, for planning
statewide book discussions and exhibitions about the cultural and
historical significance of the early portion of the Lewis and Clark
Expedition; and a grant to the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania,
Pittsburgh, for an exemplary education project to create print- and
Web-based curriculum materials for K-12 teachers relating to the Native
American cultures of the eastern United States from the time of contact
through the colonial period.

Total number of projects and total dollar amounts for grants included are
as follows:
1) Preservation and Access (63 grants totaling $18,703,973) --
Preservation/Access Projects (59) $16,348,127; National Heritage
Preservation Program (4) $2,355,846.
2) Research Programs (126 grants totaling $2,451,500) -- Fellowship
Programs at Independent Research Institutions (9) $1,866,500; Summer
Stipends (117) $585,000.
3) Education Programs (34 grants totaling $3,469,650) -- Education
Development and Demonstration Projects (16) $3,084,650; Schools for a New
Millennium grants (K-12 curriculum enrichment through collaboration with
local cultural and educational institutions) (4) $357,000; Humanities
Teacher Leadership Program (to individual K-12 teachers for development and
distribution of teaching materials) (14) $28,000.
4) Public Programs (65 grants totaling $541,402) -- Humanities Projects in
Libraries and Archives (42) $81,985; Humanities Projects in Museums and
Historical Organizations (21) $389,417; Humanities Projects in Media (1)
$60,000; Special Projects (1) $10,000.

For a listing of all the grants by state, tap into the NEH webpage at:

A federal judge upheld the Bush administration's claims of secrecy for the
records of former President Bill Clinton's pardons issued by the outgoing
president on his last day in office. In a 14-page decision, U.S. District
Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in favor of the Justice Department and
against Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group that had sought access to
almost 5,000 pages of pardon-related papers and confidential communications.

On Clinton's last day in office he issued 177 pardons and commutations of
sentences, an act that created a public uproar. Judicial Watch filed
suit. To the consternation of several members of Congress, the Bush White
House backed Clinton's desire to keep the confidential communications
records secret as provided by the Presidential Records Act. In court,
Bush's attorney's argued that a president's pardon authority is "a core
presidential power exclusively entrusted to, and exercised by, the
president himself, and the documents generated in the process of developing
and providing advice to him are squarely subject to the privilege."

In her decision Judge Kessler ruled that in the case of the pardons the
"presidential communications privilege" (a subset of executive privilege)
applied, and that President Bush's lawyers were justified in seeking to
shield the release of such information from the public. According to
Kessler, "The presidential communications privilege serves as a vitally
important protection for the institution" thus allowing presidential
advisors to give the fullest and most candid advice they can on sensitive

Though the former president recently waived his right to restrict access to
most of the papers reflecting the confidential advice he received during
his administration, thus allowing historians and other scholars to gain
access to the records within a few years rather than the statutory 12
years, Clinton did not authorize the release of the pardon papers. They
may, however, come up for reconsideration under provisions of the PRA in a
few years.

Item #1 -- Gods and Generals -- Another 'Lost Cause'?: Following up on
last week's "Articles of Interest" section about the movie "Gods and
Generals," it now seems that the Civil War enthusiast community is up in
arms after Ron Maxwell, the writer/producer/director of the film, alleged
that there is evidence of "collusion" by unnamed individuals and
organizations who have mounted an e-mail and telephone campaign to "shut
the film down." The $80 million film has received overwhelming poor reviews
(according to the film has logged 13 positive and
127 negative reviews) and reportedly has made only $15 million since its
release. At present the movie, that according to some reviewers presents a
rather "unorthodox portrayal of the South during the Civil War," is
currently showing in less than 100 theaters nationwide. A campaign by
"Gods and Generals" enthusiasts has been launched to have members of the
public call their local bijou and request the film be screened.

Item #2 -- Moynihan Report Re-posting: This last week, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan was eulogized by members of Congress, in the press, and in
the pages of various on-line publications. In the Federation of American
Scientist's "Secrecy News" editor Steven Aftergood wrote: "Daniel Patrick
Moynihan devoted more time to thinking about government secrecy than any
other elected official. Senator Moynihan... made it respectable in elite
circles to acknowledge official secrecy as a problem and, at least in the
abstract, to criticize it...[he] instigated and chaired the commission on
Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy which issued a weighty report in
1997. The commission membership could not have been more highly placed and
influential... yet the actual influence of the commission's report was
nil...Nevertheless, the Report of the commission on Protecting and Reducing
Government Secrecy still stands as a tribute to Moynihan's commitment to
this problem and it remains an outstanding introduction to the subject." A
copy is posted at: <>;.

Item #3 -- Women's History Conference Announced: The National
Collaborative for Women's History Sites (NCWHS) -- a partnership of 33
historic sites, historians, site administrators and friends -- is holding
its third annual meeting, " Women's History Sites: Preserving and Making
History" 16-18 May 2003 in Washington, D.C. Founded in 2001, the
Collaborative brings together historians and historic site staffs to
improve the understanding of women's history at these special places. The
conference will include thought-provoking presentations, workshops, field
trips, and an opportunity for participants to share their professional
experiences. Featured speakers include Katherine Stevenson, Senior Policy
Advisor, the National Trust for Historic Preservation; Andrea Lewis of the
Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.; and Marie Rust, Northeast Regional
Director of the National Park Service. For additional information, tap

One article this week: "Rethinking Historic Preservation" an Op-Ed in
Planetizen (24 March 2003) argues that historic preservation of the built
environment is overlooked, and that the compartmentalization of
preservation does everyone a disservice. Tap into:

The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE
weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH
Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others
who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of
these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page
at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH
firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You
can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt,
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".

Yasser Tabbaa - 3/31/2003

I have posted a similar message to this one a few days agoin H-Net and informed WBUR in Boston about the error in the news item above, first reported by Reuters.

I am nearly certain that the original report by Reuter and others about the Mustansiriyya was erroneous in that it mistook the Mustaniriyya University for the Madrasa al-Mustansiriyya.

Historians of Islamic art are aware that the latter is a very important 13th century madrasa (college of law), one of very few standing late Abbasid structures. It is located in the heart of the "walled" city of Baghdad, flanked on one side by the Tigris and on the other by Shari' al-Nahr. This madrasa is an historical monument of the first order, but no teaching has taken place in it for centuries.

The Mustansiriyya University, on the other hand, is a new structure that is part of the complex of the University of Baghdad. It at least one kilometer away from the center of the old city. It was built in the early 1960s by Muhammad Makkiyya. This would of course explain the presence
of students in it; the report that one of its entrances was destroyed (the madrasa al-Mustansiriyya has only one entrance); and that the windows of surrounding shops were shattered by the explosion. There are shops north of the madrasa al-Mustansiriyya, but they are of the bazaar type, with iron shutters and no vitrines. My sense, therefore, is that the historical madrasa might still be safe, although the (accidental) damage to a University building is nearly as reprehensible.

Yasser Tabbaa
Department of Art
Oberlin college

Gus Moner - 3/31/2003

THe article fades in relevance as it enters the relevant, post WWI era. Otherwise, it cover the early period well, taking itnto account it's thousands of years fairly well in a concise manner.

Josh Greenland - 3/30/2003

I understand that this meeting will also have a "chat room" that attendees can wander into to discuss l'affaire Bellesiles. It will be "moderated" by Bellesiles supporters Jon Wiener and Paul Finkelman, who were chosen by OAH for the task.

OAH's executive committee recently decided not to rescind its Binkley-Stephenson award to Michael Bellesiles for the 1996 article published in the OAH quarterly that he subsequently expanded into the book Arming America.

Larry Nederlof - 3/29/2003

As a historian, and the curator of a Dutch Historical Library (in California), and being a sort of 'expert' on the Dutch 80 years war of liberation from the Spanish, I am more than just interested.

Where can I find the article in question or is it just his book: "Spain's Road to Empire"

Where can I find more on the subject?

editor - 3/29/2003

South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)
March 22, 2003
SECTION: News; Pg. 16
HEADLINE: Writing new history
BYLINE: TOKYO Mutsuko Murakami
Self-righteous conservatives in Japan have repeatedly denied wartime atrocities committed by the Japanese military during Japan's invasion of its neighbours in World War II. Each time this has happened, other East Asians became justifiably upset and disappointed, as such denials stand in the way of regional reconciliation. But new lights of hope are flickering in the dark. With their counterparts in China and Korea, some Japanese historians, educators and citizens are taking matters into their own hands. They are ambitious: their goal is to create a common textbook of regional history to be used as a supplementary study material at schools in each country. Concerned Japanese liberals have formed new groups such as the Asian Network for History Education ( and have waged a nationwide protest against a new ultra-nationalistic history textbook. Other organisations have also begun their own research into wartime history. In early March, these forces gathered at a three-day event in Tokyo dubbed the Forum on History Perception and East Asian Peace. As many as 900 people attended, double the number the forum organisers had expected. Many participants were ordinary citizens who joined historians, scholars and teachers roused by a new wave of popular reaction to Japan's economic decline that hopes to rekindle national pride and glory. The Tokyo forum is the second such gathering. A year ago, dozens of concerned groups in Japan, China and Korea organised the first meeting in Nanjing, where 118 people debated their perception of common history. The third forum is scheduled to be held this autumn in Seoul.
At the Tokyo forum, a diverse group of speakers reported on a variety of issues related to historical perceptions. Shinichi Arai, an emeritus professor at Surugadai University and the force behind the movement in Japan, briefed the participants on the latest developments concerning Japanese textbooks. A Korean professor criticised the Japanese public's biases in their perception of the abductions of Japanese nationals by North Korea.
Researchers from China reported on new findings over the 1937 Rape of Nanking and the Japanese military's merciless exploitation of Chinese women during the war. Japanese feminists offered a gender-based perspective in analysing Japanese history textbooks.
Of course, differences in historical perceptions are still vast. But Professor Arai and his friends did not seem pessimistic. "We would like to overcome the narrow-minded nationalism of each nation by examining each other's history books and discussing differences theme by theme," he said. South Korea and Japan have agreed to try solving the textbook issue through joint research. This may be a first step towards a new era of mutual reconciliation in the region. It once seemed impossible to dream that younger generations in East Asian nations would ever develop a shared interpretation of the region's past. But such a dream may be coming true, thanks to today's initiatives.

editor - 3/29/2003

Los Angeles Times

March 25, 2003 Tuesday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News; Part 1; Page 19; Foreign Desk

LENGTH: 1146 words

Nazi Smuggling Ring Is Back in Spotlight;
Peron's intelligence agency helped bring Adolf Eichmann and other war criminals into Argentina, documents reveal.

BYLINE: Hector Tobar, Times Staff Writer


Rodolfo Freude is an old man now, with an office in a nondescript high-rise in the center of this capital. Once upon a time, he was one of the most powerful men in Argentina, a right-hand man to President Juan Peron and friend to his charismatic wife, Eva.

He was also, according to historians here, a savior to some of the most notorious war criminals in history. Thanks to him, hundreds of Nazi officers and alleged French, Belgian and Croatian collaborators found a haven in this faraway South American country.

Peron named Freude, the scion of a wealthy Argentine German family, his chief of intelligence in 1946.

According to documents obtained by Argentine historians, Freude's agency organized a network of agents who smuggled the fugitives to Buenos Aires through way stations in Milan, Italy; Madrid; and other cities.

More than five decades later, the work of that smuggling ring has come under a microscope, thanks to an enterprising historian and investigative journalist.

The revelations in Uki Goni's "The Real Odessa," published in Argentina this year, have led Jewish organizations here to demand that the government release documents related to the Nazis.

In polite, brief letters, the secret service and the Foreign Ministry have said their files contain no such documents.

"It's totally inconceivable that the Argentine secret service has nothing on this period," Goni, a writer and investigative journalist, said in an interview.

"All they have to do is call Rodolfo Freude. His name is in the phone book."

Calls to Freude's office over two months by The Times always produced the same answer: He was unavailable for interviews.

Freude was part of a secret assistance network for suspected Croatian, Belgian, French and German war criminals, according to documents uncovered by Goni and other investigators.

Given new identities by Argentine spies and by sympathizers in the Italian church, the suspects would receive visas from immigration officials here to work as "technicians."

Josef Mengele, the infamous doctor of Auschwitz, escaped to Argentina in 1949 thanks to the network, arriving in Buenos Aires still in possession of the records of his ruthless experiments on twins in the Nazi death camps.

Discussion of Argentina's role in the Nazis' escapes has remained taboo here for decades, with generations of Argentine government officials blocking access to key archives. The revelations tarnish the image of Juan Peron, a man whose shadow still dominates Argentine politics almost 30 years after his death.

The current president and three of the four leading candidates in next month's presidential election are Peronists.

"Covering up for this sort of past sin is part of the political culture of Peronism," said Carlos Escude, an author and advisor to Argentina's Foreign Ministry in the 1990s. "Peron's ties to the Nazis are an embarrassment. They think they're doing their patriotic duty by shutting out any investigation of the past."

Argentine officials briefly opened key files to investigators in 1997, when then-President Carlos Menem created the Commission for the Clarification of Nazi Activities in Argentina, known here by its Spanish initials, CEANA.

Beatriz Gurevich, then an investigator with the Delegation of Argentine Israelite Assns., joined the commission and traveled to Argentine embassies and consulates in Stockholm, Milan and other cities to pore through their records.

But it was in the National Archives in Buenos Aires that Gurevich found perhaps the most revealing document. It detailed the existence of "secret advisors" with the authority to smooth the passage of suspected war criminals through Argentine immigration.

"Their signatures carried the weight of law," Gurevich said, even though most of the advisors were themselves suspected war criminals, such as Branko Benzon, who was ambassador to Berlin for the Nazi puppet state in Croatia. "The documents made it clear their authority had come directly from the president."

Perhaps the most important man in the Argentine intelligence network aiding the entrants was Carlos Fuldner, an Argentine-born captain of German descent who served in Hitler's SS.

After the war, Fuldner joined Freude's secret service, establishing "rescue offices" in Italy and Switzerland. Some fleeing suspected war criminals were granted an audience with President Peron just days after their arrival in Buenos Aires, according to documents uncovered by Goni.

A strongman who ruled Argentina from 1946 to 1955 and from 1973 to 1974, Peron told friends privately that he believed the Nazi leadership had gotten a raw deal in the landmark war crimes trials at Nuremberg.

Marcelo Fuhrman, a Jewish refugee from Austria who traveled to Argentina in 1946, remembers encountering fugitive Nazis on the ship, Cabo de Hornos, that took him to South America.

"I would listen to them talk," he said. "They had no idea who I was."

They also made little effort to conceal their own loyalties, according to Fuhrman, who says they greeted one another with snapping heels and the Nazi raised-arm salute.

After a stop in Uruguay, as the ship proceeded on the final leg of its journey, the Nazis donned monks' cassocks and entered Argentina as men of the cloth, Fuhrman says.

Most of the suspected war criminals came into the country under false identities, many with Red Cross passports obtained thanks to Fuldner and Freude's spy network, the documents Goni uncovered reveal. More than half a century later, records of their arrival still exist in the dusty offices of the Argentine immigration authorities near the port of Buenos Aires.

When Goni first visited there in the late 1990s, the files were known as "the archives of the fleas." After months of digging, he found entry cards for some of the most infamous criminals of the war, including "Riccardo Klement," the pseudonym of Adolf Eichmann, head of the office responsible for deporting millions of Jews to Nazi death camps.

Goni joined CEANA for three days in 1998 but he resigned when the panel resisted his and others' efforts to investigate the roles of Fuldner, Freude and other top officials in the Nazis' escape, he says. Instead, he wrote a book.

"To me, this is not really about the Nazis. It's about the corruption we have to deal with in Argentina today," Goni said of his book, which was originally published in English last year. "If we can't face up to these crimes of the past, how can we be honest about the present?"

Goni's attempts over the years to interview Freude have proved fruitless.

Another former member of the commission, who asked not to be named, says he has spoken with Freude many times over the years and has asked him more than once about his role in the Nazi escape.

"His only answer is silence," the former commission member said.

editor - 3/29/2003

The Baltimore Sun

March 25, 2003 Tuesday FINAL Edition


HEADLINE: When America turned its back on immigrants; PBS documentary looks at policies toward Chinese; TVPreview

BYLINE: David Zurawik


It is easy in these days and nights of all-war television programming to miss some of the regularly scheduled programming that is truly special. Becoming American: The Chinese Experience, a three-part documentary starting tonight on PBS, is one of those rare television programs that has something original to say and says it in a compelling way. It is the kind of film that rightfully gives rise to talk of this being a golden age of documentaries on television.

Co-written and produced by Bill Moyers and Thomas Lennon along with a large team of others, the documentary is book-ended by two watershed legislative acts, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Immigration Reform Act of 1965. The Exclusion Act is one of America's greatest acts of shame, and it gives lie - at least when it comes to Chinese immigrants - to much of the nation's elevated, Lady Liberty rhetoric about immigration.

As American historian L. Ling-chi Wang says in the film, "Up until 1882, America was open to everybody who wanted to come. We welcomed everybody. The only people that we excluded by law at that time were prostitutes, lepers and morons. In 1882, we added the Chinese to that list."

The greatest triumph in terms of storytelling is the way Moyers and Lennon bring the 19th-century Chinese-American experience to life and then go on to explode stereotypes and show how economics drove racial politics and shaped attitudes toward the immigrants. Borrowing a page from Ken Burns, the core strategy is to tell history through mini-biographies.

While that might sound relatively easy to do, the trick is to find compelling life stories that represent and resonate with the larger forces and issues shaping the age as is done here. Viewers meet Yung Wing, who came to the United States to be trained as a missionary and graduated from Yale in 1854. Here was a man who loved America, but America wouldn't love him because of the color of his skin.

Viewers will also meet Lalu Nathoy, brought here in slavery to work in a mining-town brothel. One of the few women lucky enough to survive the disease and physical abuse that claimed the lives of most such women before the age of 30, Lalu became Polly Bemis, pioneer woman. And then there's Denis Kearny, a one-time labor leader and immigrant himself, who became one of the most virulent Chinese baiters in the land making a career out of stirring up race hate.

The labor connection matters, because forces larger than the likes of Kearny ultimately shaped attitudes toward the Chinese. When cheap labor was needed to build the Transcontinental Railroad, Leland Stanford, California governor and railroad magnate, created a climate of welcome. But, as soon as times got tough and there were more laborers than jobs, Stanford was the first to denounce and scapegoat the Chinese.

Using letters and diaries, the filmmakers manage the most difficult historical task of telling a culture's history from the inside out through the eyes of the people who lived it. But Moyers and Lennon also never lose track of the mega-view, chronicling larger patterns in Chinese and American history. One of the most illuminating involves the way in which Chinese-Americans, like African-Americans, had to go to the Supreme Court of the United States to find any of the rights they were supposed to be guaranteed in the Constitution.

There is a slightly jarring shift in tone between Parts 2 and 3, as history gives way to Moyers' interviewing Chinese-Americans today, like author Helen Zia and Jerry Tang, founder of Yahoo. But the piece quickly establishes its own rhythm with one of the greatest interviewers in the history of the medium at the top of his game.

What is wonderful about watching Moyers when he's in this mode is how much listening he does. Whereas many television interviewers try to impress with long questions showing all their homework, Moyers seems to be using as few words as possible to lay out concepts and then create space for the people being interviewed to explore the ideas and reveal themselves.

Near the end of this television journey, Michelle Ling, a young writer, tells Moyers how weary she gets constantly battling the perception that she is an outsider.

"I am an American, but I have to become an American to everybody else all the time," she says.

"Why is that?" Moyers asks simply.

"I don't know. You tell me; you're the white guy," she replies.

editor - 3/28/2003

Untitled Document

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #13; 27 March 2003)
by Bruce Craig <>
National Coalition for History (NCH)

1. Bush Issues New Secrecy Executive Order
2. Legislation Introduced: World Trade Center National Memorial Act;
National Parks Institute Act; and Several Other Legislative Measures
3. Update: Stolen North Carolina "Bill of Rights" Document
4. Judge to Decide Fate of Nazi Documents
5. Bits and Bytes: National Coalition for History Policy Board Meeting;
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Dies; Herbert Aptheker Dies; Western Association of
Women Historians Sets Meeting Date; NARA Seeks Comments on Draft Appraisal
6. Articles of Interest: "Movie Gets History, But Is It Truth?"
(Washington Times; 3/22/03); "In the Service of History" (Washington Post;
24 March 2003)

1. BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information" (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See "Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates" -- NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).

The announcement of the president's signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as "advance damage control." The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001.

Around 7:00 pm on 25 March, copies of the signed EO were released to select members of the Washington press corps. Recipients were connected via conference call to a "senior administration official" who provided a background briefing on the condition of anonymity (see: Because of copy deadlines, the timing of the briefing made it difficult for reporters to consult experts in disclosure and government secrecy who could provide meaningful comment. Also, because the president was scheduled to be on the road the next day, no routine press briefing was anticipated, making it impossible for reporters to pose timely on-the-record questions to administration officials. Nevertheless, hastily put-together yet generally accurate articles appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times, and over major news wires such as the Associated Press. Feature stories also were broadcast on National Public Radio, Pacifica radio, and through other non-print media outlets. Regardless of the "advance damage control," reporters are expected to ask administration officials probing questions during the next regularly scheduled White House press briefing this Friday morning.

The new EO retains the essential provision of the Clinton order -- automatic declassification of federal agency records after 25 years --but with some notable caveats. In general, the government now has more discretion to keep information classified indefinitely, especially if it falls within a broad new definition of "national security." The EO makes it easier for government agencies to reclassify documents that have already been declassified, and it makes it easier for agencies to classify what is characterized "sensitive" material. There are new classification authorities including one for the vice-president who previously did not have the power to classify documents, and one for the CIA to reject declassification rulings from an interagency panel. The EO also expands the list of exemptions of information from future automatic declassification: information that would "assist in development or use of weapons of mass destruction," reports such as "national security emergency preparedness plans," and information relating to "weapons systems." Also included in the automatic declassification exempted materials category is a class of information that would "impair relations between the United States and a foreign government," thereby creating a new "presumption of secrecy" category for information provided in confidence by a foreign government; this provision also was not present in the Clinton order. Finally, the order creates a 3-year delay in requiring that all agencies comply with the Clinton EO 25-year targeted declassification date.

All in all, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a private group that works to get government documents declassified, the Bush administration is sending "one more signal from on high to the bureaucracy to slow down, stall, withhold, stonewall....making foreign government information presumptively classified drops us down to Uzbekistan's openness norms."

Not all reviewers of the new EO are so critical. Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, considers the EO as "a bullet dodged"-- that "given that the Bush administration is the most secretive in recent decades, it is not as bad as it might have been. As deplorable as these steps are," he said, "they seem unlikely to have a major impact on disclosure policy." Archivists were generally pleased to see the generalized term "information" substituted for "records" in certain sections of the new EO.

Administration officials defended the new order and characterized it as an "institutionalization of automatic declassification...with appropriate modifications." According to J. William Leonard, director of the National Archives Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) -- the government oversight agency that is charged to implement the EO -- "From my perspective, this amendment does not represent a substantial change to the declassification process."

Though the EO postpones the automatic declassification deadline by three years to 31 December 2006 and will delay millions of historical records from being released, Leonard fully expects "all federal agencies to fully address their backlogs by 2006....and there will be no future extensions." To that end, Leonard's office will be monitoring how agencies implement the amendment. He also will be directing that all agencies produce "declassification plans" in the very near future -- plans that will identify and assess agency resource and staffing commitments to insure full compliance by the new deadline.

Historians and government openness advocates have long followed the administration's efforts to revise the Clinton EO. A few weeks ago, a final working draft was submitted to federal agencies for review. Most of the changes made as a result of that final review and reflected in the EO were relatively minor. Said one agency insider, "in the spirit of agency consensus you see new added language that doesn't really change much." Though some reviewers wanted to see more dramatic changes in the EO now that agencies operate in a post- 9/11 world, most of the more draconian suggestions were headed off by NARA and other reviewing officials.

One difference between the draft and the final EO gets to the heart of the Bush administration's philosophy about government secrecy. The preamble of Clinton EO 12958 declared: "In recent years however, dramatic changes critical to our Nation's security have altered [a subtle reference to the end of the Cold War] although not eliminated, the national security threats we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government." These words have been deleted from the Bush EO. The new EO preamble contains no reference to government openness, reinforcing in some people's minds the Bush administration's apparent underlying philosophy toward government secrecy. According to one declassification insider, "the preamble sets the stage for the underlying theology of the Bush administration....gone are Clinton's references to open government, gone is the presumption for document declassification....what we're left with is paternalistic language emphasizing the need for the government to protect the American people -- that 'certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens.'"

Significantly also, the new EO strikes out all references to a declassification advisory board authorized by the Clinton EO but whose members were never appointed. The "Information Security Policy Advisory Council" was to be a seven-member advisory group appointed by the president to advise on declassification matters. According to Leonard, this provision was struck as it was no longer needed. After the issuance of EO 12958 in 1995 Congress authorized the establishment of the "Public Interest Declassification Board" (the so-called "Moynihan Board") in Section 703 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2001 (PL 106-567). Leonard sees "value in such a group" and intends to try to persuade upper-echelon Bush administration officials of the benefits of moving forward and complying with the law authorizing the Board. Right now, however, these individuals are preoccupied with the war in Iraq. Officials believe it would be advantageous to wait until the war is off their radar screens before addressing the appointment of the Moynihan Board. A copy of the new order may be found at: <>;.

2. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED Item #1 -- World Trade Center National Memorial Act: On 19 March 2003, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) introduced "World Trade Center National Memorial Act" (H.R. 1364), legislation designed to establish a national memorial at or in the proximate vicinity of the World Trade Center site in New York to commemorate the tragic events of September 11, 2001. While state and local New York authorities have taken the lead in planning the overall development of the World Trade Center site, this bill seeks to establish a "World Trade Center Memorial Advisory Board" -- a group of experts who would assist the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in a public planning process that ultimately would result in a memorial administered as a unit of the National Park Service. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Resources for action.

Item #2 -- National Parks Institute: On 13 March 2003, Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA) introduced legislation (H.R. 1289) to establish a National Parks Institute at the University of California, Merced. The institute is designed to assist the National Park Service (NPS) in the promotion of conservation stewardship, to develop and promote sustainable resource management programs, and to assist developing nations to manage their natural and cultural resources. The legislation empowers the federal government to construct a facility to house the program on university grounds and to enter into cooperative agreements with various entities to carry out provisions of the act. As envisioned by the bill sponsor, the institute would be jointly administered by the NPS and UC Merced. The bill was jointly referred to the House Education and Workforce Committee and the House Committee on Resources.

Other bills recently introduced include: The "Trail of Ancients" -- by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), legislation (S. 634) to assess the Four Corners area for its association with Paleo-Americans as a national historic trail; the "Pioneer National Historic Trails Studies Act" -- by Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE), legislation (H.R. 1051) to update the feasibility of a suitability study for four potential national historic trail expansions; "Freedom's Way National Heritage Area" -- by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), legislation (S. 577) to establish a national heritage area in Massachusetts and New Hampshire; "Miami Circle" -- by Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL), legislation (H.R. 1361) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the an archeological site in Miami-Dade County Florida; and the "Paleontological Resources Preservation Act -- by Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), legislation (S.546) designed to establish uniform federal procedures to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal lands.

3. UPDATE: STOLEN NORTH CAROLINA "BILL OF RIGHTS" DOCUMENT Following up on our report last week ("Missing 'Bill of Rights' Recovered" in NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9 #12; 21 March 2003) describing how the FBI seized a copy of the Bill of Rights that had been out of North Carolina's custody since the Civil War, federal authorities are now weighing whether to bring criminal charges against those who were trying to sell the document.

The case is complex and by no means clearcut. Proving criminality in the sale of government documents is rarely an easy task, especially if they were taken during wartime and an attorney could assert that the document was a "spoil of war." The outcome will probably rest on whether federal prosecuting authorities can determine if the seller had "criminal intent" and whether he knew the documents had been stolen.

The provenance of the document is fairly well known and goes back over 200 years. It is also known that North Carolina officials at least twice refused to negotiate with the seller, most recently in 1995, not because they considered it "stolen" but because they considered the millions of dollars sought for it was merely "ransom money." Should the attorney for the present owner argue that the document was a "spoil of war" the federal prosecution could get messy.

4. JUDGE TO DECIDE FATE OF NAZI DOCUMENTS On 20 March 2003, the U.S. Department of Justice asked a federal judge in Philadelphia to decide who owns a trove of Nazi documents that was taken from the home of Robert M. W. Kempner, a renowned war crimes prosecutor, shortly after his death in 1993. The papers of the one-time Nuremberg prosecutor that detail Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's plans to subjugate the Soviet Union, are currently stored in a federal evidence vault.

Kempner bequeathed his collection to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., but thousands of documents vanished from his suburban Philadelphia home shortly after his death. Some of the papers showed up in the possession of William Martin who operated a business hired by Kempner's estate to clean and empty the former prosecutors' residence. Martin turned the papers over to the FBI in 2001 when agents began to investigate a possible theft. No charges were filed and Martin now has asked for their return, claiming that he is the rightful owner. The Holocaust Museum also claims title. The Justice Department suit asks that a federal judge decide the ownership of the papers and takes no position on who should get them.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- National Coalition for History Policy Board Meeting Date Set: During the upcoming 3-6 April 2003 meeting of the Organization of American Historians in Memphis, Tennessee. The Policy Board of the National Coalition for History will convene on Friday, April 4, at 8:00 am in the Executive Director's Presidential Suite at the Memphis Marriott Downtown, 250 North Main Street, Memphis. At the OAH meeting we will also be conducting the "Hill Rat Open Forum" -- a session designed to engage NCH institutional supporter representatives and other interested parties in a discussion of current congressional initiatives of interest to the historical community. That session takes place Saturday, April 5, from 1:15 to 2:15 pm in room 204 of the Memphis Cook Convention Center. This forum will include updates on various history and archives related appropriation measures, including the Bush Administration's various history initiatives; pending legislation, including Senator Alexander's "American History and Civics Education Act," and an update on executive order and court challenges being advanced by historians. As always, additional topics may also be raised by participants. Also, a "CRM Roundtable" session is once again scheduled to provide an informal session for cultural resource practitioners from the governmental and the private sectors to meet and exchange ideas and issues of concern. One issue that will be discussed is the A-76 "outsourcing" of federal archeological and history office functions as well as other matters brought to the table by participants. The roundtable will be held Saturday 5 April, 2:30 to 3:30 pm in Room 204 of the Memphis Cook Convention Center.

Item #2 -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan Dies: On 26 March 2003, iconoclastic scholar and four-term New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan died in Washington D.C.; he was 76. In 1965, Moynihan was catapulted to national prominence when he wrote a controversial report, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. " He subsequently held a number of important government posts in several different administrations. Most recently, Moynihan's interests focused on stemming government secrecy and on social security reform. For the New York Times obituary by Adam Clymer, tap into: <>;.

Item #3 -- Herbert Aptheker Dies: On 17 March 2003, Herbert Aptheker, a leading scholar of African-American history and a lifelong radical who counseled two generations of American leftists, died of complications from pneumonia; he was 88. In his final months, Aptheker had been putting the finishing touches on a new edition of his seminal "Documentary History of the Negro People,'' a multi-volume magnum opus of the writings of African-Americans dating back 300 years. It would have been the last of more than 80 volumes of scholarly writing he published. For the New York Times obituary, tap into:

Item #4 -- Western Association of Women Historians Sets Meeting Date: The Western Association of Women Historians will host its 34th annual conference at the University of California, Berkeley June 6-8 2003. For additional information, tap into: <>;.

Item #5 -- NARA Seeks Comments on Draft Appraisal Policy: The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is seeking public comment on its draft appraisal policy. The draft sets out the strategic framework, objectives, and guidelines that NARA uses to determine whether federal records have archival value. It also provides more specific guidelines for appraising the continuing historical value of certain categories of records including personal data records, research and development records, scientific observations, and environmental information. This proposal is part of NARA's series of records management initiatives to examine and redesign, as necessary, its records management policies and procedures. Comments must be received by 18 April 2003. Please send comments by e-mail to or by fax to 301-837-0319 or by mail to NPOL, National Archives at College Park, Room 4100, 8601 Adelphi Rd, College Park, MD 20740-6001. The draft policy is available on the NARA web site at: <>;.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST With the nation at war and so many visual images shaping how Americans view war, two articles this week: first a piece on the remembrance of wars in the distant past, and second, one on those documenting history in today's military.

In Mackubin Thomas Owens' "Movie Gets History, But is it Truth?" (The Washington Times; 3/22/03), the author focuses on how a filmmaker can adhere to historical details and still miss the greater truth. The author compares the recently released movie, "Gods and Generals" to "Glory," a film of a few years back that focused on the Civil War exploits of one of the first black regiments. While the author is impressed by attention to historical details in such things as costuming and staging of battle scenes in "Gods and Generals," he takes strong issue with the southern apologist "collective victory narrative" advanced by the film's producers that suggests the Civil War was a heroic crisis, a "noble test of national vigor between two adversaries who believed firmly in their respective causes." In this era of seeming moral certitudes involving a nation's decision to go to war, Owens considers that there was a "right and wrong side" in the Civil War and that fact should not be forgotten as moviegoers watch "Gods and Generals." For this thoughtful essay, tap into: <>;.

"In the Service of History" by Christian Davenport (Washington Post; 24 March 2003) focuses on the role that uniformed military historians and others attached to Documentation Detachment Units deployed with American troops in the Middle East are playing in documenting the Iraq war. One topic the article discusses is the challenge of creating that delicate balance between "fidelity to the institution and obligation to history." Tap into: <>;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to typing in the body of the message: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Editor - 3/27/2003

Toronto Star

March 18, 2003 Tuesday Ontario Edition


HEADLINE: Presidency rides on war's fate

BYLINE: Linda Diebel, Toronto Star

International and political stakes are high for Bush 'Boldest roll of the dice' in 30 years, says U.S. senator

He fought for it, dug in his heels against the dictator who slipped away from his father, and now it appears he's got it: Bush's War.

And, as this war goes, say analysts, so goes the presidency of George W. Bush.

"There's no question the stakes, both nationally and internationally, are enormous," says Mike Mellman, a Democratic pollster based in the U.S. capital. "His presidency rides on how it turns out."

His father, president George H.W. Bush, went to war against Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 1991, saw his approval ratings soar to 90 per cent and, 18 months after the victory parades, lost the 1992 election to Bill Clinton.

Bush is going to war without the 120-odd nation coalition that joined the U.S. in 1991, and paid for the bulk of Operation Desert Storm.

This time, Pentagon officials contradict their own generals about how many troops will be needed to hold post-war Iraq, and at what cost.

He's doing it with, given human nature and a spurned U.N., more than a few world leaders secretly hoping he will fail. There are few fans of this administration's unabashed goal to realign the world and lock a new Bush doctrine in to place.

"This is the boldest roll of the dice any president has done in the 30 years I've been a senator ... it's bold and it's dangerous," Senator Joseph Biden, top Democrat on the foreign relations committee, told USA Today.

Moreover, and most important to his political future, Bush is going to war with the U.S. economy still in recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, consumer confidence at a nine-year low and jobs being lost at the rate of 300,000 per month.

Bush is gambling the war will be short, few American lives will be lost, and the economy will surge in a post-war boom.

"Bush and (Federal Reserve chair) Alan Greenspan say going to war will resolve uncertainty and give the economy a boost," says Christian Weller, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, an independent Washington research centre.

"That's not our view. The economy is fundamentally weak and war, especially a prolonged war, could send it over the edge."

There's no question Bush will be remembered for the to-be-named invasion of Iraq."

"This might be called Mr. Bush's war," historian Douglas Brinkley told the Washington Post. "If things don't turn out right and the economy stays sour and terrorist acts are going on around the world, it gives the opposition plenty of issues."

The 2004 election campaign has already begun. Although the primary season doesn't get start until January, and Democrats are still without a candidate, the Bush re-election team is up and running.

"We've got a green light to think about it, plan about it, but a red light on doing anything," one Bush adviser told the Washington Post, which means, "Work on it, but make sure it's done quietly."

There's just one little hurdle in the meantime - and that's the war. Bush's father, with U.N. backing, won his war to oust Saddam from Kuwait, but lost the election in a sagging economy.

There are two things that are different now. Both could mitigate against a similar fate for his son.

First: It's a post 9/11 world. Bush loses few opportunities to remind Americans of that attack on the U.S, and how it redefined his presidency. Polls show there is no doubt in the U.S. public's mind of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

But Mellman, reading his own polls, doesn't think 9/11 will be a huge factor.

"Going into Sept. 11, George Bush was in serious trouble with the American people. On Sept. 12, he was at 90 per cent," he said. "But people forget. Sept. 11 is already dimming in the public mind. ... The most important issue will be the economy."

Second: Simply put, Karl Rove. Bush's top adviser, the first political guru to have an office in the White House, is considered a mastermind. With him, say many, Bush can't lose. He's in charge of Bush's re-election team, sits in on White House policy meetings and is held in awe in power circles.

"I have enormous respect for Karl Rove," said one analyst, speaking anonymously. "But, remember, after George Bush lost to (Republican presidential candidate) John McCain in the New Hampshire primary, Karl's name was mud. Real world politics count for a lot. It's what Osama bin Laden does, not Karl Rove."

Pollsters have no doubt about the next few weeks. Americans will rally around their president and their troops, and Bush's popularity will soar, no matter what.

But so much could go wrong on the road to Baghdad.

Already, Pentagon officials are preparing the public for the loss of American lives.

Then, there's the cost of the war.

Recently, U.S. Army Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that it's going to take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to secure Iraq. And Pentagon budget analysts peg the cost of the war at close to $100 billion (U.S.) this year alone.

The most important polling numbers right now show only 23 per cent give the economy a passing grade.

"We've got plenty of time. Plenty of time," a senior White House adviser told Time magazine, about next year's election.

But, just as it was for his father in a post-war world, time could prove to be Bush's biggest enemy.

Editor - 3/26/2003

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (Wisconsin)

March 18, 2003 Tuesday METRO EDITION


HEADLINE: Cold War museum proposed; Group seeks to lease portion of Hillcrest Park that is former Nike site


Waukesha -- With the nation on the doorstep of war, veterans from another world conflict gathered Monday night to ask for a museum to commemorate a struggle they say Waukesha played a role in winning -- the Cold War.

Hillcrest Park, a former radar guidance site for Nike missiles with nuclear payloads, is one of the few remaining Cold War relics aside from the 38th parallel, on the Korean peninsula, which tenuously separates old foes -- communists and capitalists.

The missile launch site north of E. Broadway and east of Highway 164/59 was shut down in 1971, as was its companion facility on Davidson Road, east of E. Main St., now called Hillcrest Park. It was where Army living quarters and radar units were based.

Terry Klimek, who as a National Guardsman served at the site, along Davidson Road, said that when he hears talk of war with Iraq, his thoughts return to the Nike bunker, hardened against a direct nuclear strike, and its decontamination showers for chemical and biological attacks.

"What they have now, we had it all back then," Klimek, of the Town of Vernon, said after the Monday meeting.

Klimek and several of his associates gathered before the Park, Recreation & Forestry Board to present their plans for a Cold War Museum, which would be associated with the Cold War Museum in Washington, D.C., an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution.

Chris Sturdevant, the museum's Midwest chapter chairman, told board members that his group would pay for developing the Nike site into a museum worthy of tourists, historians and students. No cost estimate was available.

The group wants to lease the portion of Hillcrest Park that contains the plaque dedicated to Nike veterans in 1988, the two radar towers and the unoccupied blast building at the end of the driveway.

Volunteers to be used

The chapter would secure the area with a fence and take other security measures, Sturdevant said in a letter. Volunteers would staff the site, he told the board, which may take action on the museum proposal at a later meeting.

Also addressing the board were a former Cold War spy and the wife of the president of a munitions plant that once operated in Waukesha.

Virginia Tapper, widow of Amron Corp. co-founder and Pentagon consultant Ken Tapper, began her presentation pulling a 20mm anti-aircraft shell from her pocket, saying it was one of the top-secret weapons produced at the plant during the Cold War.

"I've got an arsenal at home that I could donate to the museum," Tapper said.

Tapper also talked about sophisticated hand grenades and mini-bombs produced in secrecy at the plant.

Werner Juretzko, a former intelligence operative for West Germany, implored the board to realize the importance of the relic it has in Waukesha.

Juretzko said little is left to commemorate the Iron Curtain, the dividing line that once separated east from west in Germany, and Waukesha needs to do what it can to save the Nike site.

Fallen heroes remembered

"The establishment of a Cold War Museum at Hillcrest Park would honor Cold War veterans and workers, memorialize our fallen heroes who fought communism for the sake of liberty and demonstrate the significance of the era locally," Sturdevant wrote in a letter to the board.

Sturdevant is a library associate at the Waukesha Public Library.

The Cold War Museum that opened in Washington, D.C., in 1996 commemorates the ideological and political confrontations between East and West from the end of World War II to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Waukesha museum would include permanent and rotating materials with the museum in Washington.

Hillcrest Park carries the distinction of being one of the few remaining intact Nike radar installations in the United States. Its two existing buildings are excellent for museum materials and the remnants of two radar towers could be used as outdoor displays, Sturdevant wrote.

In the late 1950s, it was one of eight launch sites in the Milwaukee area that were poised to use Nike missiles to intercept and destroy long-range Soviet nuclear attack aircraft. It was equipped with nuclear warheads to vaporize waves of enemy aircraft.

In addition to missile sites, there are other Wisconsin connections to the Cold War.

Former U.S. Sen. Joe McCarthy and Gen. Douglas MacArthur are Wisconsinites recognized for their roles during the "Red scare" and the Korean War, respectively.

Editor - 3/26/2003

Los Angeles Times

March 18, 2003 Tuesday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News; Part 1; Page 1; National Desk

HEADLINE: THE NATION; COLUMN ONE; Cries for Freedom Still Ring; In long-ago lawsuits uncovered in St. Louis, slaves tell of their suffering. Dozens won release from bondage before all-white juries.

BYLINE: Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer


The creamy linen pages are creased and torn, smudged with grease or sweat. The ink has faded to sepia. A squashed fly is smeared on the edge of one sheet.

Through these tattered documents, the unheard voices of America's slaves call out for justice.

Tempe complains in 1818 that her master has failed "to supply her with clothing necessary for comfort and decency." Ralph, in 1830, expresses "fear that James and Coleman Duncan will take me by force from this place and sell me." Daniel, in 1835, states simply that he is "entitled to his freedom."

Winny speaks, and Celeste, and Milly, Arch and Anson and Matilda, Charlotte and Julia, Jerry, Rachel. These were men and women who had no last names, who could not read or write, who were bought and sold like livestock. Yet, in a remarkable display of courage and desperation, they and hundreds of others sued for their freedom in the white man's court.

Their stories, their voices, are emerging now as Missouri state archivists sort through 4 million court documents that had been stashed away in metal cabinets, untouched since the Civil War.

Among heaps of musty affidavits about contract disputes and unpaid debts, the archivists have uncovered 283 "freedom suits" filed in St. Louis from 1806 to 1865.

Decades before Dred Scott became the most famous slave to sue for freedom, the imposing, domed courthouse here echoed with the defiant voices of Tempe, of Ralph, of so many others who refused to accept their bondage. They dictated their petitions to lawyers or clerks and signed them with faltering Xs in black ink. "He has frequently abused and beaten her, particularly yesterday." "Unlawfully an assault he did make in and upon her."

Before this cache of documents was discovered, historians had no idea how many slaves had put their faith, and their fates, in the courts. They thought Dred Scott was an anomaly. Now, they are uncovering evidence of an underground grapevine that passed word about the freedom suits from slave to slave, emboldening men and women and even teenage children to sue.

Dozens won their cases, persuading juries of 12 white men to set them free. A few even won damages against their masters.

"This is a stunning find. It's just phenomenal," said Lea VanderVelde, a law professor at the University of Iowa who is writing a book on the freedom suits.

She describes 19th century St. Louis as a frenetic boomtown in which many slaves roamed the streets largely unsupervised. In the Deep South, slaves were isolated on their plantations. Here, they were often ordered to run errands, to unload parcels on the docks, to help a tradesman in town or to do the laundry at a local hotel. Some were even sent to the free territory of Illinois to labor in the salt mines, though their masters kept their wages.

The relative freedom of movement allowed slaves to mingle with one another and with the free blacks who worked on the river steamboats or owned barbershops in town. They got together as well at regular Friday night parties, dubbed "Negro balls," and at church on Sunday. Every meeting gave them an opportunity to swap news of friends who had successfully sued for freedom, to exchange tips about the best lawyers or most sympathetic judges.

The grapevine worked so well that whites raged, filling newspapers of the 1830s and '40s with rants about how freedom suits were subverting discipline among their slaves.

"You get a sense of how difficult it was for the state to maintain the institution of slavery. People want freedom," said David Konig, a history professor at Washington University. "Their language in these lawsuits is not supplicating. They're not coming into court on their hands and knees. They're demanding."

The ink-blotched pages, some full of cross-outs and scribbled insertions, speak to the well-documented atrocities of slavery: A child sold downriver. A master quick with whippings. But they give voice as well to the more private horrors: the tension that free blacks felt in a slave state, knowing that at any moment they might be seized; the anguish of a slave who toiled for years to buy her freedom, only to have the master renege on the deal.

"I see a screenplay every time I read one of them," said Mike Everman, the archivist in charge of the project.

In one of many wrenching documents, a black man named Thornton Kinney tells a judge in 1853 that he has always been a free man -- but that he discarded the papers that proved his status because "they were so worn and mutilated that no one could decipher them."

Kinney was dictating from the jail of a slave trader, who had snatched him when he returned to the United States from a five-year stay in the free African colony of Liberia. "He is about to be ... sold into bondage," his attorney reported. He pleaded for time to find witnesses, promising that "the most respectable people ... in Charlottesville, where he was born and raised," would be able to affirm that Kinney "was born free and has ever been so."

The verdict was not recorded.

For a century and a half, Kinney's case sat untouched with all the others in metal "till drawers," which resemble a giant library card catalog. The court clerk in St. Louis maintained custody of the documents but rebuffed most scholars' requests to explore them, saying they were not well organized.

When a newly elected court clerk took office several years ago, state archivist Kenneth Winn asked again to see the files. To his delight, the clerk invited him to restore and organize the collection. With a $175,000 federal grant and a list of local college students willing to work for credit, Winn opened up a preservation lab a few blocks from the courthouse.

There, in a spare, warehouse-like office, archivists, interns and volunteers spend their days unfolding yellowed documents, brushing off coal dust and re-humidifying the paper to make it less brittle. With a metal spatula, they scrape away the sticky red wax used to seal the pages together.

Once they have restored the files, they read them, hunching close to decipher the slapdash scrawls and looping calligraphy. Some of the documents appear to be direct transcriptions of slaves' testimony. Others have been translated into the stilted legal language of the time.

The most famous of the names they have come across is Dred Scott, who sued for freedom in 1846 on the grounds that he had lived for years in free Northern states with his master, an Army surgeon. Scott won in circuit court. The case was appealed again and again until, in 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him.

Blacks were "so far inferior, they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote, ruling that Scott had no right even to sue for his freedom. That decision helped propel the country to Civil War.

Recognizing the importance of the case, the federal government recovered and preserved all Dred Scott documents in the 1920s. But no one thought to scour the St. Louis courthouse for similar cases.

The recent discovery in those battered till drawers has put the Scott case in context as one of the last of the freedom suits to be filed. The documents also make clear just how shocking Taney's ruling must have been to blacks in St. Louis, because even though Missouri was a slave state, blacks enjoyed solid access to the courts here.

For decades, the state set aside taxpayer money to hire lawyers for slaves who sued for their freedom. (Virginia, another slave state, offered a similar program.) The best attorneys would travel hundreds of miles, at state expense, to get sworn statements from witnesses. Some case files include hundreds of pages of testimony and legal briefs.

The effort was all the more astounding because, as one case from the 1830s noted: "The true doctrine in Missouri is that black persons of this state are presumed to be slaves until the contrary appears ... and are subject to all the disabilities of a slave." An inventory of an estate in 1841 shows the extent to which slaves were considered property: The list of the deceased's possessions includes one pair of cotton socks, one spyglass, one small Mary Jane, two blankets, one Caroline, one Clarisa, one Beverly.

Yet Missouri wrote into law several safeguards to protect slaves from retaliation when they sued. Slave owners named as defendants were required to put up a substantial bond, as much as $2,000. They would forfeit the money if they failed to show at trial, or if they sold their slaves downriver before they had their day in court.

As further protection, judges sometimes took custody of slaves while their cases were pending, housing them in the drafty city jail and hiring them out to do odd jobs, with the understanding that they would keep their wages if they won their cases. The lockup might have saved them from retaliation by angry masters, but it was a trial all its own. "I was shut away from the sunlight," one litigant, Lucy Delaney, wrote of her 17 "long and dreary" months behind bars.

Slaves had three legal grounds for suing. Some claimed they were free men or women who had been kidnapped into slavery. Others insisted they had bought their freedom or been emancipated by a kind master.

By far the most common argument was the one Dred Scott set forth: That when a master brought a slave into free territory, the bonds of slavery crumbled automatically -- and could not be reasserted when the master moved back into a slave state.

Missouri courts accepted that argument throughout most of the 1820s and '30s. Under a doctrine known as "once free, always free," a slave who could prove he had lived at least a few weeks in free territory had a good shot at winning.

A bold script swirling with curlicue flourishes announces one such verdict, in favor of Winny, a "free woman held in slavery" who sued in the early 1820s.

"We the jurors find for the plaintiff and [award] damages to the amount of $167.50." It is signed: "John Simmons, Foreman."

As the political climate in Missouri tilted ever more supportive of slavery in the decades just before the Civil War, it became tougher for slaves to win. The state quit providing free lawyers in 1856. After the Dred Scott ruling, the freedom suits all but stopped.

Historians from Washington University last month put all 283 cases online at The site contains the original documents for every trial, down to the scraps of paper that clerks scribbled on to certify they had served a subpoena (usually by reading it aloud, because most witnesses, both black and white, were illiterate).

Now that the documents are accessible, historians have a long list of topics for study. They want to learn more about the jurors, the judges and the lawyers. They want to understand how the underground grapevine worked.

And they would love to know more about the men and women whose voices ring so clearly across the years -- women like Tempe, who complained in 1818 about her lack of decent clothes.

Tempe's spirit leaps through the 41 neatly handwritten pages in her court file. While most slaves accused their masters of generic "false imprisonment," Tempe got her lawyer to write down every injustice.

She told the court in her initial pleading that her master, Risdon Price, "wounded and ill-treated" her on Aug. 31, 1817, assaulting her "with force of arms" to the point "where she was in great danger of losing her life."

She then filed another affidavit complaining that Price "has for a considerable time past subjected her to very harsh and cruel treatment ... that her duties are rendered much more hard than that of the other servants in the family, and that she is seldom spoken to by Mr. Price except in ill humor and abusive language."

For good measure, she had her husband, Labon, back her up. Labon, described in court papers as "a free man of color," told the court he had "great reason to believe" that Price was about to sell his wife downriver.

"She is almost constantly chid[ed] and accused," Labon testified, "notwithstanding her best endeavor to give satisfaction."

Tempe argued that she should be free because she had worked for years in the North for another master before Price took her to St. Louis. She demanded $500 in damages.

Her case took three years to make it through the court. In 1821, Tempe finally won her freedom. The jury awarded her damages of 1 cent.

Editor - 3/26/2003

Untitled Document

The Age (Melbourne)

March 18, 2003 Tuesday

SECTION: Epicure; Pg. 6

HEADLINE: Slaves To Sugar

BYLINE: Matt Preston

It is a commodity so familiar that many of us take it for granted. Not so Matt Preston, who travelled to three continents to research the sweet thing and the impact it has had.

"In the boiling house we found a Negro at each copper attending to the boiling and skimming of the cane juice. What with the steam and the ladling and splashing and the calling of the firemen outside to regulate the fire it recalled the preacher's vision of hell."

Visitor to Mount Healthy Sugar Refinery on Tortola in the Caribbean, 1830.

The Caribbean

Through thickets and barbed vines I've pushed to find this pile of rubble. Here in the shadow of Mount Healthy I stand among the wreckage of an old boiling house hidden among old palm fronds and rotting coconuts. Here are the succession of raised copper bowls, still snugly housed in brick, where the fires once burned. The coppers are rotten now, palms growing up through the rusty metal. In the surrounding jungle lie old rum stills toppled like elephants that have reached their end. It's an eerie place, but then the story of sugar is home to many, many ghosts.

Sugar reached the Caribbean with the Spanish. It is recorded that Columbus, whose mother-in-law owned cane fields in the Madeiran Archipelago, first planted cane on Santo Domingo in 1493.

Sugar was the ideal crop as it thrived in the tropics and could be grown by unskilled labour on the same spot without exhausting the soil. More importantly, it was high-yielding, high-priced and growing in popularity in Europe.

Its position was secured when other leading powers, such as England and France, jostling for control of the Americas, were supplied with the stolen secrets of sugar production by the Dutch who hoped to stimulate trade. The Dutch even offered settlers credit against their first crop to buy rollers and coppers.

Trade wasn't just in industrial products. It was also in souls. Sugar production was labour-intensive. Slavery, which had long existed in West Africa for prisoners and debtors, was the cruel solution. During three centuries, 10 million Africans were landed alive in the Americas as slaves. Many were destined for the cane field and the boiling house. As many again may have died in the slave "barracoons", or trading forts, along Africa's West Coast or en route.

Slavery had many long-reaching implications, including culinary ones. Plantation owners' desire to feed slaves cheaply saw Captain Blight dispatched to search for the breadfruit and achee (a relative of the lychee) which are still staples in Caribbean cuisine.

The plantations also provided a market for low-grade salt cod from New England and Canada. The steel barrels in which it arrived that were not turned into drums returned full of molasses hence the growth of New England's rum trade and the prevalence of molasses in dishes such as Boston baked beans.

Just as the slave trade had helped promote sugar, so sugar provided one of the most persuasive arguments for abolition. In 1792 Abolitionists - and the East India Company that was using hired labour for its rival Indian sugar production - pointed out that a family consuming 2.26 kilograms of Caribbean sugar a week would kill a slave every 21 months. In 1833 emancipation was declared and came into force a year later.

Europe's dependence on the tropics for sugar had already started to wane with the discovery of a European-grown source of sugar. In 1811, starved of Caribbean cane sugar due to the blockades of the Napoleonic War, the French discovered sugar could be refined from beets. As both sugars were pretty much pure sucrose, the differences were indiscernible to the human palate.

The story of sugar begins some 11,000 years earlier, when the sweet grass now known as sugar cane first grew on the rich volcanic coastal plains of New Guinea. Its sweetness was one attraction, another was ease of propagation. Stick a short cut length of cane in the ground and it will grow. This helped sugar spread north west to India where it appears to have been widely grown and its juice reduced into sticky balls of "gur" by 500BC. Sugar expert Peter Macinnis suggests, however, that the Indians might have learnt such basic refining techniques from the Indonesians. One point not in doubt is that it is from the Sanskrit word for "grain", "carkara" or "shakkara", that sugar derives its European and African names.

From India, sugar and sugar cane reached China and the Middle East. It became a high-priced spice traded alongside pepper, ginger and cinnamon and was an alternative to traditional sweeteners such as honey or syrups made from sorghum, figs or dates. Its sweet, beguiling message spread with that of Islam, then was taken home by the Crusaders, who created a ready market throughout Europe.

Back then rollers driven by wind, water or draughthorses crushed cane. The resulting juice was boiled down, clarified to remove impurities and boiled again until crystals started to form. Then it was left to dry out.


A month later and I'm standing in Sugar Australia's refinery in Yarraville, which has been processing sugar for 130 years. Where once 1000 worked, there is now automation with a team of six overseeing all sugar refining.

According to Sugar Australia's general manager of operations, Glenn Cohen, the process has changed quite a bit over the years. They no longer purify the sugar with char - burnt animal bones - and the pans are under vacuum so the evaporation of water and the crystallisation of the sucrose takes place a lower temperature.

South African sugar cane arrived in Australia with the First Fleet in 1788. Initially, according to sugar historian Robert F. McKillop, it was a failure, but by 1885 there were 102 mills in NSW and 166 in Queensland. The growth was fuelled by legislation such as the 1862 Coolie Act, that allowed plantation owners to recruit cheap indentured labour. The practice was commonplace throughout the world after emancipation and accounts in part for the Indian populations in Fiji and Natal, as well as the Japanese in Hawaii. In Queensland Melanesian workers were "recruited".

Australia's warm and temperate climate produces some of the finest sugar cane on earth, but it must be processed within 24 hours of harvesting or it will spoil. Sugar Australia's general manager sales and marketing Ed Leibel explains that is why more than 26 mills in Queensland operate during a harvest season that runs from June to November, crushing the cane from Queensland's 6500 or so cane farms. The resulting liquid, which is 67 per cent solids and 33 per cent water, is heated to evaporate the water and separated to rid it of impurities. The "impurities" take the form of molasses, which goes into animal feed or is fermented to make rum.

Most of the mills' output is industrial-grade raw sugar that is 98.5 sucrose, but still includes impurities. The raw sugar destined for further purification is stored in silos at ports such as Mackay until needed by the refineries down south.

Some juice is processed and sold as raw sugar. Most other brown sugars on the Australian market are made by returning molasses or caramel syrup to caster sugar at the final processing stage.

The tradition of keeping the final refining stage close to the end user, rather than to the fields dates back to the Middle Ages. Traditionally it helped to maintain product quality and also assured the colonial masters of most of the profits.

The process of refining is simple. The raw sugar is melted, washed, filtered, and then the water evaporated until the right-sized crystals form after the addition of tiny seed-sugar crystals. At the Yarraville refinery, the process is monitored remotely from the control room. The result is pure white sugar that is 99.85 per cent sucrose. The sugar is then sieved and the larger particles labelled white sugar, the smaller caster sugar. The name dates back to the "caster" or sugar shaker that once held the finer sugar at the table.


Globally the sugar market is in decline, but there is a trend towards unrefined sugars, says Billington's export manager Caroline Hemming over a London pint as brown as the company's dark muscovado. The British company is the world's biggest importer and exporter of unrefined (with impurities such as molasses left in rather than removed and then re-added) sugars.

Unrefined sugars may still only represent 10-16 per cent of the British retail market, but Hemming still sees the trend as an example of an awakening food culture. "It's a natural product. We keep the molasses in our sugars and this carries a lot of vitamins and minerals like calcium, potassium and iron. I think a lot of people feel cheated when they realise their sugar has been sprayed brown."

While sugar refineries in Australia, the US and Europe strive for consistency of purity, Billington's welcomes a product that changes from year to year depending on the climate. "After a dry season our golden granulated with be darker, while the density and the taste of our light muscovado will change from year to year," Hemming explains.

Listening to Hemming talk, it is perhaps surprising that sugar marketeers have not gone down the salt road and created more boutique brands. Where's the "fleur du sucre" or the vintage date on every pack? That's something to ponder as you lift a spoonful of sugar, whether it be Mauritius demerara, Yarraville white or Barbados muscovado, to sprinkle on your cereal.

Further reading

Robert F. McKillop's wonderful history of Australia's Sugar Industry at

Bittersweet by Peter Macinnis (Allen & Unwin).

A Short History of the West Indies by Parry, Sherlock and Maingot (Macmillian Caribbean).

The figures

We produce about 1 million tonnes of sugar a year, according to Sugar Australia; 20 per cent is exported; 50 per cent finds it way into food and drink production, 10 per cent through the food service industry and 20 per cent - with a street value of about $153 million - into shops. In the past five years, white sugar's share of retail sales has dropped to 64.3 per cent, down 1.6 per cent in favour of specialty sugars (14.3 per cent) and raw sugar (21.4 per cent), according to AC Neilsen figures.

The chemistry

A sugar is a soluble carbohydrate used by many living things for energy storage

(a carbohydrate is a compound of the elements carbon, hydrogen and oxygen). Sugars take many forms; the simplest being monosaccharides (single sugars), including glucose, fructose and galactose. Often, two monosaccharides are joined to form a disaccharide, such as maltose or lactose (a milk sugar). Most common in the kitchen is sucrose, a molecule of glucose combined with a molecule of fructose. Polysaccharides are chains or linkages of several sugars. We are familiar with this type of carbohydrate as starch, or complex carbohydrates.

Sugars have differing levels of sweetness. Lactose and galactose, one of the monosaccharides that make up lactose, are less sweet than sucrose. Fructose, or laevulose, found in fruit or honey, is about 75 per cent sweeter.

The average Australian consumes 46 kilograms of sugar a year. Most of it is added to the food rather than occurring in it naturally. All sugars eventually break down in the body and end up as glucose.

Editor - 3/26/2003

Untitled Document

A turbulent past

Jan. 12, 2003

By Alan W. Bock The Orange County Register

On Jan. 27 the United Nations inspection team in Iraq is scheduled to deliver its first full report on "weapons of mass destruction." So far

the inspectors have not reported caches of such weapons, but there could be something in the report that will trigger what commentators have been expecting for months and a large-scale military build-up in the region suggests - a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

If the United States is to go to war with Iraq - and if, as many suggest is inevitable, the United States essentially occupies the country for anywhere from 18 months to 30 years - it will be useful to know something about the history of this country. History may not quite be destiny, but it strongly influences the present and the future, and those who don't take the trouble to understand it usually find themselves making significant mistakes.

Here is a country whose deepest roots are proud and shining. This area was the heart of the earliest civilizations; a leading empire for probably 3,000 years in ancient times.

The historical facts most relevant to today's impending conflict have more to do with instability, the on-again, off-again influences of the West on law and culture, and ethnic strife. They include the modern creation of artificial borders for Iraq, the long rivalry between Shia and Sunni Muslims, both of which have longstanding roots in Iraq, the historic rivalry between the Arab world and Persia (modern Iran), and the shifting emphases of American foreign policy in the region over the years.

The borders of modern Iraq were determined after World War I, mainly by the British. During World War I the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled most of the Middle East from Turkey since the 1500s, sided with Germany. The British, seeking to protect their lifeline to India through the Middle East, established a protectorate over Egypt and supported the Hashemite sharifs, or leaders, who had ruled Mecca and Medina since Muhammad's time, in their revolt against the Ottomans (go rent "Lawrence of Arabia"

for a romanticized version of the period with a teeny bit of context).

The British also sent troops from India to Iraq, not only to guard the land route to India but to protect their interests in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. They at first failed to take Baghdad from the Turks, but finally succeeded in 1917.

At the end of the war the League of Nations gave Great Britain a mandate to administer Iraq until an independent government could be established. The borders were thus based on British imperial and commercial interests and the fortunes of war rather than being drawn along traditional frontiers or historic tribal or ethnic lines. The British-drawn Iraq also did not include a port on the Persian Gulf, an important factor for benefiting from oil resources; Syria has several times cut off pipelines to the Mediterranean.

Thus about 76 percent of the country is Arab, while 19 percent are Kurds, with a few Turkomans, Assyrians, Armenians and others sprinkled in. The area traditionally populated by the Kurdish people is divided among Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, and the Kurds are a source of discontent in all four countries. Baghdad and surrounding areas are predominantly Sunni Muslim, and Sunnis dominate the ruling Ba'ath Party and the government. But the "Marsh Arabs" in the south are of the Shia persuasion and Shias

make up 60-65 percent of the population.

This is a formula for instability. Stability could in theory be possible through a federalist system with considerable local autonomy, but in practice it has generally been achieved through strong, sometimes brutal rule by the central government in Baghdad.


Despite its ethnic fractiousness today, modern Iraq is roughly equivalent to the ancient area of Mesopotamia (Greek for "between two rivers"),

between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which fostered history's first civilizations and was probably the leading region of the world for about 3,000 years. The land of Ur, from which the biblical Abraham migrated, is in present-day Iraq.

If supplemented by rudimentary (and sometimes sophisticated) irrigation and storage systems, the rivers provided enough water to yield food surpluses, which were the key to the development of cities and trade. The region was settled (largely by Turkish and Iranian migrants from the highlands) by about 6000 BC and larger cities began to be built around 3500 BC.

Being relatively wealthy and flat, Mesopotamia was attractive to foreign invaders, another factor leading to the development of cities, which could be fortified and defended. The early Mesopotamian civilizations developed mathematics and astronomy, along with impressive art and architecture. Cuneiform writing led to codified legal systems and literature such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The most important ancient civilizations in the region were probably the Sumerian (3500 BC to 2000 BC), the Babylonian (18th century BC to 539 BC) and the Assyrian (1350 BC to 612 BC), with the Hittites, Chaldeans and Kassites making incursions from time to time. In 539 BC the Persians captured Babylon, holding it until the Hellenistic Syrian Seleucus conquered it in 312 BC and introduced Greek culture and economic growth. The Parthians took over in 250 BC and in 226 BC the Sassanids.


The next great era began in 635 when Mesopotamia was conquered by Muslim Arabs during the great period of military expansion during the Prophet Muhammad's life and shortly after his death. Baghdad was founded in 763, as part of a conscious policy of moving the center of the Muslim world from Damascus to the Mesopotamian region. The Muslim Caliphate, the central ruling quasi-secular institution of Islam, was soon established there, and Baghdad grew into a beautiful, impressive city.

The area flourished until it was sacked by the Mongols and Genghis Khan in 1258, after which culture and the economy declined for several hundred years.

In 1405 Iraq fell under the control of Turkish tribes from Anatolia. Then in 1508 it was put under the control of the Safavid dynasty from Iran. This Persian-Turkish struggle continued for years and still influences modern Iraq's sense of itself.

In 1299 a Turkish Muslim warrior named Osman began to lead raids on Christian Byzantine settlements in western Anatolia (part of modern Turkey) and built power as the Seljuk Turk dynasty faded. His followers were called Osmanlilar, which was eventually anglicized to Ottoman. Members of the House of Osman ruled the Ottoman state until 1922.

Alternately foes and allies of the fading Byzantine empire, the Ottomans extended their power into southeastern Europe, with one high-water mark a battle with Serbs in Kosovo in 1389. They also expanded to the east, eventually coming into rivalry with the Persian Safavids, who were Shia Muslims, whereas the Ottomans were Sunni. Ottoman power was also challenged by the Portuguese, who after Vasco da Gama's circumnavigation of Africa in 1497-98 established the lucrative spice trade with India and Asia, shutting down some Arabian spice routes.

Selim I (ruled 1512-1520) and Suleyman the Magnificent (ruled 1520-1566) expanded Ottoman power. Suleyman came that close to capturing Vienna in 1529, which might have set the stage for the Islamicization of Europe.

In 1534 the Ottomans conquered Baghdad and instituted an era of peace and economic development. The Safavids briefly regained control in 1623 but the Ottomans returned in 1638 and effectively ruled until 1918 (with an interval of Mamluk control in the 1700s).

All this meant that Mesopotamia-Iraq was to some extent defined by the ongoing Shia-Sunni rivalry as bearers of true Islam.

In 1869 the Ottoman ruler Midhat Pasha came to power in Baghdad and set out to modernize the region along Western lines, creating criminal and commercial codes, reorganizing the army, secularizing the schools and shifting power from rural sheiks to the cities. He was reinforced by Western interests (mainly British and French) who introduced steamboats and the telegraph. After the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 European markets opened to Iraqi agricultural interests.

When a group of Young Turks took power in Istanbul in 1908, their westernizing and centralizing agenda sparked nationalist movements throughout the empire, including Iraq. A nascent Iraqi intelligentsia, along with Iraqi officers in the Ottoman army, formed secret nationalist societies, the most important of which was Al Ahd (the Covenant), which had some 4,000 members by the outbreak of World War I. Iraqi nationalist sentiments, however, were generally confined to the upper and middle classes.


By the end of the 19th century European powers had become increasingly interested in the Ottoman territories. With the defeat of Germany and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and the formation of the League of Nations, they divided the "near east" among them, with Britain

getting the mandate to run Iraq, as well as Trans-Jordan and Palestine. This disappointed Arab nationalists who had hoped for independence in Iraq and elsewhere.

The Allies also owed something to the Hashemite family of Hussein ibn Ali, sharif of Mecca, who had broken with the Ottomans. They installed his son, Prince Faisal, as king of Syria, but the French, who had the mandate for Syria, ejected him. So they made him king of Iraq after a troublesome 1920 rebellion led by Iraqi nationalists. Despite Faisal's Islamic and pan-Arab credentials, however, he was not an Iraqi and nationalists viewed the monarchy itself (Iraq had never had a king) as an illegitimate British-created institution.

During the 1920s Iraqi borders were finalized (including putting the Kurd-dominated and oil-rich Mosul province in Iraq after Turkey refused to release its Kurdish areas for a Kurdish state). Running Iraq proved expensive and troublesome for the British, despite oil concessions. In 1929 a newly elected British Labor government promised independence and in 1932 it was granted, with Faisal as king and Nuri as-Said as his closest adviser.

The new country was as fractious as ever. The Kurds and Assyrians had no desire to be included, and the Sunni-Shia conflict continued to fester. A shift in power from the rural, nomadic tribes to the cities continued. King Faisal died in 1933 and was replaced by his 21-year-old son Ghazi, who was Western-educated and had little experience with ethnic complexities in Iraq. In 1936 a military coup led by Gen. Bakr Sidqi, a Kurd, displaced civilian government and led to a succession of short-lived governments.

Ghazi was killed in an auto accident in 1939 and succeeded by his infant son Faisal II.

This led to the rise of Nuri as-Said as chief minister, who was generally pro-British and became an increasingly autocratic strongman.

He survived a 1948 uprising, but during the 1950s discontent with the monarchy and Nuri as-Said, economic problems (increased oil revenues increased corruption instead of bringing widespread prosperity) and complications arising from the appeal of Egyptian President Nasser's pan-Arabist movement made Iraq increasingly unstable.

The 1958 coup and 'REPUBLICAN' IRAQ

On July 14, 1958, the Hashemite monarchy was overthrown in a swift predawn coup led by officers of the 19th Brigade.

The leaders were Brig. Abd al Karim Qasim and Col. Abd as Salaam Arif. King Faisal was executed and Nuri as-Said was killed after trying to escape disguised as a veiled woman.

The revolution destroyed the power of tribal sheiks and landlords while enhancing urban workers and the middle class. It also unleashed long-suppressed sectarian and ethnic conflicts (mainly Arab-Kurd and Shia-Sunni).

Qasim emerged as government leader but his program was somewhat improvised. He allied himself with an emerging communist party, which alienated him from the nationalists. His communist alliances made the United States nervous (CIA chief Allen Dulles in 1959 described Iraq's situation as "the most dangerous in the world"). There was conflict with Iran. Qasim also laid claim to the newly independent state of Kuwait.

In 1963 Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'ath party, which proclaimed itself for socialism, freedom and Arab unity. It didn't have a coherent program or a plan for ruling, however, and was overthrown later in 1963 by a military coterie (with some covert CIA help).

Strife with the Kurds continued. There was a crisis with Syria over oil payments in 1966-67.

By the June 1967 Arab war with Israel, Iraq was in such turmoil that it couldn't get organized enough to send troops.

In 1968 two officers staged a military coup but lacked organizational backing. The Ba'ath Party outmaneuvered them and eventually took over the government.

A new era of explicitly secular government, consolidation of power and efforts to expand Iraq's influence in the Arab world and beyond began.

Editor - 3/26/2003

SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2003, Issue No. 25 March 26, 2003



President Bush signed a new executive order on national security classification policy that will defer the April 17, 2003 deadline for automatic declassification of millions of 25 year old documents until December 31, 2006, while making a number of other adjustments to the current classification regime.

Most remarkable, from Secrecy News' point of view, is what the new order did not do: It did not alter the basic structures of declassification that were introduced by the Clinton Administration and that have yielded around a billion pages of declassified historical documents in the past seven years.

As previously noted, the order does include several changes tending in the direction of greater secrecy. These include a presumption of classification for foreign government information; expanded authority to reclassify declassified information; new authority for the CIA to reject declassification rulings from an interagency panel; and elimination of the instruction to classifiers not to classify if there is significant doubt about the need to do so.

As deplorable as these steps are, however, they seem unlikely to have a major impact on disclosure policy. Foreign government information was already rendered statutorily exempt from the Freedom of Information Act in the 2001 Defense Authorization Act, so classifying it is gilding the lily. Reclassification of declassified information still requires a written finding from an agency head, and so is unlikely to be carelessly or frequently invoked. As for the interagency panel, in almost every one of the cases where it has voted to declassify CIA documents, the CIA representative to the panel concurred in declassification. And the former injunction not to classify in event of significant doubt was a rhetorical flourish that never had operational meaning.

A deeper problem with the order is that it is predicated on a hierarchical information model that no longer corresponds to the way information is used inside and outside of government. In practice, most useful information does not flow top-down in a pyramid shape, but every which way in a network. Imposing the traditional classification structure on a webbed information environment is a recipe for dysfunction.

A copy of the new order, signed on March 25, may be found here:

The transcript of a White House background briefing on the new order is posted here:

See also "Release of Documents is Delayed" by Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Washington Post, March 26:

and "Bush Orders a 3-Year Delay in Opening Secret Documents" by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, March 26:

Editor - 3/25/2003

For Immediate Release

Monday, 24 March 2003

Contact: Lee W. Formwalt, Executive Director

(812) 855-7311

NEW: In light of the war in Iraq we have added a session scheduled for Saturday from 3:30pm to 5:30pm in Room L-12 of the convention Center to address the conflict.



Will Join in Commemorating the Life and Legacy of Slain Leader

The Organization of American Historians will hold its ninety-sixth annual meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, 3-6 April during the thirty-fifth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ira Berlin, current president of the OAH, noted the propitious timing of the conference in Memphis while the city is reaffirming its commitment to justice and equality through a memorialization of the life and legacy of the slain civil rights leader.

The OAH anticipates that two thousand of its members will gather in Memphis to meet and join with the April 4th Foundation in commemoration of Dr. King. A highlight of the planned activities will be a plenary session, Thursday, 3 April, with civil rights activist and chairman of the board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Julian Bond presiding. Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., historian and chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission Mary Frances Berry, Pulitzer Prize winning author Diane McWhorter, and scholars Valerie Smith, director of Princeton University’s African American Studies Program, and Stanford University’s Clayborne Carson, editor of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers, will discuss King’s battles for social justice in history and memory.

Other events to be held jointly with the April 4th Foundation include a commemorative march and a gala award banquet, both on Friday, 4 April, marking the date of King’s assassination. Former SCLC head and King confederate Reverend Joseph Lowery, Congressman Ford, and Tennessee Judge and founder of the National Civil Rights Museum, D’Army Bailey will be the featured banquet speakers.

With a theme of social justice, the 2003 annual meeting will offer more than 150 sessions and events bringing together history professionals and enthusiasts with activists to discuss issues of fairness and equality throughout history. Former members of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) and SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) will lead a discussion on their involvement in progressive struggles during the turbulent sixties. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a cofounder of Americans for Democratic Action and an assistant to President John F. Kennedy, will head a panel on antebellum political history with Sean Wilentz of Princeton, Harry Watson of the University of North Carolina, and Eric Foner of Columbia University.

Other sessions will focus on movements spearheaded by women, Latinos, and gays and lesbians. Scholarly but less sober panels will consider Elvis, Memphis music, dance and sport, and the love hate relationship between journalists and historians. In addition, tours of the Delta, Beale Street, the Rock “n” Soul Museum, and the National Civil Rights Museum, film screenings, performances, and informal gatherings will figure prominently in the proceedings. The conference reflects the excitement and the new directions of history as a dynamic discipline intent on reaching a wider audience.

The OAH will also be holding its meeting in conjunction with the annual conference of the Teaching American History Grant coordinators. The assembly will attract 174 participants representing 114 programs, part of the $150 million federal initiative to improve historical literacy among the nation’s elementary and secondary school students.

The Organization of American Historians is the nation’s largest learned society dedicated to the study and teaching of the American past with 11,000 members and subscribing institutions. The OAH publishes the Journal of American History, the leading scholarly journal in the field, and the highly praised quarterly, the OAH Magazine of History for history teachers.

Editor - 3/25/2003

Chronicle of Higher Education: March 25, 2003:

Al-Mustansiriya University, which was founded in the 13th century, was hit by a bomb on Sunday during strikes on Baghdad. According to Reuters, the
bomb left a crater 10 yards wide and 10 feet deep at one of the university's entrances.

Classes were not in session at the time of the blast, which injured several bystanders, the news agency reported.

Classes at all schools and colleges throughout Iraq have been suspended for the last five days.

"Academically, it's one of the most important institutions in Iraq," Abdol Majid Khoei, an Iraqi scholar and general secretary of the Al-Khoei Foundation, in London, said of Al-Mustansiriya. "It's a part of the University of Baghdad and has been since 1962, when it was incorporated as one of the new university colleges," he added. "Students study primarily law and literature there."

Charles Tripp, a specialist in Iraqi history at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, said, "The Iraqis restored it in the 1980s. The structure is medieval, but they did quite a lot of restoration work on it. It's beautiful, very, very impressive."

The university's main building, he added, is "one of these wonderful, long arcaded buildings rather reminiscent, except not as highly decorative, of the ones you see in Isfahan," in Iran.

Al-Mustansiriya University was built in 1233 as an Islamic college designed to promote an ecumenical form of Sunni Islam at a time when Baghdad was the center of a vast Islamic empire.

The university is in the old section of the city along the Tigris River and is situated behind the Ministry of Defense, making it a vulnerable institution.

Editor - 3/24/2003


How should we as educators respond to the coming war on Iraq? On the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, several hundred University of Washington students gathered in the school's main central plaza, and then dispersed to enlist further support for their student body president's call to strike. Nearby, in a medieval history class, 400 students sat talking in muted voices, leafing through newspapers, and wondering whether they should walk out as well.

Then the professor arrived, and said: "I guess people have some other things on their mind today beside medieval history. But this class is medieval history, so we should proceed with it." Without further comment, the professor went into his standard lecture on Charles Martel, Charlemagne, and the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. He might have pointed out parallels between wars and empires past and present, but said nothing to remotely link the subject to the day. Students who'd begun the class visibly upset were soon dutifully taking notes. By halfway through the period, they'd lost all sense of any possible responses to the war except continuing with their lives.

If proceeding as if nothing has happened is an inappropriate moral response when war breaks out, what do we owe our students, our educational institutions, and ourselves? Our responsibilities differ depending on our institutional role. But wherever we are in our institutions, we need to nurture diverse voices, and encourage critical thought and mutual respect. Our students also need safe spaces for reflection and conversation, the expression of anger, fear, mourning, and perceived powerlessness. They also need encouragement to keep acting on their ideals, even as our leaders dismiss citizens who disagree as misguided or worse. For ourselves, we need to be true to our souls, our core beliefs, and our honest responses to the world, including our moral outrage. Our response during the war's initial days may set a tone for how students view it for the rest of their lives.

Our students and colleagues won't all agree on the war. Many will support it, particularly in an environment that equates patriotism with blind obedience, and in a time when the media treats the war like a sporting event where our only responsibility is to root for the home team. Many students have friends and relatives in the military, particularly in working class communities, and feel inevitable tugs of loyalty. We need to respond in a way that honors the divergent views, respects bonds with America's soldiers, but also raises the difficult questions about the roots and consequences of our actions.

At our institutions, we need to foster diverse dialogue, which acknowledges that democracy requires disagreement. We can begin this dialogue through visible public events, teach-ins, speak-outs and chapel convocations. We need to create a discussion that is richer, more humane, and more complex than the blind cheerleading. We need to encourage all faculty and students to participate, not only those in subjects with obvious links.

Students may have their own responses. Some may walk out and protest. Most will have their private doubts, but be encouraged by the culture to suppress them. Others will rally in support of the troops, or the war itself. So long as student actions are nonviolent, we need to respect and honor them, and not threaten penalties or sanctions.

There will be a tendency for all of us simply to wish or pray that the war goes well and quickly, and that not too many die. Iraqi deaths will largely be invisible, though they topped 100,000 in the last war, and will likely be still higher in this one. Many Americans will simply wait and see until it is over. But the question was never whether or not the US military could defeat that of Iraq. And the core problem of this war is that it will not be over when the fighting ostensibly stops, and that its most problematic consequences will likely be delayed or invisible. Our media won't draw the links if Iran reverts to fundamentalist theocracy, extremists capture a nuclear-armed Pakistan, or India attacks Pakistan in its own preemptive strike. If the deaths we inflict inspire a new generation of terrorists, we may see the terrible consequences, but the journeys that lead them to act will not make the network news. We may hear much about the virtues of a benevolent Pax Americana, but little about its downside.

We need to get our students thinking about these questions now, while they are concerned and listening. We don't want them to bury their doubts, fears, and questions. If we wait to begin that dialogue, the teachable moments will be buried in parades of triumphalist celebration.

As individuals, we have a responsibility to speak our minds, voicing our own perspectives while respecting student responses. We further the necessary dialogue most by articulating our own views, including the possible judgment that this war is not be a fulfillment of democracy, but a betrayal which makes the world more dangerous. We also need to perform a pastoral role--helping students process their fears and vulnerabilities. And we need to model civil dialogue with those who disagree with us. In a time when silence is equated with disloyalty, we need to retain our moral voice more than ever. We can't exempt our campuses from this call.

Our students need us to listen to them, to support them in their concerns. But we also need to help teach them that they can understand neither this war nor any other national or global crises by passively watching TV. Whether or not the difficult critical questions about actions and consequences make the nightly news, we can raise them in our classrooms. We may well have been doing this for a while. But work, school, and all our culture's seductions and delights have distracted our students, like most citizens. Now that the war is upon us, they're paying attention. We need to respond in a way that opens up reflection and wise action.

We also need to talk of how courage and engagement can be sustained over the long haul. This is a moment when many of our most idealistic and engaged students will feel powerless, when their most heartfelt actions and outcries will seem to have been spurned. Some may be tempted into self-destructive political rage, blindly lashing out. More will face the risk of withdrawing into political cocoons, concluding that their efforts to forge a more humane world can no longer matter. Though it's no easy task, we need to remind them that their voices do count, even in the face of leaders who treat democracy with contempt. We need to remind them (and ourselves) that those who've built a more just world have succeeded precisely when they've persevered in the moments that seem darkest and bleakest, whether in Communist Eastern Europe, Apartheid South Africa, or the struggles that have moved us forward in the United States. We can also become models of engagement in our own efforts as active citizens. If they see us acting despite our own temptations toward despair, this may show them a way to continue as well.

We may feel like waiting to raise the hard issues until after the war ends. We'll be less likely to be baited, attacked, or called names. But if we wait until then, a national chorus of self-congratulation will have buried the issues. Normal life will take over. Now, all eyes are focused on the war. We have the chance to remind students that it is not a bloodless video game and that the consequences our leaders promise may not be the ones their actions deliver. Asking the hard questions goes to the heart of our mission as educators. It's also what we owe to ourselves.

Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time, Generation at the Crossroads: Apathy on the American Campus, and two other books on civic engagement. See To receive his articles, email



Editor - 3/24/2003

Untitled Document

Daniel Ellsberg seconds Rumsfeld's call for the Iraqi military to disobey orders to unleash weapons of mass murder, calls on American military to do the same.

From Daniel Ellsberg, live via cell phone, protesting in front of the White House, Thursday night: “Not one person out here tonight denies that Saddam has committed some of the worst atrocities it is possible for a leader to commit. Even as we speak, he may be about to commit a ghastly war crime, by unleashing weapons of mass destruction, leading our troops to die horrid deaths in the deserts of Iraq.

Today, in a news conference on the first day of the war, Donald Rumsfeld asked the Iraqi military to disobey orders to use weapons of mass destruction. He said: 'Following such orders would be to commit crimes against the Iraqi people.' I agree with his statement on this subject completely, I hope the Iraqi military pays heed to it, and I would like to add that for our service men and women to follow similar orders from our leaders would also be a crime against the Iraqi people. I hope that they--both Iraqis asked to pull the trigger on chemical weapons of mass murder, and Americans asked to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons of mass murder--would disobey such orders.

"I was a marine rifle company commander in the 50's, later I saw combat up-close in Vietnam, and I don't defer to anyone in patriotism, in loyalty to the Constitution, in love for my country, or in my unwavering desire to see our troops reunited safely with their families. I say that it would not be unpatriotic for an American service man or woman to disobey an illegal and wildly reckless order from the President of the United States, to initiate mass nuclear slaughter in response to Saddam's crimes. On the contrary, it would be the most patriotic thing you could possibly do in that situation, the best thing for your country, for humanity. I say this as an American patriot who was disloyal to the reckless and illegal plans of my President, out of a higher loyalty, to my country. The President is not the country. I want the best for my country, and this war--especially if it turns nuclear--is not best for the country, even among horrible alternatives. "We are out here tonight, supporting our troops, by telling the President to bring them home--we're telling him not to send our troops to die from chemical weapons in the desert, in this reckless and unnecessary war, which will decrease the security of American citizens enormously. A heavy rain is coming down now, and the police are surrounding us, telling us that they will arrest us, that we don't have a permit to be here, just as the U.S. doesn't have a permit from the UN to bomb Iraq. This war is blatantly aggressive and illegal, from the perspective of the UN charter, to which we are a signatory. Thus it is illegal from the perspective of the Constitution of the United States, which holds all treaties we sign to be the supreme law of the land. Aggressive war is not patriotic. It flies in the face of everything our Constitution stands for. I cannot think of a better place for patriotic Americans like us to be, than out here in front of the White House, putting our bodies in the way of this war, nonviolently. I expect one way or another to be arrested tonight, which seems right on this particular night. It's a good night for a patriotic American who opposes this war to be in jail. [Note: Ellsberg was not arrested Thursday night, as he expected to be, but he was arrested, along with many others, protesting in the same place on Friday. He is still in DC jail as of this mailing.]

---------------------------------To subscribe to the Ellsberg.Net email list, send a blank email with the word "list" in the subject heading to

To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject heading to

Charles Hayford - 3/22/2003

This is a recurrent story. For good treatment see John W. Dower, ""NI" and "F": Japan's Wartime Atomic Bomb," in Japan in War and Peace (New York: New Press, 1993): 55-100, which takes off from the initial scare of the 1970s.

Editor - 3/21/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 9, #12; 21 March 2003) by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) Website: ********************************************************************

1. House Conducts Budget Hearing on Endowment Proposals 2. Smithsonian Officials Testify in Oversight Hearing 3 Update: Boston University's African Presidential Archives and Research Center 4. Legislation Introduced: "Restore FOIA" Act 5. Missing "Bill of Rights" Recovered 6. Bits and Bytes: IMLS Study of Museum Education; Former Congressman Horn Presented Award; Websites of Interest 7. Articles of Interest: Excerpt from "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" (PBS; 17 March 2003); "Unintended Consequences" by Richard Moe (18 March 2003; Wall Street Journal)

1. HOUSE CONDUCTS BUDGET HEARING ON ENDOWMENT PROPOSALS On March 12, 2002, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee heard from witnesses on the Bush Administration's FY 2004 budget request for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Members of the Committee in attendance were Charles Taylor (R-NC) -- the new subcommittee chair who replaced Rep. Joe Skeen (R-NM) who retired -- as well as ranking minority member Norm Dicks (D-WA), and fellow minority subcommittee members James Moran (D-VA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY).

In his opening statement (, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole discussed his agency's request of $152 million, which includes $25 million in new funds (a 22% increase over the enacted FY 2003 budget of $124.9 million) for the "We the People" American history based initiative. The newly-appointed NEH Chair, Dana Gioia presented the budget request of $117.5 million for NEA (see: <>.

After making opening statements, Chairman Cole fielded a number of questions about the "heros of history" lecture series. He also responded to questions about the state humanities council's reactions to the "We the People" initiative, and he discussed the rationale behind launching the initiative. When asked by Rep. Dicks whether the NEH program duplicated existing programs, Cole explained that the NEH initiative "complimented" other government programs such as the Department of Education (DOE) "Teaching American History" program. Questions were also posed relating to the teacher training component of the initiative, and the it relationship of the initiative to the Library of Congress's "American Memory" project.

2. SMITHSONIAN OFFICIALS TESTIFY IN OVERSIGHT HEARING On 5 March 2003, the House Committee on House Administration conducted its annual oversight hearing focusing on the Smithsonian Institution (SI) and its operations. While a number of Smithsonian programs were discussed, the focus was on the highly publicized recent animal deaths at the National Zoo.

After opening statements by Rep. Robert Ney (R-OH) who chairs the committee, and other members, Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small delivered a prepared statement. The Secretary stated that "the Smithsonian had a successful year under very trying circumstances" but that "much more needs to be done to revitalize the Institution." He then summarized four goals the SI is pursuing to meet that objective: increased public engagement, a strengthening of scientific research, enhancement of management excellence, and promotion of greater financial strength. Small summarized the Smithsonian's diverse operations and financial challenges and then responded to questions from the members.

Committee members asked Small about the new $311 million Air and Space museum project at Dulles National Airport, and about the progress being made on the Patent Trade Building. When questioned about the SI's research programs, Small readily admitted that the SI "can do a better job" in promoting science to the public. Other members posed questions about the string of recent animal deaths at the National Zoo, the recommendations of the Smithsonian Science Committee Commission, the relationship of the SI to the National Science Foundation, and recent actions taken in response to budgetary shortfalls.

3. UPDATE: BOSTON UNIVERSITY'S AFRICAN PRESIDENTIAL ARCHIVES AND RESEARCH CENTER In August 2002, Boston University announced the creation of an African Presidential Archives and Research Center (APARC) and a residency program headed by Charles R. Stith, a former American ambassador to Tanzania. According to the BU program website (<>;) the archives sought to "collect [and digitize] the public papers of democratically elected [African] leaders" while the Lloyd G. Balfour African President's Residence Program was designed to demonstrate to the continent's leaders that there is life after holding office as an African leader. The first former head-of-state to take part in the residency program is Kenneth Kaunda, who led Zambia to independence in 1964 and ruled the African state for 27 years. Reportedly, President Kuanda pledged to bring his public and private papers from Zambia for processing and digitizing at BU. The question then arose whether Kuanda planned to donate his papers to the new presidential archive.

Some American archivists expressed concern about the BU program. Letters to university officials and ambassador Stitf stated that the BU program appeared not to respect the sovereignty of other nation's records. After receiving no reply from university officials, concerned archivists contacted colleagues in Zambia. They reported that they were not aware that Kaunda was considering moving any of his papers out of Zambia. Zambian archivists also stated that export of historical records was prohibited "except under and in accordance with terms of a licence issued by the director."

In an 15 October 2002 telephone conversation with Ambassador Stith the National Coalition for History, was assured by the ambassador that the "intent is not to remove the patrimony of an African nation," and that despite the language posted on the university webpage, the type of materials that BU sought to collect were merely "press clippings, copies of speeches, and other public documents for posting on the Internet." Several months later, in December 2002, however, an Atlantic Monthly article by Cullen Murphy entitled, "The Rogues of Academe" (<>;) flatly stated that "Boston University will become the repository of his [Kaunda's] papers."

Subsequently, archivists discussed APARC's long-term collecting ambitions with recently hired officials. During the discussion there was little clarification of exactly what APARC's long-term collecting policy was to be, though officials acknowledged that they wished to concentrate on materials from some thirteen African countries (Benin, Botswana, Cape Verde, Ghana, Mali, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia). University staff were urged to contact The International Council on Archives in Paris, France, for assistance in the development of a collecting program.

BU has now launched a $15 million fundraising campaign to endow the APARC. University officials are seeking to establish a $10 million endowment that "would be used for a variety of purposes within the program as determined by the donor's preferences and the presidential archives areas of greatest need." An additional $5 million is sought for the construction of the African Presidential Library. Some clarification of the APARC's collecting policy has also been posted on the program's website (<>;): "The Center will be a repository for the interviews, writing, papers and other documents obtained from democratically elected leaders of Africa and others who have influenced the present phase of Africa's development."

In recent conversations with APARC officials, the NCH has learned that the Atlantic Monthly article, stating that Kaunda's papers are going to the center is incorrect, and that there is "no intention to collect papers" that should be preserved in the archives of African nations. President Kuanda's public and private papers from Zambia, however, will be processed and digitized through the auspices of the archives, though it is unclear whether that task will be undertaken at the university or in Zambia.

4. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED: "RESTORE FOIA" ACT On 12 March 2003, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), James Jeffords (I-VT), Joseph Lieberman (D-C T), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced the "Restore Freedom of Information Act" (S. 609), legislation that would replace the broad FOIA exemption for "critical infrastructure information" presently included in the charter for the new Department of Homeland Security. The Restore FOIA bill is designed to protect Americans' "right to know" while simultaneously contributing to the security of the nation's critical infrastructure. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.

According to the bill's sponsors, the legislation embodies the compromise that senators Leahy, Levin, and others reached with the White House during the Senate's earlier work on the homeland security bill. Last November, a bipartisan compromise was stripped out of the underlying bill and House language was enacted.

The Restore FOIA legislation would limit the FOIA exemption to relevant "records" submitted by private entities, so that only those records that actually pertain to critical infrastructure safety are protected. The bill also seeks not to limit the use of such information by the government, except to prohibit disclosure where such information is appropriately exempted under FOIA. It also seeks to protect the actions of legitimate whistleblowers, rather than criminalizing their acts. The measure does not forbid use of such information in civil court cases to hold companies accountable for wrongdoing or to protect the public. Another provision seeks to respect, rather than preempt, state and local FOIA laws. For more information about the bill, tap into: <>;.

5. MISSING "BILL OF RIGHTS" COPY RECOVERED On 19 March 2003 FBI agents conducted a sting operation in Philadelphia and reclaimed North Carolina's original copy of the Bill of Rights from individuals who were trying to sell it to a Philadelphia-based museum. The document was one of fourteen handwritten original copies of the Bill of Rights known to exist. The copies were penned by the clerks to the First House of Representatives and the Senate and signed by Senate Secretary Samuel A. Otis, House Clerk John Beckley, House Speaker Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and Vice-President John Adams.

The document has an interesting history. In 1789, the first federal Congress meeting in New York considered adoption of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights. As a condition of ratifying the proposed new federal Constitution, several states demanded copies of the proposed amendments. Congress authorized each of the original thirteen states to be sent a copy of the Bill of Rights; the federal government also retained one copy.

For 76 years, the North Carolina copy was retained in the statehouse. In 1865, during the American Civil War, a Union soldier marching south through North Carolina with General William T. Sherman's army is believed to have stolen it and taken it home to Tippecanoe, Ohio. The soldier apparently sold it in 1866. For the next 135 years the document was in the hands of private collectors and periodically offered for sale, with one owner or another often trying to sell it back to North Carolina, but always through intermediaries. It most recently turned up in 2000 when individuals, accompanied by armed body guards, visited the offices of the George Washington University's First Federal Congress Project to authenticate the document.

Though initially it was unclear which state copy was being presented for authentication, the First Federal Congress Project research staff determined that it was the missing North Carolina copy. The Project staff found that six of the original states no longer had their copies -- two had been burned, two were in the possession of the Library of Congress, and one was held by the New York Public Library. Through the process of elimination and through docketing information and handwriting analysis there was little doubt that the document being offered for sale to the National Constitution Center (a soon-to-be opened museum in center-city Philadelphia) for $4 million (probably a tenth of its true value) was the North Carolina copy. Federal authorities become involved and replevin laws kicked in once the National Constitution Center officials contacted state officials and the FBI.

With the document now in federal hands, it is slotted be returned to the state of North Carolina. An elated, North Carolina governor Mike Easely (D-NC) told the Associated Press, "It is a historic document, and its return is a historic occasion." The FBI has yet to make any arrests in the ongoing investigation.

6. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- IMLS Study of Museum Education: A new study by the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) found that museums bring unique object-based and visual learning opportunities to school partnerships helping schools to meet their learning objectives. Following up on a similar study conducted in 1995, the new study entitled "True Needs, True Partners 2002" found that the American museums commit more that 18 million instructional hours every year to programs targeted to school children in grades K-12. Nearly 70 percent of museums now offer such programs and 71 percent work with local curriculum specialists to tailor educational programs to support school curriculum standards. Also, new technologies bring museum resources into the lives of school children: 72 percent of museums now use websites for educational programming; 58 percent communicate with teachers via e-mail and 24 percent have direct e-mail communication with students. For the study, tap into:

Item #2 -- Former Congressman Horn Presented Award: On 14 March 2003, the American Library Association (ALA) presented the 14th annual James Madison Award to former U.S. Congressman Steve Horn during the National Freedom of Information (FOIA) Day Conference. The Madison Award, named for President James Madison, honors those who have championed, protected, and promoted public access to government information and the public's right to know. For more on the award, tap into: <>;.

Item #3 -- Web Sites of Interest: Several web pages have come to our attention this week: "Papers of Jefferson Davis" features more than 40 letters and speeches written by the man best known as president of the Confederacy during the American Civil War. Davis was also a Mexican War hero, member of the Senate and House of Representatives, and secretary of war under Franklin Pierce. Tap into: <>;.

"Saratoga The Tide Turns on the Frontier" examines the battle considered the "turning point in the American Revolution." Saratoga demonstrated to France that the ragtag Continental Army could win against Britain's better trained, disciplined troops. The victory at Saratoga turned the American Revolution into a global war. Tap into: <>;.

7. ARTICLES OF INTEREST Two items this week: On the 17 March 2003 edition of the PBS program "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" four historians discussed the role of public diplomacy and the cultural shift in President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Tap into "Historical Perspectives" at: <>;.

Second, in the 18 March 2003 issue of the Wall Street Journal an article entitled "Unintended Consequences," National Trust for Historic Preservation President Richard Moe writes that the federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit (HPTC) and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) are in danger under the Bush Administration's new economic plan. Tap into: <>;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Editor - 3/21/2003

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 24
March 20, 2003


The National Security Agency is asking Congress to grant an
exemption from the Freedom of Information Act for NSA
"operational files," enabling the Agency to categorically
reject FOIA requests for such files.

The proposed exemption was included in a package of legislative
proposals submitted for consideration in the FY 2004 Defense
Authorization Act.

"Currently, when NSA receives a FOIA request for records that
document the means by which foreign intelligence or
counterintelligence is collected through technical means, the
Agency almost invariably withholds them on the bases that they
are classified and pertain to core Agency activities,"
according to the DoD request. "Yet, processing these requests
may require Agency personnel to be diverted from key mission
areas, such as fighting the war on terrorism."

Similar exemptions have been granted to the CIA (in 1984), the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (1999), and the National
Reconnaissance Office (2002). Remarkably, a proposal to
exempt operational files of the Defense Intelligence Agency
from FOIA was rejected in 2000 after public controversy

The NSA FOIA exemption proposal was first reported by Anne
Plummer in Inside the Pentagon on March 20.

The text of the Defense Department's justification for the
proposal may be found here:

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to

OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice: (202) 454-4691

Editor - 3/20/2003

The Times (London)
March 17, 2003, Monday
SECTION: Home news; 7
HEADLINE: Historian abandons Hitler TV series
BYLINE: Robin Young
THE historian Sir Ian Kershaw has severed all connection with the American producers of a television mini-series that was to have been based on his biography of Hitler.
Sir Ian, Professor of Modern History at Sheffield University, is understood to have feared that the producers would sacrifice historical accuracy to make the series more eventful.
Alliance Atlantis paid an undisclosed sum for the rights to Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, the first volume of Sir Ian's biography. The series, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, is being filmed in Prague. It will star Robert Carlyle as Hitler.
Leslie Moonves, the president of CBS, which will screen the series in America, said: "The book was an academic piece. We needed more incidents." Peter Sussman, chief executive of Alliance Atlantis, said: "Film is a different medium to historical research. Ian realised in the middle of the process that the film has to be different from the book."

Editor - 3/20/2003

Ottawa Citizen

March 17, 2003 Monday Final Edition

SECTION: News; Pg. A8

HEADLINE: Smart case puts Utah polygamy back in spotlight: Mormon Church outlawed practice a century ago

SOURCE: The Associated Press

BYLINE: Patty Henetz


SALT LAKE CITY -- Despite the Mormon Church's century-long effort to rid itself of the stigma of polygamy, high-profile cases like Elizabeth Smart's abduction have cast the church in an unfavourable light by linking it to the outlawed practice.

The church disavowed polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates members who practice or preach it. But an estimated 30,000 polygamists whose beliefs are rooted in Mormonism live in Utah and other parts of the southwest, Mexico and Canada.

While most of them are consenting adults, living quietly, the region's history is littered with would-be prophets who, abandoning the traditional church, sought to lead their own polygamist groups or cults.

Among them, it appears, is Brian David Mitchell, the self-styled prophet arrested last week in Elizabeth's abduction. An excommunicated Mormon, he wrote a rambling manifesto espousing the virtues of polygamy and may have kidnapped the teen to make her his second wife.

Mr. Mitchell's case is just one of several involving avowed polygamists with extremist or fanatical views. Among them:

- In August 2002, polygamist Tom Green was sentenced to five years to life in prison for a child rape that occurred when he took Linda Kunz, a 13-year-old girl, as his "spiritual" wife in 1986 when Mr. Green was 37. Mr. Green drew the attention of prosecutors when he appeared on a half-dozen nationally televised talk shows to defend his brand of polygamy.

- In 1984, brothers Dan and Ron Lafferty, who had formed a polygamist cult called School of Prophets, killed Ron Lafferty's sister-in-law and her baby because she agreed with Ron Lafferty's wife's decision to leave him.

- In 1979, Summit County, Utah, polygamist John Singer, who pulled his children out of public school, was shot by law enforcement officers for running away when they tried to capture him. His son Addam Swapp, who also became a polygamist, in January 1988 blew up the Marion, Utah, Mormon administrative centre. Mr. Swapp was wounded after he led his clan in an armed standoff with police and was later sentenced to 15 years in prison.

- In the late 1940s, the excommunicated LeBaron clan established Colonia LeBaron, a polygamist colony in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. In the early 1970s Ervil LeBaron executed rival polygamists in Mexico and Salt Lake County. He died in prison.

Some experts say Mormonism will never be able to shed itself of polygamy -- and the sects or cults that arise because of it -- because the practice is linked inextricably to the church's founding.

"Polygamy is an albatross the church has been unable to rid itself of," said David Bigler, a former Mormon and historian on the church.

At a conference in October, Gordon Hinckley, the church's image-maker since 1935, issued a powerful reminder that the members' faith depended on the belief that God and Jesus Christ revealed themselves to founder Joseph Smith in 1820 on an upstate New York hillside when he was 14.

"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision," said the 92-year-old president.

It was Mr. Smith who, in 1843, also disclosed his revelation that polygamy, restored by prophecy from the patriarchal milieu of the Old Testament, was an essential ingredient of eternal exaltation on which the church would stand or fall.

Mr. Smith's teachings on polygamy remain in the church's four volumes of scripture. Section 132 says that "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."

Therein may lie a justification for Mr. Mitchell and thousands of so-called fundamentalist Mormons to defy mainstream Mormonism and establish sects where men take multiple wives, some as young as 12.

"They believe in Joseph Smith and polygamy," said Rowenna Erickson, 63, a former plural wife and co-founder of the group Tapestry Against Polygamy. "In order to gain their eternal salvation, they feel they need to live polygamously, because that is one of the higher laws, to get them to the celestial kingdom."

As for Mr. Mitchell, his manifesto includes apocalyptic ravings that crib from several books, including the King James Bible, the Book of Mormon and other Joseph Smith writings. The tract typed on a computer is dated April 6, 2002 -- the Mormon Church's birthday.

Mr. Mitchell, once a high local Mormon leader, was excommunicated several years ago for "activity promoting bizarre teachings and lifestyle" far afield of the church.

Such discipline is not uncommon in the church's struggle with polygamous splinter groups who continue to keep multiple "sister-wives."

Yet the church also teaches that plural marriage will revive when Christ returns. And members are allowed a kind of polygamy in the belief that widowers who marry again may live with both in the afterlife.

Editor - 3/20/2003

The Guardian (London)

March 17, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Foreign Pages, Pg. 17

HEADLINE: Spanish fury at slur on the Conquistadores: Historian claims ancient civilisations were destroyed by ruthless entrepreneurs

BYLINE: Giles Tremlett in Madrid

Outraged Spanish conservatives have turned against an historian for daring to question the idea that bravery, patriotism and belief in a Christian god were the key values of the Conquistadores who created Spain's new world empire.

The respected American historian Henry Kamen has been accused of "rubbishing the history of Spain" and "destroying the foundations of the Spanish empire" in his book, Spain's Road to Empire.

There has even been talk among those most upset by the attack on such national icons as conquistadores Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro of settling Spain's wounded honour with an old-fashioned duel.

Mr Kamen's book has shaken the accepted, school-taught Spanish view of the New World conquista as an epic tale of organised empire-building carried out by brave, loyal Spaniards for the greater glory of their country and monarchs. The historian has, instead, painted the destruction of the Inca and Aztec civilisations as the work of ruthless, self-interested entrepeneurs and mercenaries who used the Spanish crown as little more than a shield for their ambitions.

"Most of what he says is distortion and twisted interpretation," complained one angry letter writer to the conservative daily newspaper ABC. "In other times this would have led to a duel."

In Spain's august Royal Academy of History, many of whose largely elderly academicians cut their teeth as professors in General Franco's universities, the angry rumbling of discontent has been at its loudest.

"His theses are false. He is just trying to grab attention," fumed academician Luis Suarez. "We have the misfortune that foreigners write our history for us."

"The worst thing is the morbid passion, the history that defames," added the academy's former director, Antonio Rumeu de Armas.

Mr Kamen's crimes, his critics have said, include pointing out that much of the conquista of Aztecs and Incas was done by native peoples allied to Spain and that those who most benefited were often the German and Italian bankers who paid for the expeditions.

Where Spaniards themselves were prominent in a period of empire-building that stretched from the end of the 15th century to the mid-18th century, greed for silver and gold and "pitiless, barbaric" cruelty were the tonic of the times. Worst of all for the traditionalists, Mr Kamen has questioned whether the Spain of the times, itself only just "reconquered" from the Moors and "united" under a single monarchy, could really be considered a proper country.

"At the outset. . . 'Spain' did not exist, it had not formed politically or economically," he said in the book's introduction. This, his critics said, played straight into the hands of regional nationalists in Catalonia and the Basque country who claim to have histories that run separate to a Spain dominated by Castilian monarchs.

Mr Kamen admitted yesterday that could be why the book had been so enthusiastically accepted in Catalonia. "I am playing down Spain's role in its history which, for Catalans, is very satisfactory."

But the historian said he welcomed the controversy he had generated. "This is the most fundamental questioning anyone has done. . . you cannot go much further in overturning everything. I hope this will open out a few more factual references for people educated in a historical pattern that has remained unchanged, in a certain way, since Franco."

Publication of the book in Spain follows a long-running row between regional nationalists and the conservative People's party government of Jose Maria Aznar, backed by the royal academy, over what version of Spanish history should be taught in schools.

It also came as Mr Aznar, a keen supporter of the proposed war on Iraq, has launched a campaign for Spain to be taken seriously on the world stage again.

Editor - 3/20/2003

Courier Mail

March 17, 2003 Monday


HEADLINE: Reshaping the globe

BYLINE: Martin Stuart-Fox

Consolidating American power in the Middle East is one of the key reasons for going to war, writes historian Martin Stuart-Fox

Iraq is the first step in the program of the neo-conservative ideologues to shape the world in order to further global US interests

THE Americans believe war against Iraq will be brief and victorious, and they may be right. But the Middle East is unpredictable and volatile, and things could go horribly wrong. Why then is the current US Administration prepared to take the risk?

The best-case scenario for invasion goes something like this: Massive American bombing will shock the Iraqi army into quickly surrendering while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. American troops driving north from Kuwait and south from Turkey will be welcomed as liberators.

Saddam Hussein will either flee or be executed. Meanwhile, the US will install a short-lived military administration, followed by free and fair elections. From these a new Iraq will emerge as a democratic beacon.

But this is naively optimistic. To begin with, the bombing campaign may well leave the bulk of the army, especially the Republican Guard, largely intact. After all, Iraqi forces are unlikely to be concentrated on military bases. Rather they are likely to be dispersed throughout Baghdad and a few other towns.

The initial American advance is likely to be swift, against little resistance. The Americans, though not their Turkish allies, will be welcomed by the Kurds in the north. In the south, Basra, the second city in Iraq, probably will fall within days. But the goal of invasion is Baghdad, and that is a much tougher prospect. For Baghdad primarily is populated by Sunni Arabs (25 per cent of the Iraqi population), and they have been the principal backers of Saddam's regime.

Street fighting is dirty and dangerous. American commanders will come under strong pressure to use their superior firepower to destroy buildings from which they receive fire. The inevitable result would be higher civilian casualties.

Then there is the question of weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam still has these, at this point he would have nothing to lose in unleashing them. Should there be serious American casualties, the US would be likely to retaliate, again with the risk of substantial civilian casualties.

Once Baghdad is taken, there will be strong resentment against American military occupation, even from Iraqi opposition groups. Security will be a continuing nightmare for occupying forces, for there will be no shortage of suicide bombers prepared to blow up American soldiers. Moreover Americans, and members of the "coalition of the willing" outside Iraq, also could well find themselves targets. Increase in terrorism worldwide is a distinct likelihood.

Then there is the matter of elections which, given ethnic and religious divisions, no single party will win. The outlook is for a weak and unstable coalition government that will hardly serve as a model for Middle Eastern democracy. Moreover, as even the last elections in secularist Turkey demonstrated, free elections in the rest of the region would most likely return Islamist governments much less friendly to the West than the authoritarian regimes presently in place.

So why take all these risks to eliminate a dictator who effectively has been confined for a decade, during which time he has posed no threat to his neighbours? Not for the reasons the US Administration has listed.

Rather, Iraq is the first step in the program of the neo-conservative ideologues in the Bush Administration to use overwhelming American power, quite openly and ruthlessly, to shape the world in order to further global US interests.

It is in the Americans' interests to control the Middle East, for three reasons: to protect Israel, to gain access to oil, and to enhance its global strategic power. Iraq has been a threat not to the US but to Israel. This is because it is the most secular and modern Arab state, has the best human resources in the form of educated scientists and engineers, and has the potential oil wealth to develop a military arsenal. Elimination of Saddam will strengthen the long-term security of Israel.

Strong American influence over a weak government in Iraq would not only gain American companies access to Iraqi oil (important in the event that the supply of Saudi oil is interrupted) but would gain strategic leverage over potentially dangerous states Iran and Syria. Both pose threats to the region because of their support for Islamic terrorism and their possession of weapons of mass destruction, but those threats would be better contained by an American presence in Iraq.

Control of Iraq also would provide a fallback American base in the Middle East that could take the place, if necessary, of Saudi Arabia. Since September 11 the US has become painfully aware of the influence of the fundamentalist form of Saudi Islam, backed by Saudi wealth. The Saudi royal family is not popular, and could conceivably be replaced by a popular regime that would be less sympathetic to the US. In that event, the US would need to protect Kuwait and the Gulf states, and that it could do from Iraq.

Finally, control over Iraq would strengthen American strategic control in a broader sense, not just over Middle East but globally, by strengthening the position of the US as the sole hegemonic superpower. These broader strategic considerations are why President George W. Bush is prepared to accept the very real risks of going to war with Iraq, even, as US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld let on, without the British (let alone Australia). But these are reasons for the US to go to war, not for any other country to join in.

Martin Stuart-Fox is professor of history at the University of Queensland

Editor - 3/20/2003

The Baltimore Sun
March 17, 2003 Monday FINAL Edition
HEADLINE: Bacterium helps trace migration of humans; MEDICINE & SCIENCE
BYLINE: Michael Stroh
Scientists unraveling the story of mankind's ancient migrations have enlisted the help of an unlikely historian: an ulcer-causing bacterium that lives in the gut.
An international research team reports in Science that the S-shaped bacterium Helicobacter pylori, best known for its miserable role in peptic ulcers and stomach cancer, may also harbor clues to human whereabouts over the centuries.
Half the population of the planet may be infected with the bug, which is thought to be passed by contact from mother to child during infancy.
Because H. pylori spreads tummy to tummy from one generation to the next, scientists have found that Asian, European and African stomachs can harbor distinct strains. So, theoretically a scientist could trace a person's origins through his stomach.
Mark Achtman of the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin and colleagues collected 370 stomach samples from more than two dozen geographic and ethnic groups. By analyzing genetic codes, the scientists divided the microbes into four major categories - two from Africa and one each from Europe and East Asia.
Most of the findings confirmed migration patterns scientists had already suspected. European stomachs contained a jumble of H. pylori genes, showing them to be a mosaic of several populations.
The East Asian strain turned up among the Maori of New Zealand and in Native Americans - lending further support to the theory that Asians made their way to North America across a land bridge that once linked the continents.

mark safranski - 3/20/2003

No. However I have only made a cursory check though - most WWI studies that I saw had to do with lung ailments and cancer, not mental illness. Then again, in the context of the times, psychological investigations would have been tilted away from physiological explanations if they were conducted at all.

The reason I think mustard gas poisoning ought to be looked at as a hypothetical cause- one certainly among several - of some of Hitler's aberrant behaviors is that 1918 appears to be a watershed year for Hitler.

Prior to the war you have in Hitler a very lazy individual prone to obssessive focus on distracting topics and construction of elaborate daydreams who was unable to accomplish concrete goals or even hold a job. The action of the front probably provided the stimulus and discipline for Hitler to become an outstanding soldier. After the war one would expect that Hitler, lacking the constant tension of the trenches to relapse into his former languid state but instead Hitler manifests both a prodigious energy and an almost monomaniacal focus in pursuit of long term goals. Also for the first time Hitler emerges as a radical antisemite circa 1919 in documents and in the recollection of acquaintences. Generally significant changes in personality do not happen in a man of Hitler's age at the time ( 29 )

Did the mustard gas poisoning effect an already unstable personality by permanently altering Hitler's biochemistry to edge him toward manic depression ( and suicidal ideation when he was in a trough as with the Putsch, Geli Raubal's death and ultimately in his Fuhrerbunker in 1945 ) ? He certainly gives evidence of megalomania and extreme rage which points to manic phase behavior. I'm not certain if this is even an answerable question but I think evidence of modern gassing patients may point in this direction

Editor - 3/20/2003

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

March 17, 2003 Monday Home Edition

SECTION: News; Pg. 1A

HEADLINE: Effort to probe 1979 'massacre' roils Greensboro



Greensboro, N.C. --- A caravan of Klansmen and neo-Nazis rolled into the housing project a little after 11 a.m. Nelson Johnson, an organizer of that morning's "Death to the Klan" rally, remembers the nine cars and trucks moving so slowly he walked between them to cross the street. Then he recalls how quickly it all changed.

The next 88 seconds on that Saturday in November 1979 would become the most infamous in Greensboro's modern history. As several dozen demonstrators pounded on the vehicles, Klansmen got out, guns pulled, and fired. Some retrieved rifles from a car trunk and fired again. A few demonstrators shot back.

"I remember seeing [a rally organizer] slumped on her knees, a trickle of blood coming down her forehead," Johnson said. "I remember turning [another organizer] over as he took his last breaths."

When it was over, five rally leaders --- three white, one black, one Hispanic --- lay dead. It became known nationally as the Greensboro Massacre.

Now, 23 years later --- after two criminal trials ended without convictions and a civil suit found five Klansmen and two police officers liable for one death --- a diverse coalition of politicians, church leaders and community activists is preparing to re-examine the tragedy.

The effort is part of a trend in many Southern cities with painful, largely unresolved legacies.

The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Project is modeled on a commission formed in post-apartheid South Africa: a voluntary fact-finding mission to unearth who did what and why, without fear of legal retribution. The Greensboro investigation will be conducted by a panel of civic leaders, perhaps including retired state judges, selected from across the city. A final report is planned for 2005. Project organizers say the work, which already has stirred controversy, is necessary for the city to heal and move on.

"Greensboro has an infected wound that's been covered over for a long time," said Zeb Holler, a retired minister and co-chair of the project's task force. "We need to open it and and find out as clearly as we can what happened. The people not wanting it have a fear it will reveal things they don't want revealed."

But project detractors say this is the wrong cause at the wrong time. They view Greensboro, with a population of 230,000, as a progressive city that celebrates its place as one of the most significant depots on the Underground Railroad and where the '60s sit-in movement was born. The mayor has said the reinvestigation could blemish that image, damaging the struggling old textile town's efforts to recruit jobs in a down economy.

City Councilwoman Florence Gatten has vowed to work against the project. "I am unalterably opposed to this effort. It says all the hard work we've done the last 23 years is moot."

A long shadow

Project supporters counter that Greensboro has never been as racially serene as its leadership believes. They claim cultural forces surrounding the '79 incident still linger in Greensboro, where suspicions remain between blacks and whites about police, courts and local government. Its residue shows up, they say, in issues like school redistricting and in one white county commissioner's recent comments comparing the NAACP to white supremacists.

Supporters emphasize the project isn't a witch hunt.

"If a balanced and broader understanding of the time and events is put on the table, it's not going to hurt anything," said Carolyn Allen, former three-term mayor and task force co-chair. "And it just might ease some of the built-in mistrust that has carried over from that."

The project's work won't be easy. Many directly involved in the 1979 events have died or moved away. The panel won't have subpoena power, so people will have to talk willingly. The incident itself has long looked to many like an unsolvable tangle of contradictions.

It did have hot-button elements common to civil rights-era racial violence: the Klan, killings, a seeming preponderance of evidence --- TV crews recorded the shootings --- and acquittal by an all-white jury.

But other factors complicated the community's reaction: The rally's leaders were militant, union-organizing members of the Communist Workers Party, and most of the Klansmen and neo-Nazis came from China Grove, a small town 50 miles south of Greensboro.

"The conventional wisdom was it was a Klan-Commie shootout, for which no one could be blamed and you couldn't expect to get to the bottom of it," said Harry Watson, director of the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. "The community did a real good job of shutting down and forgetting the whole thing."

The clash between demonstrators and Klansmen seemed inevitable. The labor-organizing militants, many of them doctors and medical personnel in Raleigh who got jobs in local textile mills, targeted the Klan as agents of factory owners trying to divide black and white workers. They marched on a Klan gathering in China Grove months earlier, burning a Confederate flag. Klansmen vowed revenge.

Police expected the Klan at the Greensboro rally: An informant led the caravan. There was an FBI informant in the local neo-Nazi cell. But when the shooting began, most officers assigned to the demonstration were on a lunch break. They didn't arrive until minutes after the last shot was fired.

Questions still surround the police response. Was it deliberate, or simple bungling? If it was intentional, how far up the city's leadership did knowledge of it go? And did a conspiracy extend into the courtroom, where the Klansmen claimed self-defense?

'Shared forgetting'

The organizers' motives also are unclear. Some suggest they encouraged a violent confrontation to raise their standing in the black community and further their cause. Many refused to participate in the trials, calling them meaningless "show trials." Did they subvert the process intentionally, ensuring acquittals to prove their point?

Those are among the issues the project intends to look into. Results of similar attempts in other cities have been mixed.

"The problem is, if you come up with one version, you may not make everybody happy," said historian Dan Carter. "Most events, while they may have a clear-cut moral arc, are pretty messy. I'm generally in favor of [truth and reconciliation efforts]. But there is the notion that every community is a community of shared forgetting, that some things can be so painful the only way to move past them is to forget it."

Greensboro Project organizers say there's been too much forgetting already. Even Morningside Homes, where the shootings took place, has been leveled. But four of the five people killed there are buried in the neighborhood's cemetery.

Johnson, now a minister, said finding out what happened and then learning from it is the only way to honor their memory. "I made a commitment to them that we're not going to let this go. The price they paid is too high."

Gerald Lange - 3/20/2003

This is a truly inspiring story of vision, courage, wisdom, and integrity to our common ancient Judeo-Christian heritage. It's too bad that we seem to lack the moral authority to more positively deal with our Muslim brothers in the troubled world today.

As an avid world traveler, I now have put Bulgaria on my "places to visit someday" list.

Gerald Lange, State Representative from South Dakota: Madison

Glenn B. - 3/20/2003


Are you aware of any similar studies/accounts about WWI veterans?

Carlos - 3/19/2003

nice article

Stephen Thurtell - 3/19/2003

I wouldn't equate the ignorance of the working class with that of the ruling class. It's in the latter's interest to distort, cover up, and lie about history, and it's in the interest of the former to learn the truth, but resources lie with the ruling class: the educational sytem; media; religion, etc. all serve the interests of that one per cent. Blaming working people for being ignorant is blaming the victims. The truth is a closely guarded secret, because the truth is inherently revolutionary.

Edward J. Klep Jr. - 3/18/2003

And you expected??
This is just a continuation of the Ole English doctrine of superiority. British have the belief they are better than the rest of the world. They have always displayed an arrogant and condecending attitude toward anyone else, especially peoples of color.

Editor - 3/18/2003

South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)

March 16, 2003

SECTION: News; Pg. 9

LENGTH: 1039 words

HEADLINE: After 60 years, Bulgaria stages its first celebration of the saving of its entire Jewish population from the Holocaust A nation's hour of humanity revived

BYLINE: Matthew Brunwasser in Sofia

Sixty years have passed since Bulgaria saved its Jews from deportation to extermination camps in Poland in World War II. Despite the extraordinary success of Bulgarians of all social groups in saving the entire Jewish population, and a strong sense of national pride in the country's long history without anti-Semitism, this is Bulgaria's first celebration of the saving of the Jews.

The anniversary includes a "Lesson in Dignity" taught in every school across the country, the first time schools in Bulgaria have taught about the Holocaust.

High-profile celebrations in the national theatre, parliament and Sofia synagogue are helping to keep the events at the top of the national news. A new postage stamp commemorates the 60th anniversary and an unorthodox ceremony at a monastery featured a rabbi and a priest conducting religious rites at the graves of top Bulgarian clergy during World War II. Before last week, most Bulgarians knew little about the widespread protests which stopped the planned deportation of 50,000 Jews. Before 1989, the story could not be told because it credited the enemies of the communist regime: the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, Tsar Boris III and the average Bulgarian on the street who loudly voiced opposition to his government's policy, while communist partisans did little to help.

Since then, the emotional debate over who should receive credit, fuelled by the unsettled political scores left over from communism, prevented any national commemoration.

The passage of 60 years since the cattle trains, waiting in Plovdiv and Kyustendil, were scheduled to depart with the first 8,500 Jews now coincides with the regeneration of Bulgaria's democratic institutions. The country has chosen to value the lesson offered by the moral actions of a broad range of individuals and institutions, over political vindication.

"So many people expressed the will to save the Jews, against the official policy of the government," says Albena Taneva, a professor at Sofia University and Holocaust educator and researcher who is helping organise the national observation.

"It is very important for people to understand, no matter how authoritarian the circumstances, or how severe the political situation, there is always a personal choice."

On that cold winter day 60 years ago, police woke up several hundred Jews in Plovdiv at 4am and told them they had 30 minutes to pack their bags. They spent a cold March day in the gymnasium of the Jewish school, awaiting what they were sure would be certain death. But news of the secret deportations leaked out.

By the time news of the detention spread, phone calls, personal and political connections, moral outrage and a visit by the enraged Orthodox Christian Metropolit Bishop Kiril shaking his staff at the police had convinced the authorities to withdraw the order. They were released at the end of the day, when the police announced simply: "The order has been rescinded, you are free."

"Kiril was a great humanist," says Yvette Anavi, 82, wearing the same little yellow Jewish star on her lapel which she wore at the time. She was among a crowd of about 500 gathered by a thank-you monument in the former Jewish quarter of Plovdiv, listening to emotional speeches by Bulgarian and Israeli officials.

"We didn't see anything compared to our fellow Jews in Germany, Austria and Hungary," says Berti Levy, 77, standing next to her. "Everyone needs to know about this."

Another deportation of the Jews was planned for May 1943. But following pressure from the Church, the tsar and a leak by the personal secretary of the Commissariat for Jewish Affairs, these plans too were frustrated by popular opposition.

Most people are unaware that Bulgaria was successful in saving its Jews precisely because it was a Nazi ally and did not suffer occupation by the German army or terror from the Gestapo secret police. Many people in Europe saved Jews, says Sir Martin Gilbert, historian and author of several books on the Holocaust, most recently The Righteous.

What was unusual about the Bulgarians' response was the speed of the public reaction, says Sir Martin. There was no time for forming committees or discussions - the time between the issuing of the deportation order and when the trains were supposed to leave the station was just 16 days. Nazi Germany had the resources and organisation to deport Jews secretly and quickly, but only with no resistance.

What was also extraordinary were the numbers saved, he says, and that the entire Jewish community survived. "Why are we always so surprised by goodness and the fact that people don't want to murder each other?" Sir Martin says.

Bulgarians are also just starting to consider the nation's responsibility for the collection and deportation of 11,343 Jews to extermination camps from the areas of northern Greece and Macedonia under Bulgarian "administration". This part of Bulgaria's role in the Holocaust is not mentioned nearly as often as the positive. Patriarch Stefan, when travelling in the countryside, coincidentally came across the trains transporting these Jews across Bulgaria from the "New Territories".

"Do not persecute in order to not be persecuted," Stefan, the head of the church, wrote in a letter to Tsar Boris III. "Measure for measure, remember Boris, that God watches your deeds."

This first Holocaust history lesson is being taught in every school across the country, varying according to the school and the teacher - there is no centralised lesson plan.

In the Alexander Pushkin High School, Yanislava Andreeva's 10th grade ethics class covered big issues: personal responsibility in a society committing genocide, justification for killing, personal morality and so on. Most students knew very little about the Holocaust at the beginning of the class.

The historical record speaks clearly about Bulgaria's lack of anti-Semitism, particularly notable in Eastern Europe.

Jews have always been integrated in Bulgaria: they never lived in separate villages or ghettoes as they did in Poland and Russia.

Bulgaria is a multi-ethnic country with a tradition of accepting persecuted minorities, such as Armenians from Turkey.

Editor - 3/18/2003

Los Angeles Times

March 16, 2003 Sunday Home Edition

SECTION: Main News; Part 1; Page 26; National Desk

HEADLINE: THE NATION; Davis' Apology Sheds No Light on Sterilizations in California; Lack of an inquiry into the state's ambitious eugenics effort and its 20,000 victims angers some historians and disabled advocates.

BYLINE: Aaron Zitner, Times Staff Writer


To make amends for a state program that sterilized 7,600 people against their will, North Carolina's governor created a panel last year to probe the history of the effort, interview survivors and consider reparations.

In Oregon, then-Gov. John Kitzhaber last year apologized in person to some of the 2,600 people sterilized there, and he created an annual Human Rights Day to commemorate the state's mistake. On the day Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner apologized, Jesse Meadows and other victims unveiled a roadside marker.

"It felt pretty good to be there, even though it was so late," said Meadows, 80.

Some historians and advocates for the disabled had a mixed reaction to the apology issued Tuesday by Gov. Gray Davis for California's policy, the most aggressive in the nation, which sterilized an estimated 20,000 mentally disabled people and others from 1909 through the 1960s.

Davis offered his apology in a press release. No survivors or disability groups were on hand to accept it. There was no order to probe for more details of a history that, according to scholars, is still largely unexplored and not fully understood.

"It's like a preemptive apology... We don't know yet who to apologize to," said Alexandra Stern, a University of Michigan historian who is writing a book about California's sterilization program.

"An apology with no attempt to find the people who deserve to receive it is meaningless," said Stephen Drake, research analyst with Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group. "If the governor is serious about wanting to understand this shameful chapter of California history, then you need an effort to study the records of just how this was done."

"I think it's premature," said Paul Lombardo, a University of Virginia historian who revived interest in the state policy when he lectured Tuesday to a California Senate committee. The lecture, which some officials said was the first time they had heard of the sterilization policy, triggered a statement within hours from Davis and a separate apology from state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer.

Lombardo and Drake said the apologies were welcome as acknowledgments of past abuse. "But if they don't try to understand the history, then I don't know what it's worth," Lombardo added.

Historians have only recently begun to explore California's sterilization effort. Primarily at institutions for the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled, the state sterilized thousands of people under the premise that the "unfit" should be removed from the gene pool so their children would not burden society.

But some of the basic details still are missing. Among them: exactly how many people were sterilized.

The mentally ill and developmentally disabled were the initial focus of the policy, but some historians believe that it also targeted Mexican and Asian immigrants, criminals, juvenile delinquents and sexually active women.

Even the date that the practice ended is unclear, though it may have been as late as 1969.

"We checked that and we haven't been able to determine that," said Bertha Gorman, spokeswoman for the California Health and Human Services Agency. Because of patient confidentiality rules, historians have had little access to state records that might shed light on the state's sterilization history.

"Shouldn't we demand that the state fill in the history?" asked David Mitchell, who runs a disabilities studies program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "That would be the foundation of a meaningful apology."

Russell Lopez, a spokesman for the governor, said he had called three state departments last week in an attempt to find survivors but was told no names could be released because of patient confidentiality rules.

"The governor just learned about this," Lopez said, "and he decided it was something he must do: apologize for what the Legislature did in the past."

In Virginia, North Carolina and Oregon, a combination of media interest and university research brought attention to past sterilization programs and led to the state apologies.

Although some details remain clouded, there is no doubt that California was once home to the largest sterilization program in the nation and to some of the most influential supporters of the practice, including the publisher of the Los Angeles Times in the 1930s.

At least 30 states passed laws in the first decades of the 1900s that aimed to shape society by denying the so-called unfit the ability to reproduce. Scientists already had shown how careful breeding could improve crops and livestock. Now, they were arguing that selective breeding could improve humanity and wipe out poverty, prostitution and mental illness, which were thought to have genetic roots.

The concept, known as eugenics, led to the sterilization of more than 63,000 people in the United States from about 1907 through the 1970s.

California accounted for one-third of all operations. Its sterilization law was the second in the nation, after Indiana's.

The state's enthusiasm for eugenics was so well known that it is mentioned in "The Great Gatsby." When Nazi Germany wrote its sterilization policy, it borrowed from California's law, historians say.

"Why California more than other states? That's a key question," Stern said. "I think it has to do with the need to civilize the frontier."

In better breeding practices, Californians saw a way to control the chaos of nature. And their use in human reproduction had the support of prominent citizens, including then-Stanford University President David Starr Jordan and Pasadena citrus magnate Ezra Gosney, who founded one of the most influential think tanks devoted to eugenics, the Human Betterment Foundation, in 1926.

Another cheerleader was The Times, whose publisher, Harry Chandler, was listed as a member of the Human Betterment Foundation in a 1938 pamphlet by the group.

"We have secured the ardent support of the Los Angeles Times," Gosney wrote in a 1937 dispatch to the Eugenical News, a monthly periodical. "They are running an article each week in their Sunday magazine edition which, while not as good as the editor-owner of the paper would like, keeps the subject before the people and does much to encourage us in carrying on."

That Sunday column, called "Social Eugenics," ran from 1935 to 1941 and argued for strong sterilization laws, said Lombardo of the University of Virginia. The paper ran at least 120 of them, he added.

Through much of the 1930s, many sterilization advocates also cheered on the eugenics policies in Germany. "Why Hitler Says: 'Sterilize the Unfit!' " ran a headline in a 1935 issue of The Times' magazine. "Here, perhaps, is an aspect of the new Germany that America, with the rest of the world, can little afford to criticise."

Under California law, people with "mental disease" could be sterilized if doctors believed the condition could be passed to descendants. The superintendents of state institutions had broad authority to decide how often to use the procedure, Stern said.

"The term 'mental disease' could be interpreted broadly," she said. "People who were epileptics were lumped in there, and people with 'perverse' sexual tendencies, so you had gay men."

Some who were sterilized had landed in state institutions on grounds of theft, forgery and truancy from school. In some places, women appear to have been sterilized merely for promiscuity.

"Something like 25% of the girls who have been sterilized were sent up here solely, or primarily, for that purpose," wrote Paul Popenoe, director of the Human Betterment Foundation, during a 1926 research trip to the Sonoma State Home for the Feeble-Minded. "They are kept only a few months -- long enough to operate and instill a little discipline in them; and then returned home."

Stern and Lombardo believe that hundreds of prisoners, as well as many of the women and others at the Sonoma facility, are not included in the commonly cited figure of 20,000 sterilizations in California.

They also suspect that the state's strong anti-immigrant movement of the early 1900s targeted Mexicans and other nonwhite groups with sterilization, an attempt to dilute their presence in the population. But no broad survey of the racial and ethnic profile of sterilization patients has been done

Joel Braslow, an associate professor of psychiatry at UCLA, says critiques of sterilization laws often misstate how the policy was practiced.

In state institutions, he says, doctors cared little about eugenics. Instead, they saw sterilization as a humane and beneficial treatment for patients, along with lobotomies and other now-discredited practices.

"In practice, we didn't sterilize the severely retarded," said Dr. William Keating, a surgeon at Sonoma State Hospital throughout the 1950s. "They had very little opportunity for sex. The people we concentrated on were people who were moderately retarded, who had a chance of going out and getting pregnant."

In an interview, Keating said he performed 500 to 600 tubal ligations and vasectomies at the institution. Individuals who could perform some sort of job outside the institution would be released, but not if they were at risk of getting pregnant or impregnating someone. In effect, sterilization was a ticket to a work furlough, or general release.

Keating recalled a young man who had an IQ he estimated to be 85. After his vasectomy, the man was released, only to return for a visit one day -- in full Army uniform. He had become a first lieutenant during the Korean War.

Eugenic sterilizations tailed off through the 1950s and 1960s but remained legal until 1979. Today, state law allows sterilization for mentally incompetent people who cannot give informed consent. A court-appointed conservator must petition a judge for permission.

Victim Jesse Meadows said that Virginia, at least, "ought to pay people for what they did." Meadows, of Lynchburg, was sent to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and the Feebleminded in 1940, after his mother died and his father remarried. He was sterilized there, at age 17.

"They said it was to help my health ... and so I wouldn't have no feeble-minded children," Meadows said.

Virginia's apology and roadside marker "helped me some," Meadows said. "But it's hard to forget that somebody ruined your life like that."

Editor - 3/18/2003

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

March 16, 2003 Sunday Home Edition

SECTION: @issue; Pg. 3D

HEADLINE: Battle flag designer was pro-slavery;

Confederate banner's creator didn't see any reason to compromise



William Porcher Miles, the man who designed the Confederate battle flag, urged secession and welcomed the Civil War for one reason: to preserve Southerners' right to own slaves.

While most Southern politicians of his day supported slavery, Miles stood out early as a leader urging secession. His writings and speeches, plus interviews with historians and Civil War experts, paint Miles as a man who was fiercely pro-slavery and believed --- before the war and after --- that the doctrine that all men are created equal was wrong.

Georgians may disagree today on the political and cultural meaning of the Confederate battle flag, but no one can misconstrue the political views of the man who created it.

Miles was among the most vehement supporters of slavery, arguing that it was a cornerstone of Southern culture. A few years before the war, he wrote in a Charleston, S.C., newspaper that black people were "debased, sensual, groveling creatures, hardly worthy of the name of men." Slavery, Miles wrote, was an institution created by God.

"He was an ultra-radical; that means pro-secession and pro-slavery," said Eric Walther, author of 'The Fire-eaters,' a book profiling several secessionist leaders, including Miles. "I could cite speeches and personal correspondence but his political views could be summed up in a word: slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery."

Supporters of using the battle emblem on Georgia's state flag say the cross no longer symbolizes Miles' political views. "Today it's simply a popular symbol of the region," said Charles Lunsford, president of the Atlanta-based Heritage Preservation. "It's on clothes and key chains and everything else. . . . It's the symbol of the South."

Two distinct social classes

Miles is largely forgotten now, but his creation is still very much with us. "The flag has far outreached what Miles ever could have foreseen," said Howard Madaus, senior curator at the National Civil War Museum in Harrisburg, Pa., and a recognized expert on the battle flag.

William Porcher (pronounced Por-shay) Miles was born July 4, 1822, in Walterboro, S.C. Miles graduated in 1842 from the College of Charleston, and became a math teacher at his alma mater. While teaching he began to give public speeches on the crucial issue of the day: growing tensions between the North and the South. In an 1849 speech, Miles said slavery helped build the moral character of Southerners by creating two distinct social classes: masters and slaves.

"Many of the highest, manliest and most admirable qualities in the Southern character have been preserved in their pristine strength, if not engendered by our peculiar social and domestic system," Miles said.

Other leaders of the Confederacy, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, were reluctant secessionists, advocating compromise between North and South. Miles held no such inhibitions.

"Fellow citizens, we have had some experience of compromise. We have had enough of them," he said in 1849.

In 1857, Miles, then mayor of Charleston, S.C., was elected to Congress, where he was an outspoken defender of slavery, arguing for hours with Northern, pro-abolition politicians. Miles, with others in the South Carolina delegation, often threatened to secede from the United States.

After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, Miles signed South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession and became one of the leaders in the provisional Confederate Congress.

Walther, an associate history professor at the University of Houston, said government records show Miles' political position was clear: preserving slavery was more important than preserving the United States. "Among the leaders of secession, he was the most mild-mannered, but his ideas were as strident as anyone else's," Walther said.

When the Confederate government first met, the 38-year-old Miles was made chairman of the Committee of Flag and Seal, tasked with creating the symbols of the new country. In this capacity, Miles first sketched out what would become one of the South's most famous symbols: the Confederate battle flag.

Seeking a complete break

People from all across the South sent flag ideas to the Confederate Congress, with many suggesting a flag similar to the Stars and Stripes, arguing that the Confederacy was the true descendant of the American Revolution.

Miles opposed these suggestions.

"He tended to be one of those who wanted a complete break from the flag of the United States, which he considered a symbol of tyranny," said Devereaux D. Cannon Jr., founder of Confederate States Vexillological [Study of Flags] Association and author of "The Flags of the Confederacy --- An Illustrated History."

Confederate government records report that Miles at the time said "that he had always looked, even from the cradle, upon the Stars and Stripes as an emblem of tyranny and oppression."

Miles drew up his own prototype for the committee: a red flag with blue and white diagonal stripes and stars representing all the seceding states. He chose the X-shaped symbol not as a reference to St. Andrew's Cross, on the Scottish flag, but because it would be less offensive to Jewish residents of the South than the traditional Christian cross, Cannon and other flag historians say.

Miles liked his flag because it was simple, colorful and different from the Stars and Stripes, which he and others derisively called "old gridiron." But Miles' idea didn't go over with the other Confederate politicians. One said it looked like a pair of suspenders. On March 4, 1861, the Confederate Congress adopted the Stars and Bars as its national flag. The flag was a simple variation of the Stars and Stripes, with one star for each state that seceded and three stripes.

Similar flags were confusing

When the provisional Confederate Congress disbanded for the summer of 1861, Miles briefly joined the Confederate Army in Virginia as a civilian aide to Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard. At the first major battle of the Civil War in late July, commanders on both sides complained that having similar flags on a battlefield created confusion.

At a special meeting with other commanders, Beauregard argued that the Confederate armies needed a distinct flag. Several ideas were discussed before Miles brought up his abandoned design.

"Probably literally reaching in his back pocket, Miles says, 'how about this one?' " said amateur Confederate flag historian Greg Biggs, an Ohioan who is writing a book about Confederate battle flags of Georgia. "And they go for it."

The battle flag was born.

Madaus at the National Civil War Museum said Confederate armies in Virginia first used the flag, but it was never officially adopted by the Rebel government. Georgians marched under the flag in various sections of the Confederate army. The Confederate Army of Tennessee, which eventually defended Georgia, did not adopt the flag's use among most of its troops until 1863, half way through the war.

"It never represented the Confederate government, it represented various Confederate armies," Madaus said.

Fighting under different banners

Miles and other congressmen repeatedly argued that the battle flag be adopted as the Confederacy's national flag, but such moves were blocked in the Confederate Congress.

As Beauregard and other commanders were sent to other theaters of the war, they took the new flag and spread it among the troops, though many Confederates continued to fight under different banners. Though the flag eventually became the most common among Confederate troops, many Southern soldiers --- including Georgians --- fought under different banners.

But the original national flag, the Stars and Bars, never caught on with the public. By May 1863, the Confederate Congress threw that flag out, choosing a new flag that was white, with a battle flag emblem in the corner. Miles remarked that "he was glad that a flag had been adopted so dissimilar to the old."

After the war, Miles remained anti-federal government and anti-Reconstruction, though he took the oath of allegiance to the United States in 1867. He never ran for public office again, but he did speak out on political issues. He opposed blacks winning voting rights in the South and supported segregation in education.

In 1880, he became the first president of the reorganized, whites-only University of South Carolina. Miles quit the college in 1882 and headed to Louisiana, where he took over his father-in-law's sugar plantations, eventually becoming extremely wealthy. He corresponded with many old Confederate comrades and, in one letter to Beauregard, wrote about his pride at helping design the battle flag.

"He would be absolutely astounded that the legacy of the Civil War today is a dispute over the battle flag," said Lee Marmon, a historian in Virginia working on a biography of Miles.

Miles died in 1899, and was buried --- oddly enough --- in Union, W.Va.

Editor - 3/18/2003

The Age (Melbourne)

March 15, 2003 Saturday

SECTION: Review; Pg. 8

HEADLINE: How To Read Iraq

BYLINE: Christopher Kremmer

Many books have been written on Saddam Hussein and his country. Read widely among them, says Christopher Kremmer.

t is perhaps fitting that the country that invented writing should be the subject of so many books. Fitting too that the crowded bookshop shelves should be such a minefield.

For every towering history of Iraq there are 10 crisis quickies. Insider accounts of Saddam Hussein vie with foreign biographers who have never met him. Yet in our fast-paced world historians often straggle. And in a cynical age, we rightly suspect insiders of pushing their own barrows. Whom do you believe?

One book is not enough even to begin to know a nation as complex as Iraq, a leader as multi-faceted as Saddam Hussein or the compulsions driving the policy of the United States of America.

Having trouble understanding Bush's determination to invade Iraq? Read Kenneth M. Pollack's The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.

The Threatening Storm allows us to think the unthinkable. It gives mere mortal readers the rush of power produced by proximity to the big table where decisions about life and death, war and peace are taken. Pollack's book is the extended version of the intelligence briefings our leaders read every day. It argues the pros and cons with clinical precision in the context of past policy and national interest. American national interest.

Pollack lays out the brief as he once did for the National Security Council. Here's the deal. In 1990, on the eve of the Gulf War, Iraq had developed a nuclear weapon. All it required was the fissile material to arm it, and the Iraqis were shopping for that. After the war, the Clinton administration was content to contain Saddam through sanctions and no-fly zones, while working to engineer his downfall through coups and assassination plots. Widespread smuggling, and the Iraqi leader's impervious security, frustrated them. In 1999, Iraq smuggled out $US350 million ($A571.2 million) worth of oil. This year, the figure will be at least $US2.5 billion. Not only is Saddam on the threshold of breaking out, but he has outfoxed weapons inspectors and retained a weapons of mass destruction capability.

Dictators with nuclear weapons are hardly a novelty these days. The problem, according

to Pollack, is that Saddam doesn't understand deterrence. His record shows that he's willing to take massive risks to dominate the entire Middle East. The US will not permit such dominance because, as the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlined in 1978, the three primary goals of American policy towards the region are to ensure access to oil; to block local hegemons antagonistic towards the US; and to assure the survival of the state of Israel.

Achieving these aims has at times meant supporting Saddam, and at others opposing him. But Washington has never been comfortable with him. Nor does it have confidence that the United Nations has the will to keep Saddam contained.

Regime change, therefore, is the only option left. In Afghanistan, a ready-made alternative government was available, but in Iraq none of the regime's opponents have the power to evict it.

As an American who once worked with the CIA, Pollack no doubt has his biases; he admits he had a reputation as a hardliner on Iraq. Factual errors are rare, and it's a concise and elegant thought process that leads the author to his conclusion that an invasion of Iraq is "the only prudent and realistic course of action left".

As an analyst, Pollack's reputation rests not on the morality of his ideas, but on whether he gets it "right" in terms of global power plays. Because of this, he displays a judicious willingness to let the facts fall where they may. Ironically, in frankly making the case for war, The Threatening Storm demolishes many of the arguments pro-war politicians use to justify an invasion.

He reveals that Colin Powell's heart isn't in a war. Powell, says Pollack, believes Iraq is "a small, weak country that should not be allowed to monopolise U.S foreign policy". He also shares the fact that American intelligence agencies - despite Herculean efforts - have failed to connect Iraq to September 11.

It's not about terrorism, nor is it really about Saddam's ability to threaten us now. If he was that dangerous, we would be less inclined to invade. Instead, the war will happen because September 11 has created a new option for American policy makers. The option is war. As Pollack observes, the American public will support it, and "no one wants to cross the wounded superpower".

But the most sobering section is where the author prognosticates on the likely cost of the war.

"In the end we might have to fight through Baghdad to get Saddam," he says, conceding that a great many Baghdadis may die. His estimate of likely American casualties ranges from a few hundred dead in a short war - the most likely outcome, he believes - to a six-month conflict in which the US could sustain up to 10,000 dead.

Yet he remains convinced that while war is an ugly thing, it is not the ugliest of things. "In our case, the ugliest of things would be to hide our heads in the sand while Saddam Hussein acquires the capability to kill millions of people and hold the economy of the world in the palm of his cruel hand."

But back to those inventors of writing, the wheel, the 60-minute hour, monotheistic religion and codified laws. The people of the ancient land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, named Mesopotamia by the Greeks and home to Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites and Assyrians.

It's the sort of incredible history that inspires Iraq's current leaders to dream of grandeur. Yet modern Iraq is a toddler nation, the junior not only of the United States, but even federated Australia.

If you want to understand its history, turn to an historian. Better still, a British historian because, as Charles Tripp explains in his authoritative A History of Iraq, Britain invented the country.

At the outbreak of World War I, the region constituted three neglected provinces of the Ottoman empire. When Turkey lost the war, it lost its provinces. France got one, which eventually became Syria, and Britain got two that morphed into independent Iraq in 1932. Four years later it had its first coup.

For the rest of the 20th century, Iraq's identity was shaped by the complex and often violent interplay between tribal, religious, linguistic and military forces, against a backdrop of spiralling oil revenues. The struggle, both internally and among outside powers, has been so ruthless because the stakes are so high.

Enter the man with a thousand Kevlar-lined hats, who has spawned almost as many biographies. Artfully packaged by professional word merchants and graphic artists, books such as Sandra McKey's The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein and Con Coughlin's Saddam: The Secret Life are thoroughly researched and well written.

Alas, most such accounts are highly derivative, long on legend and short on real secrets.

"The authors of most contemporary histories don't have access to the documents generated in the corridors of power. They simply don't know what's really going on where decisions are made," says historian Ian Bickerton of the University of New South Wales. "Those like Bob Woodward who are given special access, in this case to President Bush, end up being co-opted in promulgating administration spin."

Iraq, of course, is full of fawning biographies of one particular leader, and there's not much call for those here. But when an Arabic-speaking, Palestinian-born author and journalist, who worked closely with Saddam's regime to help it obtain nuclear and chemical weapons goes public, it's time to buy rather than browse.

For Said Aburish, Saddam is a fallen idol who betrayed his Arab supporters. But he's also "the most methodical Arab leader of the 20th century".

In Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, Aburish reveals the Iraqi President's uniquely efficient blend of communist organisational ability with Bedouin tribal instinct.

The Iraqi leader's concentric circles of security are staffed by tribal relations trained in communist East Germany. When he wants to eliminate a rival or traitor he takes out the whole five-generation family unit known as the kham. There's no-one left to take revenge. Top jobs stay in the family, in this case the al-Bu Nasir tribal family concentrated around Takrit in northern Iraq.

Aburish has the detail on Saddam's early dealings with the CIA - which supported an

early Ba'ath Party coup - and his later lucrative dealings with the arms manufacturers of Britain, France, Russia, and yes, the United States. All alliances of expediency, dispensable on all sides.

Charles Tripp agrees that Saddam has developed an unmatched mastery of the "exemplary use of violence", but he's more inclined to see this in its historical context. Such strategies "epitomise some of the distinctive features of the Iraqi state itself". In Tripp's account, the Iraqi leader emerges less as a crazed dictator than as the guarantor of a social order in which many vested interests are satisfied. The Shia majority are hopelessly divided, while the 20 per cent Kurdish minority spring to mind in Tripp's observation that "even those who challenged the established order have been equally authoritarian".

Like a laser-guided bomb zeroing in on its target, we approach Iraq as a moral Ground Zero. That is, until you pick up the former chief United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter's Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis. Updated last year from the original 1999 edition, this rollicking ride through the corridors of Saddam's empire of deceit, and the Western empire of deceivers who are trying to depose him, has it all.

Ritter is an excellent writer who, unlike most of his competitors, has a unique personal story of his own to underpin an analysis that takes no prisoners.

Ritter's gripping account of his thankless years searching for Saddam's hidden stocks of chemical and biological agents burns with a fierce commitment to truth that makes Richard Butler's The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Growing Crisis of Global Security read like so much diplomatic doublespeak.

Ritter rips the lid off the weapons inspections farce, showing how the Clinton Administration manipulated the timing and intrusiveness of inspections to fit in with its own strategy of containment of Saddam's regime.

He quotes Clinton administration officials such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitting that even if Saddam disarmed, sanctions would stay. He also demonstrates clearly how the Clinton team's token missile strikes and diplomatic incompetence doomed containment, paving the way for the current hardline Republican agenda.

Even the conservative journal The Economist declared earlier this month that "only the credulous take the fight over inspections at face value". On that definition John Howard is either a mug or a great actor.

The march to military conflict now is an admission of a decade of failure in the West's policy on Iraq. "This is a struggle Iraq may have begun to win," writes Anthony H. Cordesman in his formidable Iraq and the War of Sanctions, "partly through its grim persistence in attempting to preserve its military capability and weapons of mass destruction, and partly by its political efforts to divide the UN, exploit the sympathy of the Arab world, and use its oil wealth as an incentive to win foreign support".

Endgame manages to be both the most graphic account of Saddam's brutal and dangerous regime, and by far the most devastating critique of American policy towards Iraq that I have read.

Iraq's ability to threaten others is a mere shadow of what it was before the 1991 Gulf War, Ritter says. The return of properly resourced weapons inspectors backed by a determination to disarm Iraq could address any doubts. An invasion without UN backing would have more to do with saving face in Washington, than addressing the threat of massively destructive weapons.

Anti-war handbooks, such as Amin Rai's War Plan Iraq, quote Ritter when it suits them, but censor his more complex arguments. Under the guise of arming the peace movement with winning arguments, they sell it one-dimensional slogans, and thereby weaken it.

Ritter short-changes no one. Before readers can whip themselves into a Latham-esque,

anti-American lather, he hoses them down.

"Throughout this debate, one should keep in mind that this is a problem of Iraq's making," he reminds us. "If Saddam Hussein resumes his hide-and-seek tactics, then the United States - and the world - would be right in assuming that he has hostile intentions, and the case for war would be apparent."

But he doesn't just win the argument. Because of its intimacy, his portrait of Saddam's tribal politics surpasses that in the other books in this survey, and demonstrates how the country's next ruler will need to be either an Iraqi Einstein, or another Saddam Hussein.

The consensus among all these authors is that the next leader of Iraq (the one after the American military governor) will be Saddam Hussein redux. It's not about democracy, but one man dares to hope.

Perhaps the most remarkable book in this selection hasn't even been published yet. Joseph's Braude's The New Iraq - due for release later this month - is a speculative book based on the presumption that war happens and America wins. Saddam is past tense, the Iraqi people are "free" and, according to the 28-year-old American author, embarking on a great adventure towards a new and better future. It says much about the swagger with which the United States enters the 21st century, and about the degree of marketing sophistication that characterises contemporary publishing.

Whereas Pollack believes conquering Iraq will allow for a reduction in the number of American troops permanently stationed in the Gulf, Braude wants us all to get involved in rebuilding Iraq as a bridgehead of cultural revival across the Arab and Muslim world. He sees an ethnically diverse Iraq tugging at the leash to trade, with its artistic and intellectual powerhouse in Baghdad.

Where others see ethnic and religious bloodletting, Braude sees a country enriched by a prodigal diaspora, an arena in which modern and fundamentalist visions of Islam can contest, with a re-engineered army providing a vehicle for peace and national reconstruction.

I found myself both uneasy and elated by the book. It's not clear in the book whether Braude has actually ever been to Iraq. It should be, but worse is the breezy way the author skates over the bloodshed inherent in the very war whose potential consequences so excite him.

For all that, The New Iraq does pose an important moral challenge to those who oppose war. If not war, we must ask, then how do we free 24 million Iraqis from their cage without rewarding the Butcher of Baghdad?

To his credit, Braude shares a little of the flavour of Iraqi life. But just when you're beginning to love the exuberance of this book, the author sprays you with a sentence or two of such monumental awfulness that you shudder.

"Let's rebuild the Iraqi economy," he babbles at the start of one chapter. "Let's redistribute hoarded wealth inside the country. And let's make a profit along the way."

No wonder they couldn't bear Phil Noyce's remake of The Quiet American.

Christopher Kremmer is author of The Carpet Wars, published by Flamingo at $35. For links to the best 10 books about Iraq go to

The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random House) by Kenneth Pollack

Pollack spent seven years as an analyst with the US Central Intelligence Agency and later worked as an official on the National Security Council. Said to have predicted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, he's now an analyst with the Brookings Institution.

A History of Iraq (Cambridge University Press) by Charles Tripp

Tripp is senior lecturer in politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

His other books include Iran and Iraq at War and Iran-Saudi Arabia Relations and Regional Order.

Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge (St Martin's Press/ Bloomsbury) by Said Aburish

Aburish was born in Palestine and went on to become a journalist for Time magazine and author of many books on the Middle East, including A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite and The Rise, Corruption, and Coming Fall of the House of Saud.

Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis (Simon & Schuster) by Scott Ritter

Ritter joined the US Marine Corps in 1984 and served for eight years as an intelligence officer. He was an arms control inspector in the former Soviet Union, and went on to become chief weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq.

The New Iraq (HarperCollins) by Joseph Braude

Braude studied Near Eastern Languages and Arab and Islamic History at Princeton University in the US. An American of Iraqi/Jewish ancestry, he is a business consultant who has travelled widely in the Middle East, and is fluent in Arabic, Persian and Hebrew.

Editor - 3/18/2003

Ottawa Citizen

March 14, 2003 Friday Final Edition

SECTION: News; Pg. A1

HEADLINE: U.S. French-bashers are mere beginners: It's the British who really know how it's done

SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen

BYLINE: Juliet O'Neill

When Miami real estate developer Sergio Pino replaced the French names for his model homes with British ones, saying he was fed up with France's opposition to a war on Iraq, a few cheers went up on the other side of the pond.

Britons may not -- at least yet -- have stooped to the level of their brothers and sisters in the United States, where the word 'French' in front of fries and toast has been replaced with 'Freedom' in the cafeteria of the House of Representatives, whose members have taken their cue from some patriotic pro-war restaurateurs.

For one thing, a war on Iraq is a far less popular cause in Britain than in the U.S.

In the United States, French-bashing has been stoked by the French government's reluctance to bless an invasion of Iraq.

France threatens to veto a United Nations resolution that would give a multinational blessing to a U.S. and British-led military assault on Iraq.

Still, many Britons are well practiced in the art of insulting the French, given what the BBC once called "100 years of cultural and political rivalry --everything from the Napoleonic Wars to calling each other frogs and rosbifs."

After all, it is British composer Howard Goodall and comedian Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean) who lay claim to the be-all-end-all in tongue-in-cheek French-bashing songs: Why I Hate the French.

A sample:

They all wear berets and they're all called Jacques,

They even steal from us the words they lack

Le weekend, Le Camping and cul de sac

That's why I hate the French, oh.

That why I hate the French.

French bashers seeking a fresh cue yesterday needed look only as far as the prime minister's office where a spokesman accused the French of "poisoning" the diplomatic bloodstream by insisting on the veto.

The unusually blunt remark, coupled with denunciations of France's "extraordinary" and "unreasonable" behaviour by senior British cabinet ministers, appeared to chasten the French government a little.

The provocative talk may have been directed as much at the domestic audience as at France or the international political stage.

A news report quoted British officials predicting privately that public anger at the French could boost support for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who faces strong opposition inside his Labour party over his determination to back the U.S., with or without UN cover.

In short, Mr. Blair may be hoping for more of what one British tabloid dished up yesterday in a headline referring to French President Jacques Chirac as 'le worm.'

Among others already in on the French-bashing act are the authors of the "Pave France" Web site, so called because Britain needs parking space more than it needs France.

The site prominently features a Miami Herald report on Mr. Pino's decision to scrap his 'France' line of model homes, giving the Spanish-tiled houses the names of British cities instead. It spoiled the Mediterranean theme, but Mr. Pino, a Republican, "took great pleasure" in bumping the French names out.

The British Web site quotes American late night talk show hosts whose French insults are plastered all over American news and reflect what is the most typical of jibes against the French, dating back to the Vichy government co-operation with the Nazis during the Second World War.

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq," TV talk show comedian Jay Leno says. "After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France."

Or this, from TV host David Letterman, referring to the French assertion that a war against Iraq has not been justified by evidence against Saddam: "The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag."

Likewise, some American publications have borrowed Britons to make their case against the French. Eminent British historian Paul Johnson writes in the current edition of that "we have been reminded that France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue."

The British had learned that lesson over 1,000 years of acrimonious history, he writes, while "the Americans are still finding out the hard way that loyalty, gratitude, comradeship and respect for treaty obligations are qualities never exhibited by French governments."

The BBC, tracking weeks of French-bashing in the American media, noted this week that while some newspapers were apoplectic over Mr. Chirac's pledge to veto a new UN resolution, a few papers had urged their readers to look more kindly on the French.

Pundit Tod Lindberg of the usually conservative Washington Times had cautioned against boycotts of French food, saying he had not bought Stolichnaya vodka during the Cold War but didn't object when other people did. "And the French are hardly the Evil Empire," he wrote.

And the Chicago Tribune had agreed that, yes, the French are insufferable. "But that's missing the point. They're French. They've always been insufferable."

Editor - 3/18/2003

Financial Times (London)

March 14, 2003, Friday London Edition 1


HEADLINE: Washington urged to look at the lessons of history from Britain's 'liberating' armies: America's ambitions for Iraq bear an uncanny similarity to those of another conquering force 86 years ago

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

So announced Lieutenant General Sir Stanley Maude when British forces marched into Baghdad 86 years ago this month. Three years later, Iraqis were in open revolt against British rule.

Condemning the Ottoman rulers that Britain was ousting, he proclaimed: "O people of Baghdad, remember that for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions.

"This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her allies, for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity and misgovernment."

Should General Tommy Franks, the US commander who will direct any new war in Iraq, enter Baghdad as the head of victorious military force, his proclamation is likely to be less high-flown. They do not do rhetoric where he comes from in Oklahoma.

Nonetheless, America's stated ambitions for Iraq after Saddam Hussein bear an uncanny similarity to those outlined by the British general. And rhetoric about the unseating of tyrants and the liberation of peoples is not the only parallel to today. The occupation of Iraq was the subject of deep differences among officials in London, as it is today in Washington: some saw a chance to remake the region in Europe's image.

The prospect of US military rule over Iraq has sent experts inside and outside government scrambling to examine the British era. Despite the big changes there since British influence in Baghdad was finally snuffed out with the toppling of the monarchy in 1958, specialists have concluded that some lessons are highly relevant for Washington today.

Here are a few:

Lesson 1: Do not make promises and break them. After promising independence, Britain was assigned a League of Nations mandate for Iraq in 1920. "Many saw this extension of British rule as a betrayal of British wartime promises of independence," says Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Peace, co-author of a book launched yesterday on lessons from the British experience.

Lesson 2: Be very careful to whom you entrust power. British emphasis on stability led it after a costly 1920 revolt to abandon efforts at representative rule. It centralised power on Baghdad and a few members of the Sunni Arab minority, and relied on members of the bureaucracy left over from the Ottoman empire. It also depended on alliances with local tribal chieftains, who often abused the powers they obtained, encouraging enmity towards the British.

Lesson 3: Do not impose a leader from outside. Britain installed a foreigner as king - Faisal, who accompanied Lawrence of Arabia in the fight against Ottoman rule.

"Despite the efforts to distance themselves from Britain, the royal family's British connection made them hated in the eyes of many Iraqis," Mr Eisenstadt says.

Lesson 4: Keep the military out of internal security and politics. Iraq suffered repeated military coups from about 1936 onward. Charles Tripp, a British specialist in Iraqi history, says the officer corps of the regular Iraqi army - though now dismissed as a fighting force - "has a professional amour propre, much like the Turkish officer corps". He says the US may be tempted to use them for short-term roles that could have important long-term consequences: "They may come across to Americans as highly professional."

Senior Pentagon officials have already said they aim to pay the regular army to take part in reconstruction. "Our thought is to take them and they can help rebuild their own country," one said this week.

Some historians say many of the roots of Saddam Hussein's brutal rule lie in the consequences of that decision by Britain after 1920 to settle on the overriding objective of stability.

Achieving that objective was severely constrained by Britain's financial plight, leading London to rely for security on the Royal Air Force and about 4,000 locally raised, British-led troops.

According to David Fromkin's history of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, cited in Mr Eisenstadt's book, the belief Britain was in the Middle East to stay - "at least long enough to re-shape the region in line with European political interests, ideas and ideals - was based on the fragile assumption that . . . she could do so at little cost."

Editor - 3/18/2003

from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2003, Issue No. 23
March 18, 2003


The federal government's infrastructure for processing Freedom
of Information Act requests is in "extreme disarray,"
according to a study conducted by the National Security

"Agency contact information on the web was often inaccurate;
response times largely failed to meet the statutory standard;
only a few agencies performed thorough searches including
e-mail and meeting notes; and the lack of central
accountability at the agencies resulted in lost requests and
inability to track progress," the Archive found.

Among other things, the report provides some empirical data on
the impact of the October 2001 Ashcroft memorandum on FOIA
policy, finding that most agencies did not alter their FOIA
procedures in response.

See the March 14 National Security Archive assessment here:

Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the
Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to
with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to

OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

Steven Aftergood
Project on Government Secrecy
Federation of American Scientists
voice: (202) 454-4691

BB - 3/17/2003

But Bill, why limit yourself to the first 9 months of life? Why not kill off kids up to, say, kindergarten who show signs of antisocial behavior?

scott macdonald - 3/17/2003

Growing up in California, everyone spoke of the effect reagan had as governor, and the fact he put a lot of the mental patients on the street when he cut state funding. I had never heard of this program before.

Hans Vought - 3/17/2003

Lombardo might also have noted that eugenics was also a major influence on Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became Planned Parenthood. Would that we had truly learned from past mistakes! But alas, eugenics is very much alive and well in this present day and age. Ivy League students are being offered big bucks to donate their sperm or eggs to parents looking to conceive the perfect child. In utero testing is regularly performed to identify and abort "unfit" fetuses. Worst of all, scientists wish to clone embryos for spare genes, justifying such wanton destruction of human life with the potential for curing the diseases of other, "fitter" humans. What will future historians say about the appalling amorality of our day?

andy - 3/17/2003

One simple DNA test resolves the question.

VJ - 3/16/2003

Guys, this is a real and very serious study from NBER Fellows [See NBER.ORG], and is the 2nd NBER working paper by co-author Steven D. Levitt on the topic of crime and abortion. The NBER is a generally non partisan, conservative leaning and funded economic research consortium, HQ in Cambridge, MA. Just for the record.

mark safranski - 3/16/2003

In attempting to account for Hitler's mental state one aspect that should be considered is the long-term effects of mustard gas poisoning that Hitler suffered during WWI. Preliminary studies of Iranian gassed by Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war may indicate statistically significant changes in mental function

Joe Haebler - 3/15/2003

This certainly wins the stupid award. It also ahows how some people can be totally insensitive to others.

Robert Liles - 3/15/2003

"the only true religion is the religion of Islam.. . . The whole world should convert to Islam and leave its false religions lest their fate will be hell."

If that's all they're saying, where's the problem? No different than the Catholic church's teaching that it's the only way to heaven, both of them nonsense.

Now, if they change that to "The whole world WILL convert to Islam or die" then we got a problem.

Religion seems to be the biggest impediment to human progress in the world today, "certainty without proof." Will they never learn?

Robert Liles - 3/15/2003

This is very interesting, though not necessarily cause and effect, but almost all juvenile crime is commited by boys with single moms.

Increased enforcement of child support laws could be as significant, slowing down the impregnation of women. Also, the increased usage of condoms for disease protection, which also prevents pregnancy. And the decrease of AFDC benefits, no more "babies for money." Many factors at work here...

Plato - 3/15/2003

Sheesh. How quickly they forget.

Paul Engel - 3/14/2003

Economic equality? Never happen. The same klutz who got herself pregnant and aborted it probably will never be able to make too many right decisions anyway and usually will stay in the lower economic percentiles for most of her life (the guy probably will also--he doesn't seem too responsible).

Editor of HNN - 3/14/2003

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)

March 13, 2003, Thursday, Metro Edition


HEADLINE: Lindner's lapses;

A gaffe grown into a disgrace

It's a delicate thing to rise up and decry blithe ignorance. The enterprise can feel a bit like taunting the slow kid in class, the one who just can't grasp the history lesson. But Rep. Arlon Lindner, R-Corcoran, isn't a kid _ and he isn't slow. He's a Minnesota lawmaker who seems hellbent on showing how little he knows and how much bias he harbors. His fellow lawmakers should rein him in before he swallows the foot lodged in his mouth.

Author of a bill to repeal the state ban on discrimination against gay men and lesbians, Lindner has a knack for making outrageous remarks. Last week he defended eliminating gays and lesbians from the law's definition of Holocaust victims because he didn't believe they'd suffered under Adolf Hitler. Why not? "I was a child during World War II, and I've read a lot about World War II," he said on Monday. "It's just been recently that anyone's come out with this idea that homosexuals were persecuted to this extent. There's been a lot of rewriting of history."

The legislator must have read the wrong books. Had he skimmed the work of eminent Holocaust scholars, he'd likely have stumbled across the fact that Nazi policy targeted homosexuals from Hitler's earliest days in power. Maligned as "degenerates" and blamed for Germany's falling birth rate, gay men were singled out for castration, medical experimentation, institutionalization and imprisonment. Between 1933 and 1945, historians concur, more than 50,000 men were sentenced for the "crime" of homosexuality. As many as 15,000 were ultimately dispatched to concentration camps, where an untold number were exterminated.

Those are the facts, but Lindner isn't buying them. Even after concentration camp survivor and Minnesotan Hinda Kibort recalled that some of her fellow prisoners wore pink triangles instead of yellow stars, the lawmaker remained unmoved. "I'm not convinced that they were persecuted," he said on Monday _ and then groundlessly asserted that the chief gay participants in Hitler's time were concentration camp guards.

Lindner seems to be the one rewriting history, and he's indisputably a revisionist when it comes to human-rights law. Protecting gays and lesbians against discrimination, he believes, has led to the promotion of homosexuality in schools _ and thus to a rise in oral sex and sexually transmitted diseases. If the law isn't changed, he told his House colleagues Monday, America will become "another African continent."

Somewhere there must be a group Lindner hasn't insulted, a fact he hasn't ignored, a prejudice he hasn't embraced, a bizarre theory he hasn't espoused. But after his recent unsavory display, the list isn't easily conjured. The bill he's sponsoring is a bad one to begin with, and Lindner's conduct in promoting it has been shameful. In filing an ethics complaint on Tuesday, House DFLers rightly claimed Lindner's remarks have brought disrepute to the House of Representatives. Their cause should be joined by House Speaker Steve Sviggum and other Republican leaders, who have much to lose by shrugging off Lindner's indefensible behavior.

Lindner has a right to say whatever offensive thing he wants. But the House has a right and a duty to denounce his views when he brings dishonor to the institution, as he so clearly has.

Editor - 3/14/2003

South China Morning Post (Hong Kong)

March 13, 2003

SECTION: News; Pg. 6

HEADLINE: Woman wonders whether she is Mao's abandoned Long March daughter

BYLINE: Deutsche Press-Agentur in Beijing

Two British men retracing the 1934-35 Long March have discovered an ailing, illiterate 68-year-old woman who wonders if she is a child of the Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong. Xiong Huazhi grew up in an adoptive Miao minority family in Weixin county, a poor area of Yunnan province. Last year Ms Xiong's daughter and son-in-law told her they believed she might be the child that Mao and his third wife, He Zizhen, abandoned during the Long March in February 1935. Ms Xiong's adoptive father gave her the nickname Maomei, formed by the two characters for Mao Zedong and "little sister". But Ms Xiong says she and her family made no connection between her name and that of the communist leader. When her daughter, Yang Tingyu, and son-in-law Xiong Minghu told her of new research by a local party official, suggesting she could be Mao's daughter, Ms Xiong was shocked. Her chronic liver cirrhosis worsened dramatically. "Mao Zedong and He Zizhen are great people. We shouldn't say this without proper evidence," Ms Xiong told her family. Last June the family wrote to the county government asking it to help arrange a DNA test to establish if Ms Xiong was Mao's daughter. They were told only that the issue had been "passed up the line" and are yet to receive an official response. "We still hope the local government can help us solve this," Ms Yang said. The modern Long Marchers, Ed Jocelyn and Andy McEwen, visited Ms Xiong recently at the home she shares with the second of her three daughters in a mountain village 20 km from Weixin. A portrait of Mao hangs on the wall, but there is no picture of He. Mr Jocelyn and Mr McEwen are following the same 368-day, 9,000-km route as the 4,000 survivors of 80,000 communist troops who left Yudu, Jiangxi province, in October 1934. "It was an exciting meeting," Mr Jocelyn said after visiting Ms Xiong. "But it's entirely possible that we just sat down and had tea with a 68-year-old Miao peasant." Mao is known to have fathered at least nine children, five with He, who was just 18 when she married the 35-year-old leader. Three of Mao and He's children were lost or abandoned and a fourth died in infancy, according to Philip Short's biography Mao: a Life, leaving Li Min as their only known heir. He was among the few dozen women who left Jiangxi with the communists' central armies. Some accounts say the party ruled that women who became pregnant must give away their children to local peasants, though others say Mao decided to give away the child. "It is true that He Zizhen and Mao Zedong abandoned one child during the Long March," said historian Wang Zhangwei of the Communist Party School in Beijing. "But I've never heard the story of Xiong Huazhi. It's difficult to judge whether such a thing is true."

Editor - 3/14/2003

The Guardian (London)

March 13, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Features Pages, Pg. 6

HEADLINE: Shortcuts: International relations: The UNs other battle

BYLINE: Matthew Engel

As if Kofi Annan didn't have enough to worry about, the most rebellious city in all the 191 countries of the United Nations is starting to confront the organisation head-on again. This is not, contrary to popular myth, Baghdad. It is the less publicised metropolis of La Verkin, Utah. The UN used to be formally banned from operating inside the city limits under a local ordinance declaring La Verkin (pop: 3,300) a UN-free zone. If any blue-helmeted troops entered the city, or flew the organisation's flag from government property or forced any citizen to do the same, this would have been classed as a misdemeanour, and La Verkin would have fined the UN up to Dollars 750 (pounds 465) (or 90 days in jail).

The council repealed the ordinance last year, on the boring grounds that it made the place look silly. Now its chief proponent, Al Snow, is fighting back and has secured enough signatures to get the matter on the ballot in the November election. He claims, on the basis of his own polling, 60% popular support.

Snow is an engineer, amateur historian, councilman and all-purpose UN hater. He is especially alarmed by the possibility that the nearby Zion National Park will be declared a "biosphere", giving it notional international protection. La Verkin gets its water from inside Zion. "I don't want the UN, or any other foreign organisation, to control my water," he says. Although the UN appears to most observers to be incapable of agreeing on the colour of its wallpaper, the biospheres project is assumed by conspiracy theorists on the web to be part of an international plot to wipe out the population of the US and designate the place as a giant nature park. So, in a place like La Verkin, 60% support is quite feasible.

Also, this is a particularly eccentric corner even of Utah, which is an eccentric state. The neighbouring town of Virgin passed a law instructing (not permitting) all householders to have guns. The state attorney-general, however, deemed this a somewhat over-enthusiastic interpretation of the Second Amendment. But is La Verkin's law actually necessary? Have UN troops ever tried to enter the city? "No," admits Snow, "but why wait until they've actually done it?" - which is, of course, precisely the rationale for American policy on Iraq.

Editor - 3/14/2003

The Times (London)

March 12, 2003, Wednesday

SECTION: Home news; 3

HEADLINE: Was syphilis the demon that drove Hitler mad?

BYLINE: Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent

HITLER may have been dying of syphilis when he committed suicide in his Berlin bunker, according to a new book that could explain his mental decline in the final months of the Second World War.

New analysis of the records kept by Hitler's doctors has revealed that he suffered from many of the most characteristic symptoms of tertiary syphilis, and that he was treated regularly with drugs that were commonly prescribed for the sexually transmitted disease.

The controversial diagnosis, which would cast new light on the dictator's behaviour, from his sexual frigidity to his paranoiac rages, is advanced in Pox: Genius, Madness and the Mysteries of Syphilis, by Deborah Hayden, an American historian. Although it may never be possible to prove that Hitler was syphilitic, the balance of evidence suggests the disease as the most likely explanation for the wide range of health problems that afflicted him, particularly in his last years.

"If Hitler's life is looked at through the selective lens of a possible diagnosis of syphilis, one clue leads to another and then another until a pattern of progressive disease emerges," said Ms Hayden, a former lecturer on the history of the disease at the University of California at San Francisco. "Syphilis must be considered in our understanding of Hitler's career, his motivations, the events of World War Two, and even the Holocaust."

The theory that Hitler had syphilis has been advanced before, most notably by the Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, but has generally been rejected for lack of proof.

Ms Hayden has amassed an unprecedented wealth of circumstantial evidence, although she accepts that the diagnosis will never be irrefutable.

"This is not definitive proof, but I think there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence," she said. "It certainly might have affected his mind, and if he knew or thought he had it, and didn't have long to live, it may have accelerated the war effort."

Aside from the well-known mania of his last years, which would be consistent with the mental effects of the parasite, Hitler had an abnormal heartbeat that points towards syphilitic aortitis. Notes kept by Theo Morell, his physician, show that he had an accentuated or "tympanic" second sound to the heartbeat, which is often caused by syphilitic damage to the aorta.

Dr Morell's records of drug treatment show that from 1941 Hitler received regular injections of iodide salts, a standard 1940s therapy for cardiac syphilis. He had lesions on his shins so painful that they sometimes prevented him from wearing boots, and suffered intermittently from encephalitis, dizziness, flatulence, neck pustules, chest pain, gastric pain and restrictive palsies -all are associated with the disease.

A knowledge that he carried the disease would explain his lack of sexual interest towards his long-term consort and eventual bride, Eva Braun, and his devotion of 13 pages of Mein Kampf to syphilis. "The question of combating syphilis should have been made to appear as the task of the nation," he wrote.

Hitler's very appointment of Dr Morell in 1936, Ms Hayden suggests, is significant. The doctor, a dermatologist, was one of Germany's leading experts on the disease.

Several contemporary rumours held that Hitler contracted syphilis from a prostitute in Vienna in 1908 or 1910. Some accounts suggested that the prostitute was Jewish. Ms Hayden said that these were probably hearsay, but that Hitler did write in Mein Kampf that the Jews were responsible for spreading the disease.

More plausible are reports that Hitler was given the diagnosis at a German field hospital in 1918, when he was recovering from a gas attack. Heinrich Himmler, the SS chief, may have destroyed copies of his medical records.

Robert Berger, a cardiac surgeon at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said that Hitler's symptoms could indicate a diagnosis of syphilis. "The picture is consistent with syphilis, although it is not definitive. Each of the symptoms and treatments fits."

Rudolph Binion, Professor of History at Brandeis University in Massachusetts and author of Hitler Among the Germans, said that the diagnosis would fit with almost every aspect of Hitler's known medical symptoms and behaviour. "While it's impossible to diagnose with 100 per cent surety, she has an extremely presumptive case. It falls in very much with a case of textbook syphilis," he said.

However, Sir Ian Kershaw, Professor of History at Sheffield University and one of Hitler's most authoritative biographers, said that he was unconvinced. Rumours of Hitler's condition were based on "dodgy hearsay", he said, adding: "I remain heartily sceptical."

Editor - 3/14/2003

Los Angeles Times

March 12, 2003 Wednesday Home Edition

SECTION: California Metro; Part 2; Page 1; Metro Desk

HEADLINE: California; State Issues Apology for Policy of Sterilization

BYLINE: Carl Ingram, Times Staff Writer


It was a dark chapter in American history. For more than half a century, California and other states forcibly sterilized 60,000 mentally ill people as part of a misguided national campaign to eliminate crime, "feeblemindedness," alcoholism, poverty and other problems blamed for dragging society down.

On Tuesday, Gov. Gray Davis apologized, placing California in a small group of states that have issued formal regrets.

"To the victims and their families of this past injustice," Davis said in a statement, "the people of California are deeply sorry for the suffering you endured over the years. Our hearts are heavy for the pain caused by eugenics. It was a sad and regrettable chapter ... one that must never be repeated."

As eugenics was practiced in California and 31 other states at various times between 1909 and 1964, when it stopped, individuals considered defective included alcoholics, petty criminals, the poor, disabled and mentally ill.

About 20,000 people were involuntarily sterilized in an attempt to prevent their genes from being passed on to another generation.

Eugenics was intended to "clean up the gene pool," Paul Lombardo, an expert on the subject, said during a presentation at the Capitol only hours before Davis acted.

The policy was horribly misguided and resulted in the human rights of thousands being routinely violated by a coercive government with the support of the Supreme Court, said Lombardo, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

He spoke at a special California Senate hearing on eugenics and the history of mandatory sterilization of supposedly defective people.

Sen. Dede Alpert (D-San Diego) said she intends to introduce a resolution that will express the Legislature's apology.

Davis issued the official regrets shortly after state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer apologized for one of his predecessors, Atty. Gen. Ulysses S. Webb, who enthusiastically supported forced sterilization as "enlightened" law free of legal "inhibitions." Webb served from 1903 until 1939.

Lockyer said it is never too late to apologize for the bigotry practiced against the disabled and others who were "seen as misfits of the time." He said the lessons of eugenics should not be lost in this era of cloning and genetic engineering advancements.

Lombardo said later that he was stunned that a gubernatorial apology from Davis would occur so quickly.

"I never expected that I'd finish a lecture at noon and the governor would make an apology by 3:30 p.m.," Lombardo said.

He and George Cunningham, a genetic disease expert in the state Department of Health Services, said it was unknown how many forced-sterilization victims are living in California, but suggested that the number is probably small because most sterilizations occurred before World War II.

"There is no registry of these cases," Lombardo said.

Davis' apology did not propose reparations or other compensation to the victims or their families.

Lombardo said it would be difficult for survivors to collect damages in a lawsuit against the government because the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization in 1927.

He told the hearing of the Select Committee on Genetics, Genetic Technologies and Public Policy that Adolf Hitler's Third Reich borrowed generously from U.S. laws when it imposed forced sterilization on "undesirables."

Lombardo, a lawyer and historian, said eugenics started with the goal of encouraging development of a world of healthy individuals who would pass along their best traits to the next generation.

He said many leading minds of the late 1800s and early 1900s enthusiastically supported eugenics.

Contests were held to determine "perfect children," movies publicized the movement, and major foundations financed eugenics research, Lombardo said.

He said supporters were successful in persuading the Los Angeles Times to run a series of favorable articles about eugenics in its Sunday magazine.

Lombardo said eugenics was an "incredibly popular movement" and a household word in America because Americans "all wanted to help the children." Eugenics was defined as "to be well born" and to have a "happy heritage."

At the time, the mantra was, "Let's get rid of crime and poverty. Let's have healthy children. Who could argue against it?"

In 1929, California became the second state to adopt forced sterilization as law and accounted for a third of the total cases nationally during the 35 years that eugenics was state policy, he said.

Many early supporters of eugenics became disillusioned with the movement, Lombardo said, when it got sidetracked into a policy for selective breeding.

Editor - 3/14/2003

National Public Radio (NPR)

SHOW: Morning Edition (11:00 AM AM ET) - NPR

March 6, 2003 Thursday

LENGTH: 582 words

HEADLINE: Parallels between the Crusades and postwar occupation of Iraq



The Bush administration acknowledged this week that it has no idea how long a postwar occupation of Iraq would last, nor how much it would cost. Critics argue that America is lurching toward a modern version of the Medieval crusader kingdom. Historian James Reston Jr. says it's no wonder so many militant Muslims believe that that ancient metaphor applies today.


Even in the first Crusade in the years 1095 to 1098 AD, the European victory over Arab forces came with the massacre of thousands of Arab defenders. The streets of Jerusalem, it was said, ran ankle deep in blood. When the killing was over, the Crusaders stripped off their armor, repaired to the Holy Sepulchre, fell to their knees in a ceremony of pious self-congratulation.

The Arab world intensely remembers this history 900 years later. This is the first lesson of Western crusades. The Arab blood that is spilled by overpowering Western force will be remembered for generations. Resentment in that part of the world runs deep.

The second lesson of the Crusades goes to the matter of occupation. After Jerusalem fell, crusading soldiers had accomplished what they came to do. The cities emptied, and few Europeans remained to defend them. Crusades, we now know, are open-ended. They involve not just the war, but its long and tedious aftermath. And the two cannot be separated.

The third lesson comes in the establishment of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. It lasted 80 years, from 1098 to 1187 AD. But in those 80 years, there was never peace. The occupiers and the natives were separated by too vast a gulf of culture and religion.

It was the great Saladin, the supreme hero of the Arab world, conqueror of the West, the lance of jihad, who brought the Arab resistance to its culmination. He could defeat the might of the West only by uniting a thousand far-flung Arab tribes. It took outside aggression and foreign occupation to unite those tribes into a successful countercrusade.

It's no mystery then why the memorials to Saladin dot the Arab world today, nor is it a mystery why so many modern Arab leaders over the years have attempted to don the mantle of Saladin. No doubt as America establishes its modern crusader kingdom in Iraq, there will be many more Arab leaders who seek to do the same in the future.

The last lesson comes from the Third Crusade of Richard the Lionheart. Richard I of England amassed the greatest force of the Middle Ages to confront Saladin. At first his allies were the Germans and the French, but their armies were to dissipate in the dust and the quicksand of the Middle East. Richard had to go it alone.

When he approached Jerusalem, he finally had his Epiphany. Reconsidering his entire enterprise, he decided to give it up and withdraw. He had no doubt that he could take the city. His force was overwhelming. But the problem of the First Crusade haunted him. Who, after the military victory, would volunteer to stay then, and for the next 80 years?

One can only hope that these historical lessons have come into play somewhere in America's war deliberations. It would be a tragedy if, like Richard the Lionheart, George Bush's Epiphany comes too late.

EDWARDS: The comments of James Reston Jr., author of "Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade." He's currently a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Bill Magee - 3/14/2003

Crime is down when abortion is up. Hooray! More abortions please. An unwanted child never deserves to be born, tear it out to keep crime down. Abortion as crime prevention, now that is truly a pre-emptive strike. How about creating economic equality among the living as a means to lower crime and not waste time by stating the obvious that if we kill a fetus in the womb at least he or she can't get us back.

Henry C. Lodge - 3/14/2003

Real historians, admittedly a rarity on this website, approach the past with open-minded interest foremost and rhetorical ambition secondarily.

There have apparently been remarks from the Bush Administration comparing Iraq, on the verge being attacked today, to Germany, on the verge of attacking in 1939. A group of historians in Europe point out some flaws in that analogy. Their statement implies a historical question, even if they don't "pose it" directly: is the analogy accurate and useful ?

Poster Safranski wrote:

"I eagerly await a similar declaration from these historians on how analogies with the Vietnam War are likewise wrong"

Regardless of whether or not he intended it as a question, Safranski's statement raises the question of the appropriateness and relevance of a different historical analogy, that of Iraq today versus Vietnam in the 1950s-70s.

In response to Safranski's "eager awaiting", I pointed out, in my earlier posting, a few differences between the Vietnam War and current attempts to launch a new war against Iraq.

This is how history functions intellectually. Historical observations and hypotheses are formulated, questioned, and discussed.

Perhaps poster Ammianus would care to explain how the personalities of AJP Taylor and Trevor Roper are relevant to a discussion concerning questions about analogies between different wars in history.


Editor - 3/13/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11, 13 March 2003 by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) Website: *****************

1. Fiscal Crisis in the States: More Education, History, and Cultural Institutions and Programs Face Uncertain Futures; New Threat to Connecticut's Heritage Program 2. Draft Executive Order Replacing Declassification EO 12958 Circulates 3. AHA Launches Study of History MA Degree 4. Legislative Update: Bills Passed, Hearings, Bills Introduced 5. Bits and Bytes: Representative Blasted for Historical Analogy; NEH Selects McCullough as Jefferson Lecturer; FRUS Volume Now Online: History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 6. Articles of Interest: "Preservation Group Takes Brick-and-Mortar Message to the Masses," (Associated Press; 7 March 2003); "The Need for Digital Archiving Standards" (Syllabus Magazine; March 2003).

1. FISCAL CRISIS IN THE STATES: MORE EDUCATION, HISTORY, AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS FACE UNCERTAIN FUTURES; NEW THREAT TO CONNECTICUT'S HERITAGE PROGRAM With the passage of each day, we continue to hear reports of new threats to education funding and to state history, archival, and humanities programs. From Boston on the East Coast to Portland on the West, state governments are scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep doors open in struggling school districts. In Oregon, teachers have agreed to work two weeks without pay, thus averting plans to shorten the school year by nearly five weeks. In Texas, local officials are preparing for cuts in everything from extracurricular activities and elective subjects to teachers, counselors and nurses. In New York, if Governor George Pataki's proposed cuts are enacted, schools in Buffalo will be in a $65 million budget hole, with no viable solutions in sight. At the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, the museum studies MA program will be eliminated and eight tenured faculty will be let go, and this is just the first response to a proposed $21 million reduction in state aid to the university.

The effects of budget shortfalls are not just limited to schools and universities. As this publication has repeatedly noted over the last couple of months, museums, archives, and libraries are also threatened in scores of states including Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. And once again, Connecticut is in the news.

Readers may remember that last summer, Governor John Rowland and the Connecticut legislature proposed a 44% cut to the Connecticut Historical Commission, which would have resulted in the closing of the state's four history museums. After tremendous public outcry, state legislators backed off and restored most of the funding. Now, however, we learn that in his most recent budget message, the governor once again called for the closing of all four of Connecticut's history museums and elimination of the Historical Commission. He also seeks to "consolidate" some of the Commission's responsibilities into a new Connecticut Commission on Arts, Culture and Tourism. (For more information on the proposed new agency, tap into:

This new entity would determine the state's cultural funding, but as presently constituted and envisioned the new Commission will have no specific heritage granting program nor heritage preservation responsibilities other than the current historic preservation duties of the

Historical Commission. Struck out entirely from the state budget are such programs as the Connecticut Humanities Council's $1 million Cultural Heritage Development Fund; the Historic Restoration Tax Credit program; the

Historical Commission's $600,000 Historic Restoration Fund; and the Historical Commission's museums including the Old Newgate Prison, Prudence Crandall Museum, Henry Whitfield State Museum, and the Sloane-Stanley Museum.

In essence, Connecticut's entire state support structure for history and preservation in all its forms has the very real potential to disappear, and

with it the notion that heritage has its own identity, legitimacy, and importance in the state's cultural policies. This week, Connecticut Heritage Coalition members are meeting to sort out how best to respond to this utterly chaotic political climate and to map out a strategy to save the states heritage programs (tap into to keep on top of developments in the campaign ahead).

NCH ACTION ITEM! Residents of Connecticut are urged to contact Governor John Rowland (800-566-4840; e-mail:; as well as Senator Kevin B. Sullivan, President Pro Tem of the Senate (800-842-1420; e-mail:; Senator Martin M. Looney, Senate Majority Leader (800-842-1420; email:; Representative Moira Lyons, Speaker of the House (800-842-1902; email:; and Representative

James A. Amann, House Majority Leader (800-842-1902; e-mail: and once again urge them to restore funding for the state's history museums and Historical Commission.

Connecticut, like most states, has serious fiscal difficulties. Just two years ago, however, the state enjoyed record surpluses. But then came 9/11, and economic downturns, resulting in a loss of tax revenue. The costs of a pending war with Iraq seem to negate any realistic possibility of increased federal funding relief to states to help deal with the economic crisis. In time, with prudent management, the revenue shortfall will abate. In the meantime, however, educational and cultural institutions, from historic sites and museums to archives, arts and humanities institutions and programs will suffer.

NCH ACTION ITEM! In order to try to get a handle on the extent of the threats to our nation's history and archives programs, the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, and the Community College Humanities Association, among others, are gathering information about state history-related organizations, state budgets, and proposed cuts. Organizations and institutions are encouraged to send reports by e-mail to: with the subject "history

budgets" in the subject heading. Hard copies may be sent to Perspectives,

Atten: History Budgets, The AHA, 400 A Street SE., Washington D.C. 20003-3889.

2. DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER REPLACING DECLASSIFICATION E.O 12958 CIRCULATES A draft executive order (EO) expected to replace President Clinton's E.O. 12958 that focuses on national security classification and declassification

policy, circulated for agency comment earlier this week. Though no public hearings (as were held during the Clinton Administration) are slotted to take place, NARA officials are also meeting informally with various interested parties in an effort to explain the Bush Administration's thinking behind the proposed revision.

Since it was issued by the Clinton White House, EO 12958 has dramatically accelerated the declassification process and has yielded close to a billion

pages of historically valuable declassified documents. But according to Steven Aftergood, editor of the Federation of American Scientists newsletter Secrecy News, "In recent decades, whenever the presidency shifted from one party to another, the new president would issue an executive order on secrecy policy to serve as the foundation of the classification system. Typically, and at least rhetorically, the orders issued by Democratic presidents (e.g., Clinton's EO 12958) have emphasized disclosure, while those of Republican presidents (e.g., Reagan's EO 12356) have stressed secrecy."

For months now, administration officials have stated that the new EO would

be more of a "refinement" than a wholesale trashing of the Clinton order. Officials continue to state that the new draft order "amounts to amendments, rather than an entirely new Bush order." Officials also claim

that though a number of changes have been made, they are "quite modest,

quite supportable." An early assessment of the proposed EO offered anonymously by an agency official who favors public access to government information, is that the proposed EO "could be a lot worse." Other

declassification insiders who have access to the EO report that they are pleasantly surprised "how little is changed," adding that the EO is "not so much a rewrite as an edit of the existing order." Insiders are especially

pleased to see that the notion of automatic declassification of documents is preserved.

The Bush Administration initiative to craft a new executive order began in

August 2001. Since then, it has been a source of anxiety for those who feared that the administration's current predilection for official secrecy would lead to dramatic changes in classification policy. Insiders believe the new order will probably be officially issued prior to April 17, 2003 --

the 25-year anniversary date on which classified files containing intelligence information or multi-agency "equities" are due to be

automatically declassified, pursuant to the Clinton E.O.13142. If signed by the President by that date, the new Bush EO would defer that April 17 deadline.

The National Coalition for History managed to secure a copy of the new draft executive order copies of which are now circulating informally (thanks to the Federation of American Scientists, the EO is posted at:>;). The NCH also has contacted administration officials urging them to devise some appropriate mechanism for formal broader public input and comment prior to finalization.

3. AHA LAUNCHES STUDY OF HISTORY MA DEGREE The American Historical Association's (AHA) Committee on Graduate Education

(CGE) has received a grant of $50,000 from the Ford Foundation to study the

multiple roles of the master's degree in history education. This grant will

allow the committee to continue its ongoing investigation of graduate training for historians, which until now has focused primarily on doctoral education. Philip Katz will continue as research director for the AHA study

of master's degrees; he and Thomas Bender of New York University will serve

as principal investigators of the project.

According to Katz, "We aim to promote heightened awareness of the master's

degree as a lively component of graduate education for historians, not just

an attenuated version of the PhD, as many still consider it, but a vital degree in its own right, and the gateway to careers that shape the public's

larger understanding of history."

The master's degree -- which has long been considered marginalized, especially in the humanities -- has recently come under serious reevaluation. In many quarters (the Public History arena for example), the master's degree is recognized as a valuable degree in its own right, with important possibilities for the future, whether intellectually, as an agent

of opportunity, or as a vehicle for more diverse employment options. Nevertheless, in other quarters, the value of the history MA is questioned. What exactly should an MA in history be? is the central question the CGE hopes to answer in the months ahead.

The AHA's investigation will address five broad issues of particular concern to historians: the definition and function(s) of a master's degree in history; the intellectual content and standards of mastery appropriate to the degree; the occupational opportunities provided by a master's degree

in history, especially for bringing new (or under-represented) groups into the profession; the role of master's degree programs in promoting interdisciplinary studies; and the MA's role and function in the preparation of history teachers. At the conclusion of the project, a report

to the historical profession will summarize the data collected, present a typology of master's degree programs, and offer preliminary guidelines for the content of a master's degree in history.

For more on the project, tap into:

4. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Though Congress has been preoccupied with hearings on the president's proposed budget and consideration of U.S. Circuit Judge nominations, a number of bills of interest to the historical and archival communities have

been enacted, received hearings, or have been introduced:

Item #1 -- Bills Passed: The Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 (H.R. 13): On 6 March 2003, by a vote of 416 to 6, the House of Representatives passed

The Museum and Library Services Act of 2003 (H.R. 13), which includes a reauthorization for the Library Services and Technology Act. According to the American Library Association, companion legislation in the Senate (S. 238) still needs co-sponsors. Please contact your senators to ask them to sign on to the bill. Senators interested in co-sponsoring the legislation should have their legislative assistants contact Senator Jack Reed's staff person, Elyse Wasch, at 202-224-4642. Please do not call Elyse directly, your Senator's staff person needs to place the call.

Miscellaneous National Park Related Bills: On 4 March 2003, the Senate passed four bills by unanimous consent that they had acted on in the 107th Congress and were filed in the 108th Congress in substantially the same form. They include: a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site in the state of Florida (S. 111); a bill to provide for the protection

of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico (S. 210); legislation seeking to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the State

of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark (S. 214); and legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in the state of Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park System (S. 233). Action on these bills now is pending in the House.

Item #2 -- Hearings: César Estrada Chávez and the Farm Labor Movement Special Resource Study: On 4 March 2003, the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks held a hearing to receive testimony on a number of bills pending before the committee, including Senator John McCain's legislation (S. 164) designed to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of César Estrada Chávez and the farm labor movement. On 12 March, the Energy Committee approved the marked- up bill and advanced it to the full Senate where it is currently pending action. In addition, on 27 February Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-CA), along with eleven co-sponsors, introduced companion legislation in the House -- the "Cesar Chavez Lands Legacy Act" (H.R. 1034). Her bill was referred to the House Resources Committee for action.

Item #3 -- Bills Introduced: United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act: On 25 February 2003, Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) introduced the "United

States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act" (H.R. 904), legislation designed

to "inventory, evaluate, document, and assist efforts to preserve surviving

United States Life-Saving Service stations." The bill would authorize $5

million in grants and $500,000 each year for carrying out other provisions of the bill. The measure makes available to the public, "including through

the internet, educational materials, research aids, guides, bibliographies,

and other information regarding Life-Saving Service and related organizations that provided humanitarian assistance to shipwrecked mariners." The bill was referred to the House Resources Committee for action.

Cold War Theme Study: On 26 February 2003, Senator Harry M. Reid ( D-NV) introduced a companion bill (S. 452) to Rep. Joel Hefley's (R-CO) bill (H.R. 114; introduced 12 February 2003), legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to identify sites and resources and recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the Cold War. Similar legislation passed the Senate and the House in slightly different versions during the 107th Congress. The two bills now pending before Congress are identical. Reid's measure was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for action and Hefley's bill has been referred to the House Resources Committee for action.

Northern Neck National Heritage Area: Senator George Allen (R-VA) has introduced companion legislation (S. 472) to Rep. Jo Ann Davis's bill (H.R. 567; introduced 5 February 2003) authorizing a suitability/feasibility study of establishing the Northern Neck National Heritage Area in Virginia. The measure was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Memorial to Martin Luther King Jr.: Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) has introduced legislation (S. 470) extending the legislative authority for the raising of private sector funds for the proposed Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial for three additional years. In November 1996, Congress enacted legislation authorizing construction of the memorial within a seven-year period. Delays in the site selection process delayed the fundraising effort by at least two years. Originally the memorial was estimated to cost $60 million but the figure is now in the $100 million range; all funds for the memorial must be privately raised. The legislation gives the memorial foundation until 12 November 2006 to raise the necessary funds. The bill was referred to the Senate Energy Committee for consideration.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- Representative Blasted for Historical Analogy: As a result of a comment to a Toledo newspaper, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) faced a barrage of criticism this last week for her comparison of Osama bin Laden and other "terrorists" to the founding fathers. "If you think back to our founding as a country, we are a country of revolution," the legislator told a reporter. "One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state

fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped cast off the British crown," she said. In an

anti-war workshop, Kaptur also invoked Ethan Allen's Green Mountain boys -a revolutionary militia -- and compared them to al Qaeda. Once news of Kaptur's comments flashed across news wires, Republican members of Congress lashed out at Kaptur. One leader commented that not a single Democratic candidate for president "has the fortitude to step forward and

repudiate her." Kaptur responded to criticism stating that her words were

twisted by partisans. "The American people understand the power of revolution. It is in that context that I referred to the American Revolution."

Item #2 -- NEH Selects McCullough as Jefferson Lecturer: The National Endowment for the Humanities named David McCullough, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, as the 2003 Jefferson Lecturer in the Humanities. McCullough has received the Pulitzer Prize twice, in 1993 and 2002 for his biographies of Harry S. Truman and John Adams, respectively. He has also won both the National Book Award and the Francis Parkman Prize twice, and, in 1995, received the Charles Frankel Prize, now known as the National Humanities Medal. In addition to his work as an author, McCullough has been an editor, teacher, lecturer, program host and narrator on public television. He has served as president of the Society of

American Historians and has been awarded 31 honorary degrees. The Jefferson Lecture, the federal government's highest individual honor for scholars in the humanities, comes with a $10,000 honorarium and offers winners a rare high-profile forum to speak on any topic they wish. Mr. McCullough will deliver his lecture on May 15.

Item #3 -- FRUS Volume Now Online -- History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The State Department has posted on its website the full text of the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) volume on the Near East, 1961-1962, which documents official views of various aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict in those years, U.S. policy towards Iran and Nasser's Egypt, Israel's nascent nuclear program, and related topics. FRUS, 1961-1963, vol. XVII, Near East, 1961-1962, was originally published in hard copy in 1994. For the online version, tap into: <>;.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST This week two items: First, the National Trust for Historic Preservation has launched its first major advertising campaign targeting the average American. According to an Associated Press story, "Preservation Group Takes Brick-and-Mortar Message to the Masses"(7 March 2003), the Trust

seeks to demonstrate that it is not as much about saving places where presidents slept as preserving the memories of average Americans." Tap

into: <>.

In the second selection -- "The Need for Digital Archiving Standards"

(Syllabus Magazine; March 2003) -- author Michael Looney discusses some of the unique challenges facing digital preservationists. Tap into: <>;.


The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You

can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Editor - 3/13/2003

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and several colleagues introduced legislation March 12 to narrow the "extraordinarily broad exemption" from the Freedom of Information Act that was hastily adopted in the Homeland Security Act last year. "The law that was enacted undermines Federal and State sunshine laws permitting the American people to know what their government is doing," according to Sen. Leahy, who said the new "Restore FOIA Act" would fix the problem. See:

BOWEN DEES - 3/13/2003

The question of Japan's progress toward an atomic bomb is treated in some detail in my book entitled "The Allied Occupation and Japan's Economic Miracle". While it is true that we did not have access to the specific papers sent to RIKEN by Prof. Kuroda's widow, it seems clear that the information we obtained regarding the war-time work being done in Japan on atomic energy was essentially complete. The determination that very little progress had been made toward a bomb was made early in the Occupation, and at no time did we find evidence to the contrary. (I was a member of the staff of the Scientific and Technical Division of the Headquarters for 3 1/2 years.)

Bowen Dees

Barney Gumble - 3/13/2003

This is junk science, junk science being defined as real science that contradicts the fundies and freepers world view.

Can't we get them to go look for Noah's Ark or something?

Jim Fedorowicz - 3/13/2003

Good article. It shows the continued ignorance of not only america's leaders but of its citizens who never took the time to study world history.

Ammianus Marcellinus - 3/13/2003

Henry C. Lodge wrote in response to Mark Safranski "the answer to this question is easy." Mr. Safranski posed no question to answer. He offered instead a devastating criticism of "contemporary historians" who sent a silly letter to the Financial Times attacking a straw man. This kind of group letter, at once pretentious and pathetic, seems to attract people more interested in politics than the past. Perhaps the letter and its author deserve the comment that A.J.P. Taylor once made about something written by Hugh Trevor Roper: "It would have harmed his reputation as an historian, if he had one."

David Barrett - 3/12/2003

I was aware the Japanese where working on a bomb during the war, so were the Soviets (which is also little known), in addition (obviously) to the Germans, Americans and British. I have not had time to research how much the Japanese accomplished, but based on the expenditures you mention, the program had to be in just its embryonic stages by comparison to the Allied project. I can't say I am surprised the Japanese have been unwilling to admit they were working on such a nuclear bomb; to hear the Japanese, they were the victim in the Pacific War and never did anything wrong. Their: atrocities in Nanking, human experiments at Unit 731 to develop biological and chemical weapons, treatment of POWs, use of slave labor, forced prostitution of "comfort girls," are all myths too.

But back to their atomic bomb project and ours, I did see a couple of things I didn't understand. The reference about scrapping a battleship to get steel for the project. Steel is hardly a strategic material in terms of creating a bomb, what am I missing? Second, you mention a figure of $4 billion for the American project, every source I have heard or read quotes, around $2 billion.

I would be interested in other material you discover re: the Japanese project.


Dave Barrett

Jane Steele,MA - 3/12/2003

This is a good idea but let's be careful as we go. He did some things in his youth that could be taken out of context. He did indeed own slaves and sold at least one for "mis-behavior". If we show things like this, which indeed did hapen and not his repenting of some things (like slavery later on) there could be a large misunderstand that will do more harm than good. It is indeed time for a up-date and I hope it works.

Editor - 3/12/2003

The Washington Post March 11, 2003, Tuesday, Final Edition SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A21; THE IDEAS INDUSTRY RICHARD MORIN AND CLAUDIA DEANE HEADLINE: New Data on Abortion-Crime Link BYLINE: Richard Morin and Claudia Deane

There's new and stronger evidence to support one of the most provocative and controversial social theories of recent decades, namely that abortions reduce crime, two economists contend in a new paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

John J. Donohue III of Stanford University and Steven D. Levitt of the University of Chicago first formally proposed the link between abortion and crime in an article published two years ago in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Now they've updated that study with fresher data and a more detailed analysis, in large part to answer the many critics of their earlier work.

These researchers theorize that legal abortion reduces crime by making it easier for women to end unwanted pregnancies. By their reckoning, more abortions mean fewer neglected or abused children who would be more likely to end up in trouble with the law.

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision made abortions more widely available, the generation born around this time should contain disproportionately more "wanted" children than earlier generations -- children who would be less likely to commit crimes when they grew up.

Three pieces of evidence support their claims. First, crime dropped sharply during the 1990s -- precisely the period in which the generation of children first affected by Roe v. Wade reached its peak of criminal activity. Second, the five states that legalized abortion in 1970, three years before the landmark abortion ruling, were the first to experience the drop in crime. Third, states with high abortion rates in the early 1970s experienced the biggest decline in crime, even after controlling for other factors usually associated with changes in the crime rate, they wrote.

Overall, Donohue and Levitt found that a 10 percent increase in the abortion rate was associated with a 1 percent decline in the crime rate. They estimated about half of the overall decline in the crime rate between 1991 and 1997 was due to legalized abortion.

Well, they got hammered by a small army of researchers who questioned their data, methods and findings. Among their critics: the researcher John R. Lott Jr., currently at the American Enterprise Institute, who produced a study that argued abortion caused crime by weakening moral values. Theodore Joyce, an economist at the City University of New York also challenged their results. He carefully analyzed the same data but did not find a negative relationship between abortion and crime in the six-year period from 1985 to 1990, or the time the Roe v. Wade generation should have been entering their peak crime years.

So Levitt and Donohue went back to their number crunching. They collected more data and redid their analysis -- and found that abortion seemed to have an even bigger impact on crime than they first estimated.

Instead of reducing homicides by about 14 percent, the new data suggested an 18 percent drop associated with abortion. Violent crime and property crime also went down as the abortion rate went up, and by a bigger amount than they had earlier forecast, they reported in their new study.

Editor - 3/12/2003

The Times (London)

March 11, 2003, Tuesday

SECTION: Features; 35

HEADLINE: Michelangelo's armless destruction

BYLINE: Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent

AN American scholar is challenging the centuries-old theory that Michelangelo took a sledgehammer to his monumental masterpiece, the Florence Pieta, in a fit of rage.

Jack Wasserman, of Temple University, draws on contemporary evidence and scientific analysis, including ultraviolet tests, to conclude that the Renaissance master's assault on a sculpture on which he had laboured for ten years was not an irrational act but a premeditated prelude to a recarving.

The Pieta, today in the Museo dell'Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, depicts the helpless, twisting body of the dead Christ, sustained by the Virgin Mary and two other figures. Michelangelo was in his mid-seventies when, around 1550, he began carving the block of Carrara marble, standing more than 7ft high.

In Michelangelo's Florence 'Pieta', a monograph published by Princeton University Press this month, Wasserman acknowledges the 1568 account by Michelangelo's friend and biographer, Giorgio Vasari, that the artist "had begun to hate it" and would have destroyed it entirely but for the intervention of his servant.

But Wasserman -whose study draws on the expertise of a marble sculptor and three teams of scientists -challenges historians who have accepted Vasari's description of Michelangelo losing patience with a servant who had repeatedly nagged him to finish it.

He notes that Vasari also recorded that Michelangelo had never destroyed any of his other sculptures, either before or after, and that if he made the slightest error, he would just set aside a work and rush to take up another marble. "He often said that was why he made so few statues," Vasari said, noting that Michelangelo carved new arms for the second version of the subject, the Rondanini Pieta.

Wasserman points out that Michelangelo left the bulk of the statue intact, breaking away only the limbs of individual figures, "Christ's and the Virgin's left arms (attached at the elbows), the right arm of the Magdalene, Christ's right forearm, and...left leg.

"If Michelangelo had been truly angry and had wanted to destroy it, why is it that there is no evidence on the body of Christ, for example, of bruises that would have been made with a hammer or sledgehammer? It's only the limbs ... which seems a calculated, rather than a spontaneous, action. He didn't want to destroy it, but to recarve it ... In effect, Michelangelo seems to have been selective in pruning the Pieta only of what he considered expendable. This leads me to conclude that he acted out of calculation."

Wasserman noted the contribution of scientists who were able to create a virtual model that allowed him to raise the sculpture and observe it from different angles, and reduce it down to the core block -to what remained after Michelangelo dismembered it. "It helped me to support my hypothesis that Michelangelo did not want to destroy the sculpture. When shorn of the limbs, the surviving block demonstrates visually the exact nature of the mutilation," he says.

Editor - 3/12/2003

Ottawa Citizen

March 9, 2003 Sunday Final Edition

SECTION: News; Pg. A13

HEADLINE: Israeli Arabs look to Auschwitz for the root of conflict

SOURCE: The Associated Press

BYLINE: Jason Keyser


NAZARETH, Israel -- A group of prominent Israeli Arabs is journeying nearly 60 years back in time, planning a pilgrimage to the Auschwitz death camp to lay bare one of the festering roots of the Arab-Jewish conflict -- the difficulty each side has in recognizing the other's suffering.

The trip in May by about 100 Arab intellectuals, athletes and business people is unprecedented in scope and is being planned at a time of great polarization and bitterness created by 29 months of Mideast fighting.

At the same time, Israel is revising its textbooks to give students a better understanding of the uprooting of the Palestinians that resulted from the establishment of the Jewish state.

One of the organizers of the trip to Auschwitz is Nazir Mgally, a 52-year-old Arab journalist from Nazareth, a city of Jews and Arabs in northern Israel. He remembers feeling little emotion during childhood school lessons about the Holocaust because he was more focused on stories of how Jews had stolen Arab land.

It wasn't until Mr. Mgally saw how suspicious Jews had become of Israel's Arabs during the past 21/2 years of Mideast fighting that he began to wonder if the Holocaust was part of the problem.

"One of the main things that pushes Jews and Arabs to be enemies is that they don't think of each other as human beings," he said.

The Holocaust has played a central role in shaping the identity of Israel, a nation at war since it won statehood in 1948. For many Israelis, the slaughter of six million Jews during the Second World War is a constant reproach to the world for denying sanctuary to Europe's Jews.

"The Holocaust is everywhere," said Israeli historian Tom Segev. "There's not a single day without some reference to the Holocaust in an Israeli newspaper. It influences views on almost every subject."

Mr. Segev, author of The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, said many Arabs resist understanding the Nazi genocide because the "conflict between us is really over who is the victim." He sees the trip to Auschwitz as a sign that at least some Arabs are trying to become part of mainstream Israeli society.

But many Palestinians say that Israel exploits and even exaggerates the Holocaust to justify oppressing them, and that it was the world's guilty conscience that explains why it allowed a Jewish state to be set up at the Palestinians' expense.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, who are separate from Israel's own Arab community, know very little about the Holocaust. It is not taught in Palestinian schools.

They also contend that Israelis know or care little about their suffering. Even before the Palestinians launched their latest uprising in September 2000, few Israeli Jews ever visited the squalid Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza.

But before the uprising broke out, and Israel and the Palestinians were still negotiating peace, Israel's education ministry began to address the Palestinians' plight in school programs.

For example, some Israeli texts have changed the way they handle the flight from Israel of about 700,000 Arabs during the 1948-49 war that established the country. In the past, students learned that the Arabs fled in response to calls by Arab leaders to clear the way for Arab armies to invade and massacre Jews; now they learn about evidence that at least some were expelled by the Israelis.

The Israeli Arabs of today are mostly the descendants of those who stayed put in the new Jewish state. They became Israeli citizens, and now number 1.2 million -- one in six Israelis. They have their own complaints, including systematic discrimination by the Jewish majority.

That resentment peaked in October 2000 when police fired on Israeli Arabs rioting in solidarity with the Palestinian uprising, killing 13 people.

The plight of Israeli Arabs also is being introduced into Israeli schoolbooks.

A new civics textbook includes passages on Israeli Arabs' mixed feelings about living in

a Jewish country that is in

conflict with their Palestinian brethren.

"We have changed completely the whole story to make sure each sector in the population have their narratives treated equally," said Yacov Katz, who plans school curriculums for the Education Ministry.

Former education minister Yossi Sarid began reforming the curriculum three years ago when he added the works of a Palestinian poet exiled by Israel. Mr. Sarid also urged classroom discussions on a 1956 massacre of 47 Israeli Arab civilians who accidentally violated a curfew.

During their four-day trip starting May 26, the 100 or so Israeli Arab community leaders plan to visit Auschwitz, the largest of the Nazi death camps, where about a million Jews perished in gas chambers or died of disease, starvation and torture.

In preparation, some of the Arabs visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem and listened to a Holocaust survivor describe life in the Warsaw Ghetto.

The group will be led by Emil Shoufani, 47, a Catholic priest, and includes an Islamic sheik and an Arab midfielder for Maccabi Haifa, a mostly Jewish soccer team. It will link up with a group of about 50 Jewish Israelis, including pop singers and actors.

The recent violence has caused what little Arab interest there was in the Holocaust to wither, said Irit Abramski, director of Arab education programs at Yad Vashem.

The number of Arabs visiting the museum's seminars annually fell to about 250, half the former level, and journalists, poets and politicians from Arab countries no longer come, Mr. Abramski said.

Mr. Mgally, the journalist who helped plan the trip, said the effort to understand the Holocaust can help mend the trust broken by recent fighting.

"We see that Jews look at Arabs as if we want to push them from the land," Mr. Mgally said. "Arabs have to do something to give a feeling to the Jews that we don't want to destroy them."

Henry C. Lodge - 3/12/2003

RE: "I eagerly await a similar declaration from these historians on how analogies with the Vietnam War are likewise wrong"

"These historians", of course, have better things to do than to waste time on crackpot websites. But the answer to this question is easy. For starters, in Vietnam, the civil war between North and South had already been underway long before American troops arrived in droves, LBJ did not send them there in order to start a new war in hopes of a quick victory to shore up a weak presidency, and he did not, through sheer diplomatic incompetence, make a mangled mess out of the rest of American foreign policy in the process.


Editor - 3/12/2003

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

March 9, 2003 Sunday Home Edition

SECTION: Business; Pg. 1P

HEADLINE: No end in sight for bear market; Worries extend beyond Iraq



Three years ago this month the stock market reached a "tipping point."

That's the point, described in a recent book by that title, where change that has had a small effect reaches a critical mass, at which time the next small change "tips" the system --- and a big change occurs.

The big change in March 2000 was the collapse of the stock market. For computer, software and telecom stocks, it was a crash.

Depending on which stock index is used, the bear market that began in March 2000 is --- or is fast becoming --- the longest in U.S. history. It has already been especially savage, costing more than $8 trillion in market value at its lowest point.

This bear has also been frustrating, tantalizing investors from time to time with the hope of recovery only to dash those hopes.

That's where we are now. Another promising rally began on Oct. 9, 2002, but the market appears headed for still new lows.

So after three years, this bear market looks as though it could go on for ... well, for another year at least.

Terrorism and the prospect of a war with Iraq get most of the blame for today's pessimism, which keeps investors on the sidelines and restrains businesses ---and increasingly, consumers --- from spending.

The conventional wisdom is that when the Iraqi tensions and uncertainties have been resolved, the economy will resume its job-producing growth and an unrestrained stock market, buoyed by rising profits, will surge higher --- possibly to a new bull market.

This is the scenario that some market watchers are beginning to doubt, and among them are analysts whose opinions carry a lot of weight.

It's hard to dismiss the thoughts of Yale economist Robert Shiller, who three years ago predicted a lengthy sub-par market. Last September, Bill Gross, who manages the world's largest mutual fund, Pimco, astonished Wall Street with an extreme forecast of the Dow Jones industrial average falling to 5,000. It's 7,740.03 now.

Richard Cripps, chief strategist for Legg Mason Wood Walker, a Baltimore securities firm, said, "The bull market that ended in 2000 roughly fits a 17-year pattern that now suggests an extended period of subdued performance."

J. Walker Smith, president of the research firm Yankelovich Inc., recently cautioned investors not to expect a swift economic and market rebound even after a quick, successful war with Iraq. Too many other things are wrong, he said.

Iraq and terrorism aside, even the optimists concede that investors are looking ahead to an extended period of single-digit annual investment returns. Gone are the double-digit returns that made the 1980s and '90s such a fabulous time for investors.

And that's the point. The bull market that ended three years ago was so excessive, its "bubble" so big, that the stock market must inevitably take a long time to unravel, strategists argue.

But the market could experience significant rallies followed by significant selloffs along the way, said Prudential Securities chief strategist Edward Yardeni.

"We are unequivocally in a secular bear market," said Atlanta investment adviser Mark Nucera, president of Nucera Asset Management.

A "secular market," bullish or bearish, is a long-term trend, lasting as long as 10 to 20 years. A secular bear would be a multiyear stretch of below-average returns, with stocks trading in a volatile price range and the trend line flat at best.

A "cyclical" market is shorter, typically lasting from one to three years. Several cyclical markets can occur during a secular market. There were three cyclical bears during the raging 1990s bull market.

That's why it's impossible to identify the "bottom" or "top" of a market trend until after it's over. Many strategists who called Oct. 9 the bottom of the bear market are now hedging their forecasts.

Historically, secular bulls alternate with secular bears --- and the bull market that ended three years ago was one of the strongest ever, and one of the longest.

In short, the time for a secular bear has come, according to this view.

"I believe we're going to go through a period like we did after the 1966 market peak," said Marsh Douthat, president of Financial/Market Management in Atlanta.

It took 17 years for the Dow to break out of that secular bear, marked by four economic recessions.

"Not once in the last 75 years have stock valuations become as dangerous as they were in 2000, and that excessive display of investor optimism will probably take years to work off," Douthat said of the historically high price-to-earnings ratios that stocks reached in 1999 and early 2000.

Secular bear debate

Market historians say that secular bear markets are caused primarily by extended periods of deflation or inflation. War can contribute to a secular bear, as in World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam.

Ironically, it is this lineup of causes that gives optimistic strategists reason to believe that we really are not in a secular bear market.

Pittsburgh money manager Ronald Muhlenkamp puts it this way: "We're not doing the things that will give us a depression or inflation."

And at some point, he said, people will also adjust to terrorism and war, as they did in the past, and begin investing in stocks again.

"This is a normal, cyclical recession and [bear] market," said Muhlenkamp, president of Muhlenkamp & Co.

Muhlenkamp believes stocks will rebound vigorously once the conflict with Iraq is resolved.

He, too, agrees that investors can expect an extended period of annual returns of 10 percent or less. But he argues that "real returns" will be better than that because inflation rates are so low.

Muhlenkamp argues that President Bush's tax plan will be good for the market's long-term recovery.

Looking ahead in 2003, analysts see a recovering economy lifting corporate profits, which strategists see as the real engine driving stock prices.

Just how robust that profit growth will be is still a matter of debate, however.

Wall Street analysts have been slashing their profit forecasts for the first half of 2003, according to Charles Hill, research director of Thomson First Call, which tracks these forecasts. The analysts see profits improving more vigorously in the second half.

Forecasts of the Dow dropping to the low 7,000s --- or lower --- are not unusual, even for analysts who have a favorable longer-range outlook.

"The jury is out on this," said Phillip Larkins, strategist for Legacy South in Atlanta. "If we are in a secular bear market, it will be because deflation returns. At present, this does not appear to be the case. The wild card is geopolitical tension, which, under a worst-case scenario, could lead to reduced demand and, hence, a secular bear market and deflation."

But Larkins assigns odds of only "1 out of 7" of that happening. Nevertheless, he said, it is something "that has to be watched carefully."

A psychology of gloom

Even if the stock market ahead is not a secular bear, it will feel like one to many investors, especially to those who entered the market in the 1980s and 1990s, and never experienced a serious bear market before.

That helps account for the market's gloomy psychology, which Douthat sees as more crucial than the outlook for profits. UBS Warburg said investor optimism fell to an all-time low last month.

Whatever happens, investment advisers emphasize that it's still possible for investors to make money in stocks even in a secular bear, if they are willing to make the necessary adjustments.

Primarily, advisers say, investors should "buy companies, not stocks," unlike the 1990s when "irrational exuberance" prompted investors to chase any stock that looked like it was going higher.

That's the paper chase that ended in March of 2000.

Editor - 3/12/2003

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

March 9, 2003 Sunday Home Edition

SECTION: Features; Pg. 1L

HEADLINE: ARTIFACTS OF SLAVERY;White couple from Mississippi with a vast collection wants to build a museum about America's shame



Mobile, Ala.

The object under glass looks like a snake coiled to strike, with a brass handle for a head, braided leather for a body and a dun-colored lash for rattles.

"It's beautiful, isn't it?" the owner says. "If you didn't know what it was used for . . ."

A label in the display case completes the thought: field whip, Darien, Ga., mid-1800s.

Between the object and the exhibit lies an unlikely obsession.

Jim and Mary Anne Petty, a young couple from Gulfport, Miss., own the whip along with thousands of other artifacts and documents: shackles, cuffs, branding irons, bills of sale, tintypes, utensils, crafts --- one of the nation's largest private collections of slavery materials. They bought the items because they believe America has whitewashed the horror of human bondage. Which is why Petty turned to his wife one day and said, "Mary Anne, let's go build a museum."

There was little in their background to suggest such a grandiose quest. The Pettys are not museum professionals --- he used to host a radio talk show, she managed real estate. They are not wealthy. They are not African-American.

They simply believe in the power of physical evidence to help set the record straight.

The institution the Pettys envision would be built in Mobile, an hour east of their home, and while it would cover many aspects of black history, the main thrust would be to unflinchingly tell the story of slavery. They call the project the Middle Passage Museum, after the hellish Atlantic voyages that brought millions of Africans to the shores of the New World and left countless others dead at sea.

The Pettys previewed their collection recently at the Museum of Mobile, a history center near the waterfront of this 300-year-old port. The City Council had just endorsed their project --- without providing any funds --- and the publicity drew a stream of people to a gallery where samples of the collection were displayed in cases and shelves the Pettys had built with some friends.

Many of the items came from daily life: forks carved from wood, quilts made from seed bags, a field canteen with two spouts (a big one for whites, a little one for slaves). But it was the hardware of subjugation that drew the most scrutiny: manacles, neck restraints, a branding iron from a rice plantation that was displayed next to a photo of a man with letters seared into his forehead.

The Pettys hovered nearby answering questions, meeting viewers, occasionally hugging someone when emotions overflowed.

One visitor had driven hundreds of miles to evaluate the collection --- and the collectors. "I wanted to look them in the eye," said Melvey Brown, a teacher from Fredericksburg, Va. "I wanted to see what kind of people they are."

They don't seem like zealots.

At 44, Jim has straight black hair with streaks of gray racing down the sides and a smooth radio baritone that shifts into overdrive when he explains his motives. He says that history has fascinated him since he volunteered on archaeological digs as a young man in Southern California. When he moved to Mississippi in 1989 to work at the Stennis Space Center, his interests naturally shifted to the Civil War.

Mary Anne, two years younger, grew up with those Rebel ghosts. A native of Meridian, Miss. --- "I was Little Miss La Petite," she says sheepishly --- she attended Catholic schools and learned to value tolerance early on. Outgoing and open, she tears up when she speaks about all the effort and money they've put into their dream.

After the Pettys married in 1992, they spent much of their free time driving around the Deep South touring the sites of the Civil War and the civil rights movement. At an Alabama antiques shop, they paid $4 for their first slavery object, a button bearing a master's name. Grasping it, Petty simmered with rage like a latter-day abolitionist. He wanted to buy more.

The couple's enthusiasm deepened when Petty made a career change in the mid-'90s. He started covering the casino industry as a free-lance journalist and broadcaster, hosting a call-in show about gaming on a Gulfport radio station, WJZD. The owner happened to be one of the area's leading black activists.

Rip Daniels had stirred up a hornets' nest by suing to have a Confederate battle flag removed from a public plaza on the beach in Biloxi. He showed Petty some of his hate mail; one postcard pictured the charred corpse of a black man with the inscription: "You're next."

Petty asked to borrow books on African-American history. Soon he was speaking out on the air and getting threatening phone calls from men who accused him of being a "race traitor" or worse.

"Jim really identified with the black experience," Daniels says. "He isn't offended by the truth like some white people."

Petty's radio work led to an offer to host a TV show in Las Vegas. After three years in Nevada, the couple returned to Mississippi in 2000 and renewed their search for black memorabilia, going so far as to sell his sizable collection of Native American artifacts to finance acquisitions. They scoured antiques shops and estate sales and worked through pickers who specialized in finding rare objects.

Their greatest find came through eBay, the Internet auction site. A dealer in Middle Georgia was advertising an iron used to brand slaves. The Pettys bought it for $900 and went to see the seller, an older white man who wants to remain anonymous. They told him about the museum idea, Petty says, and he was so sympathetic that he offered to sell them the bulk of his holdings at a discount. That explains why so many of their best items come from Georgia.

The Pettys now own some 20,000 objects and documents from every era of African-American history. Perhaps a third of them are associated with slavery. They figure they've spent at least $100,000 on the collection, which is uninsured and stored in vaults at several locations.

The slavery trade

Buying slavery artifacts is a risky business. As black heritage has become more popular, cruel-looking counterfeits and reproductions have littered the market.

"There are some very good fakes out there," says Philip J. Merrill, a Baltimore dealer who appraised African-American memorabilia for the TV program "Antiques Roadshow." "I know a blacksmith who can make branding irons that would fool the best museum specialists. I have an extensive collection, and even I get burned."

Petty agrees that buyers need to be wary. He says he wouldn't touch some of the slave ID tags and shackles coming out of Charleston these days because they're so obviously bogus. While the Pettys haven't hired an appraiser to authenticate their collection, they have sought the opinions of other experts.

They loaded their Ford Expedition and drove to Tuscaloosa to show a sample to University of Alabama historian Howard Jones, who wrote "Mutiny on the Amistad," the basis for the Steven Spielberg movie. "I couldn't believe it," Jones says. "I'd never seen anything comparable."

The Pettys also visited the Amistad Research Center in New Orleans, one of the largest African-American archives. "The quality of some of these pieces is mind-boggling," says visual arts curator Regenia Perry. "I've been looking at objects in this field for 30 years, and there's no question to me that these are authentic."

Michael Lomax, the former Atlanta politician who is now president of Dillard University in New Orleans, went to the Pettys' home to examine the collection for himself. He was impressed by the artifacts, but also by the couple's passion for their cause.

"They feel they're doing something no one else is doing and they have a special responsibility for it," Lomax says. "I admire them."

Goodbye, Mississippi

The feeling hasn't been universal.

The Pettys approached officials in Gulfport and Jackson last year to see whether the city or state would be interested in displaying their collection in a new museum. The governor was noncommittal. The response elsewhere was tepid or downright negative; one man told Mary Anne Petty that Gulfport already had too many black people on the streets.

"Mississippi can put millions of dollars into Jefferson Davis' home, but they don't have a cent for this," Jim Petty says, referring to Beauvoir, the beachfront estate in Biloxi where the Confederate president spent his retirement. In the mid-1990s, the state appropriated $3 million to help the owners, the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, build the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library.

The Pettys gave up on Mississippi and started talking to people out of state. Among the half-dozen cities that courted them was Atlanta.

A representative of Mayor Shirley Franklin's office showed them sites on Auburn Avenue and introduced them to veteran civil rights leaders Joseph and Evelyn Lowery. The Lowerys are exploring the idea of establishing an African-American museum themselves.

During their first visit, the Pettys toured "Without Sanctuary," the lynching exhibition then showing at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. Characteristically, Petty thought the presentation could have been more blunt. "One of those photos should have been blown up on the wall where you walked in," he says.

After five meetings with various parties in Atlanta, the couple decided against relocating the project in Georgia. It wasn't the city's fault, Mary Anne Petty says. "Atlanta is so big and has so many things going on, we thought we might get lost in the shuffle."

The Pettys had staged several temporary showings at schools and hotels on the Gulf Coast and were planning one in Mobile at the beginning of the year.

When city officials learned they were looking for a permanent home for their collection, council members rolled out the red carpet with a unanimous resolution supporting the museum.

Now comes the hard part.

Calling Bill Cosby

The Pettys estimate their project will cost $25 million to $45 million. They aren't counting on public money, although the city may help them secure a site. Now that they've incorporated the museum as a nonprofit, they plan to assemble a board and begin fund-raising with companies and foundations that have contacted them.

So far, though, the financial sacrifice has been all theirs. The Pettys haven't held full-time jobs in three years. They've taken a second mortgage on their house and have maxed out their credit cards. Even so, they say they've refused lucrative offers to sell off parts of the collection.

"I don't think they're looking to get rich," says George Ewert, director of the Museum of Mobile, who has taken the couple under his wing, helping them refine their concept and introducing them to museum and fund-raising professionals.

With the sagging economy and worries about war and terrorism, it would not seem to be a promising time to find money for any ambitious cultural undertaking.

Regenia Perry of the Amistad Research Center doubts whether the Pettys can raise enough capital privately to keep control of their brainchild.

"They seem to think that Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey and other black celebrities will fund this," she says. "I don't think that will happen. Many African-Americans will be offended by these things. Some of them will be offended by the fact they're owned by a white couple. That doesn't make any difference to me, but I don't think they should count on a lot of African-American support."

The Pettys say they will build what the market will bear. If they have to start with a $5 million museum, that's better than nothing. In the meantime, they plan more temporary exhibitions like the preview in Mobile.

At that showing, a tall black man bent over the display case of whips and wondered how anyone could ever mistake slavery for a form of benevolent paternalism. "Some people seem to think slavery wasn't that bad," said Olabode Anise, a credit union president in Mobile. "They need to see these things."

That, the Pettys say, is the whole idea.

Editor - 3/12/2003

The Times (London)

March 8, 2003, Saturday

SECTION: Features; 24

HEADLINE: Bush fights the good fight, with a righteous quotation

BYLINE: Ben Macintyre

The literature of the First World War shapes our consciousness of war itself: nearly a century later, the language, myths and iconography of that conflict underpin an understanding of what war means across much of the world.

It seems appropriate, then, as we prepare for war in Iraq, that George W. Bush should be immersing himself in the words of a British writer from the Great War.

His choice from the canon could hardly be more telling. Not for Bush the grimly inspired ironies of Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, nor the poignant, painful questioning of Wilfred Owen. Instead, every morning at dawn, the US President devotes himself to the exhortations of Oswald Chambers, a Scottish evangelist who died while serving as an army chaplain in Egypt in 1917.

Chambers's little book, My Utmost for the Highest, provides a daily devotional commentary alongside a biblical text. It is uncompromising stuff, "full of spiritual pluck and athleticism" in the writer's words, advocating absolute devotion to the will of God. That Bush should be reading this before going into battle says much about the religious belief that permeates his Administration, and much about the way the conflict will be fought and interpreted. It is also central to explaining the disquiet of nations with embedded secular political traditions, most notably France, when faced with the most overtly Christian American President of modern times.

For Chambers, Christianity is about submitting to God's will, putting aside all other considerations. "If the crisis has come to you on any line, surrender your will to him absolutely and irrevocably," he writes. His is a Christianity of steely assurance. "There is the Great Divide" in the moral world of Chambers and, for that matter, Bush: one route leads towards a "dilatory and useless type of Christian life"; on the other path, "we become more and more ablaze for the glory of God".

In some ways, Chambers's mini-sermons hark back to a civilisation before 1914, an age when, in the words of Paul Fussell, the literary historian of the Great War, "one read Hardy and Kipling and Conrad, and frequented worlds of traditional moral action delineated in traditional moral language". Rupert Brooke would have recognised a kindred spirit in Chambers:

"Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His Hour And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping."

For Chambers the enemy was "evil", religious duty was clear, and Christian soldiers marched onwards in a straight line. "If you allow physical selfishness, mental carelessness, moral insensitivity, or spiritual weakness, everybody in contact with you will suffer." His simple, stirring homilies are reminiscent of a personal ad that appeared in this newspaper two days after war was declared in 1914. "PAULINE - Alas, it cannot be. But I will dash into the great venture with all that pride and spirit an ancient race has given me ..." I have often wondered whether Pauline kept the cutting, or burnt it.

The evangelical language of preachers such as Chambers increasingly resonates in the words of George Bush. In his State of the Union address, he referred to faith's "wonder-working power", a phrase borrowed from a popular evangelical hymn, and invoked "the loving God behind all of love and all of history". The axis was changed to "evil" from "hatred", according to a former White House speechwriter, explicitly to make it more "theological". "We are meeting those challenges because of our faith," Bush said recently.

The comparisons drawn between Bush's belief and Tony Blair's religious commitment are facile. Blair's religion is private, the result of a lifetime's interest in theology; that of Bush is all-embracing, public, intimately linked to his decision to give up drinking and thus to his rise to the presidency. The key to Bush's emotional brand of religion (utterly different again from the restrained Episcopalianism of his father) is what one associate calls the "Goodbye Jack Daniels - Hello Jesus moment". Bush believes that God put him in the White House.

"Beware of giving over to mere dreaming once God has spoken," is the advice of Chambers. Since the age of 40, it has also been the guiding principle of Bush's life.

Nothing, of course, should prevent Bush and many other Americans from gaining strength and comfort from their spiritual beliefs. Despite having once used the word in error, Bush is not on a religious "crusade". But he does believe the Providence that helped him to quit drinking now guides his hand over Iraq. Bob Woodward, in his book Bush at War, described the President "casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan".

As one former White House official told me last week: "If you believe God is on your side, there's no argument; but argument is the only way to make reasoned decisions." To frame the conflict in religious terms may turn out to be Bush's biggest error, alienating many Europeans and stoking Muslim fears that this is a war against Islam being fought in the name of a Christian God. The Churches' opposition to war, and Bush's emphasis on faith, have muddied what should be a decision based on rational, humanitarian and geopolitical grounds.

The First World War, more than any other war, helped to undermine the idea of God the Soldier. President Bush should indeed steep himself in the literature of that time, but in the stark, salutary realism of the Great War poets, memoirists and historians.

John F. Kennedy also turned to the First World War during the Cuban missile crisis. He found inspiration not in the Bible, but in Barbara Tuchman's book The Guns of August, a brilliant depiction of the human misjudgments that led to war in 1914. Bush's reliance on Chambers ("Rise to the occasion; do the thing") should be tempered by Tuchman's secular warning: "History is the unfolding of miscalculation."

Editor - 3/12/2003

The Independent (London)

March 8, 2003, Saturday




BYLINE: JASPER BECKER IN BEIJING Hu Jintao, far left, waves with eight other members of the new Politburo Standing Committee, including Wu Bangguo, Huang Ju and Wu Guangzheng AP/Xinhua; A Red Guard poster from the Cultural Revolution

LOOK CLOSELY around Qinghua University's campus and you can still detect traces of the attempt by Chairman Mao Zedong's Red Guards to tunnel their way out of the besieged science faculty during the "100- day war" fought here during the Cultural Revolution.

Qinghua University was the birthplace of the Red Guards - the fanatical teenage activists who terrorised "closet capitalists" in the Cultural Revolution. It was here during Beijing's Red August of 1966 that middle- school students began beating their teachers in a savage bloodbath endorsed by Mao.

Over the next few days, many of those who witnessed, and possibly even participated in those atrocities, are stepping into the highest offices of the Chinese state. In the presence of delegates from all over China gathered in Beijing, 38 alumni will be sworn in to top government posts during the National People's Congress meeting. Hu Jintao, the new Communist Party leader, will become China's President and head of state. In addition to Mr Hu, three other Qinghua graduates, Wu Guangzheng, Wu Bangguo and Huang Ju, are in the nine-member politburo.

Qinghua continues to play a part in the life of China's "fourth generation" of leaders. It is where Mr Hu, known by China as the grey man, chose to host George Bush on the US President's state visit last year.

Some believe Mr Hu has surrounded himself with a "Qinghua gang" and that friendships and rivalries forged during the Cultural Revolution will be an important influence in future Chinese politics. Among the classmates Mr Hu is promoting are Wang Shucheng, to Minister of Water Resources, Zhang Fusen, to Justice Minister, Xu Rongkai, to deputy secretary of the Yunnan Provincial Committee and Jia Chunwang, to Minister of Public Security.

What if anything Mr Hu and his classmates said or did during the Cultural Revolution has been carefully air-brushed out of their official biographies. What seems certain is that the new rulers emerged from this crucible as tough, cynical, anti-pathetic to any ideology, ruthless - and highly secretive.

Song Yongyi, a contemporary of Mr Hu, and now a historian of the Cultural Revolution at Dickinson College in the US, believes Mr Hu participated in the activities of the April 14 Faction of the Red Guards at Qinghua.

The faction was one of two rival gangs within the Red Guards. Initially, members of both enthusiastically answered Mao's calls for a violent class struggle but later they split into two rival factions.

The ultra-leftists of the Jinggangshan Regiment, led by chemistry student Kuai Dafu, thought all officials must be targeted as "capitalist roaders" while the "moderates" opposed attacking top officials although they approved of persecuting anyone labelled as "reactionaries".

Mao dangled before both groups the prospect of wielding real political power when he invited the students to join governing revolutionary committees across the country.

So when the Jinggangshan Regiment stormed China's Foreign Ministry, the April 14 Faction tried to trump it by sacking the British embassy in August 1967, setting it on fire and kicking and beating the 18 men and five women inside.

Militants from both sides became known as "iron rods" and quickly progressed from spears, knives and revolvers to rifles, hand grenades, machine-guns, mines and even tanks.

Wang Youqin, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, has tried to piece together what happened during Red August, from more than 1,000 witness interviews. "We still don't have the whole picture of what happened. The violence during Peking's Red August has never been completely reported," Dr Wang said.

What we do know is that between 1966 and 1969, 48 people were killed on Qinghua's campus. Thirty died with about 400 were injured in the "100- day war", which ended on 27 July.

No one has dared investigate the exact role of Hu Jintao. That is still such a dangerous activity that Mr Song was arrested in China three years ago collecting Red Guard publications and released only after an international campaign.

Mr Hu had stayed on in Qinghua after graduating in 1964 to work in the Communist Youth League as an assistant political instructor. He almost certainly participated in the initial Red Guard activity and reportedly put up posters attacking faculty members stigmatised by their class background or "feudal ideas". How far Mr Hu he went is not known and no evidence suggests he was one of the diehards who attacked the British embassy.

However, it is revealing that Mr Hu has surrounded himself by those who must have been heavily involved. Mr Zhang, for instance, was the president of Qinghua student union in 1961, and Wu Guangzheng, the Politburo Standing Committee member, is a former deputy party secretary of Qinghua's student branch. Furthermore, Xu Rongkai was president of the student union in 1966. One former April 14 Faction leader is Jia Chunwang, now being promoted to run the judiciary as head of the state procuracy.

It is also revealing that only the "moderate" Red Guards are now in power. After 1979, their rivals soon ended up serving long prison terms. Many others being promoted as the rising stars of the "fifth generation" were not undergraduates but teenagers during the Cultural Revolution. This can only mean that they were more violent than their elders.

The first to answer Mao's call, the high school classes of 1966, 1967, and 1968, took the lead in wreaking murder and mayhem. The Red Guards made their appearance in China at the Middle School attached to Qinghua University. In June 1966, pupils formed a "dog-beating team". Throughout Red August, pupils repeatedly organised beating sessions. Dr Wang was at Beijing Normal University's Girls School, which was attended by Liu Tingting, a daughter of Liu Shaoqi, then number two to Mao. Another student was Deng Rong, daughter of the future leader Deng Xiaoping, then a senior party figure, when the headmistress of the school, Bian Zhongyun, died at the hands of her students.

She says that Liu Tingting, now a successful consultant, once boasted she had helped kill three people at a time when saying such things showed one's revolutionary ardour.

That August more than 100 teachers died in the Beijing district of Xicheng. On 19 August, the students of Beijing Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth middle schools held a "struggle meeting" inside the Forbidden City at which several dozen teachers were beaten.

Then on 24 August, 1966, the Red Guards from the Qinghua University Middle School transported truckloads from 12 middle schools in Beijing to Qinghua campus, where they beat up administrators and professors.

The next big outburst of violence was in 1968 during the "Cleansing of the Class Ranks" campaign. Many teachers were detained on campus for years and some were again hauled out and beaten by students.

After 1979, the Communist Party was flooded with accusatory letters naming those who deserved punishment for their acts. But as Mr Song points out: "Those with the right family connections could escape".

The party's determination to bury the past leaves many angry. Dr Wang said: "First they deleted the names of the victims, then they downgraded the crimes so the perpetrators had no need to apologise."

The legacy of the Cultural Revolution is unlikely to haunt the new generation as the bloodshed in 1989 casts a shadow on the generation of leaders bowing out. Last week, two bombs exploded in the cafeterias of Qinghua and Beijing universities, injuring nine people. No motive has been put forward but if nothing else, the attack stirred old wounds.

Geo. - 3/12/2003

If you liked the way the Smithsonian handled the Enola Gay's history, you're gonna love how it would treat the U.S. Army...

Geo. - 3/12/2003

Mr Moner, I can understand your passion, but I'm not sure if I follow your logic.

Is it your position that (to pick one example) the Allies should NOT have bombed the French transport system in preparation for D-Day, on the basis that some French civilians might had been inadvertantly killed? Or (to pick another), that President Clinton was wrong to employ airpower (w/o the UN's permission, BTW) in an attempt to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, because some civilians might have been killed?

Jeffrey R. Woolf - 3/12/2003

Reminds me of the comment of a famous classicist. 'All scholarship is autobiographical"

mark safranski - 3/12/2003

I eagerly await a similar declaration from these historians on how analogies with the Vietnam War are likewise wrong

Suetonius - 3/12/2003

Yeah, this was surprisingly confusing to me as well. If there's one thing that historians are supposed to be taught in graduate school, it's that you don't argue by single example...

William McTernan - 3/12/2003

I'm sorry, I didn't get your point. If the Iraqi infrastructure is heavily damaged in the fight to overthrow its dictator, the United States will do what it can to rebuild that Middle Eastern nation. Where does that differ from our effort to restore Germany's economy after the defeat of Hitler in World War II. It's becoming more and more apparent that HNN's "historians" are little more than unreconstructed Stalinists to whom anything the United States does is just one more capitalist plot. Dry up, ladies and gentlemen..

Editor - 3/11/2003

Financial Times (London)

March 8, 2003, Saturday London Edition 1


HEADLINE: History is not a supermarket of pick-and-mix analogies


From Dr Anne Deighton and others.

Sir, We the undersigned are contemporary historians. George W. Bush compares the reconstruction of Germany (and of Japan) after the second world war, and Iraq today. This is a pick-and-mix history of regime change.

Think of Germany in 1945. There had been years of Allied bombing, land-based warfare - "total" war to stop a country intent on invasion and world domination. Finally, Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally. Its borders were dramatically and permanently changed. It was occupied militarily by the four Allied powers for nearly a decade.

West Germany's recovery came in part because it was already a leading industrialised country. It also had a history of western culture, institutions, religions, parties and democracy. It still took time, money, imagination and sustained political will all round not least from the US. European integration helped to weave the fledgling state into a new west European system, while Communist regimes in Europe warned of the possible consequences of failure. Iraq is different in every way: resources, borders, institutions, religion, regional neighbours, political culture and ethnic composition.

Historians have much to say about the complexities of regime change. But history is not a supermarket where decision-makers fill up trolleys of false historical analogies.

Dr Anne Deighton, Wolfson College, University of Oxford Prof Richard J. Aldrich, University of Nottingham Prof Alex Danchev, University of Keele Prof Robert Frank, Director, Institut Pierre Renouvin, University of Paris I, La Sorbonne Prof Robert Gildea, University of Oxford Prof Hartmut Kaelble, Humboldt University, Berlin Prof Dr Wilfried Loth, University of Essen Prof Margaret MacMillan, Provost, Trinity College, University of Toronto Prof the Lord Morgan, Prof Roger Morgan, European University Institute, Florence Prof Hagen Schulze, Free University, Berlin Prof Avi Shlaim, St Antony's College, University of Oxford Prof Gilbert Trausch, Colle ge d'Europe, Bruges Prof Peter Weiler, Chair, Dept of History, Boston College, Mass Prof Andrew Williams, University of Kent at Canterbury Dr Harriet Jones, Director, Institute of Contemporary British History, University of London Dr Juhana Aunesluoma, University of Helsinki Dr Charles Barthel, Centre Robert Schuman, Luxembourg Dr Simon Duke, European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht Dr Peter Mangold, Dr Matthias Reiss, Dr Neil Rollings, University of Glasgow

Editor - 3/11/2003

The Advertiser

March 8, 2003 Saturday


HEADLINE: Japan's WWII nuclear program a squib


THE night the B-29 bombers came, Ryohei Nakane had been enriching uranium for Japan's "super bomb".

By the next morning - April 13, 1945 - all that remained of his samples and his laboratory at the Riken Institute was charred, splintered wood and broken glass.

For nearly six decades, historians have been unable to solve one of the mysteries of Japan's World War II A-bomb project: How close were Japanese scientists to building the bomb before the US air raid stopped them?

All official records were believed to have been burned in the closing days of the war, forcing historians to piece together an answer from less reliable clues.

However, long-lost wartime documents are setting the record straight.

The 23 pages of Imperial Army papers returned to Japan in April offer convincing evidence that Japanese scientists were years away from completing their 20-kiloton A-bomb which would have had more force than the US's 15 kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima but less than the 22-kiloton one that hit Nagasaki.

Historians say not only had Japan's scientists underestimated how much of the rare isotope uranium-235 they would need for the bomb, they misunderstood the mechanics of an atomic explosion.

"The documents are one-of-a-kind. We can finally prove that even if Japan had built a bomb, it would not have been powerful at all," said Masakatsu Yamazaki, a professor of science history at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, who analysed the papers.

"And it might have taken them another decade to complete one."

Dr Nakane has been telling a similar story for years.

"We were carrying out our research so leisurely. None of us thought we would finish before the war ended," Dr Nakane, now 83, said.

More than a half century after the war, Japan's A-bomb project is only a historical footnote. Few Japanese have even heard of their wartime government's nuclear program.

Scientists and military officers who were there have written memoirs and talked publicly about their work.

But, over the years, speculation and conspiracy theories have clouded the facts and raised doubts about the participants' accounts.

Japan's own efforts to build a bomb are difficult for many here to accept because of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the widespread feeling that Japan would never have even considered such a brutal attack.

The treasure trove of wartime papers could change that.

Sneaked out of the country just after the war by former Tokyo University professor Kazuo Kuroda, who left for the US, the papers were sent to the Riken Institute, north of Tokyo, by Professor Kuroda's widow months after his death in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2001.

The documents - the only surviving record of Japan's A-bomb research - read like a blueprint for the bomb.

Scholars estimate that Japan's army spent $1 million - a pittance compared to the roughly $4 billion the US shelled out for the Manhattan Project.

A parallel Japanese navy project, which had no chance of success, cost $300,000.

So stretched were the country's resources that, at one point, military leaders considered scrapping a battleship to supply steel to the army's A-bomb team.

Editor - 3/11/2003

The Guardian (London)

March 7, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Friday Pages, Pg. 10

HEADLINE: Friday Review: THE CARTOON THAT CAME IN FROM THE COLD: For George Orwell, there was nothing pro-American about Animal Farm. The CIA, however, had other ideas. Karl Cohen tells the remarkable story of how US intelligence secretly funded a landmark British movie

BYLINE: Karl Cohen

America's use of animated propaganda during the second world war is fairly well known, but propaganda made after the iron curtain went up is rarely seen or discussed. By the late 1940s, the CIA was spending tax dollars creating culture as a secret weapon to combat communism around the world. When Frances Stonor Saunders published Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, she mentioned a single animated film, John Halas and Joy Batchelor's Animal Farm, which was made in 1954.

The CIA's choice of George Orwell's Animal Farm to produce as an animated film almost makes sense. Almost, but not quite, because the book's ending shows both the pigs and humans joined together as corrupt and evil powers. To use Animal Farm for its purpose, as Stonor Saunders reveals, the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination, which directed covert government operations, had two members of their Psychological Warfare Workshop staff obtain the screen rights to the novel. Howard Hunt, who became infamous as a member of the Watergate break-in team, is identified as head of the operation. His contact in Hollywood was Carleton Alsop, brother of writer Joseph Alsop, who was working undercover at Paramount. Working with Alsop was Finis Farr, a writer living in Los Angeles. It was Alsop and Farr who went to England to negotiate the rights to the property from Sonia Orwell. Mrs Orwell probably knew Farr as she moved in literary and artistic circles as an assistant to the editor of Horizon magazine. This is well documented in The Girl from the Fiction Department by Hilary Spurling. Mrs Orwell signed after Alsop and Farr agreed to arrange for her to meet her hero, Clark Gable. "As a measure of thanks", a CIA official named Joe Bryan made the arrangements for the meeting, according to The Paper Trail, edited by Jon Elliston.

Hunt selected Louis De Rochemont to be the film's producer at Paramount. Before the war, in 1935, De Rochemont had created The March of Time, a new form of screen journalism that combined the newsreel and documentary film into a 15- to 20-minute entertaining short that went behind the news to explain the significance of or an event. The March of Time, sponsored by the Time-Life Company, was a popular monthly series for over a decade before ending in 1951.

Hunt probably chose De Rochemont because he had once worked for him on The March of Time series. De Rochemont had also worked on socially and politically sensitive films for many years. He produced the anti-Nazi spy film The House on 92nd Street (1945) and Lost Boundaries (1949), one of the first racially aware films (it is about a black doctor who passes for white until he is unmasked by the black community).

A recently published book, British Cinema and the Cold War: the State, Propaganda and the Consensus by Tony Shaw, suggests De Rochemont chose Halas and Batchelor to animate the film as production costs were lower in England and because he questioned the loyalty of some American animators. The House Un-American Activities Committee hearings on communists in the film industry began in earnest in 1951 (Disney testified at short-lived hearings that were held in 1947) and several people in the animation industry were blacklisted, careers were ruined or disrupted.

On the other hand, Vivien Halas, daughter of the film's co-directors John Halas and Joy Batchelor, suggests the real reason they got the contract is that Louis De Rochemont was a Navy buddy and good friend of screenwriters-producers Philip Stapp and Lothar Wolff. De Rochemont had worked with them in the Navy's film unit and Vivien's mother had worked closely with Stapp in 1949 on a Marshall Plan film produced by Halas and Batchelor, The Shoemaker and the Hatter. Eventually Stapp and Wolff would be hired to work on Animal Farm's script.

Although the decision on what firm to hire came at a bleak moment for some American animation companies (the film could have been produced in Los Angeles by a studio whose reputation was beyond reproach), I suspect Halas and Batchelor's reputation, personal friendships and budgetary restraints were important factors in the decision to award them the contract.

Animal Farm was the first animated feature produced in England. John Halas (1912-1995) was born in Budapest and had worked as an animator before moving to Paris. He moved to England and in 1940 formed Halas and Batchelor with Joy Batchelor (1914-1991), a British animator and scriptwriter. They were married a year later. During the war they were kept busy with training, propaganda and other forms of government-sponsored films.

The animation firm was awarded the contract to make the feature in November 1951 and it was completed in April 1954. It is logical to assume that before the contract was signed De Rochemont made it quite clear that the film would not be identical to the book and he may have had a rough script or other guidelines. Vivien says that during the production, the script went through several changes before it was finalised.

The production employed about 80 animators. In Halas's book The Technique of Film Animation, 1959, he states that the film's target audience was adults rather than children and that they needed to simplify the plot. Vivien Halas adds that the film wasn't shown in Paris until the 1990s as it was considered too anti-communist. When it finally premiered in Paris about 1993, the mayor of Aubervilliers (a suburb of Paris) "introduced it as a tribute to communism! My father said no, this is not communist or anti-communist. It is a fable for all time. It is anti-totalitarian and it has a humanist message." In a letter to the animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi in 1981, Joy Batchelor told him they wanted to make a film about freedom.

Besides having Philip Stapp and Lothar Wolff working on the script with Joy Batchelor, De Rochemont had another friend from their days in the Navy's film unit working on the project. Borden Mace became president of the company set up to produce Animal Farm by De Rochemont, his mentor. Mace told Vivien in an interview in 2002 that De Rochemont had the ultimate say about script changes. While it isn't clear who suggested the ending used, it was certainly what the CIA needed. To meet the CIA's objectives, the ending was changed to show that only the pigs had become totally corrupt. The film ends with other animals mounting a successful revolt against their rulers. There is no mention of the humans in the film's conclusion.

Vivien recalls, "The changes came about as the film evolved. There were at least nine versions of the script and heated discussions about the end. My mother especially felt it was wrong to change the ending." She has a tape recording of her father saying that the ending they used offers a glimmer of hope for the future. In an interview on British television in 1980, he defended the ending as being necessary to give the audience hope for the future. "You can not send home millions in the audience being puzzled."

While the film was in production, Fredric Warburg, the book's publisher, visited the studio several times and viewed the work-in-progress. Saunders thinks he may have suggested that old Major, "the prophet of the Revolution, should be given the voice and appearance of Winston Churchill". More importantly, she reveals earlier in her book that Warburg had dealings with the British intelligence group MI6. He fronted for them by taking their cheques, depositing them and then writing personal checks that he gave to Encounter, an anti-communist liberal literary publication. He may or may not have been a "consultant", helping to ensure that the film would be a successful propaganda tool.

Howard Beckerman (animator and author of Animation, the Complete Story) comments: "Halas and Batchelor had to compete in the world market with Disney, so a few cartoon gags were introduced into the film to lighten its heaviness, and I believe that whatever the CIA's influence might have been, the choice for an upbeat ending came out of the animator's wish to succeed with the audience. There were movies of the period like the live film, My Son John (1952), which attacked the menace of communism head-on in a contrived and obvious fashion, so I guess anything is possible. If Orwell had lived longer, I suspect he would have vetoed any effort to translate his work into such a film."

The film did well at the box office and the reviews were favourable, but some critics suggested people should read the book to learn what was left out. The film was later distributed around the world by the United States Information Agency (USIA) through its overseas libraries. It has also been suggested that the film and book were excellent propaganda in Arab nations "in view of the fact that both pigs and dogs are unclean animals to Muslims" - according to an Egyptian embassy official quoted in the Guardian.

When asked if Vivien's parents were aware of the CIA's involvement with the project she said, "I don't believe that my parents were aware of any CIA involvement at the time. Frances reminded me that, in the early 1950s, the CIA was not regarded with the same scorn as today." By the 1980s her parents had heard rumours concerning the CIA's involvement. She says, "My father dismissed the idea, but my mother felt annoyed."

Thanks to Saunders's research we now know that Orwell's 1984 was made into a live-action feature with funds from the CIA. Work on the British production began in 1954, and, as with the animated Animal Farm, the ending was changed. We also know that the British government saw Orwell's work as useful for propaganda purposes: in March 1998 the Public Record Office declassified documents revealing that the government funded a newspaper comic strip in the early 1950s based on Animal Farm. It ran in several countries including Brazil, Burma, Eritrea, India, Mexico, Thailand and Venezuela.

On a few occasions the CIA's failures have been disclosed to us by the news media, but their successes are almost never made public. No matter how you feel about their meddling with feature films, it appears their involvement in the making of Animal Farm was a successful covert operation and it was kept a secret from the public for almost 50 years.

This is an edited version of an article that originally appeared in Animation World Magazine. (C) AWN Inc, 2003. A collectors edition DVD of Animal Farm will be released in June by Universal Pictures Video.

Editor - 3/11/2003

The Christian Science Monitor

March 7, 2003, Friday


HEADLINE: In arguing for war, Blair enlists history as his ally

BYLINE: By Mark Rice-Oxley Special to The Christian Science Monitor


In a poll this week, just 31 percent of Britons said they were happy with Blair's leadership.

Before a possible war with Iraq has even started, Britain is wondering how it will go down in history.

A rerun of the triumphant 1991 Gulf War? The 1930s all over again? A short, victorious conflict like the 1982 Falklands affair? Or one of those disastrous foreign adventures that cut a prime-ministerial career short, like the Suez crisis of 1956?

This is no idle debate. It's of considerable importance in particular to Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose popularity is plummeting here because of his ardent support for using force to topple Saddam Hussein.

In a poll this week, just 31 percent of those questioned said they were happy with Blair's performance as prime minister, as antiwar feelings continue to mount here. With his approval ratings at risk as never before, Blair has sought recently to enlist the support of a powerful ally: the past.

That is why Blair's arguments increasingly sound like a crash course in history and why recent speeches have been littered with references from the annals of the 20th century.

Perhaps the most eye-catching reference came last week, when Blair drew comparisons with the 1930s, and said appeasing Saddam Hussein now makes no more sense than appeasing Hitler did.

"We look back now and with the wonderful benefit of hindsight we think it all obvious; obvious fascism was a threat, obvious we had to fight it; obvious the opponents of fighting it were wrong," Blair told a Labour Party rally. "But none of it was obvious," he said, noting that former prime minister Neville Chamberlain was considered a hero for his 1938 Munich peace pact with Hitler. "He did it for the best of motives. He strove for peace, not because he was a bad man. He was a good man. But he was a good man who made the wrong decision."

The problem for Blair is that historians don't buy it. They say the comparisons are glib. The events that led to the start of World War II were different from today's Iraq situation. Hitler, with his formidable hardware, fascist ideology, and designs of territorial aggrandizement, posed a very different threat than that of Saddam Hussein.

"Munich is no parallel - the circumstances are very different," says Robin Clifton of Warwick University. "Hussein is no Hitler, he has not behaved in the same way and does not have the same ideology."

Clifton said a more obvious parallel was the first Gulf War, but there, too, incontrovertible differences this time around make comparison a redundant exercise.

"The more immediate parallel is the 1991 war which the US won at a canter, and they are banking on doing so again," says Mr. Clifton. "But this time, they'll be using paratroopers to get close to Baghdad to precipitate a collapse, so it will actually be nothing like the old Gulf War.

"The downside risks are protracted fighting in Baghdad, and that they don't catch Saddam Hussein, and that there are considerable repercussions in the Arab world," he adds.

Politicians love to use history as a tool to justify policy. Not only does it provide robust, compelling arguments in favor of a course of action, but it makes them look profound and well-read at the same time.

The tendency drives historians mad, however. They argue that such a shallow use of the past is selective, tendentious, and sometimes just factually incorrect.

"One should be careful of the way politicians use history for easy comparisons," says Hew Strachan, professor of the history of war at Oxford University. "That is not to say there isn't a value in history, because we learn from experience.

"When it becomes crass is when we take history and put it on top of the existing crisis and use it as a template," Professor Strachan adds.

There is, after all, a certain selectivity at play here. No one hears Blair mention the historical lessons of Vietnam or Northern Ireland. Nor has he mentioned the 1956 Suez crisis, which is arguably a more appropriate comparison. (An Arab dictator threatening to destabilize the Middle East; Western commercial interests at stake; a coalition to 'fight the good fight'). That is because the war with Egypt resulted in a fiasco that ousted the prime minister of the day, Anthony Eden.

Instead, Blair dwells on his own forays into warfare. With four interventions in six years - the 1998 Baghdad bombing, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan - Blair has launched more military offensives than any British leader since the end of the empire.

In particular, he recalls the 1999 Kosovo campaign and its similarities to the Iraq crisis: an ugly dictator, oppressed victims, a divided international community - and a war won in 75 days.

But historians are wary of facile comparisons. Strachan says history is about looking for the variations in situation, not the similarities.

"As [the Prussian military strategist Karl von] Clausewitz said, there is a value in studying history of war, but it shouldn't accompany the general onto the battlefield," Strachan says. "I really don't think history does repeat itself."

Editor - 3/11/2003

The Independent (London)

March 6, 2003, Thursday




THE GREATEST Europeans of history are Winston Churchill, Leonardo da Vinci and, er, Joschka Fischer.

A survey of European public opinion - or rather a survey of whether there is a European public opinion - has produced a fascinating, but somewhat muddled, result.

That Mr Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, topped the "open" category, closely followed by Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, was a tribute to the disciplined voting of Germans for their own politicians. Against the stereotype, the British most often chose figures from other European countries: President Jacques Chirac and the Emperor Napoleon each got 3 per cent of the British vote. The French voted largely for French figures, past and present, but 3 per cent went for Winston Churchill and 1 per cent for Tony Blair.

In two other categories, suggested lists of great Europeans of modern times and ancient times, something much closer to a cross-frontier, European consensus emerged. The top three "modern" Europeans were Churchill, Marie Curie and Charles de Gaulle. The top three "ancient" Europeans were Leonard da Vinci, Christopher Columbus and Martin Luther. William Shakespeare came fifth.

The survey was organised by two French historians with the help of polling organisations in six countries, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain. The intention was to discover whether there was any such thing as a "European collective memory" or just a collection of national memories.

Philippe Joutard, a historian who will give a lecture on the findings today at the headquarters of Unesco in Paris, said the results were disappointing. He blamed the teaching of history and culture, which tended to start from a national, not a European, viewpoint.

"Most people went for figures from their own countries," he said. "But there is no reason why a European collective memory should not emerge in time, if you consider how little has been done to create one."

Editor - 3/11/2003

The Independent (London)

March 6, 2003, Thursday




ON 8 MARCH 1917, Lieutenant- general Stanley Maude issued a "Proclamation to the People of the Wilayat of Baghdad". Maude's Anglo-Indian Army of the Tigres had just invaded and occupied Iraq - after storming up the country from Basra - to "free" its people from their dictators. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," the British announced.

"People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment."

General Maude, of course, was the General Tommy Franks of his day, and his proclamation - so rich in irony now that President George Bush is uttering equally mendacious sentiments - was intended to persuade Iraqis that they should accept foreign occupation while Britain secured the country's oil. General Maude's chief political officer, Sir Percy Cox, called on Iraq's Arab leaders, who were not identified, to participate in the government in collaboration with the British authorities and spoke of liberation, freedom, past glories, future greatness and - here the ironies come in spades - it expressed the hope that the people of Iraq would find unity.

The British commander cabled to London that "local conditions do not permit of employing in responsible positions any but British officers competent... to deal with people of the country. Before any truly Arab facade sic can be applied to edifice, it seems essential that foundation of law and order should be well and truly laid."

As David Fromkin noted in his magisterial A Peace to End all Peace - essential reading for America's future army of occupation - the antipathy of the Sunni minority and the Shia majority of Iraq, the rivalries of tribes and clans "made it difficult to achieve a single unified government that was at the same time representative, effective and widely supported". Whitehall failed, as Fromkin caustically notes, "to think through in practical detail how to fulfil the promises gratuitously made to a section of the local inhabitants". There was even a problem with the Kurds, since the British could not make up their mind as to whether they should be absorbed into the new state of Iraq or allowed to form an independent Kurdistan. The French were originally to have been awarded Mosul in northern Iraq but gave up their claim in return for - again, wait for the ironies - a major share in the new Turkish Petroleum Company, newly confiscated by the British and recreated as the Iraq Petroleum Company.

How many times has the West marched into the Middle East in so brazen a fashion? General Sir Edward Allenby "liberated" Palestine only a few months after General Maude "liberated" Iraq. The French turned up to "liberate" Lebanon and Syria a couple of years later, slaughtering the Syrian forces loyal to King Feisel who dared to suggest that French occupation was not the kind of future they wanted.

What is it, I sometimes wonder, about our constant failure to learn the lessons of history, to repeat - almost word for word in the case of General Maude's proclamation - the same gratuitous promises and lies? A copy of General Maude's original proclamation goes under the hammer at a British auction at Swindon this week but I'll wager more than the pounds 100 it is expected to make that America's forthcoming proclamation to the "liberated" people of Iraq reads almost exactly the same.

Take a look at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations - on which Mr Bush claims to be such an expert - that allowed the British and French to divide those territories they had just "liberated" from Ottoman dictators. "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves... there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation... the best method is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who, by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position, can best undertake this responsibility..."

What is it about "liberation" in the Middle East? What is this sacred trust - a ghost of the same "trusteeship" the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, now promotes for Iraq's oil - that the West constantly wishes to visit upon the Middle East? Why do we so frequently want to govern these peoples, these "tribes with flags" as Sir Steven Runciman, that great historian of the 11th- and 12th-century Crusades, once called them? Indeed, Pope Urban's call for the first Crusade in 1095, reported at the time by at least three chroniclers, would find a resonance even among the Christian fundamentalists who, along with Israel's supporters, are now so keen for the United States to invade Iraq.

Urban told his listeners the Turks were maltreating the inhabitants of Christian lands - an echo here of the human rights abuses which supposedly upset Mr Bush - and described the suffering of pilgrims, urging the Christian West's formerly fratricidal antagonists to fight a "righteous" war. His conflict, of course, was intended to "liberate" Christians rather than Muslims who, along with the Jews, the Crusaders contentedly slaughtered as soon as they arrived in the Middle East.

This notion of "liberation" in the Middle East has almost always been accompanied by another theme: the necessity of overthrowing tyrants.

The Crusaders were as meticulous about their Middle East invasions as the US Central Command at Tampa, Florida, is today. Marino Sanudo, born in Venice around 1260, describes how the Western armies chose to put their forces ashore in Egypt with a first disembarkation of 15,000 infantrymen along with 300 cavalry (the latter being the Crusader version of an armoured unit). In Beirut, I even have copies of the West's 13th-century invasion maps. Napoleon produced a few of his own in 1798 when he invaded Egypt after 20 years of allegedly irresponsible and tyrannical rule by Murad Bey and Ibrahim Bey. Claude Etienne Savary, the French equivalent of all those Washington pundits who groan today over the suffering of the Iraqi people under President Saddam, - wrote in 1775 that in Cairo under Murad Bey "death may prove the consequence of the slightest indiscretion". Under the Beys, the city "groans under their yoke". Which is pretty much how we now picture Baghdad and Basra under President Saddam.

In fact, President Saddam's promises to destroy America's invasion force have a remarkable echo in the exclamation of one of the 18th-century Mameluke princes in Egypt, who, told of an eminent French invasion, responded with eerily familiar words: "Let the Franks come. We shall crush them beneath our horses' hooves."

Napoleon, of course, did all the crushing, and his first proclamation (he, too, was coming to "liberate" the people of Egypt from their oppressors) included an appeal to Egyptian notables to help him run the government. "O shayks, 'qadis', imams, and officers of the town, tell your nation that the French are friends of true Muslims... Blessed are those Egyptians who agree with us." Napoleon went on to set up an "administrative council" in Egypt, very like the one which the Bush Administration says it intends to operate under US occupation. And in due course the "shayks" and "qadis" and imams rose up against French occupation in Cairo in 1798.

If Napoleon entered upon his rule in Egypt as a French revolutionary, General Allenby, when he entered Jerusalem in December, 1917, had provided David Lloyd George with the city he wanted as a Christmas present. Its liberation, the British Prime Minister later noted with almost Crusader zeal, meant that Christendom had been able "to regain possession of its sacred shrines". He talked about "the calling of the Turkish bluff" as "the beginning of the crack-up of that military impostorship which the incompetence of our war direction had permitted to intimidate us for years", shades, here, of the American regret that it never took the 1991 Gulf War to Baghdad; Lloyd George was "finishing the job" of overcoming Ottoman power just as George Bush Junior now intends to "finish the job" started by his father in 1991.

And always, without exception, there were those tyrants and dictators to overthrow in the Middle East. In the Second World War, we "liberated" Iraq a second time from its pro-Nazi administration. The British "liberated" Lebanon from Vichy rule with a promise of independence from France, a promise which Charles de Gaulle tried to renege on until the British almost went to war with the Free French in Syria.

Lebanon has suffered an awful lot of "liberations". The Israelis --for Arabs, an American, "Western" implantation in the Middle East --claimed twice to be anxious to "liberate" Lebanon from PLO "terrorism" by invading in 1978 and 1982, and leaving in humiliation only two years ago. America's own military intervention in Beirut in 1982 was blown apart by a truck- bomb at the US Marine headquarters the following year. And what did President Ronald Reagan tell the world? "Lebanon is central to our credibility on a global scale. We cannot pick and choose where we will support freedom... If Lebanon ends up under the tyranny of forces hostile to the West, not only will our strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean be threatened, but also the stability of the entire Middle East, including the vast resources of the Arabian peninsula."

Once more, we, the West, were going to protect the Middle East from tyranny. Anthony Eden took the same view of Egypt, anxious to topple the "dictator" Gamal Abdul Nasser, just as Napoleon had been desperate to rescue the Egyptians from the tyranny of the Beys, just as General Maude wanted to rescue Iraq from the tyranny of the Turks, just as George Bush Junior now wants to rescue the Iraqis from the tyranny of President Saddam.

And always, these Western invasions were accompanied by declarations that the Americans or the French or just the West in general had nothing against the Arabs, only against the beast-figure who was chosen as the target of our military action. "Our quarrel is not with Egypt, still less with the Arab world," Anthony Eden announced in August of 1956. "It is with Colonel Nasser."

So what happened to all these fine words? The Crusades were a catastrophe in the history of Christian-Muslim relations. Napoleon left Egypt in humiliation. Britain dropped gas on the recalcitrant Kurds of Iraq before discovering that Iraq was ungovernable. Arabs, then Jews drove the British army from Palestine and Lloyd George's beloved Jerusalem. The French fought years of insurrection in Syria. In Lebanon, the Americans scuttled away in humiliation in 1984, along with the French.

And in Iraq in the coming months? What will be the price of our folly this time, of our failure to learn the lessons of history? Only after the United States has completed its occupation we shall find out. It is when the Iraqis demand an end to that occupation, when popular resistance to the American presence by the Shias and the Kurds and even the Sunnis begins to destroy the military "success" which President Bush will no doubt proclaim when the first US troops enter Baghdad. It is then our real "story" as journalists will begin.

It is then that all the empty words of colonial history, the need to topple tyrants and dictators, to assuage the suffering of the people of the Middle East, to claim that we and we only are the best friends of the Arabs, that we and we only must help them, will unravel.

Here I will make a guess: that in the months and years that follow America's invasion of Iraq, the United States, in its arrogant assumption that it can create "democracy" in the ashes of a Middle East dictatorship as well as take its oil, will suffer the same as the British in Palestine. Of this tragedy, Winston Churchill wrote, and his words are likely to apply to the US in Iraq: "At first, the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled under their feet."

Editor - 3/11/2003

The Guardian (London)

March 6, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Home Pages, Pg. 9

HEADLINE: Outcry as historian labelled a Soviet spy: Foreign Office papers 'prove Christopher Hill was a mole'

BYLINE: Owen Bowcott

The late Christopher Hill, the distinguished Marxist historian who became master of Balliol College, Oxford, is alleged to have operated as a Soviet "agent of influence" during wartime service at the Foreign Office.

A fellow historian has revealed details of conversations and government papers which he says prove that Mr Hill - who died aged 91 on February 23 - was a Soviet "mole" who concealed his membership of the Communist party.

The allegation has prompted a fierce defence of Mr Hill by other academics.

Mr Hill's studies of Britain in the turbulent 17th century, in particular his Century of Revolution (1961), have been required reading for generations of students. His work offers a radical interpretation, exploring social forces behind political events. But Anthony Glees, a reader in politics at Brunel University and a historical adviser to the Home Office on war crimes, said his respect for Mr Hill had been undermined after examining Foreign Office files and memorandums written by the historian in the 1940s.

After graduating from Oxford with first-class honours, Mr Hill spent almost a year in the Soviet Union. In 1940, he won a commission in the Oxford and Bucks light infantry but was soon recruited to the Special Operations Executive, which carried out attacks in Nazi-occupied Europe.

He was later seconded to the Foreign Office, running the Russian desk at a time when Russia was Britain's close ally against Nazi Germany.

"I was writing a book about how good MI5 was at combating communist subversion," Mr Glees explained yesterday, "and did a trawl of documents from the Foreign Office. I came across a number of things I thought were decidedly dodgy which carried his signature." Among the letters was a proposal, apparently drawn up by Mr Hill, suggesting that at the 1945 Potsdam conference, which Stalin attended, Churchill should offer to dismiss white Russian emigres teaching Russian at British universities. The plan was rejected by Churchill's advisers.

It also emerged, Mr Glees said, that Mr Hill was a close associate of Peter Smollett, head of the Ministry of Information's Russian desk in the second world war. Together they formed a cultural relations committee with the Soviet Union. Smollett, an Austrian emigre, was a Soviet spy.

Mr Glees requested an interview with Mr Hill. "His first question was, 'you are not going to expose me as a mole, are you?' It was not a threat but a plea." Mr Glees said he had given his word he would not "unmask" Mr Hill while he lived.

Mr Hill had not denied that he featured on the Communist party's list of secret members, which was not accessible by MI5. "He initially said he had not been vetted (before joining the Foreign Office) as he was approved on the 'say-so' of a former master of Balliol. He later changed his story and said he had been vetted. But this was not a schoolboy jape . . . he was in a position to do this country damage."

Asked whether he was suggesting that Mr Hill might have been a spy, Mr Glees said: "I would not be surprised to find he had a Soviet handler."

Mr Hill resigned from the Communist party in 1957, the year after the Soviet invasion of Hungary, when his proposals for party reform were rejected.

A former close colleague, the historian Eric Hobsbawm, yesterday dismissed Mr Glees' views. "It's inconceivable that Christopher Hill's political views were not known. In 1940 he published a book on the English Revolution which was almost a manifesto. It's absurd that he should be accused of somehow worming his way into the corridors of power by concealing his views."

Andrew Hill, Christopher's son, said yesterday he could not respond to the allegations because his father had never talked about his early years.

Editor - 3/11/2003

SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2003, Issue No. 21 March 11, 2003



A new draft executive order on national security classification and declassification policy began circulating for official comment this week. An early assessment offered by one agency official who favors public access to government information, is that "It could be a lot worse."

When finalized, the new executive order will replace President Clinton's 1995 executive order 12958, which dramatically accelerated the declassification process and which has now yielded close to a billion pages of historically valuable declassified documents.

In recent decades, whenever the Presidency shifted from one party to another, the new President would issue an executive order on secrecy policy to serve as the foundation of the classification system. Typically, and at least rhetorically, the orders issued by Democratic presidents (e.g., Clinton's EO 12958) have emphasized disclosure, while those of Republican presidents (e.g., Reagan's EO 12356) have stressed secrecy.

The Bush Administration initiative to craft a new executive order, which began in August 2001, has therefore been a source of anxiety for those who feared that the Administration's predilection for official secrecy would lead to dramatic changes in classification policy. But that may not turn out to be the case.

The new draft order "amounts to amendments to the Clinton order, rather than an entirely new Bush order," according to the official.

A number of changes have been made, but they are "quite modest, quite supportable" the official said. "If you parsed it out, you would find things you didn't like. But I question whether those things make a lot of real world difference anyway."

Executive orders on classification define top level information policies, but they cannot prevent officials from making unwarranted or irrational classification decisions.

There is a loose deadline of April 17, 2003 for issuance of the new order, because that is the date on which 25 year old classified files that are replete with intelligence information or multi-agency "equities" are due to be automatically declassified, pursuant to Executive Order 13142. The new Bush order is expected to defer that April 17 deadline.

The text of the new draft executive order was not immediately available.


"Protecting secrets when appropriate, disclosing secrets when proper, and managing secrecy are all normal parts of the democratic process," writes Bruce Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution. "The same principles that are used to strike a balance among competing interests in a democracy can be used to oversee intelligence secrets as well."

See "Democracies and Their Spies," by Bruce Berkowitz, Hoover Digest, Winter 2003:

In the USA Patriot Act's provisions for electronic surveillance, "too much has been left to executive branch discretion," according to an analysis in the Duke Law Journal. "Americans should be concerned that privacy may be unnecessarily threatened as a result."

See "The Patriot Act's Impact on the Government's Ability to Conduct Electronic Surveillance of Ongoing Domestic Communications" by Nathan C. Henderson, Duke Law Journal, October 2002:

A 1966 study performed for the Defense Department evaluated, and rejected, the hypothetical use of tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. A declassified copy of that study, and related analyses that draw lessons for today, may be found here:

The personal files of British agents of the World War II Special Operations Executive are among the releases announced by the UK Public Record Office this month. See:

_______________________________________________ Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send email to with "subscribe" in the body of the message.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to

OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

_______________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists web: email: voice: (202) 454-4691

Editor - 3/10/2003

Tonight (Sunday March 9th), the made-for-TV movie "The Pentagon Papers," starring James Spader as Daniel Ellsberg and Claire Forlani as Patricia Ellsberg, premieres on the FX cable TV station, 8 PM Eastern/Pacific. The movie is not based on "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers," (the script was written before "Secrets" came out), and oddly, FX never contacted Dan about the film or consulted him in any way. (The only contact, an impersonal one, was to send Ellsberg.Net--along with hundreds of other websites--a mass email after the film was made, asking that we place their banner ad on the site, in exchange for a link from theirs, which we did). Someone with access to the film, who thought Dan should be able to see the film that portrays him before it airs, "leaked" Dan an advance copy of the film (FX never gave it to him and was dismayed he had seen it before tonight). One would think, with so little interest in contacting Dan or using him as a source for the movie, that the film would be negative. Surprisingly, it is a respectful (though unnecessarily fictionalized) and sympathetic portrayal, with a timely and important underlying message. Here are some of Dan's thoughts on the film:

"Every bit of dialogue is completely fictional (with the exception of a dozen lines or so, mainly in my interview with Cronkite), nothing happened very closely to the way it is portrayed, and there are errors in almost every minute of the film. In fact, the script often has me saying things that I not only didn't say, but I never would have said; in many cases they are the opposite of what I believed. The same is true for most of the dialogue associated with other named characters; they obviously weren't consulted any more than I was. You could say that everything is wrong, in some degree: and yet, the overall story is true to the underlying feeling of the events.

"They have made a good movie, with an important message--in favor of whistleblowing-- that I would endorse; and the timeliness of the message, undoubtedly by accident, is uncanny. The inaccuracies of the script are somewhat frustrating to me but they won't be noticed by many others, and every other aspect of the production is unusually well-done: the casting and acting, direction and editing, the photography. It was fun for Patricia and me to watch it together; we relived the start of our romance. As in the rest of script, the circumstances are all wrong, but James Spader and Claire Forlani show the electricity of our attraction, and Forlani conveys "behind her eyes"--as one reviewer put it--Patricia's intelligence as well as her beauty. We found it a gripping film, and I think others will too: one that is true to the spirit and feeling of the events, if not the letter.

"There's a chance this film could encourage more whistleblowers, which is what makes it so timely right now. It shows that it's possible for someone with the background and values that I shared with many current officials to change perspective and to decide to tell the truth to those outside the Executive branch, and it shows that in unforeseeable ways that can be effective. It shows that the personal costs of doing this can be worthwhile, in terms of the possibility of saving lives.

"I've been using every opportunity in the last five months to convey a message to current officials who know--as I did in 1964-65-- that the president, and their bosses, are lying us into a wrongful, reckless, unnecessary war. The message, which I think is implicit in this movie, is that they should consider doing right now, before the bombs are falling, what I wish I had done at a comparable point, in the months before the onset of the Rolling Thunder bombing: going to Congress and the press with documents that undercut official lies. There is still time to avert this war with sufficiently comprehensive truth-telling, though there's only a week or two left before the bombing may begin. That's why I'm particularly happy this film is coming out at this moment. If one individual in Washington gets that message by seeing this movie, and unloads a file-drawer of revelatory current documents to the press and Congress, it could make a great difference. A war’s worth of lives is at stake."

"The Pentagon Papers" FX Sunday, March 9, 8:00 PM Eastern/Pacific

(If you miss it tonight, it will be playing five or six more times throughout the month. Check out or FX's page for the movie, for listings of future showings this month.)


New York Magazine's reviews of "The Pentagon Papers":

Top Secret By John Leonard

Does Fox News know about this TV movie on its cable sibling? I mean, The Pentagon Papers not only valorizes Daniel Ellsberg, the rogue researcher at the Rand Corporation’s Santa Monica think tank who leaked 7,000 pages of a top-secret Department of Defense report on what went wrong in Vietnam, but also celebrates the New York Times, which published articles based on that leak; the Supreme Court, which voted six to three against prior restraint of such publication; and even the antiwar movement of the permissive sixties (all those pot-smoking weenies).

Casting James Spader as Ellsberg was inspired. From sex, lies, and videotape to Crash to Secretary, something else is always going on in Spader’s head while his body stands around in our world. When his impersonation of Ellsberg joins Rand colleague Anthony Russo (Paul Giamatti) for hard rock, soft drugs, kinky sex, and soul shriveling, you almost expect him to spank his car. Alan Arkin is rather wasted in the underwritten role of Harry Rowen, Ellsberg’s indulgent boss at Rand, and so is Jonas Chernick as Times reporter Neil Sheehan. But Claire Forlani (Basquiat, Meet Joe Black, AntiTrust) makes Ellsberg’s second wife, the socialite heiress Patricia Marx, more radically interesting on camera than she seems to be in the screenplay. As with Spader, there is activity behind her eyes.

To this mix add a director, Rod Holcomb, who has specialized in slam-bang pilots for television series like Wiseguy, The Equalizer, China Beach, and ER. And I also notice a credit to “consulting producer” John Sacret Young, who was the executive producer for China Beach, the best American artwork to emerge from the war in Vietnam this side of Robert Stone’s Dog Soldiers.

All the President’s Men appears to be the movie model The Pentagon Papers had in mind: heavy breathing, hold the mayo. Only the underground parking garage is missing; Ellsberg is his own Deep Throat. This is sometimes hokey, though the nighttime Xeroxing of so many thousands of pages by Ellsberg and his children—surely a bad idea, that one—had to have been fraught. Omitted are Ben Bagdikian, who collected volumes of the Pentagon Papers from Ellsberg for the Washington Post and told us so engagingly about it in an unassuming memoir; and Sidney Zion, who fingered Ellsberg as the source of the papers, for which Zion was reviled at the time by people like me who should have known better; and quite a lot of Ellsberg himself, who was much more erratic than the film hints at, and whose diva-based dramaturgy persists to this day.

Still, it’s refreshing to be reminded by a well-made entertainment that once upon a time there were consciences to be stricken, newspapers with some adversarial jumping beans, and an appreciation of the fact that—of course!—governments would rather we didn’t know classified secrets about themselves and their wars, because if we did know, a hitherto obedient demos might actually question policy instead of parroting it.

Brandon Wallace - 3/8/2003

I think Dick Gregory is one of the most brilliant and beautiful men that have ever lived....He was a friend and neighbor to my uncle in Chicago...alas, I applaud him for his integrity! Something that cannot be attributed to John Lewis!!

Editor - 3/7/2003

The Washington Post

February 27, 2003, Thursday, Final Edition


HEADLINE: Homage to Hindu Nationalist Reflects Change in India

BYLINE: John Lancaster, Washington Post Foreign Service


A little more than half a century ago, Vinayak Savarkar was on trial for his life, accused of conspiring with seven other men in the assassination of Mohandas K. Gandhi on Jan. 30, 1948.

The court acquitted Savarkar, citing insufficient evidence, but there was never much doubt about where his sympathies lay: A hard-line Hindu nationalist who wrote admiringly of Nazi Germany, he made no secret of his antipathy toward India's Muslim population or toward Gandhi, whose embrace of religious tolerance and diversity he saw as a threat to India's cultural purity.

Moreover, Savarkar was personally acquainted with Nathuram Godse, Gandhi's assassin and one of Savarkar's most devoted followers. Some historians still believe that Godse would not have committed the murder without a green light from Savarkar, who died in 1966.

But yesterday's suspect is today's hero. In a ceremony this afternoon, India's Hindu-nationalist government unveiled a portrait of Savarkar to hang opposite Gandhi's in the central hall of Parliament, describing him as a neglected and misunderstood patriot who deserves his place in the pantheon of India's great leaders.

The ceremony reflected the degree to which hard-line Hindu nationalism has moved into the mainstream of Indian politics, drowning out debate on other topics, such as development, and alarming those who see the movement as a threat to the secular, pluralistic nature of Indian democracy.

"All the political stigma has been cleared today," Savarkar's nephew, Vikram Savarkar, said after the ceremony, which was organized by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and presided over by President Abdul Kalam. "He had been kept away from history books. Now his name will be everywhere."

That prospect is deeply disturbing to guardians of India's secular democratic traditions, among them leaders of the opposition Congress party, which boycotted the ceremony. Historians and civil-society groups joined the Congress party in denouncing the government's decision. Besides resurrecting questions about Savarkar's role in the Gandhi assassination, they cast doubt on his patriotism, citing evidence that he had collaborated with India's British colonial overlords and endorsed partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan at independence in 1947 -- an outcome still widely seen here as an avoidable tragedy.

"He has been a figure of shame all his life, and now his portrait will go here in Parliament?" said Vishwa Nath Mathur, 90, who was imprisoned by the British during the colonial era and appeared at a news conference Tuesday organized by opponents of the portrait-hanging. "Savarkar was essentially from the beginning a very weak character."

Spokesmen for the BJP and its parent organization, the National Volunteer Corps -- known as the RSS, the initials of its name in Hindi -- accused the Congress party leader, Sonia Gandhi, and other critics of distorting Savarkar's record for political purposes. On the charge that Savarkar was involved in Gandhi's assassination, they said the court acquittal speaks for itself. On the charge that he was unpatriotic, they released a 1980 letter from Prime Minister Indira Gandhi -- Sonia Gandhi's mother-in-law, but no relation to Mohandas Gandhi -- in which she praised Savarkar as a "remarkable son of India" who deserved to be celebrated for his "daring defiance of the British government."

Born in 1883 and a onetime student at London's Inns of Court, Savarkar spent years in a British penal colony for ordering the assassination of a British official. Although some later accused him of offering to cooperate with his jailers in exchange for leniency, he is revered among Hindu nationalists for his coinage of the term Hindutva -- literally, Hinduness -- at the center of the campaign by the RSS and its offshoots to shape India as a culturally homogeneous nation.

In one passage of his 1923 book, "Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?" Savarkar seems to question the patriotism of India's minority Muslim and Christian communities: "[Muslim] or Christian communities possess all the essential qualifications of Hindutva but one . . . they do not look upon India as their holy land," he wrote. "Their holy land is far off in Arabia and Palestine. Consequently their names and their outlook smack of foreign origin. Their love is divided."

More controversial than Savarkar's writings was his association with the killers of Gandhi, whose peaceful protest movement is widely credited with forcing the British to leave India. Savarkar was the leader of a right-wing political organization, the Hindu Mahasabha, whose acolytes -- including Godse, Gandhi's slayer -- deeply resented what they saw as Gandhi's "appeasement" of India's Muslims.

Although Godse testified at his trial that Savarkar was not involved in the assassination, he and an accomplice, Narayan Apte, were regular visitors to Savarkar's Bombay home in the months leading up to the killing, according to evidence presented at the trial. Another accomplice, Digamber Badge, who turned state's evidence, testified that less than two weeks before the assassination, he had overheard Savarkar bidding Godse and Apte goodbye with the instruction, "Be successful and return."

Judge Atma Charan ultimately ruled that it would be "unsafe" to convict Savarkar without corroborating evidence.

At today's ceremony, lawmakers from the BJP and other parties in India's coalition government greeted the unveiling with shouts of "Long Live Savarkar," and "Long Live Mother India." Then they formed a line and took turns throwing rose petals on the portrait, bowing before they moved on.

"Today the picture is there -- the ideology will follow," said Vikram Savarkar. "This is just the beginning."

Special correspondent Rama Lakshmi contributed to this report.

Editor - 3/7/2003

Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)

February 27, 2003, Thursday, Metro Edition


HEADLINE: Many texts offer students only sugar-coated view of Islam

BYLINE: Katherine Kersten

In recent years, many states have begun to require students to take a social studies course in world history. That's a good thing, right? To become informed citizens, our young people need a grasp of non-Western history and cultures _ especially those of Islam and the Middle East.

But according to the New York-based American Textbook Council, many world history texts are more likely to mislead students than to inform them accurately about Islam. In a recent report entitled "Islam and the Textbooks," council director Gilbert Sewall _ a historian and former professor _ reviewed seven widely adopted junior high and high school texts. His conclusion? In most texts, accuracy takes a back seat to political correctness and "cross-cultural sensitivity." As a result, "On significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions."

Exhibit A is most textbooks' sugar-coated depiction of the Muslim concept of jihad. Traditionally, jihad, or "struggle," signified military conquest to spread Islam. According to Bernard Lewis, a distinguished scholar at Princeton University, though jihad is a nuanced concept, its primary historical meaning has been an "unlimited" religious obligation "to bring the whole world under Islamic law."

American texts tend to obscure this unpleasant truth. For instance, Prentice Hall's "Connections to Today" (the nation's most widely used world history text) instructs students that jihad is an "effort in God's service," like an "inner struggle to achieve spiritual peace." Islamic advocacy groups encourage the view that jihad is little more than a form of Muslim self-improvement. The Council on Islamic Education, for example, lists "obtaining an education" and "trying to quit smoking" as examples of jihad.

Kid-glove treatment

The Muslim concept of "sharia," or traditional Islamic law, also gets kid-glove treatment in American textbooks. Sharia conceives of the state as an agent of the Muslim faith, and has no role for an independent, secular judiciary. Under sharia, religious law regulates every aspect of life, and often mandates seventh-century punishments like stoning for adultery. In the view of many experts, sharia has seriously impeded democratic and economic progress in nations where it has had significant influence.

Most American textbooks discuss sharia in abstract terms that obscure its authoritarian nature. For example, some texts state blandly that Islamic holy law "brings all aspects of life together" or gives "a sense of unity to all Muslims." Such explanations prevent students from grasping the gulf that separates sharia from the American concept of law, which is founded on consent of the governed, separation of powers, and freedom of speech and religion.

Why do textbooks include so many half-truths and distortions about Islam? In part, because publishers wish to avoid being branded as racist or xenophobic by vocal Islamic advocacy groups.

A more important factor, however, is the multicultural philosophy that predominates in academic circles today. Multiculturalism holds that all cultures are "equal." At the same time, it tends to view Western civilization as exploitative, discriminatory and largely responsible for world problems.

Multiculturalists generally judge Western and non-Western cultures by very different standards. They approach Western achievements, institutions and social practices with harsh skepticism, while holding positive _ even romantic _ views of the Third World. When today's textbooks discuss the status of women in the West, for example, they tend to stress discrimination and obstacles to women's progress. Though women have fared far worse under Islam, the same texts frequently gloss over their ill treatment in Muslim nations, or exaggerate the little success they have had.

.Hostility to West

Are students in the Muslim world learning to approach Western culture and institutions with the same tolerance that American texts adopt toward Islam? Sadly, the answer is no.

In many parts of the Muslim world, both religious and state-sponsored schools teach hostility toward the West. Today, millions of students _ even in countries like Egypt and Indonesia _ are learning that all non-Muslims are in error, and that the first centuries of Muslim expansion after Mohammed's death were a kind of heaven on earth.

In fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, contempt for Christians and Jews _ and even for non-Sunni Muslims _ is a cornerstone of state-sponsored education. According to a fifth-grade textbook, "the only true religion is the religion of Islam.. . . The whole world should convert to Islam and leave its false religions lest their fate will be hell." An eighth-grade text explains that, according to the Koran, Allah cursed Jews and Christians because they are polytheists, and turned them into apes and pigs.

In coming decades, our nation's greatest challenges are likely to come from the Muslim world. As part of their study of Islam, American students need to learn about the growth and ambitions of fundamentalist Islam, and about the reasons that Muslim nations have found it so difficult to come to grips with modernity. Without such knowledge, our young people will be ill-prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.

_ Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow of the Center of the American Experiment in Minneapolis.

Editor - 3/7/2003

Financial Times (London)

March 1, 2003, Saturday London Edition 1


HEADLINE: I told you I was right


It is a bright Californian spring morning as I arrive at Robert Conquest's apartment for lunch. The eminent Soviet historian and Stalinologist has lived on this grassy edge of the Stanford University campus for two decades. In the placid suburban setting, workmen groom the lawns. A young mother stands by her front door, near an abandoned child's bike.

Inside Conquest fusses about, a courteous host. He has the quaintly antiquated mannerisms of the distinguished English man of letters. It is easy to see here the close friend of Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin: precise in his words, an eclectic interest and love of talking, a subversive wit that breaks through frequently. At 85, he still writes poetry and is only too eager to discuss other poets and show off his own work. He promises his next-but-one book will be his memoirs.

The tranquil Californian morning and the English manners add to the incongruity, a sense of unreality that develops as Conquest warms to his subject. In the sitting room before lunch, talk has turned quickly to the subject that has preoccupied him for so many years. "Why did he want to shoot so many people? You could understand why he would want to shoot his colleagues - they were rivals. But why did he shoot so many?"

It is 35 years since Conquest's ground-breaking book, The Great Terror, revealed the full depth of Joseph Stalin's crimes to the world. If he is still apparently absorbed by the subject, it seems to have two sources: a powerful sense of vindication and an abiding fascination with one of the 20th century's darkest episodes.

Conquest's right-wing political leanings - he still drops in on Margaret Thatcher, an admirer, on annual trips to the UK - have long made his work a target of criticism on the left. Dubbed the "witch-finder general of anti-Sovietism" by the Morning Star, the British communist newspaper, his work still arouses strong passions.

Yet even the opposition from the left that persisted in the years after The Great Terror was published has dissipated in the face of the mass of evidence.

According to Martin Amis, Conquest had a tart answer for his publishers when it came to picking a title for an updated version of his classic work: I Told You So, You Fucking Fools. ("I may have said that," the historian concedes, "but I didn't say that to my publisher.")

Lunch is smoked salmon, brown bread and boiled eggs, eaten around the dining table in the small apartment. Conquest's wife - his fourth, Elizabeth - is away with her grandchildren and the eminent writer affects a degree of elderly helplessness. But the apartment is well organised and clean and he has cleared the table of books - they sit on side tables and on the floor, hand-written notes protruding.

He eats carefully, picking pieces of salmon to drop into his mouth and wiping his fingers on a napkin tucked into the pocket of his bright yellow shirt.

In this genteel retirement, Conquest can allow himself the satisfaction of having outlasted most of the doubters and the Soviet apologists.

"They've given up on what you might call 'Gulag denial'," he says of his critics. But he adds: "They're still working on keeping the numbers as low as possible."

The numbers, in this context, concern the dead. Adding those who died from Stalin's purges and the famines of the 1930s, Conquest came up with a figure of 20m.

Like the elder Amis, Conquest dabbled in left-wing politics in his youth before swinging to the right. It is a surprise when he reveals he was once a member of the Communist party: his writing shows a barely-suppressed contempt for an ideology he considers an intellectually inferior form of Utopianism. With a shrug, he says now he was never politically active and felt only a brief interest in Marxism.

Vindication seems to be only part of what drives him now. To Conquest, the depravities of the Stalin era and the wreckage of the Soviet Union resonate like some terrible comedy. He dwells with relish on new anecdotes that have emerged recently - he keeps a close watch on the new research, much of it being published in Russia and Italy - as if discovering afresh the abominations of Stalin's rule.

"It's a curious thing: Stalin comes out worse than we thought," he says. "You wouldn't think it possible."

The way he sees it, it is hardly surprising that the Soviet empire after Stalin should have disintegrated under a succession of mediocrities. "They had got rid of such a lot of the bright guys. They shot everyone. It was absolutely unbelievable."

But this horror also had its comedy. He chortles over the aberrations of Soviet mismanagement: the way, for instance, that excessive irrigation caused a large part of the Aral Sea - once the world's fourth largest lake - to dry up. "When your seas start drying up, there's something wrong with your planning," he says, the mirth making his face wrinkle.

His scorn is reserved for the incompetent and the stupid. Academics take much of the baiting - a reflection, perhaps, of the lasting resistance in some parts of academia to his work. He lays the blame on Vietnam-era students whose lost faith in America manifested itself, when they grew into positions of power, in an unthinking leftist politics.

At one point, as I flick through a volume of his poetry, Conquest points out a scathing piece ridiculing academics. One line reads: "Where education and psychology meet/A terrible bullshit is born." The parody of Yeats clearly gives him pleasure. "Philip Larkin laughed at that," he says, proudly.

But along with the mirth, Conquest is still struggling to come up with an explanation for the appalling events of the Stalin era.

He brushes off a question about whether Stalin can be described as evil: such metaphysical classification has little value. And he resists easy psychoanalysis, at one stage describing the Soviet leader as paranoid before disparaging his own pop-psychology.

In conversation and in his books, Conquest turns repeatedly to the question of Stalin's character and motivation. His conclusion: a "profound mediocrity" combined with a supercharged will-power created a monster. Having invested his faith in a half-baked ideology, only to see it fail before his eyes, Stalin distorted the reality of the entire Soviet empire to make it seem a success. "They all had to confess they were agents of Hitler," Conquest says of Stalin's supposed enemies. "Why did he have to do that? He wanted to create all this detail. Now you had a different reality. He managed to produce a new reality contrary to what was really going on."

To Churchill's description of Stalin as unnatural, Conquest adds his own: unreal. His will-power proved strong enough to project the illusion around the world, blinding the west to the true situation. It also created a habit of self-denial that came to characterise - and eventually help to undermine - the Soviet Union.

In the end, it is Stalin's almost pointless cruelty, and the stupidity of his apologists in the west, that lingers.

Conquest recounts a recently-attributed comment in which Stalin explained why he had lowered the age for the death penalty to just 12. "He said it was to discourage adults running children's gangs," he says, the incredulity making his eyes widen. At the time, he adds, French communists justified capital punishment for children "because in Russia, they said people mature so much quicker".

As I leave, the great writer is solicitous. Do I have everything I need? Surely there is something more he can do for me?

Three hours have gone by. It is a relief to be out in the sunlight again. The mother has gone, but the child's bike still lies on the bright grass, abandoned, as I head back to my car. Richard Waters writes for the FT from San Francisco.

Editor - 3/7/2003


March 02, 2003, Sunday


HEADLINE: King George VI suspected Blunt was Russian spy


THE Royal Family strongly suspected that Anthony Blunt was a Russian spy more than 30 years before he was publicly exposed as a traitor, a new biography reveals.

The historian Kenneth Rose discloses that George VI and his courtiers believed that Blunt was a traitor as early as 1948: three years after he was appointed Surveyor of the King's Pictures and 16 years before the government had proof of Blunt's treachery.

George VI, however, allowed Blunt to continue in the role - which gave him access to Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle - despite the suspicions. The Queen also appointed him as Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures when she succeeded to the throne in 1952, a role Blunt held for 20 years. The Queen later knighted him.

Mr Rose makes his disclosure in his new biography of Victor, 3rd Baron Rothschild, who went to Cambridge with Blunt and Guy Burgess, another Briton to spy for Russia, and was close friends with both men. Mr Rose writes in Elusive Rothschild that in 1948 Sir Alan Lascelles, the King's private secretary, interviewed a young officer at Buckingham Palace for a senior post in the Royal Household. Sir Alan was walking with Philip Hay, who wanted the job of private secretary to Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, when the two men passed Blunt.

Mr Rose, the official biographer of George V, writes: "When he [Blunt] was out of earshot, Lascelles said in a matter-of-fact way, 'That's our Russian spy'. Hay never forgot those ominous words. Other members of the Royal Household, I learned, also purported to know of Blunt's hidden past."

It is not known whether George VI shared his fears with post-war governments or when the Queen was told of the suspicions. Mr Rose said yesterday that he was convinced that George VI suspected Blunt because the King was very close to his private secretary.

Blunt was one of the "Ring of Five" who spied for Russia during and after the Second World War. The British government learned conclusively that he was a spy in 1964 when he confessed. Blunt was spared public disgrace in return for revealing to MI5 everything he knew about the Soviet penetration of the security service.

After admitting espionage he continued as Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures. Mr Rose writes: "The Queen agreed without enthusiasm to harbour a traitor under her roof for reasons of state. But it was arranged that he should never come face to face with her."

Blunt was eventually exposed publicly as a spy in 1979, when his knighthood was annulled. He died four years later, aged 75.

Editor - 3/7/2003

The Atlanta Journal and Constitution

March 2, 2003 Sunday Home Edition

SECTION: News; Pg. 2B

HEADLINE: ON WASHINGTON / THE GEORGIA CONNECTION: Gregory campaigns to take Georgian's name off building



The late Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia has been hailed as a soft-spoken maverick.

He helped create school lunch and food stamp programs. He advocated for impoverished farmers. He helped build up the country's military during the Cold War.

He was an adviser to presidents and mentored Lyndon B. Johnson. Former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) was proud he sat at Russell's former desk in the U.S. Senate chamber.

But there is another side to Russell.

Born in Winder, he was a fierce segregationist who tried his best to thwart the 1964 civil rights bill.

He blocked anti-lynching legislation. He wanted to keep African-Americans in their place for fear they would take over the country, according to old Senate documents.

That is why activist Dick Gregory has organized a national campaign to strip Russell's name from the Senate office building that has borne it since 1972.

"This man said horrible things," Gregory said last week. "He said, 'If you do this here, they'll be governors, they'll be state legislators.' He wanted to distribute each Negro to every state so there would never be more than 10 percent of them in any one. Now here's a man who has his name on the most prestigious building of the most prestigious club in the world."

Naming a 94-year-old classical building after a segregationist sends a message America should not support, Gregory said.

"If I picked up a newspaper today and read that somebody named a building in Texas the Lee Harvey Oswald Building, I wouldn't have to get permission from the Kennedys," Gregory said. "I would be on the next plane organizing to say, 'This is an insult.' "

Gregory has high-profile support, including Dorothy Height, chairwoman of the National Council of Negro Women, C. Delores Tucker, chairwoman of the National Political Congress of Black Women, and Martin Luther King III, son of the slain civil rights leader.

But senators are not rushing to Gregory's aid, and according to associate Senate historian Donald Ritchie, only they could erase Russell's name.

Georgia Democrat Zell Miller dismissed the effort.

"I'll get around to considering that right after we change the name of Washington, D.C., which was named for a slave owner," he said.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) vowed to "steadfastly" oppose any attempts to remove Russell's name.

"Richard Russell was not only a great Georgia senator, but also a great statesman serving in the Senate for nearly 39 years," Chambliss said. "As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for 16 years, Sen. Richard Russell was a strong advocate for our nation's military and ensured that America had strong national defense at a crucial time in our nation's history."

Gregory said he is most disappointed in the lack of support from Rep. John Lewis, the Atlanta Democrat who is revered on Capitol Hill for fighting for voting rights for African-Americans and integrating interstate buses.

"My biggest horror, my biggest shame, is John Lewis," Gregory said. "When John was a little snotty-nosed punk, when he was in Mississippi with SNCC [the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee], when King, the NAACP, the Urban League wouldn't give them the time of day, he called me. I went down. And for him not even to pick up a phone?"

Lewis said he has no recollection of asking Gregory to come to Mississippi, where students involved in the civil rights movement worked to register black voters in the early 1960s.

"I just don't see anyone telling me where my fight is going to be, and having Richard Russell's name removed from the Senate building is not my fight," Lewis said. "If we're going to remove the name of every racist from a federal building in Washington, then we would need a dump truck."

Confusion over Russell seems to be rooted in the duality of his legacy, one that was shared by a number of lawmakers in that era. He was an ardent populist, but an equally ardent opponent of what has come to be recognized as the basic human right to equal treatment under the law.

"His policies were essentially the policies of most of the Southern senators the years that he was there," Ritchie said. "He argued that the proposals would invade states' rights, which was the defense that the pro-segregationist forces used. He was very consistent."

Editor - 3/7/2003

From the British journal History Today (Vol. 53, No. 2, Feb. 2003)

Roy Beck considers the historical and moral dimensions of the latest attempt to put Jackson, and the
American Civil War itself, on the big screen.

Stonewall Jackson arrives on the screen with excellent credentials as an intriguing movie heavy. Consider his quirky religious piety and moral certitude on the side of the defenders of slavery, his reputation as a killing machine on the battlefield, his brilliant military tactics, his eccentric personality, harsh discipline, and death at the hands of his own men during his greatest victory.

All this - as well as spectacular, gut-wrenching combat - is captured in the movie Gods and Generals (released in the US this month by Warner Brothers), which follows the war in Virginia during the first two years leading up to the pivotal battle at Gettysburg in July 1863.

But director Ron Maxwell's epic depicts Jackson not as a cardboard villain but as a tender figure through whom themes of love and devotion can be explored. Maxwell believes these may help us understand what could have motivated Americans to kill and be killed in such massive numbers in the bloodiest of fashions.

Stephen Lang plays Jackson as a complex, sympathetic Confederate hero who lived by lofty standards, related easily and respectfully with free and enslaved blacks, carried on a passionate love affair with his wife between battles, and left camp to baptise his new-born daughter shortly before his final assault. It is a treat to see so much of Jackson's story portrayed.

Such an engaging portrayal of Confederates may be shocking to some and could raise questions of revisionism. Yet Maxwell's conversion of Michael Shaara's novel Killer Angels into the movie Gettysburg a decade ago earned him a reputation for accuracy and a reverence for the context of history.

Maxwell has refused to allow us to re-live the beginning of the Civil War from the vantage of the outcome and of modern sensibilities. He forces us to feel and see as a Virginian in 1861. And in exploring the mystical ties of most human beings to place and the universal abhorrence of invasion and occupation, this movie feels relevant to today's news when so many countries are in danger of disintegration, and when challenges are made to the very idea of the United States as a country of a particular people with a special tie to a particular place.

The movie's moral centre does not ultimately lie in Jackson, however, but in the person of Joshua Chamberlain, the unlikely Union hero portrayed by Jeff Daniels. While admiring the honour and even noble character of many of the Virginians he faced, this Maine professor-turned-officer reminds the audience that the Virginians' defence of their own liberty failed to recognise the denial of liberty to enslaved black residents.

In many ways, this movie is about the love of each of these two men for God, country and wife - how they differed, how they were similar and how they affected the course of the war. These themes unfold as Virginia secedes rather than raise an army to 'invade' South Carolina and as the war unfolds in the breathtaking battles of Manassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville.

Each of those battles offers a contrasting type of military tactics, terrain and drama. No doubt the producers hope the realistic battle sequences will be strong enough to appeal to teenage boys. If so, they will hear a lot of theology amidst the sounds of combat.

While Jackson's most important religious concept appears to be God's `will', Chamberlain's is God's `law'. Yet their interpretation of God's will or law leads each of them to risk his own life and take the lives of countless others. Jackson seems to watch for signs of what God wants him to do through the presentation of opportunities; Chamberlain is more likely to try to ascertain the moral choice according to his interpretation of God's law. Jackson prays and admits to not understanding the bondage of fellow human beings while appearing willing to wait for this to change in 'God's time'; Chamberlain sees slavery as an evil that human beings through moral choice should bring to an end in 'their time'. Chamberlain is willing to enact massive bloodshed to free people (slaves) from subjugation, while Jackson is willing to enact massive bloodshed to keep a people (Virginians) from becoming subjugated.

The deeply religious aspect of Americans at that time has been much remarked upon. But its portrayal here remains an exceptional insight into what the result of the Great Awakening was by mid-nineteenth century. A cross-section of the Revolutionary War, for example, would not have found similar devotion. The America that convulsed over whether to be a single nation and whether to eradicate slavery was a culture of intense theological awareness. Although this movie fails to portray the Christian pacifism and militant Christian abolitionism of the era, it may give more nuanced voice to the religious tenor of the times than any previous presentation on screen.

Religious differences also colour the interwoven and often parallel love stories of the two men with their wives. Anna Jackson (played by Kali Rocha) accepts her husband's decisions as mere following of the will of God. Fanny Chamberlain (Mira Sorvino) sees her own husband as having more choice and thus is less reconciled to what he does. The movie is at its most satisfying when it draws us into the contrasts and similarities of Jackson and Chamberlain, including scenes of them teaching in their respective college classrooms just before taking up arms.

In the lives of most Americans not raised in the Deep South, the Civil War may too easily have been seen as an easy choice between the goodness of the anti-slavery Union versus the evil of the pro-slavery Confederacy. If the choices had been that simple, though, there likely would never have been anything like the level of violence and suffering that occurred - at least that is a thrust of Gods and Generals.

Today, when economic forces are pushing toward a type of globalisation that tend to diminish, if not deny, peoples' special ties to land or community, Gods and Generals argues the existence of a universal human passion for these ties causing conflicts to emerge around the globe. Maxwell takes no chances that the viewer might miss this theme, opening with George Eliot's words:
A human life, I think, should be well rooted in some spot of a native land, where it may get the love of tender kinship for the face of the earth, for the labours men go forth to, for the sounds and accents that haunt it, for whatever will give that early home a familiar unmistakable difference amidst the future widening of knowledge. The best introduction to astronomy is to think of the nightly heavens as a little lot of stars belonging to one's own homestead.
Gods and Generals is provocative in allowing Jackson and Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall) to show why they thought Lincoln was invading their 'country' and home, forcing them into defending their land from the 'War of Northern Aggression' in what Jackson called 'this, our second War of Independence'.

Viewers unfamiliar with 150 years of academic speculation about the beginnings of the Civil War may be surprised to hear how convincing Lee and Jackson are in arguing that Lincoln misplayed his hand in 1861 and needlessly drove Lee and Jackson into Confederate leadership, when they just as easily could have led Union troops. Had Virginia remained in the Union, as its legislature had first voted, the Confederacy would have been denied two of its most skillful generals and the much-larger force of Union soldiers would not have had to suffer under incompetent generals until Gettysburg in July 1863. The case suggested by Maxwell's opening scenes is that because Lincoln's early orders helped push Virginia into the Confederacy, Gods and Generals is a movie of Confederate victories under Lee and Jackson as they repel three Union invasions.

In the battle of Manassas, Jackson repels the Union's first invasion of Virginia. Then in December 1862 at Fredericksburg, overwhelmingly superior numbers of Union forces attempt to break through to crush the Confederate capital of Richmond and restore all states to the Union. Especially powerful is the film's depiction of a Fredericksburg family at the beginning of the war and then as the Northern invasion smashes across the river and up the streets of their town. One may argue that the attack on the civilians and property of the city of Fredericksburg was provoked or was justified by higher purposes, but it would be hard to argue through the eyes of this featured family that they had not been invaded.

But one family's invasion can be another's liberation, as we know from Kosovo, Afghanistan, Somalia, Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Iraq and maybe Iraq again, in recent years. Each situation requires different weighing. When does the liberation outweigh the death and invasion? To help think about this momentous question, people around the world continue to be drawn to the ambiguities and colossal tragedy of the American Civil War. Gods and Generals is a gift to all who wrestle with the big moral issues of war and peace, justice and liberty- and especially issues of humans' ties to place and community - through a new view of the soft side of the Stonewall.

Editor - 3/6/2003

Untitled Document


By Norman Solomon

Three days after a British newspaper revealed a memo about U.S. spying on U.N. Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers."

The key word is "timely." Publication of the secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had already been underway for many years. But with all-out war on Iraq still in the future, the leak about spying at the United Nations could erode the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council.

"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the London-based Observer reported on March 2, the U.S. government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency -- the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world -- and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency."

The Observer added: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in New York -- the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for U.N. inspections, led by France, China and Russia."

The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, outlines the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council -- "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises."

Three days after the memo came to light, the Times of London printed an article noting that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its zeal for war on Iraq. "In the most recent setback," the newspaper reported, "a memorandum by the U.S. National Security Agency, leaked to the Observer, revealed that American spies were ordered to eavesdrop on the conversations of the six undecided countries on the United Nations Security Council."

The London Times article called it an "embarrassing disclosure." And the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.

Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in America's supposed paper of record. The New York Times -- the single most influential media outlet in the United States -- still had not printed anything about the story. How could that be?

"Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," New York Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale said on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. "We could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from U.S. officials.

The Times opted not to relay the Observer's account, Smale told me. "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." She added: "We are still definitely looking into it. It's not that we're not."

Belated coverage would be better than none at all. But readers should be suspicious of the failure of the New York Times to cover this story during the crucial first days after it broke. At some moments in history, when war and peace hang in the balance, journalism delayed is journalism denied.

Overall, the sparse U.S. coverage that did take place seemed eager to downplay the significance of the Observer's revelations. On March 4, the Washington Post ran a back-page 514-word article headlined "Spying Report No Shock to U.N.," while the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that began by emphasizing that U.S. spy activities at the United Nations are "long-standing."

The U.S. media treatment has contrasted sharply with coverage on other continents. "While some have taken a ho-hum attitude in the U.S., many around the world are furious," says Ed Vulliamy, one of the Observer reporters who wrote the March 2 article. "Still, almost all governments are extremely reluctant to speak up against the espionage. This further illustrates their vulnerability to the U.S. government."

To Daniel Ellsberg, the leaking of the NSA memo was a hopeful sign. "Truth-telling like this can stop a war," he said. Time is short for insiders at intelligence agencies "to tell the truth and save many many lives." But major news outlets must stop dodging the information that emerges.


Norman Solomon is co-author of the new book "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You," published by Context Books (

Background link:

Don Williams - 3/6/2003

From: Don Williams; ; NRA member 052801824

Subj: US Army History Center which refutes Bellesiles needs to be saved

1) In 2000, historian Michael Bellesiles published "Arming America" to great acclaim by academic historians and by gun control groups. "Arming America" was called the "NRA's worse nightmare" because it argued that (a) the Revolutionary War citizens had few guns and (b) the citizen militias were incompetent and couldn't fight anyway. What was not mentioned in the mainstream press was that "Arming America" was the spearhead of a strong campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in a precedent-setting Supreme Court case, US vs Emerson.
and updates at

Note: If the above links don't work, cut and paste them into your browser's address box near the top of the window and hit the Enter key )

In 2000, Arming America was initially greeted with great acclaim by reviewers in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, and by gun control advocacy groups. Some prominent historians allied with Michael Bellesiles in gun control advocacy in the US vs Emerson campaign praised Arming America highly --without noting their ideological alliance with Bellesiles. Arming America received History’s two highest awards -- the Binkley-Stephenson and the Bancroft prize.

However, review of Arming America by scholars outside of academia’s history departments triggered a rising tide of criticism, articles in several national newspapers, and an investigation by Mr Bellesiles’ Emory University. After Emory’s Committee of outside experts reached a negative judgment on his research methods, Mr Bellesiles resigned from at tenured professorship at Emory University, Columbia University rescinded the Bancroft Prize award to Mr Bellesiles, and Knopf decided to cease publication of Arming America. See

2) Among the best refutations of Bellesiles was a reference --"American Military History" done by the US Army's Center of Military History (CMH). Throughout 2002, I cited this reference repeatedly when discussing Arming America in the historians' H-OIEAHC forum and in the Arming America discussion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

3) Now, however, the CMH is slated for destruction -- as a recent History News Network article notes, some Pentagon bureaucrats are considering contracting out the CMH mission to liberal academia: see , para 2.

This is a very bad idea for several reasons. First I will explain why --then I will explain what you need to do.

4) One, many academic historians have a strong liberal bias --as shown by the uncritical
acceptance of Arming America and by the fact that the major criticism of Arming America largely came from outside the history departments of academia. Even historians who are not necessarily liberal largely remained silent -- probably to avoid offending the powerful historians involved in the US vs Emerson campaign.

Two, many academic historians appear to have an institutional and individual aversion to military matters. Historians' familarity with the military appears to have greatly declined since the end of the draft. In my opinion, Bellesiles' "Arming America" -- and it's receipt of academic History's two highest honors -- indicates that many academic historians today lack the basic understanding of military operations needed to interpret historical sources.

Three, Arming America suggests that academic historians do not understand the influence that politics, diplomacy, geography, and economics exert on military operations. Arming America greatly lacks the broad perspective of CMH's American Military History and of the monographs produced at the Army's Command and General Staff College. Bellesiles failed to recognize how the militia victories at Bennington, Saratoga, King's Mountain, and Cowpens convinced the French and Spanish to provide Congress with desperately needed aid. Bellesiles failed to recognize that King George was borrowing money from Dutch bankers to finance his war -- and that the bankers cut off his credit when the southern militia showed that he could never subdue several hundred thousand armed men in a trackless wilderness. At least, King George could not do so and make any kind of a profit in commerce.

5) Proof of the above observations can be seen by comparing Bellesiles' assessments of militia performance in battles with those of CMH's "American Military History".

a)Bellesiles re Revolutionary War militia: “Many leaders believed their own prewar rhetoric that the militia could win the war; others found that notion laughable….The militia, Jefferson’s repository of courage and virtue, had not come through in times of ultimate crisis; the Continental army, the professional soldiers, had.” (Arming America, p. 193, 207)

Center for Military History: “The militia, the men who fought battles and then went home, also exhibited this spirit on many occasions. The militiamen have been generally maligned as useless by one school of thought, and glorified by another as the true victors in the war. In any balanced view it must be recognized that their contributions were great, though they would have counted for little without a Continental Army to give the American cause that continued sustenance that only a permanent force in being could give it. It was the ubiquity of the militia that made British victories over the Continentals in the field so meaningless. And the success with which the militia did operate derived from the firm political control the patriots had established over the countryside long before the British were in any position to challenge it—the situation that made the British task so difficult in the first place “ ( , bottom of page)

b) Bellesiles re militia in War of 1812: “In battle after battle the militia had performed terribly , if at all. The only view that most regular troops had of the militia in the midst of battle was of their backs as these “citizen-soldiers” fled in terror. “ (p. 259 )

Center for Military History: “The militia performed as well as the Regular Army. The defeats and humiliations of the Regular forces during the first years of the war matched those of the militia, just as in a later period the Kentucky volunteers at the Thames and the Maryland militia before Baltimore proved that the state citizen soldier could perform well. “ ( , bottom of page )

c) For detailed examples, e.g., re battles of Cowpens and New Orleans, see my following H-OIEAHC articles:

6) In short, the Pentagon's closure of the Army's Center for Military History would be ill-advised because academic historians cannot serve the Army as well as CMH -- they have neither the inclination nor the ability to do so. The Army would be foolish to surrender it’s history to academia.

7) But the measure of CMH's value is not just what it provides the Army -- it is what CMH provides the American people as the Army's institutional memory. History is our only means for determining the long term consequences of governmental policies and laws. History is used by politicians when crafting measures to deal with current events (e.g., Homeland Security and September 11). It is used by professors of Constitutional Law in understanding the intricate checks and balances of the Constitution. It is used by students examining what it means to be an American citizen.

As an independent center of historical research, the Army’s Center for Military History(CMH)’s objective history is a badly needed counterweight to liberal propaganda from academia and the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Propaganda like Arming America. The case files of two recent precedent-setting Second Amendment rulings -- US vs Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals) and Silveira vs Lochyer (Ninth Circuit Court ) are laded with Bellesiles’ now-questionable historical context for the Second Amendment , as described in my H-OIEAHC post cited in para 1 above. The work of the Army’s CMH is one of the authoritative rebuttals to Bellesiles’ false and misleading depictions of the early militias.

The CMH should be supported not because it takes a position in the ongoing Second Amendment debate (it does not) but because it’s objectivity, honesty, and committed professionalism are badly needed today.

The CMH should be supported because the cost savings of privatization are minor, vaguely defined and questionable. The Army would incur significant costs in privatization just in educating academicans on the nature of military operations,etc.

In closing, note that I know no one at the CMH nor have I spoken with anyone there. I support CMH because I am a grateful user of their products.

8) Here is what needs to be done (quickly):

Please Email your Congressman and Senators, expressing opposition to this action and specifically asking that the Army’s Center for Military History (CMH) be exempted from
A-76 “ outsourcing” consideration. If you are pressed for time, you are welcome to enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.

Carbon-copy your email to the following:

a) members of the House Armed Services Committee
b) members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
c) Dr John Armstrong, assistant deputy assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and
reserve affairs (don’t snicker).

The HNN article cited above indicates that Dr Armstrong made CMH subject to privatization. This article indicates that Dr Armstrong is the genius behind the wave of privatization throughout the Army--that he directed the study justifying it during the Clinton Administration:

d) Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (who supposedly will make the final decision)

e) The Center for Military History

f) Please also carbon copy President Bush and Lynne Cheney (wife of the Vice-President) --both of whom have voiced a strong desire to support history.

If you are pressed for time, simply note your opposition and enclosed a copy of this letter by way of explanation.

Emails for the above parties are as follows:

Your Congressman:

Your Senators:

Senate Armed Services Committee:
(At least carbon copy Chairman John Warner at
if pressed for time

House Armed Services Committee:
(Chairman Duncan Hunter at )

Dr John Armstrong at
Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, via
US Army Center for Military History at
President Bush at
Lynne Cheney via her husband at

Francisco Staffanell - 3/6/2003

And how about our intervention in Panama, Mr. Powell? And how about Granada? More lies told in public with a straight face, in my opinion.

Don Williams - 3/5/2003

In my opinion, the Army's Center of Military History's mission should not be passed on to the Library of Congress or to the Smithsonian. For one things, those organizations already have a lot on their plate --I doubt if they would be as committed to CMH's mission as CMH is. Two, those organizations have no particular expertise in military operations -- no ties or internal relationships with other Army units which would foster collaboration and a sophisticated understanding of past military operations/records.

I have not worked with CMH or spoken with anyone there. I have , however, worked as a contractor on Army projects -- e.g, the computer system ATCCS to support dispersal of battle plans (oplans) among the headquarters of the numerous units within an Army corp and division. As part of that task, I visited the Army's Command and General Staff College(CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth
(see ). The CMH doesn't just do history -- it supports Army units like the CGSC which try to learn from history.

For example, here is a description of how the Army looks at the 1781 Battle of Cowpens in figuring out how to use militia with regular troops:

Consider the recent Afghanistan campaign -- was the Northern Alliance which fought with US troops a regular army or was it militia? Who are the Green Berets tasked to train in US-supported insurgencies --militia or regular forces?

Don Williams - 3/5/2003

From: Don Williams; ; NRA member 052801824

Subj: US Army History Center which refutes Bellesiles needs to be saved

1) In 2000, historian Michael Bellesiles published "Arming America" to great acclaim by academic historians and by gun control groups. "Arming America" was called the "NRA's worse nightmare" because it argued that (a) the Revolutionary War citizens had few guns and (b) the citizen militias were incompetent and couldn't fight anyway. What was not mentioned in the mainstream press was that "Arming America" was the spearhead of a strong campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in a precedent-setting Supreme Court case, US vs Emerson.
and updates at )

In 2000, Arming America was initially greeted with great acclaim by reviewers in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, and by gun control advocacy groups. Some prominent historians allied with Michael Bellesiles in gun control advocacy in the US vs Emerson campaign praised Arming America highly --without noting their ideological alliance with Bellesiles. Arming America received History’s two highest awards -- the Binkley-Stephenson and the Bancroft prize.

However, review of Arming America by scholars outside of academia’s history departments triggered a rising tide of criticism, articles in several national newspapers, and an investigation by Mr Bellesiles’ Emory University. After Emory’s Committee of outside experts reached a negative judgment on his research methods, Mr Bellesiles resigned from at tenured professorship at Emory University, Columbia University rescinded the Bancroft Prize award to Mr Bellesiles, and Knopf decided to cease publication of Arming America. See

2) Among the best refutations of Bellesiles was a reference --"American Military History" done by the US Army's Center of Military History (CMH). Throughout 2002, I cited this reference repeatedly when discussing Arming America in the historians' H-OIEAHC forum and in the Arming America discussion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

3) Now, however, the CMH is slated for destruction -- as a recent History News Network article notes, some Pentagon bureaucrats are considering contracting out the CMH mission to liberal academia: see , para 2.

This is a very bad idea for several reasons. First I will explain why --then I will explain what you need to do.

4) One, many academic historians have a strong liberal bias --as shown by the uncritical
acceptance of Arming America and by the fact that the major criticism of Arming America largely came from outside the history departments of academia. Even historians who are not necessarily liberal largely remained silent -- probably to avoid offending the powerful historians involved in the US vs Emerson campaign.

Two, many academic historians appear to have an institutional and individual aversion to military matters. Historians' familarity with the military appears to have greatly declined since the end of the draft. In my opinion, Bellesiles' "Arming America" -- and it's receipt of academic History's two highest honors -- indicates that many academic historians today lack the basic understanding of military operations needed to interpret historical sources.

Three, Arming America suggests that academic historians do not understand the influence that politics, diplomacy, geography, and economics exert on military operations. Arming America greatly lacks the broad perspective of CMH's American Military History and of the monographs produced at the Army's Command and General Staff College. Bellesiles failed to recognize how the militia victories at Bennington, Saratoga, King's Mountain, and Cowpens convinced the French and Spanish to provide Congress with desperately needed aid. Bellesiles failed to recognize that King George was borrowing money from Dutch bankers to finance his war -- and that the bankers cut off his credit when the southern militia showed that he could never subdue several hundred thousand armed men in a trackless wilderness. At least, King George could not do so and make any kind of a profit in commerce.

5) Proof of the above observations can be seen by comparing Bellesiles' assessments of militia performance in battles with those of CMH's "American Military History".

a)Bellesiles re Revolutionary War militia: “Many leaders believed their own prewar rhetoric that the militia could win the war; others found that notion laughable….The militia, Jefferson’s repository of courage and virtue, had not come through in times of ultimate crisis; the Continental army, the professional soldiers, had.” (Arming America, p. 193, 207)

Center for Military History: “The militia, the men who fought battles and then went home, also exhibited this spirit on many occasions. The militiamen have been generally maligned as useless by one school of thought, and glorified by another as the true victors in the war. In any balanced view it must be recognized that their contributions were great, though they would have counted for little without a Continental Army to give the American cause that continued sustenance that only a permanent force in being could give it. It was the ubiquity of the militia that made British victories over the Continentals in the field so meaningless. And the success with which the militia did operate derived from the firm political control the patriots had established over the countryside long before the British were in any position to challenge it—the situation that made the British task so difficult in the first place “ ( , bottom of page)

b) Bellesiles re militia in War of 1812: “In battle after battle the militia had performed terribly , if at all. The only view that most regular troops had of the militia in the midst of battle was of their backs as these “citizen-soldiers” fled in terror. “ (p. 259 )

Center for Military History: “The militia performed as well as the Regular Army. The defeats and humiliations of the Regular forces during the first years of the war matched those of the militia, just as in a later period the Kentucky volunteers at the Thames and the Maryland militia before Baltimore proved that the state citizen soldier could perform well. “ ( , bottom of page )

c) For detailed examples, e.g., re battles of Cowpens and New Orleans, see my following H-OIEAHC articles:

6) In short, the Pentagon's closure of the Army's Center for Military History would be ill-advised because academic historians cannot serve the Army as well as CMH -- they have neither the inclination nor the ability to do so. The Army would be foolish to surrender it’s history to academia.

7) But the measure of CMH's value is not just what it provides the Army -- it is what CMH provides the American people as the Army's institutional memory. History is our only means for determining the long term consequences of governmental policies and laws. History is used by politicians when crafting measures to deal with current events (e.g., Homeland Security and September 11). It is used by professors of Constitutional Law in understanding the intricate checks and balances of the Constitution. It is used by students examining what it means to be an American citizen.

As an independent center of historical research, the Army’s Center for Military History(CMH)’s objective history is a badly needed counterweight to liberal propaganda from academia and the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Propaganda like Arming America. The case files of two recent precedent-setting Second Amendment rulings -- US vs Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals) and Silveira vs Lochyer (Ninth Circuit Court ) are laded with Bellesiles’ now-questionable historical context for the Second Amendment , as described in my H-OIEAHC post cited in para 1 above. The work of the Army’s CMH is one of the authoritative rebuttals to Bellesiles’ false and misleading depictions of the early militias.

The CMH should be supported not because it takes a position in the ongoing Second Amendment debate (it does not) but because it’s objectivity, honesty, and committed professionalism are badly needed today.

The CMH should be supported because the cost savings of privatization are minor, vaguely defined and questionable. The Army would incur significant costs in privatization just in educating academicans on the nature of military operations,etc.

In closing, note that I know no one at the CMH nor have I spoken with anyone there. I support CMH because I am a grateful user of their products.

8) Here is what needs to be done (quickly):

Please Email your Congressman and Senators, expressing opposition to this action and specifically asking that the Army’s Center for Military History (CMH) be exempted from
A-76 “ outsourcing” consideration. If you are pressed for time, you are welcome to enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.

Carbon-copy your email to the following:

a) members of the House Armed Services Committee
b) members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
c) Dr John Armstrong, assistant deputy assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and
reserve affairs (don’t snicker).

The HNN article cited above indicates that Dr Armstrong made CMH subject to privatization. This article indicates that Dr Armstrong is the genius behind the wave of privatization throughout the Army--that he directed the study justifying it during the Clinton Administration:

d) Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (who supposedly will make the final decision)

e) The Center for Military History

f) Please also carbon copy President Bush and Lynne Cheney (wife of the Vice-President) --both of whom have voiced a strong desire to support history.

If you are pressed for time, simply note your opposition and enclosed a copy of this letter by way of explanation.

Emails for the above parties are as follows:

Your Congressman:

Your Senators:

Senate Armed Services Committee:
(At least carbon copy Chairman John Warner at
if pressed for time

House Armed Services Committee:
(Chairman Duncan Hunter at )

Dr John Armstrong at
Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, via
US Army Center for Military History at
President Bush at
Lynne Cheney via her husband at

Junkyard God - 3/5/2003

Couldn't the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian handle this?

Don Williams - 3/5/2003

Bellesiles re Revolutionary War militia: “Many leaders believed their own prewar rhetoric that the militia could win the war; others found that notion laughable….The militia, Jefferson’s repository of courage and virtue, had not come through in times of ultimate crisis; the Continental army, the professional soldiers, had.” (Arming America, p. 193, 207)

Center for Military History: “The militia, the men who fought battles and then went home, also exhibited this spirit on many occasions. The militiamen have been generally maligned as useless by one school of thought, and glorified by another as the true victors in the war. In any balanced view it must be recognized that their contributions were great, though they would have counted for little without a Continental Army to give the American cause that continued sustenance that only a permanent force in being could give it. It was the ubiquity of the militia that made British victories over the Continentals in the field so meaningless. And the success with which the militia did operate derived from the firm political control the patriots had established over the countryside long before the British were in any position to challenge it—the situation that made the British task so difficult in the first place “ ( , bottom of page)

Bellesiles re militia in War of 1812: “In battle after battle the militia had performed terribly , if at all. The only view that most regular troops had of the militia in the midst of battle was of their backs as these “citizen-soldiers” fled in terror. “ (p. 259 )

Center for Military History: “The militia performed as well as the Regular Army. The defeats and humiliations of the Regular forces during the first years of the war matched those of the militia, just as in a later period the Kentucky volunteers at the Thames and the Maryland militia before Baltimore proved that the state citizen soldier could perform well. “ ( , bottom of page )

Don Williams - 3/5/2003

From: Don Williams; ; NRA member 052801824

Subj: US Army History Center which refutes Bellesiles needs to be saved

1) In 2000, historian Michael Bellesiles published "Arming America" to great acclaim by academic historians and by gun control groups. "Arming America" was called the "NRA's worse nightmare" because it argued that (a) the Revolutionary War citizens had few guns and (b) the citizen militias were incompetent and couldn't fight anyway.

What was not mentioned in the mainstream press was that "Arming America" was the spearhead of a strong campaign by some prominent historians to overturn the Second Amendment in a precedent-setting Supreme Court case, US vs Emerson.
and updates at )

In 2000, Arming America was initially greeted with great acclaim by reviewers in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, and by gun control advocacy groups. Some prominent historians allied with Michael Bellesiles in gun control advocacy in the US vs Emerson campaign praised Arming America highly --without noting their ideological alliance with Bellesiles. Arming America received History’s two highest awards -- the Binkley-Stephenson and the Bancroft prize.

However, review of Arming America by scholars outside of academia’s history departments triggered a rising tide of criticism, articles in several national newspapers, and an investigation by Mr Bellesiles’ Emory University. After Emory’s Committee of outside experts reached a negative judgment on his research methods, Mr Bellesiles resigned from a tenured professorship at Emory University, Columbia University rescinded the Bancroft Prize award to Mr Bellesiles, and Knopf decided to cease publication of Arming America.

2) Among the best refutations of Bellesiles was a reference --"American Military History" done by the US Army's Center for Military History (CMH). Throughout 2002, I cited this reference repeatedly when discussing Arming America in the historians' H-OIEAHC forum and in the Arming America discussion sponsored by the Chronicle of Higher Education.

3) Now, however, the CMH is slated for destruction -- as a recent History News Network article notes, some Pentagon bureaucrats are considering contracting out the CMH mission to liberal academia: see , para 2.

This is a very bad idea for several reasons. First I will explain why --then I will explain what you need to do.

4) One, many academic historians have a strong liberal bias --as shown by the uncritical acceptance of Arming America and by the fact that the major criticism of Arming America largely came from outside the history departments of academia. Even historians who are not necessarily liberal largely remained silent -- probably to avoid offending the powerful historians involved in the US vs Emerson campaign.

Two, many academic historians appear to have an institutional and individual aversion to military matters. Historians' familarity with the military appears to have greatly declined since the end of the draft. In my opinion, Bellesiles' "Arming America" -- and it's receipt of academic History's two highest honors -- indicates that many academic historians today lack the basic understanding of military operations needed to interpret historical sources.

Three, Arming America suggests that academic historians do not understand the influence that politics, diplomacy, geography, and economics exert on military operations. Arming America greatly lacks the broad perspective of CMH's American Military History and of the monographs produced at the Army's Command and General Staff College. Bellesiles failed to recognize how the militia victories at Bennington, Saratoga, King's Mountain, and Cowpens convinced the French and Spanish to provide Congress with desperately needed aid. Bellesiles failed to recognize that King George was borrowing money from Dutch bankers to finance his war -- and that the bankers cut off his credit when the southern militia showed that he could never subdue several hundred thousand armed men in a trackless wilderness. At least, King George could not do so and make any kind of a profit in commerce.

Proof of the above observations can be seen by comparing Bellesiles' assessments of militia performance in battles with those of CMH's "American Military History". For examples, see my following H-OIEAHC articles:

5) In short, the Pentagon's closure of the Army's Center for Military History would be ill-advised because academic historians cannot serve the Army as well as CMH -- they have neither the inclination nor the ability to do so. The Army would be foolish to surrender it’s history to academia.

6) But the measure of CMH's value is not just what it provides the Army -- it is what CMH provides the American people as the Army's institutional memory. History is our only means for determining the long term consequences of governmental policies and laws. History is used by politicians when crafting measures to deal with current events (e.g., Homeland Security and September 11). It is used by professors of Constitutional Law in understanding the intricate checks and balances of the Constitution. It is used by students examining what it means to be an American citizen.

As an independent center of historical research, the Army’s Center for Military History(CMH)’s objective history is a badly needed counterweight to liberal propaganda from academia and the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Propaganda like Arming America. The case files of two recent precedent-setting Second Amendment rulings -- US vs Emerson (Fifth Circuit Court of Federal Appeals) and Silveira vs Lochyer (Ninth Circuit Court ) are laded with Bellesiles’ now-questionable historical context for the Second Amendment , as described in my H-OIEAHC post cited in para 1 above. The work of the Army’s CMH is one of the authoritative rebuttals to Bellesiles’ false and misleading depictions of the early militias.

The CMH should be supported not because it takes a position in the ongoing Second Amendment debate (it does not) but because it’s objectivity, honesty, and committed professionalism are badly needed today.

The CMH should be supported because the cost savings of privatization are minor, vaguely defined and questionable. The Army would incur significant costs in privatization just in educating academicans on the nature of military operations,etc.

In closing, note that I know no one at the CMH nor have I spoken with anyone there. I support CMH because I am a grateful user of their products.

7) Here is what needs to be done (quickly):

Please Email your Congressman and Senators, expressing opposition to this action and specifically asking that the Army’s Center for Military History (CMH) be exempted from
A-76 “ outsourcing” consideration. If you are pressed for time, you are welcome to enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.

Carbon-copy your email to the following:

a) members of the House Armed Services Committee
b) members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
c) Dr John Armstrong, assistant deputy assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and
reserve affairs

The HNN article cited above indicates that Dr Armstrong made CMH subject to privatization. This article indicates that Dr Armstrong is the genius behind the wave of privatization throughout the Army--that he directed the study justifying it during the Clinton Administration:

d) Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs (who supposedly will make the final decision)

e) The Center for Military History

f) Please also carbon copy President Bush and Lynne Cheney (wife of the Vice-President) --both of whom have voiced a strong desire to support history.

If you are pressed for time, simply note your opposition and enclose a copy of this letter by way of explanation.

Emails for the above parties are as follows:

Your Congressman:

Your Senators:

Senate Armed Services Committee:
(At least carbon copy Chairman John Warner at
if pressed for time

House Armed Services Committee:
(Chairman Duncan Hunter at )

Dr John Armstrong at
Reginald Brown, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, via
US Army Center for Military History at
President Bush at
Lynne Cheney via her husband at

catherine milner - 3/4/2003

Hello, I am a journalist working for the Sunday Telegraph in London and would very much like to make contact witrh John Russell. Do you hacve an email address or phone number for him??

Chris Murphy - 3/3/2003

Andrew Roberts may be right to claim that Churchill "faced public obloquy and collapsing political popularity, until he was proved right, when he became the most popular prime minister in recent memory".

On the other hand, he is completely wrong to suggest that Bush or Blair can somehow be compared to "that brave politician".

Churchill had worn the uniform; he had vast experience in war and war planning; and he knew the history of Britain and the Britons better than most. Further, the fact that Britain was threatened by a madman with massive military forces was undeniable.

Churchill showed great bravery (after all, the man's very own life was on the line).

Today's wretched and cowardly "leaders" demonstrate not only their ignorance but their inability and unwillingness to weigh up the facts of the matter in order to find the best possible long-term solution.

Simply going to war is a massive no-brainer -- and therefore very apt indeed for the likes of Bush and Blair.

Editor - 3/3/2003

No regrets In his controversial new memoir, historian Eric Hobsbawm recalls a lifetime in the British Communist Party

By Matthew Price, 3/2/2003

IN A 1994 BRITISH television interview, the journalist Michael Ignatieff put a startling question to Eric Hobsbawm, the distinguished historian and long-time communist. ''Had the radiant tomorrow actually been created,'' Ignatieff asked, referring to the Soviet Union and its bloody history, ''the loss of 15, 20 million people might have been justified?'' Hobsbawm's answer was perhaps even more startling. ''Yes,'' responded the historian. He did not hesitate.

Few figures of Hobsbawm's stature have maintained such a steadfast devotion to the battered communist project. An unrepentant member of the Communist Party of Great Britain from 1936 until shortly before the party closed up shop in 1991, Hobsbawm soldiered on through the Cold War, often a skeptical, weary comrade, but a party man nearly to the end; he was certainly England's most famous communist.

In Britain, the recent publication of Hobsbawm's memoirs, ''Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life'' (forthcoming from Pantheon in the United States this August) has refocused attention on his long-lasting party loyalties. Today, Hobsbawm calls himself ''a lifelong but anomalous communist,'' and while he has regrets about the past, he offers no apologies for his beliefs. Is the eminent historian a man of abiding principle or appalling blindness?

At 85, Hobsbawm is a grandee of the British intellectual establishment: About the only thing missing from his long list of honors is a knighthood. Every inch the English don-he is hardly a fire-breathing revolutionary-Hobsbawm is a man of fastidious demeanor who enjoys listening to jazz records (he was jazz critic for the New Statesman in the 1950s) and has a noted fondness for travel.

Hobsbawm made his name in the `50s as a Marxist historian. But his idiosyncratic passions took him far beyond the world of the industrial working classes: He also wrote with sympathy about the rural poor, urban mobs, Sicilian bandits, American gangsters, and other ''primitive rebels,'' as he dubbed them. A vigorous, footloose researcher, Hobsbawm never confined himself to dusty archives or stale seminar rooms; one could just as easily find him confirming a fact with a peasant on an Andean hillside. Later, in a series of panoramic surveys, he charted the rise of capitalism during the ''long nineteenth century'' (1789-1914), winning applause from readers of all political persuasions.

Still, Hobsbawm's politics have raised more than a few eyebrows during his life-and never more so than since the publication of ''Interesting Times.'' Even the most sympathetic readers, such as New Left Review editor Perry Anderson, note a troubling silence about the Stalinist terrors that tested-and broke-the faith of other ardent Party members.

In The Times Literary Supplement, historian Richard Vinen bristled at Hobsbawm's omissions. ''There is something disconcerting about the way in which Hobsbawm veers away from questions about his own political commitment,'' Vinen wrote. ''Indeed, the closer that he comes to such questions, the more confusing he becomes.'' In Prospect magazine, the writer Ian Buruma concluded that Hobsbawm ''is a decent man who served a blood-soaked cause.''

In his memoir, Hobsbawm stresses the importance of time, place, and historical circumstance as a powerful catalyst for his beliefs. He relates that he was born to nonreligious Jewish parents in 1917; his father was an English citizen living in Alexandria, Egypt, his mother a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hobsbawm spent his boyhood in Vienna and, after the death of both parents in the late `20s, in Weimar Berlin.

Berlin, a left-wing city with a strong workers' movement, would be a crucible for his beliefs. He watched the disintegration of Weimar Republic, and the rise of the Nazis. By 1933, with Hitler in power, the teenage Hobsbawm moved to England to live with a relative. He entered Cambridge University and joined the Communist Party soon after.

Reading Hobsbawm's richly textured evocations of Berlin and Vienna between the wars, one can see the political and psychological appeal Communism would have had for an uprooted, parentless young man whose world-both public and private-was falling to pieces around him. Liberalism and democracy had failed, and ''we were not liberals,'' he states. The CP gave him a structure and an outlook; being a member of a vanguard party, he writes, ''was a combination of discipline, business efficiency, utter emotional identification, and a sense of total dedication.''

In surveying the 20th century, Hobsbawm's favorite reference points are the Popular Front of the 1930s and the oft-romanticized crusade against Fascism-not the grim realities of show trials, forced collectivization, political murder, man-made famine, censorship, and the general ruthlessness of Stalin's Russia. About these, ''Interesting Times'' has its contradictions and evasions. Hobsbawm tells us he is moved by the appeal of anti-fascism; but, on his own account, he was little troubled by the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939, even though it caused an uproar in Party circles of London, Paris, and New York.

Khrushchev's speech on Stalin's crimes, and the Soviet invasion of Hungary, caused two of his close colleagues, E.P. Thompson and fellow historian Christopher Hill (who died this past Monday at 91), to leave the party. But not Hobsbawm. He loathed the thought of ''being in the company of anticommunists'' like Arthur Koestler. The party, for all its flaws, was his home. ''The reasons for going were not strong enough,'' he writes. ''In practice I recycled myself from militant to sympathizer or fellow-traveler.'' Spiritually, he drifted into the orbit of the relatively mainstream Italian Communist Party (where he had many personal contacts), becoming, he tells me, merely an ''ornament'' to the British Communist Party. He was hardly out in the street flogging copies of the Daily Worker.

Today, Hobsbawm admits that ''we kept our eyes and ears shut about things like the trials,'' and that he ''couldn't conceivably defend the Stalinist terror.'' Still, he repeatedly stresses that communism was a movement of world revolution. ''The appalling things that happened in Russia were only one side of the picture for us-as far as the rest of the world was concerned, Russia and the power of the Soviet Union were a force for liberation for colonial peoples.'' He adds, ''You may say that wasn't such a good idea in some parts of the world. But it was felt to be.''

How did Hobsbawm's politics affect his scholarship? Can a communist also be a judicious scholar? This is a question which, at least in some quarters, has been hotly debated. In a New Criterion essay which savaged the historian this January, journalist David Pryce-Jones thundered that ''Communism destroyed him as a thinker or interpreter of events.'' Arguably, Hobsbawm's failures are most glaring when the topic is the communist world of the 20th century. In his only full-length work on 20th-century history, ''The Age of Extremes'' (1994), he dubiously argues that ''the Soviet system was not `totalitarian.''' His bold description of the Cold War years as ''The Golden Age'' raised the hackles of a few critics. ''To refer to the years 1950-1974 as a `Golden Age' cannot help but sound ironic to someone from, say, Prague,'' the historian Tony Judt commented in the New York Review of Books.

For Hobsbawm, the Cold War is an object of considerable nostalgia. He places heavy emphasis on the rising affluence of the Western working classes, who flourished in the two decades after World War II, becoming able to afford washing machines and cars. At the same time, he points out that the Soviet Union outperformed the West economically in the 1950s. Meanwhile, the Cold War provided the world with a stable system of international relations (given our present situation, a compelling argument), and the might of the Soviet Union gave capitalism an ''incentive'' to reform itself-''fear''-that is lacking today.

Hobsbawm continues to speak fondly of the Brezhnev era. He recalls that a ''lady from Leningrad who married a close friend of mine told me in the 1970s: ''You must realize that for ordinary Russians these are the best times in their or their father's and grandfather's lives.'''

What of his political convictions today? I ask. ''I was very strongly committed and I remain committed to collective action for change,'' Hobsbawm says. He tells me how enormously cheered he is by the recent victory of Lula, Brazil's new left-wing president. And he cites a recent poll showing that the Vietnamese are the most satisfied with the prospects for their children. Still, he is sobered by the 20th century's ugly history. Via e-mail, he ventures a final assessment: ''It is not for someone who supported the USSR to minimize the human costs of the Soviet and Chinese experiments.'' But, he adds, ''It is for others to say that not only Communism was blood-stained.''

Matthew Price, a Brooklyn-based writer, is a regular contributor to the Boston Globe.

This story ran on page E1 of the Boston Globe on 3/2/2003. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Editor - 3/3/2003


"This is an idea whose time has come. In fact, the time has been long overdue," says Thomas M. Daly, the president of a group of history minded citizens and scholars who plan to tell the entire story of the American Revolution in a sleek new building at Valley Forge National Historical Park. The Center's goal, to raise $100,000,000 for this formidable task, came significantly closer on December 20, 2002, when outgoing Republican Governor Mark Schweiker of Pennsylvania awarded the group $8,000,000 for construction costs. Incoming Democratic Governor Edward Rendell expressed similar enthusiasm about the project on a recent visit to Valley Forge.

Daly, a Naval Academy graduate who has had impressive careers in both the Navy and business, said Schweiker's grant "adds significantly to the legitimacy of our project." Schweiker made the grant 225 years to the day after Washington led his bedraggled and dispirited Continental Army to its winter encampment at Valley Forge, while the British troops were ensconced in the relative comfort of Philadelphia. Six months later, on June 19, 1778, the Americans marched out of Valley Forge a disciplined confident and motivated army, thanks to the skills of drillmaster Baron Friedrich von Steuben.

Valley Forge's role as a turning point in the war was one among several reasons why the park was chosen as the site for the National Center. Also important in persuading Congress to pass legislation enabling the Center to be built there was the fact that the combined collections of the National Park Service and the Center will constitute the largest known collection of objects, manuscripts and artifacts from the period of the Revolution. The NPS is an enthusiastic partner in this unique public/private endeavor.

Daly has recruited an impressive board of scholars to advise and consult on the history side of the story: The founding chairman is David McCullough, twice the winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his biographies of John Adams and Harry S. Truman; Thomas Fleming, author of biographies of Franklin and Jefferson and of Liberty! The American Revolution, the highly praised book that was a companion volume to the award winning TV series; R. Don Higginbotham, Dowd Professor of American History at the University of North Carolina, author of The War Of American Independence and a leading Washington scholar; Holly Mayer of Duquesne University, author of Belonging to the Army, a well regarded book on the role of women in the Continental Army, and Richard R. Beeman, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania and author of Beyond Confederation, the Origins of the American Constitution and National Identity. Arthur Stewart, Superintendent of Valley Forge National Historical Park, has also joined the board. He has a broad understanding of Valley Forge and the American Revolution.

Herman O. Benninghoff II, also a member of the Board of Scholars, has donated his huge collection of Revolutionary War artifacts to the Center. These include muskets, uniforms, tent equipment, swords, powder horns and original documents, totaling over 7000 objects. Haley Sharpe, the internationally recognized British design firm, has been chosen to develop the interpretive and exhibit plan, which will utilize both the building's interior and the Valley Forge park's 3,466 acres. After an international search, noted New York architect Robert A. M. Stern was selected to design the museum building.

Thomas Fleming published an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Washington's birthday which underscored one of the center's main themes. Using anecdotes and commentary, he delineated the revolutionary roles of African-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish Americans, and American women, as well as the contributions of French and Spanish allies. "It's everybody's revolution. There is scarcely an American living today who can't find some sort of connection to it," Fleming concluded.

For more information about the National Center for the American Revolution, send an email to or write to NCAR, 435 Devon Park Drive, Building 800, Wayne PA 19087

Gus Moner - 3/3/2003

I respectfully differ with your interpretation of my premise, person Suetonius, as well as with your comments. Moreover, it appears to me that you, along with your soul mate Mark, have failed to even grasp my point. Alternatively, I could surmise that you are trying to avoid it with ad-hominen attacks. I repeat, I do not wish to be knowledgeable about military tactics beyond their results. This is a history web site, not a military strategy forum.

My point, again, is that targeting or not, war kills civilians and the sophistry used in cleansing that away by speaking of ‘not targeting civilians’ and using the euphemism ‘collateral damage’ for death, mutilation and destruction, as if we were referring to the tearing down of an old building, is, in a word, despicable. Is that clear enough?

I have yet to hear a convincing argument, much less from you, that civilians are not harmed by targeting, your only assertion is that they are not ‘targeted’. Just because they are not targeted does not mean they are not killed, maimed, mutilated and traumatised, for they undergo the most brutalising form of destruction; that from an enemy they cannot see or hear, nor that they can fight back. What effect is this going to have on children, mothers and fathers, grandparents and other relatives in these societies based on extended families who see their homes and lives destroyed by a properly ‘targeted’ missile? Exactly the same as a loose bomb from a WWII Junker or Flying Fortress.

It changes no result nor clears any conscience to say, well, it’s a pity we killed X number of civilians because we did not ‘target’ them. The sophistry, nearing eisegesis not to mention the brutality of this argument ignores the basic facts. These “targeting people” target deadly ordnance, with these so-called ‘good intentions’ (what can be the good intention behind firing a missile is beyond me), or not good intentions for I doubt they are ALL choir boys, hurl them at cities and pretend they won’t kill civilians. Then, they use those Delphic excuses to cleanse their consciousness. Those are the raw facts. I needn’t know all the wizardry of 21st Century warfare to know those deaths, mutilations, appalling terror and that destruction are the RESULTS.

You needn’t believe me. I am ‘not to be taken seriously’. So, here are the news reports from the UK’s Guardian newspaper on 3rd March 2003.

“Six Iraqi civilians died and 15 were wounded last night in an allied bombing raid on the country's southern no-fly zone, the Iraqi military said today.
…Officials in Washington confirmed that US warplanes patrolling the no-fly zone attacked four military communications facilities and one air defence facility yesterday. US central command in Florida said the attacks came after Iraqi forces fired at US and British planes.”
And Blah, Blah, Blah.

Moreover the article said US and UK sources admitted they are targeting any potential targets in a future war, not just responding to Iraqi radar honing in on US/UK planes, as they claimed before. They have, in fact, begun the war without anyone’s authorisation.

Thus, I believe I know quite enough of targeting just from the results. The proof is in the rubble and the burials. I needn’t be in the military to see the obvious. The work of the military in this conflict, if it breaks out, is that of being aggressor and not defending the nation. The military are pledged to defend the nation, not attack other nations. Aggressive war is contrary to the basic tenets of international law. You’ll all become war criminals if you attack a nation for no good reason other than to convict it of having the potential to commit a crime- one it hasn’t committed yet, only it might do so in the future!

War harms, mostly those who have nothing to do with it, and seldom if ever the perpetrators of it. If the Iraqis are under the yoke of a tyrant, it’s their business to sort that out, not ours. They are, thanks to US pressure, disarming. What more is legally possible? The UN has no provisions for regime change. Sorry, folks, that’s the way it is.

If you do not wish to take me seriously, its entirely within your prerogative, person Suetonius. However, your veiled warning is irrelevant, for it will not quiet me as wished by you and the un-American warmongers who are attempting, with their zealous militaristic patriotism, to quiet dissenting opinion.

Suetonius - 3/3/2003

"Moreover, I do not care to learn about them. I find the targeting justifications used by armed forces people are merely an excuse for the targeting people to feel good when the harm is done."

You know very little about the armed forces if you believe this to be true, and it is highly recommended that you learn at least a little bit about how wars are fought and how much has changed between the beginning and end of the 20th century if you want to be taken seriously in this forum. Civilians are not targeted.

Matt - 3/3/2003

"Virtuous motives, trammelled by intertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness. A sincere love of peace is no excuse for muddling hundreds of millions of humble folk into total war. The cheers of weak, well-meaning assemblies soon cease to echo, and their votes soon cease to count. Doom marches on."

--Winston Churchill, "The Gathering Storm," pg. 171.

Gus Moner - 3/2/2003

I do not disagree with your assertion regarding accuracy. However, I fail to see the difference when civilians are targeted and supposedly not, or when the weapons targeted are more or less efficient, if the results are innocent deaths. My point isn’t that you guys can’t do it better than Churchill’s generation, hurrah for you all; rather it is that even so it is pernicious for those on the receiving end. I am unconcerned whether the weapons are ‘60 year old obsolete systems’ or fancy new killing technology. I am speaking of the victims, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, mutilations and hatred unleashed. Collateral damage. You have twice avoided the issue.

You may destroy the factory, with a mere two bombs from one plane, but you’ll still kill the workers as well.
The attack on the Pentagon may well have been a terrorist attack. What is a missile stealthily flying through your window, a birthday bash?

I am not sure who is absurd here, one cold-bloodedly and efficiently planning death and destruction, or one mixed up about it’s methods, albeit admittedly opposed to its being unleashed at all.

Mark - 3/2/2003

In World War II civilians were targeted. The military technology had no other way of hitting targets of any strategic value. Times have changed. If you actually knew anything about military technology you would realize that the strategic air
capabilities of WWII were much more advanced than those of 1915. The "progress" made in 30 years from 1915 to 1945 saw planes that increased their bomb carrying capabilities 20 fold and the ability to hit targets advanced the same.

In the sixty years since WWII these factors, especially the accuracy of the weapons, has increased thousands of times. Were it once required over 1000 bombers to target a German factory with the chance of destroying 50% of that target now takes one plane, with two 2000 pound bombs with a 100% certainty of destroying that target.

"Even the Pentagon a military building if there ever was one, had civilian deaths when attacked"

I hope that the readers of this will realize how absurd you are. The attack on the Pentagon was not a military attack, but rather a terrorist attack. A terrorist attacks civilian targets and seeks to maximize those casualties. To compare this attack to a precision attack by the US Air Force is just plain lunacy.

Like I said, the Iraqi population understands this a lot more than you. They realize that if they are not near a potential target they had little to fear. All you can use is 60 year old history and talk about obsolete weapon systems. When you want to learn and talk about modern events then feel free.

Gus Moner - 3/2/2003

Well, I gather that since you could not find anything else to say about my comment you basically agree, except for the targeting aspects of course. As for the military targeting anything with military values, I assume you mean value!

Now then, I recall that there have been numerous stories on CNN and other networks regarding the death of Baghdad residents inside shelters due to the penetrating power of the missiles and bombs hurled upon them by the US and UK. Other stories covered the fright, terror and misery destroyed homes and infrastructure entail. So, targeting a ‘valuable’ target is but part of the story. There are apparently those nuisance ‘collateral’ results, Mark, Sir.

I admitted I knew little of operational tactics, yes. It’s not my area of expertise. Is it yours? I have not learnt operational tactics beyond what was required to comprehend battles and decisions in the context of understanding the impact of logistics and other strategic elements being considered in an analysis. Moreover, I do not care to learn about them. I find the targeting justifications used by armed forces people are merely an excuse for the targeting people to feel good when the harm is done.

No matter the historical perspective of aerial warfare you spin out, it all leads to death beyond a battlefield. I assume you’d also compare the Japan and Dresden fire-bombings as humane, for they razed the surface structures and supposedly, if you were underground, you avoided incineration. Or the nuclear massacre of some 200,000 civilians in Japan, some real carefully selected targeting there, eh, Mark?

Come now, any war, and by defect targeting, involves killing civilians unless fought in a farmer’s field by two armies. Even the Pentagon a military building if there ever was one, had civilian deaths when attacked! This excuse making and justifying targeting is sickening. War inevitably involves innocent deaths, and it’s best to admit that. If the Iraqis you saw on tape sought no shelter, it may have been for a myriad of reasons. Neither you nor I know them, so do not pretend.

Don Williams - 3/2/2003

In my opinion, the NRA should fight hard for the Army's Center for Military History(CMH). Many historians, in my opinion, know little or nothing about military tactics, logistics,etc. and the influence of geography, transportation, maneuver, economy, politics,etc on military operations. When I was double-checking Bellesiles' account of the early militias, the best general source I found was CMH's reference "American Military History". Plus CMH's work was, in my opinion, far more professional,insightful, and objective than the work of some academicians --certainly better than Bellesiles.
Independent centers like CMH are needed to offset the institutional bias of academia.

Mark - 3/2/2003

Even the Iraqi's know that we do not target anything that does not have military values.

Do you remember the 1998 Clinton Impeachment Cruise Bombings? CNN would show video of the Iraqi capital under attack and people would be out of their buildings, driving their cars, and going about the day to day business. They knew the odds of being hit by a stray missle/bomb was remote.

Compare that to the mass evacuations of London during the German Blitz, with women and infants huddled in the subway tubes not knowing if the bombs dropped that night were going to hit them.

I suggest you learn about some military history and opertional concepts, which you basically have admitted you know NOTHING about, before you start making useless analogies.

Anne Tabony - 3/1/2003

I really hope this will end all the negative stories about Pope Pius XII.As a Catholic in today's world,I'm getting weary of all the negative press we get on a daily basis.

Tim Furnish - 3/1/2003

Alas....if only my college world history students had had access to (or interest in) the Penguin Classics growing a child I read a similar series, Harold Lamb's on famous people in history like Hannibal and Charlemagne. And, I should add, I still use Mr. Wood's videos (esp. the ones on Alexander and the Conquistadors) in my classes!

Paul O'Shea - 3/1/2003

Does anyone have a copy of the text of the letter? I havetried to make my way through the web site of Corriere della Sera with no luck. Language is no problem.

Editor - 2/28/2003

This March 9th, the next groundbreaking FX Original Movie, "The Pentagon Papers" will have its world premiere on FX.

"The Pentagon Papers" is the true story of Daniel Ellsberg, a high-ranking Pentagon official whose greatest act of Patriotism was an act of Treason. At the height of the Vietnam War, Ellsberg turned over a 7000 page classified Department of Defense document to reporters at The New York Times and Washington Post, which proved that the war in Vietnam could not be won. Historians widely regard this act as being a seminal moment in the anti-war effort to bring American soldiers home from Southeast Asia.

This political thriller stars acclaimed actors James Spader, Paul Giamatti (Private Parts), Alan Arkin (1000 Centre Street) and Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black).

Editor - 2/28/2003

The Times (London)

February 26, 2003, Wednesday

SECTION: Features; Times2; 19

HEADLINE: Ancient history? Not on your life

BYLINE: Michael Wood

Michael Wood follows Alexander to the Hindu Kush, Penguin Classic in hand

It seems an age ago now. I remember standing on the blackened shell of a Russian tank looking up the Panjshir Valley towards the peaks of the Hindu Kush, as the early sun finally peeped above the great brown ridges which plunge down to the Panjshir River. I was following the route of Alexander the Great through Afghanistan with a film crew in the late 1990s. Below us the valley was breathtaking: sparkling, ice-blue water; bright green gardens and fields; neat brown mud-brick houses, with splashes of colour from the bright heaps of apricots drying on their flat roofs. Above us bare-ribbed mountains, which keep the sun off the valley bottom for the first couple of hours of the morning till it suddenly flashes across the peaks and floods your cold bones with warmth after the chill night. Our guide turned to us: "If Two Horned Iskandar came so long before Islam: How do you know where he went, and what he did?"

I scrabbled in the side pocket of my rucksack and pulled out a dog-eared paperback: "Well, you see, the generals who went with him wrote the story down: and later people used them to write histories of the war. Like this." In my hands was my old copy of Arrian's Life of Alexander from the Penguin Classics, translated by Aubrey de Selincourt, with its famous creamy white cover edged with a brown band; on the front a black woodcut of Alexander from one of his coins: large chin, big nose, curly hair, the ram's horns of the Egyptian god Ammon.

The book's spine was long gone, and as I fumbled with it, a gust of wind took the back cover sailing away down the valley. The guide laughed: "Iskandar is in the Holy Koran you know. We Afghans were once a great civilisation," he continued, ruefully: "We once had these books too."

What precious things books are. And great inspirers, too, aren't they? Sometimes almost against your will, they lead you on strange roads to wild and wonderful places. They can come back years later to haunt you.

Like so many people, my first contact with many great literatures -and especially the Greek and Roman classics -was the Penguin Classics. I can still remember when I bought my first one. It was a Saturday morning in 1962. I was a schoolboy. I went to Sherratt and Hughes's bookshop in St Anne's Square in Manchester with my pocket money to buy Tactitus' Annals -and Arrian's Alexander. First contact with the real thing. A red letter day.

Over the next year or two I bought more of them -and then tried to make up the set, so now on my shelf I have a complete run of the original white covered Classics, one of the great publishing ventures. In its initial surge of optimism the series brought out quite a few obscure works, some of them real discoveries (isn't A. C. Graham's Poems of the Late T'ang, now alas out of print, a perfect book?) Some understandably bit the dust for lack of demand (Walter Hilton; Lucan; Camoens) but others, Chaucer and Homer among them, were among the biggest paperback bestsellers. For millions they ignited that spark of reading, that first encounter with great literature, which stays with you for the rest of your life and leads to who knows what.

In my case it has led me to many fascinating places in my profession as filmmaker.

When we made a series on the legend of Troy 20 years ago Homer, of course, led the way: we even filmed the Iliad coming off the presses at Bungay. I took Pausanias' Guide to Greece along the Sacred Way from Athens to Eleusis; Bernal Diaz, Zarate and Las Casas were in my rucksack as we followed the amazing stories of the conquistadors on the ground over the volcanoes of Mexico into the High Andes and Amazonia.

But I still have a soft spot for Arrian, the first. My copy had started to fall to bits around 1970, but with such memories, I could never bring myself to throw it out, and of course, when I set off to follow the route of Alexander, it had to come with me. It went into the rucksack along with the emergency food supplies - and the Penguin Curtius and Plutarch too. There is nothing like reading historians in the landscapes where their stories happened. The ancient texts become living tales once more, and suddenly the barrier of time slips away.

So rereading my Arrian on the Hindu Kush became a strangely touching experience.

As if a childhood passion had found fruition in part through the book itself. That night in the Panjshir Valley we stopped at a cluster of mud-brick houses, and amidst sweet resinous woodsmoke we ate gruel with hot coarse bitter bread, and green tea flavoured with cardamoms. We bedded down with our fellow travellers in the stable on a plank floor above the horses. There, by the light of an oil lamp, snug in my sleeping bag, I opened Arrian again and found myself imagining that moment back in the freezing winter of 330-329BC, here on the Hindu Kush, when Alexander made his attack over the mountains into Central Asia: icy snow whipping off the peaks into the faces of Alexander's troops as they hunched their shoulders and trudged on into the blizzard.

Many of the men were suffering from snow blindness and altitude sickness; all were hungry. Alexander's enemies, Arrian tells us, "had laid waste the lands around the foot of the Hindu Kush mountains in the hope that if all the crops and everything edible were destroyed Alexander would be stopped by sheer lack of supplies".

Inevitably the army ran out of food, and the quartermasters asked for permission to kill the pack animals. But there was no wood with which to make cooking fires, and they were reduced to eating the flesh raw. To fight of illness, Arrian says they used the juice of a plant which grew on the mountains. He calls it sylphion.

Historians have often wondered about this tale. Puzzling over it next morning, I asked our horse handlers. Outside our stables they showed me the plant: with a big stem thick as your wrist, it grows in the spring and is widely used as medicine; in the Middle Ages it was produced in bulk and sold in the bazaars of Merv and Bukhara. Even during the Russian occupation, we were told, the Mujahidin guerrillas used it to heal wounds and cure stomach upsets.

It was a tiny detail, but one which lingered in the mind long after we had loaded up our packhorses and headed off towards the summit of the Khawak and down the road to the River Oxus and the fabled land of Bactria. "Nothing put him off," says Arrian: "the cold, starvation, he just kept coming on and on, and in the end his enemies were struck with fear at the speed of his advance".

Our journey is long over now, and the world Alexander marched through has changed dramatically even since we went through. The hills of Afghanistan have been pounded by B52s; even the most high-tech weaponry in the world could not pin down the guerrillas in the Tora Bora; the warlords are back, looting the site of Alexandria-on-the-Oxus. And back in grey North London I have my old Arrian on my desk as I write: no back cover, grains of sand from the Makran desert caught in what's left of the binding; a bill for hot drinks from the Hotel Wonderland in Hoshiarpur in the Indian Punjab, the place where Alexander turned back. Just one book of many Penguin Classics, but as with all great books, to open its pages is to experience the thrill of entering another world and another way of seeing.

Editor - 2/28/2003

The Boston Globe

February 26, 2003, Wednesday ,THIRD EDITION



BYLINE: By Tatsha Robertson, Globe Staff

Some were children when the violence broke out in Tulsa, Okla., 81 years ago. A few were young adults. Some survivors of one of the worst race riots in the nation's history still live there, but many moved away, searching for a place where they hoped their race wouldn't matter.

They became doctors and lawyers, teachers, civil rights leaders, and factory hands. They worked in the post office and fought in wars, and now - a lifetime later - the survivors of the Tulsa riots are central to a reparations lawsuit filed by a Harvard-led legal team that has been trying to mount a federal lawsuit seeking payment to the descendants of slaves.

"I am a survivor. I was shot at several times as a youngster," recalled Joe Burns, 86, a plaintiff who lives near where the riots took place. "So, that is why I think it's wonderful that this lawsuit is happening."

Otis Clark, 100, was 18 when the riots erupted May 31, 1921, after a white lynch mob sought to capture a black man accused of assaulting a white woman.

Clark lives by himself in an apartment building on a hill in Tulsa, not far from the site of the riots. He said the lawsuit provided some long overdue hope for vindication for the survivors. "It's a long time coming," Clark said.

"They are wonderful people," said Eddie Faye Gates, a historian and member of the state's Tulsa Race Riot Commission who spent years locating survivors of the riots. "They have no bitterness. They are not vengeful people. They just want the world to know what happened to them so that it won't happen again."

A group of 200 plaintiffs, including Clark and other survivors as well as descendants of victims who have died, sued the city and the state Monday, demanding reparations for the 300 lives lost, as well as the homes and businesses destroyed that day.

The lawsuit, filed by a team of lawyers that include defense attorney Johnnie Cochran and Harvard law professor Charles T. Ogletree Jr., alleges state and local authorities failed to stop the riots and at times participated in the violence.

"I think they are accusing the right people," said Burns, who was the only survivor who sat on the commission.

"I feel it's long overdue," said John Melvin Alexander, 83. "I lived in Tulsa all my life, and to ignore that it happened and think it would go away . . . well, it hadn't."

In its 2001 report, the Tulsa Race Riot Commission, which recommended that the state pay reparations for the riots, likened current race relations in Tulsa to "a bad marriage, with spouses living in the same quarters but housed in different rooms, each escaping one another by perpetuating a separateness of silence."

In 1921, racial tensions were more pronounced. Some Tulsa residents resented the African-Americans who lived in the city's black community called Greenwood. They were prosperous compared with most African-Americans at that time.

Many owned their own homes. Alexander's father owned a horse and buggy. Shops and businesses dotted the area.

Then news of an incident involving a white woman and a young African-American man inflamed racial tensions that had been brewing in Tulsa and across the country.

Clark remembers seeing people's homes on fire and people fleeing for their lives.

Armed white men, reacting to the alleged assault, looted, burned, and almost completely destroyed the black community. The violence went on for 14 hours, destroying 35 blocks of Greenwood.

According to the commission's report, the Red Cross in 1921 reported 1,256 houses were burned and 215 additional houses were looted. Many of the African-Americans closed their doors, hoping it would discourage the attackers, but Alexander said it only prompted them to break into the homes, take valuables, and burn the homes to "cover their dirt."

The Alexanders fled their home just ahead of the mob, but they left the front and back doors wide open.

"Dad was kind of the oddball in the neighborhood but he was very religious," recalled Alexander. His father had insisted, "The Lord said, 'Don't lock the doors.' "

The next day, the family returned to find that some of the attackers had rummaged through the house, but it was still standing.

The events of the Tulsa riots has been told and retold to black residents, said Gates, the historian.

Many survivors moved to California, Chicago, and throughout the Northeast. One survivor, a jazz musician, still lives in Paris, Gates said.

Burns spent 34 years in the military and later worked for the US Postal Service. Clark moved to California and became an assistant to entertainers Joan Crawford, Clark Gable, Charlie Chaplin, and Stepin Fetchit, but he went back to Oklahoma years ago.

Alexander fought in World War II and became a mail carrier serving the neighborhood where the riots took place.

Most are elderly but their memories are sharp.

"I was young, but I remember it. And mother and father talked about it every day," Alexander said. "I have lived with this all my life."

Editor - 2/28/2003

The Guardian (London)

February 25, 2003

SECTION: Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 20

HEADLINE: A museum of slavery: Tristram Hunt If Bristol is to be a future European capital of culture, it will need to come to terms with its bloody past

The city of Bristol is currently competing to be Britain's nominee as the 2008 European capital of culture. With an impressive campaign that has already secured it a place on the shortlist, Bristol has stressed its world-famous wildlife film-making, contemporary arts community, Oscar-winning animation industry and vibrant theatre scene. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the bid has not so far stressed the city's dirty history of slavery.

In the early 1700s, the Bristol Merchant Venturers eclipsed the London-based Royal African Company as Britain's premier slaving conglomerate. Over the course of the 18th century, Bristol grew fat on the bloody but prosperous contours marked out by the outward, middle and return passages. The boats left for west Africa laden with metal goods, guns, alcohol and beads, transported waiting slaves to the Caribbean and America, and returned across the Atlantic handsome with profit. The blood money from this human traffic was channelled into the public infrastructure and conspicuous consumption of the glittering, Georgian city. Thus were the beginnings of empire sown. The British Empire is currently back in vogue. Following works by David Cannadine on empire as an exercise in "ornamentalism"; by Catherine Hall on the reflective relationship between the British metropolis and its imperial dominions; and the ITV airing of recoloured footage from the last days of the Raj, came Professor Niall Ferguson's book and television series, Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World. Ferguson is an economic historian by training and inclination, his Scottish brogue at its most fluid with a historical ledger before him. In Empire, Ferguson did the maths and decided, on balance, that empire was more profit than loss. Yes, some nasty things went on but "Anglobalisation" (as he termed it) was ultimately "a good thing".

It was not such a good thing for the thousands of slaves housed in the dungeons of British castles dotted along the west African coast. It used to be said that the approaching slave ship could be smelt two days before it docked: the congealed putrescence of blood, faeces, vomit and even rotting bodies wafting across the water. And then on to the boats the slaves were herded: shackled together, pressed back to face, thousands in a row for the gruesome middle passage. Fatality rates were not encouraging. In a good run only 5% might not make the month-long journey across the Atlantic; more typical was the 32% mortality rate reached by one voyage in 1732. Starvation, suicide and self-mutilation were common. Equally common was a state of psychotic depression, which the ship's crew tried to dispel by keeping the slave bodies active - with the tip of a whip.

The number of Africans forcibly transported to the Americas and sold into slavery can probably never be fully accounted. Modern historical estimates put it at around 10 million. With fatality rates in the 15-20% margin this makes for little short of an African holocaust.

The grisly record of our involvement in the slave trade is not widely acknowledged in modern Britain. We have not followed Belgium by looking deep into our imperial record. Despite the warnings of the Daily Telegraph, post-colonial guilt remains a fairly minority sport. And now we are being told to stop apologising for the empire before we have even begun. With barely a show of public humility for our imperial depredations, less sophisticated followers of Professor Ferguson are demanding instead a Mafeking-style celebration for our benign bequest of representative democracy and the rule of law. While there is good reason to be sceptical of historical apologies, a greater understanding and recognition of the crimes of empire is certainly worth it.

Refreshingly, there are signs that a proper engagement with our imperial past is beginning. The National Maritime Museum in Greenwich is planning a major exhibition to commemorate the 2007 bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain. Hopefully it will look beyond the glorious story of William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect to what went on before. Even more encouraging is the museum's engagement with the local black community, with whom it has had a distant relationship, to ensure the exhibition reflects their understanding of this heritage.

Bristol should follow suit. While Wallace and Gromit and David Attenborough are fine, it is wrong to deny Bristol's unique history. Aside from a dedicated gallery in the Bristol Industrial Museum, so far the city has unfortunately chosen to commemorate its heritage with a bullish Museum of Empire, which has made the curious decision of placing Kenneth Baker, high priest of blimpish British history, on its board.

In its bid to be capital of culture, Bristol should instead pledge to construct a massive Museum of Slavery. A world-leading, powerfully emotive visitor centre and research site modelled on the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. The museum could attract thousands of tourists as well as engage elements of the city's traditionally disenfranchised St Paul's community. A substantial part of Bristol's cultural heritage has been based on the elimination of other cultures. Bristol should lead Britain by having the bravery to recognise it.

Editor - 2/28/2003

The Straits Times (Singapore)

February 24, 2003 Monday


HEADLINE: British Museum won't return any of its stolen cultural relics;

The Dunhuang Cave relics will stay at the British Museum following its refusal to return Greece's Elgin Marbles, say officials

BYLINE: Alfred Lee

LONDON - The British Museum is unlikely to return China's Dunhuang Cave treasures and other stolen cultural relics following its statement yesterday that it has decided to not give back Greece's famous Elgin Marbles.

The Marbles were looted from the Parthenon in Athens in the early 1800s by Lord Elgin, the British Ambassador to Greece.

Historians and academic experts on cultural artefacts had said that if the museum repatriated the Parthenon masterpieces to Greece, it was almost certain that the centuries-old relics plundered from the Dunhuang Caves in China by British archaeologists would also be returned.

But the director of the British Museum, Mr Neil MacGregor, announced yesterday that he had ended all talks with a powerful group of academics fighting for the return of the Marbles in time for the Athens Olympic Games next year.

'It is tiresome for everyone to keep saying the same things,' he said.

The Marbles would never be returned to Greece, nor would they ever be lent, he added.

The decision will infuriate the Greek government, which first called for the return of its treasures in 1829 and formally asked British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in 1961 to repatriate the Marbles.

It has built a vast new gallery in Athens in the hope that the Marbles would be returned.

The gallery will now be kept empty and Olympic visitors will be able to read a history of the looting of the treasures and Britain's refusal to return them.

British Museum officials said the decision to not repatriate the Marbles ended all chances of the Dunhuang Cave and other treasures being returned to China.

'How could we return relics to China and justify holding on to the Elgin Marbles?' one official said.

'If we sent back Chinese artefacts, it would open the floodgates of demands not only from Greece but from many other countries.'

The British Museum has in its possession thousands of Buddhist and oriental paintings, manuscripts, statues, ornaments, jewellery and other cultural relics plundered and illegally smuggled out of China by archaeologists, diplomats, traders, professional looters and criminals.

Many of them were passed on to another party before being 'acquired' by the museum - often for huge sums of money.

That allowed the museum to say it was simply rescuing stolen artefacts for public display to present and future generations.

But its China gallery is small and just a handful of its oriental treasures can be exhibited.

The rest, including many great Dunhuang relics, are kept in darkened locked storerooms, rarely seen by anybody.

ELGIN MARBLES: Dismembered

THE Elgin Marbles include fragments of sculptures representing scenes from Athenian mythology.

According to the Times of London, the Greeks have published a photographic 'virtual reunion' of the dismembered heads, limbs and torsos.

The foot of a Lapith woman is in London, but her torso is in Athens. Horses' heads are separated from their bodies.

A head of Iris is in Athens; the torso is in London.

In a battle scene between a centaur and a Lapith, the heads of a Lapith and a centaur are in Athens, and their torsos are in London.

Editor - 2/28/2003

Ottawa Citizen

February 24, 2003 Monday Final Edition

SECTION: News; Pg. A12

HEADLINE: Still seeking Anne Frank's betrayer: A new book has prompted Dutch authorities to launch an inquiry into who led the Nazis to her family's secret annexe in 1944. John Follain reports.

SOURCE: The Sunday Times, London

BYLINE: John Follain

On the morning of Aug. 4, 1944, the Amsterdam offices of the Gestapo's Jewish Division received a telephone call giving the precise location of a hiding place in a canal-side house at 263 Prinsengracht. A squad left immediately, climbed the steps to the second floor, found the pivoting bookcase that concealed the entrance of a secret annexe and put an end to 25 months in hiding for the family of Anne Frank and four other Jews. Later, friends recovered Anne's diary, which had fallen to the floor.

Almost 60 years later -- during which time the diary has been read by more than 31 million people -- the Dutch government has launched an investigation into who made that fateful call. The hunt is prompted by a new biography of Anne's father, The Hidden Life of Otto Frank, by British author Carol Ann Lee, which claims to identify the betrayer.

Led by David Barnouw, a historian with the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, the investigation has, since last May, sought clues in official wartime records, in the testimony of Dutch and German Nazis questioned as they awaited trial and in the letters and diary of Otto Frank, who died in 1980. It is also sifting through previous attempts to establish the truth, including an inconclusive post-war police inquiry, and will question descendants of some of those involved before announcing its results early next month.

Mr. Barnouw, a co-editor of Anne's diaries, is working on a shortlist of three suspects. One is Willem van Maaren, who was targeted in a routine police inquiry just after the war. He worked in the warehouse attached to the Frank family's hideout. But the police cleared him after finding he was not pro-Nazi and that he had hidden his own son from labour conscription.

The second, Lena van Bladeren Hartog, was identified by Melissa Muller in her 1999 biography of Anne. A cleaner, whose husband worked for Otto Frank's food-preserving business, Lena betrayed the Franks, according to Ms. Muller, to protect her husband, who she feared would be punished if he was found helping Jews. But her husband was present in the house on the day of the raid, so it is doubtful she would have made the call on that day.

The third suspect nominated by Ms. Lee is a Dutch Nazi and violent anti-Semite named Anton Ahlers, who was also a business associate of Otto's. "Anton Ahlers is the most likely suspect," Ms. Lee said.

"He betrayed other people and he needed the money. Informers were paid about 40 guilders per person they betrayed, the highest sum during the war." According to Ms. Lee, Mr. Ahlers also blackmailed Otto Frank for decades with threats to reveal his wartime collaboration when he sold preservatives for the Wehrmacht's rations.

After Ms. Lee's book was published, Mr. Ahlers' son, also Anton, said he, too, believed his father turned in the Franks. He had no proof, but said his father was "always causing trouble, picking arguments with neighbours and snitching on people. He was always in trouble with the police, always owing money." Mr. Ahlers' widow, however, argues that her husband and Otto were friends.

Although it was endorsed by her cousin Buddy Elias, Anne's closest surviving relative, the Dutch were shocked by the unflattering light the book cast on Otto Frank as an easy blackmail victim. An official investigation was launched.

Mr. Barnouw is skeptical that any of these three betrayed the Franks family, and admits there is only a tiny chance that the mystery will ever be solved. "We don't even know whether it was a man or a woman who made the call, or how many policemen raided the house," he said.

"And although today the name Anne Frank has a huge impact, at the time she was just another Jewish girl caught in hiding -- one of maybe 8,000 people captured that way." Short of finding the guilty person, Mr. Barnouw added: "We want to show how easy it is construct theories, and how difficult it is to prove them."

For Joke Kniesmeijer, a former spokeswoman for the Anne Frank House who knew Otto, the idea that he could have lived a lie until his death is indefensible. "In blackmail it takes two to tango, and I look to an episode which for me defines Otto's character," she said. "When he was an officer in the First World War he confiscated two horses from a Belgian farmer and he promised to bring them back after the war. Sure enough, when the war ended, Otto walked from France into Belgium and handed the horses back."

Ms. Kniesmeijer acknowledged that the name Ahlers does appear several times in Otto's diary, but argues this is no guarantee that they met, as Ms. Lee claims. And as for the central allegation -- that Mr. Ahlers blackmailed Otto over his wartime collaboration -- she argues that the motive does not stand up, because many Dutch businesses collaborated with the enemy. Jewish businessmen in particular could not afford to be choosy.

Nor does she regard statements by Mr. Ahlers' son as conclusive. "The only source is Ahlers himself. He was obsessed by Otto Frank (in later years) and it wouldn't be surprising if he was just after his 15 minutes of fame," she said. "When I was at the Anne Frank House, two women came to me claiming that Anne had died in their arms at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. Neither of them was telling the truth."

Ms. Lee doesn't expect the inquiry will find out much that is new. "They've been shamed into reopening the case, and I'm not sure how dedicated they are to it," she said.

Nearly a million people visited the Anne Frank House last year. The rooms of the secret annexe are virtually empty, but all the more harrowing for the few items dating from Anne's time in hiding.Her diary, red and white with a broken lock, as well as her other notebooks were recently painstakingly replicated in hand-crafted facsimiles.

Asked whether we will ever know who betrayed the Franks, Yt Stoker, the house's chief archivist, waves outside her office window. From there, the windows of the secret annexe with their black screens are clearly visible. "Anne writes herself that they sometimes looked outside, so many people could have seen them," she said.

In her entry for Sept. 29, 1942, Anne writes how she and her sister Margot initially chose the large front office as their bathroom: "Since the curtains are drawn on Saturday afternoon, we scrub ourselves in the dark, while the one who isn't in the bath looks out of the window through a chink in the curtains and gazes in wonder at the endlessly amusing people."

Perhaps one of those "endlessly amusing people" saw Anne or another of the fugitives and betrayed them

Editor - 2/28/2003


February 22, 2003, Saturday


HEADLINE: It's a witchhunt, says academic linked to terror

BYLINE: By Richard Alleyne

A BRITISH-based academic accused by the United States of being a founder and leader of a Palestinian terrorist group dismissed the allegations yesterday and claimed that he was the victim of a McCarthy-style witchhunt.

Dr Basheer Nafi, 50, a lecturer in Islamic history in London, who is charged with being a key figure in Islamic Jihad, said the accusations were "nonsense" and that he had no link to the group.

"To use an American term, this is bull*," he said. "I am absolutely shocked. My life has been turned upside down. I find it totally unbelievable.

"I have never violated the law in this country. I have never undertaken the activities of the Islamic Jihad.

"I am not a member of any group. It is a witchhunt and, as a historian, that is a term I do not use lightly."

Dr Nafi, the son of a policeman born in Palestine, has lived in Britain for nearly 20 years. He is charged in a 50-count indictment with seven other suspects of supporting, financing and relaying messages for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group blamed for the deaths of more than 100 people in and around Israel.

John Ashcroft, the American attorney general, said the indictment accused the men of "operating a criminal racketeering enterprise that supported Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with conspiracy to kill and maim, conspiracy to provide material support for the group, extortion, perjury and other charges".

But Dr Nafi, an Irish citizen by marriage who lives near Oxford, said: "I am a teacher and a historian. I am not a terrorist.

"I was born in Palestine and that is why the Americans have picked on me. They are going recklessly after everyone without evidence.

"I know people who may know people but then everyone in Palestine knows people who know people. I think it is nonsense." Dr Nafi, who has written two books on Islamic history was forced to leave America in 1996 due to problems with his visa.

The father-of-four, who lectures at Birkbeck College and the Muslim College in London, is said to be involved with a group called the World and Islam Studies Enterprise based in Florida, which is said to be linked with PIJ.

Dr Nafi said he "believed in Palestinian national rights" but was "just an academic".

He added: "I and my family feel absolutely shocked to hear these allegations. I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am not, and have never been, a member of any organised political group whether in the Middle East or anywhere else.

"I have lived in England for almost 20 years, obtained two PhDs from British universities, married with four children and have never violated the laws of this country."

Dr Nafi said he was "absolutely confident" that he would not be extradited and that the American claims were "baseless".

"I hold an Irish and an Egyptian passport but I will not be leaving this country. I will stay and fight this."

Dr Nafi said it was "almost amusing they have got things so wrong" but added that he and his wife were in "total shock".

Editor - 2/28/2003

Click here to go directly to the Air Force report regarding pulled records.


U.S. Department of State
Advisory Committee on Historical
Diplomatic Documentation
December 2-3, 2002



OPEN SESSION, December 2

Approval of the Record of the September 2002 Meeting
Chair Robert Schulzinger called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Frank Mackaman noted that one correction to the September meeting minutes had been made. The committee then approved the minutes.

Election of Committee Chair

The committee unanimously reelected Schulzinger as chair for 2003. Schulzinger announced that 2003 would be his third and final term.

Report by the Historian

Schulzinger then called for a report by Executive Secretary and Historian Marc Susser, who noted the following activities:

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Richard A. Boucher has sent letters of invitation to serve on the committee to Robert McMahon (University of Florida) for SHAFR, Geoffrey Watson (Catholic University) for ASIL, and Robert Schulzinger (University of Colorado) for OAH. Two other prospective committee members remain in the security clearance pipeline – Edward Rhodes (APSA) and Margaret Hedstrom (SAA).
HO has completed a reorganization, which required several layers of bureaucratic approval. Committee members have received a diagram reflecting these changes.
New and returning staff members: Dean Weatherhead, Susan Weetman, and John Carland. HO representatives will attend the AHA in January 2003 in Chicago to interview prospective staff members.
HO has released two new Foreign Relations volumes – Vietnam 1967 and Vietnam 1968 – since the committee’s last meeting. By the end of 2002, HO expected to publish one more volume on the Nixon administration. Meanwhile, a retrospective Foreign Relations volume on Guatemala is in declassification, with a conference being planned to coincide with its release.
Russian diplomatic historians would arrive the following week for a second round of talks on a joint volume on détente. The two sides have already exchanged some documents.
HO has begun producing a series of educational videos on foreign affairs for secondary school students. HO representatives attended a meeting of the National Council of the Social Studies in Phoenix.
HO held an off-site training session in October that included joint sessions with CIA representatives about declassification and other issues.

Reorganization of the Office of the Historian
Deputy Historian David Herschler detailed HO’s reorganization:

A revised FAM entry has been prepared that furthers HO’s goal of better serving the foreign policymaking needs of the Department of State. The reorganization would allow HO to maximize Foreign Relations production, refurbish policy studies, and maintain staff flexibility with a unified job classification and grading system. Except for one or two staff support personnel, all positions are now classified as historians. With these changes and a growing staff, HO can take on additional duties without sacrificing its Foreign Relations responsibilities.
The reorganization created three Foreign Relations divisions – Asia & Americas, Middle East & Africa, and Europe & General – under the general editor, and two other divisions – Declassification & Publishing and Policy Studies & Outreach – under the deputy historian.
The major purpose of the Policy Studies and Outreach Division is to help the Department of State carry out its current foreign policy agenda by completing short- and long-term policy studies for principal policymakers.
The divisions under the general editor are almost fully staffed. The divisions under the deputy historian, however, are severely understaffed and consequently they will require a number of positions, which will take several fiscal years. In the meantime, HO planned to fulfill its dual tasks—compiling Foreign Relations and conducting policy studies and outreach—by using contract historians and asking current historians to work on multiple projects. Working on different projects enhances the professional development of HO historians.
HO’s reorganization would take time because of both the need for additional staff and the lengthy training process. HO has, however, had success in hiring several of the top young scholars in diplomatic history.

Discussion by the Committee
Schulzinger asked how far Foreign Relations was behind on the 30-year mark. Susser said that 6-7 Johnson volumes were in the pipeline. Acting General Editor Ted Keefer added that two of the seven volumes targeted for release in 2003 covered the first Nixon administration. HO needed to show a good faith effort to publish all the Nixon volumes by the end of 2006.

Warren Kimball requested that, by the next meeting, HO provide the committee with a chart showing which Foreign Relations volumes it expected to publish by the end of calendar year 2006. That year would provide a convenient benchmark for measuring the series’ productivity, he argued, given the expected increases in HO staffing, and that 2006 would fall exactly 30 years after the end of the Nixon/Ford administrations.

Keefer agreed that the chart showing target dates would be a good idea, but he warned that declassification and other factors significantly slowed the publication process. Herschler added that declassification and publication usually take at least two years. Kimball then asked for two lists: one for compilation and one for declassification.

Kimball asked about several issues pertaining to particular Foreign Relations volumes. In response to a question about why reports distributed to the committee made no mention of access guides, Herschler replied that access guides were considered part of a Foreign Relations volume. Kimball also questioned whether compilation due dates had slipped. Keefer answered that any new dates more accurately reflected when historians began compilation and incorporated time spent on other projects. Generally speaking, the deadline for compiling volumes stands at 18 months.

Report by the Subcommittee on Electronic Records

Mackaman gave a report on the morning meeting of the subcommittee on electronic records. He noted three main issues:

Overview of the Access to Archival Databases (AAD) System
The status of the transfer of State records to NARA
Efforts by the Department of State to reach the 25-year line in transferring its documents to NARA

Mackaman noted that there has been good cooperation between NARA and IPS in the last few years thus paving the way for the transfer of State records to NARA. Mackaman reported that the subcommittee members received a demonstration that morning from David Kepley of NARA on the AAD system. The AAD is designed to make a selection of NARA’s records available to the public. The system is scheduled to debut on December 17, 2002, but without any State records. The AAD will provide the public with access to over 100 million records organized in over 400 databases, which were created by over 20 federal agencies. The plan is to expand this system to over 500 databases, including State’s electronic records beginning with 1973.
Mackaman stated that even though State records may be on their way to NARA, NARA must still process them and DOE must review them under Kyl-Lott prior to public release. Mackaman said that State was a little behind NARA in getting the records prepared for transfer—not only the electronic records but the microfilm records that must first be converted to paper. Mackaman stated that the 1973 records have been fully reviewed by State and the 1974 records are nearly complete. He reported that IPS might be able to have the 1974 records available for transfer at the same time as the 1973 records. In his view, one reason for the delay is that IPS must first brief the Assistant Secretaries and the Under Secretary for Management before the records can be transferred. (The lower-level managers have been involved in the process all along.) IPS hopes to have the records ready for transfer to NARA in early 2003. Mackaman stated that even after the records are transferred, there will still be a considerable amount of time before the materials are available to the public because of the DOE review. He estimated that the records would not be publicly available until 2005.

Mackaman then asked the committee for comments. The committee members stated that they would like to see the 1973 records transferred to NARA as soon as possible. They also questioned why the Assistant Secretaries and Under Secretary had to be briefed. Has such a briefing ever been necessary before? Margaret Peppe of IPS responded that the transfer of the 1973 records is unlike all previous transfers, as the records will be available on the web.

The committee asked Mackaman why he believed that the records would not be available to the public until 2005. Mackaman stated that he might be “way off” on the 2005 estimate, but that there is a lot of material that needs to be reviewed. For 1974, IPS has printed and reviewed material on 148 microfilm reels; for 1975, 198 microfilm reels; and for 1976, 193 reels will need to be processed. (Peppe explained that one microfilm reel equals approximately one cubic foot of hard copies.) Once the material is reviewed by State, it must then undergo DOE review.

Peppe explained that at the current time they do not have a concrete idea yet of how long it will take to complete the State Department review of the microfilm documents. Once the 1974 records have been processed, IPS will have a better of idea of how long it will take to process the other years. (1974 is the first year that there is microfilm to be reviewed.)

Peppe stated that putting the material on the web is a new way to release this information, and she needs to make sure that the Department’s upper management is on-board and informed of what is happening. The committee asked if IPS had been unable to get the attention of upper management. Peppe said that had not been the problem. The committee asked whether the process previously had the approval of upper management. Peppe responded that no one above the bureau level has had an opportunity to take a good look at the material. She explained that it is the Department’s custom and practice that whenever IPS puts special collections on its website, that the Under Secretary for P approves it along with M and the Assistant Secretary from the appropriate bureaus.

The committee asked when IPS would have the material ready for upper management to review. Peppe responded that the 1973 material is available for viewing now on the Department’s classified network. Previously there had been problems with response time, but the system is working now. She stated that IPS would like to include the 1974 material in the transfer if possible.

Mackaman added that his 2005 estimate was for 1973 and 1974 records.

The committee asked the IPS representatives if they had a plan to get to the 25-year mark. Peppe replied that no plan existed yet because IPS first had to evaluate the 1974 records. Once that has been completed, IPS will be able to give the committee a transfer plan that includes the associated time frames for completing each step in the transfer process. Schulzinger added that there would be a low-key rollout so as not to crash NARA computers.

Declassification of Department of State Records

Brian Dowling of IPS said that the Nazi and Japanese War Crimes Project had been completed. The last batch of records had been sent to NARA the previous week. The project had been time-consuming: the Nazi project began in March 1999 and the Japanese project began in December 2000. For the Nazi project, 2,600 boxes were searched and 6.5 million pages read; 8,300 relevant documents were found, consisting of 41,000 pages; 75 documents were denied in full. The project took 9,000 hours and cost $364,000. The Japanese Imperial Government Records Project was easier: 1,211 boxes were searched, mostly at the MacArthur Library in Norfolk, and very little was found; 3.6 million pages were read; 662 relevant documents were found, consisting of 2,800 pages. The project took 3,500 hours and cost $137,000. The IWG asked 22 questions for the final report; 11 have been completed and 80% of the work for the other 11 has been completed. His office can now devote its resources to systematic review in 2003.

Dowling also reported that review of the “Manning Collection” of USIA historical records had been completed. Of 360 boxes, 160 went to NARA II and the rest to WNRC in Suitland for storage until future transfer to the National Archives. The boxes contained lots of information on USIA history but minimal classified information (mostly privacy issues).

Dowling noted that his office had received 238 boxes of State records for review from microfilm reels, which are difficult to view. They have reviewed 186,000 pages of hard copy documents at Newington, exempted 27 documents, and referred 197 to other agencies. He added that he did not have November statistics yet but in October, 186,000 pages were reviewed, 27 documents exempted, and 197 referrals made to other agencies. Re-reviews for Kyl-Lott amounted to 336,000 pages reviewed, 2,356 documents exempted, and 3,885 referred. He will have the fourth quarter 2002 report ready by mid-January and will send it to HO. The 2002 cumulative report will be ready in February.

Dowling also said that his office was reviewing boxes for 1976-1980 and looking at WNRC files for USIA, ACDA, and State.

When Kimball asked if there is a separate review for electronic records, Dowling noted that electronic records review is done at SA-2.

The committee recessed for a break at 2:50 p.m.


The committee reconvened at 3:15 p.m.
Status of Declassification under the Kyl-Lott Amendment and Other Related Issues

Schulzinger opened discussion on DOE and the Kyl-Lott Amendment. A DOE representative had to cancel at the last minute but gave an oral report to Herschler. He said that in the past six weeks, DOE had reviewed over one million pages of documents at NARA. DOE offered to provide a written report of the review. Kimball recommended that before DOE prepare a report, HO should send DOE a copy of the September minutes, which included questions that the committee would like answered.

Schulzinger then introduced Adam Hornbuckle, an Air Force Declassification Office representative, who asked to address the committee on the Air Force’s “records of concern” program. In this program, the Air Force is auditing records reviewed and declassified under E.O. 12958 and previous E.O.’s for improperly declassified and inadvertently released Air Force information pertaining to the use and development of weapons of mass destruction. Hornbuckle reported that the Air Force identified records for potential audit, including those of State, through a systematic sampling procedure based on the classification criteria of the Executive Order. After records are sampled, boxes are labeled for audit. If a researcher requests a labeled box, the Air Force reviews and delivers the box within 30 days.

Schulzinger then asked Jeanne Schauble and Nancy Smith of NARA for comments. Schauble said 1.3 million pages awaited DOE quality assurance review. After the last HAC meeting, NARA gave DOE a complete list of the backlogged records. The one million pages DOE reviewed in the last six weeks for quality assurance was the easy part. A third of a million pages still require DOE quality assurance review.

Hornbuckle noted that the Air Force is “cycling things through” more quickly, but there are naturally some complaints when records that were once available are no longer available. The Air Force labeled for review a substantial number of boxes from State’s central files and is doing its best to review boxes quickly whenever researchers request them.

Mackaman asked whether once a box is screened for one researcher, it is open for all researchers. Hornbuckle said yes.

Smith said that in the world of presidential libraries, their experience with DOE and Kyl-Lott has generally been positive. Because DOE has briefed the libraries’ staffs, which conduct a page-by-page review anyway, Kyl-Lott has had less effect on the declassification procedure. Some problems have arisen as a result of overlapping agency equities or obscure programs to which archivists have not yet been “read in.”

Dick Morefield of IPS stated that he had been a declassifier since 1988. He wanted to mention that changing circumstances, such as September 11, might make a once non-sensitive document sensitive. Furthermore, different agencies have different programs. No matter how much training one has, it can still be difficult to determine declassification. Electronic records are something new entirely. His office had to set things up in a new way so that NARA could get documents to DOE more quickly for declassification. When it comes to declassification, he said, State is on the side of the angels.

In response to Schulzinger’s query, Hornbuckle replied that Air Force reviewers had identified over 600 documents that State had inadvertently released. NARA placed withdrawal cards in the boxes. Schulzinger wondered if access to these records would require a FOIA request. Kimball thought that mandatory review might also be relevant. Schauble replied that a request for access to such information could be processed either way. Herschler asked if the Air Force had begun to review materials held in the presidential libraries. Hornbuckle said that was under consideration.

Kimball asked if some of the documents in question were already in the public domain, including in the Foreign Relations series. Hornbuckle said that Air Force reviewers might remove documents from the open files at NARA but not from a Foreign Relations volume. Schauble reiterated that until 1963 State records were subject to microfilm publication. Hornbuckle stated that the Air Force reviewed records that had been microfilmed, and photocopies of these documents received further assessment.

In response to Meena Bose’s questions, Hornbuckle said that the Air Force was reviewing 17,000 boxes of State records, which might take 3-5 years. Schulzinger asked whether a researcher could contact NARA to see if a box was available. Sally Kuisel, a NARA reference archivist, said that those types of reference requests are possible if a researcher knows which box numbers are needed.

When Hornbuckle said the Air Force could review any boxes before the Foreign Relations historian received access, Herschler questioned whether an Air Force review was really necessary since Foreign Relations historians have the necessary clearances and did not normally conduct research under such conditions. Historians receive access for research and then declassification review occurs. Kimball asked if the Air Force could alert State reviewers. Susan Weetman explained that the problem was complicated, since HO does not work directly with the various armed services. Hornbuckle offered to sponsor a training session for Foreign Relations historians, which might simplify the situation. Kimball interjected that IPS should also be included.

Schulzinger summarized the issues discussed into two categories: access for the public and access for Foreign Relations historians. He had not realized that the second issue was a problem. Hornbuckle stated that it was not.

Bose asked how many “records of concern” projects were underway. After a general exchange on the subject, Schauble replied that, other than NARA, which had received some guidance from other agencies, only DOE and the Air Force were reviewing “records of concern.” She explained that these two were of such scope that it was better for them to do the work themselves. Schauble was not aware of any other related projects. Morefield concurred, with the exception of very specific guidance received from the Navy on its concerns.

Schulzinger then asked Nancy Smith about the Remote Archive Capture (RAC) project. Smith reported that the project had scanned 11,000 images at the Carter Library. A special team of State reviewers had been assembled to train archivists to review presidential records for the period. Smith added, however, that NARA awaited further guidance because of the large volume of documentation from the Carter era. Kimball recalled that, until recently, State had been disinclined to cooperate with the RAC project. Smith explained that State, like most agencies, was focused on meeting its obligations under E.O. 12958.

Kimball reiterated that he would like for the next committee meeting a report on the status of research for Foreign Relations historians in the boxes affected by the Air Force “records of concern” program. Hornbuckle agreed and reiterated that it would facilitate a training session.

Revision of Executive Order 12958

Schulzinger introduced Frank Machak, Deputy Assistant Secretary (A/RPS) and Nick Murphy (IPS) to discuss revisions to E.O. 12958 on classification and declassification of national security information. Schulzinger asked when a copy of the proposed E.O. revisions would be available. Machak noted that IPS was part of an NSC working group looking at a revised E.O. After the NSC forwarded a draft to OMB, it would be circulated for comment to the affected agencies. Machak then reviewed the Department’s interests and the changes he envisioned in the revised E.O. Murphy added his comments, and then a wide ranging discussion ensued on the possible implications of E.O. revisions.

Schulzinger asked Machak to send a copy of the revised E.O. draft to HO and the committee, and Machak agreed.

The session adjourned at 4:39 p.m.


The CIA and the Foreign Relations Series
Schulzinger called the session to order at 9:00 a.m. He suggested that the committee, HO, and CIA discuss implementation of the MOU and the possibility of a joint meeting in 2003 between the committee and members of the CIA’s Historical Review Panel (HRP). He added that he had talked to HRP chair Robert Jervis about the latter.

Susser said that the MOU was working well. HO and CIA are working to clear up the backlog of volumes, and HO historians received good access for research. He praised CIA for bringing 17 people to HO’s off-site training session in October, where very constructive discussions took place.

Herschler added that HO and the CIA are fully engaged six months into the new MOU and that the CIA is reviewing all outstanding volumes. Eight volumes have either been published or are in the final stages. The chart the committee received had progressed further since its distribution, but it will take up to a year to clear up the backlog. HO still had about a dozen volumes in various stages at the CIA (pre- and post-MOU).

Schulzinger then asked the CIA to make comments. The CIA explained that personnel changes included those working on Foreign Relations, but that work continued on reviewing volumes. The CIA found participation in HO’s off-site training session very productive. It was a good opportunity for people on both sides who work on Foreign Relations to discuss issues. The CIA stated that the backlog of Foreign Relations volumes represents a challenge, since the HO staff significantly outnumbers the CIA reviewers; however, the CIA reported progress on a number of volumes. CIA hoped to be through the backlog of volumes by June. The problem was not a lack of good faith, but rather a lack of resources.

Schulzinger then asked the committee, HO, and CIA to discuss the backlog chart and issues pertaining to particular volumes. Kimball asked for an updated chart.

Joint Historian James Van Hook gave a report on his work since the last committee meeting. He reviewed the situation for access and research by Department historians, his own volume’s work, preparations for a conference in May on the Guatemala retrospective, and his general impressions of how well the joint historian position has functioned for both sides. For one of the joint HO-CIA sessions at the October off-site, he organized a panel on historiography and intelligence. Schulzinger asked him to elaborate on the substance of the panel.

Committee members then asked Van Hook several questions about his work and access by the historians, to which he responded. Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman expressed pleasure that the Joint Historian position and new procedures were working so well.

Schulzinger discussed the joint meeting with the CIA’s HRP. He had spoken to Robert Jervis, who indicated that the best time to meet would be around the time of their summer meeting. That date was not yet fixed. In the past, committee meetings had been scheduled around SHAFR, which will be held June 6-8, 2003. Perhaps a joint meeting with the HRP could be scheduled before or after SHAFR.

The committee recessed for a break at 9:50 a.m.

Retrospective Foreign Relations Volumes

The committee reconvened at 10:15 a.m.

Schulzinger opened the session with a note for the record that he believed would be of interest to the CIA. He stated that during the summer he had written a letter to the Secretary of State requesting that the Information Security Policy Advisory Council (ISPAC) and the Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) be implemented. Schulzinger indicated that he had, however, since received a letter from Richard Boucher indicating that such boards had been overtaken by events and that it was doubtful that either of the two boards would be appointed. Schulzinger thought that this would interest the CIA because of implications for resources available for continuing declassification. He emphasized the need for a continued systematic examination of documents for declassification, as opposed to non-systematic targeted searches that might arise and hamper the declassification process. Schulzinger added that since the ISPAC was still in the current E.O. and the PIDB in passed legislation, HO and CIA should work with the committee to prevent the possible erosion of resources needed to continue meeting declassification objectives.

Schulzinger then asked Roger Louis to report on the meeting of the subcommittee on retrospective volumes. Louis noted that the subcommittee had discussed three volumes (Guatemala, Iran, and the Congo). On Guatemala, he indicated that there was little to add from previous reports. According to Louis, the committee had looked closely at the volume’s front matter and expressed the hope that this volume would, as requested by the committee, have an access guide.

With regard to the Congo volume, Louis noted that it was one of the most interesting in the retrospective series and had been underway since about 1993. He noted that it deals with all of the 1960s and contains a large number of significant documents. Louis noted that the committee had recommended that HO review the Belgian government’s thousand page report on the Congo in order to determine if any of its content might be of value to the forthcoming Foreign Relations volume.

On the Iran volume, Louis applauded Van Hook’s research progress and Luke Smith’s supervision as well as the indication that it would be a full-size volume. Louis indicated that the committee hoped that upon its completion, Van Hook would turn to a collective retrospective on the 1940s and 1950s, with a projected cut-off date of 1960. Louis reviewed the subcommittee’s discussion on the scope and content of the volume, which would review records from all geographic areas, and then asked for comments from HO and CIA. Louis concluded the discussion with the overall hope that a comprehensive volume as discussed would provide a satisfactory end to the retrospective issue. The committee agreed that, if it is feasible to write one, a declassified version of the prospectus for the collective retrospective would be beneficial.

Schulzinger asked if HO planned to put the Guatemala and Iran volumes on the web. Keefer indicated that the Guatemala volume was already earmarked to go up on the web but that the Iran volume had not been discussed since it is still in the compilation stage.

Hoffman stated that little concern existed with the post-1960 period, since those Foreign Relations volumes already deal with covert operations as needed. She emphasized the hope that a collective retrospective would bring closure to the issue.

Kimball informed the committee that the subcommittee felt so strongly about the value of a collective retrospective volume that it had requested endorsement by the full committee. The resolution, which passed unanimously, stated that the subcommittee recommended approval for a proposal of a comprehensive volume on intelligence operations in foreign policy, 1947-1960.

Bose then made agenda suggestions for the proposed joint meeting between the committee and the CIA’s HRP in June 2003. Schulzinger discussed the committee members’ experiences at a similar joint meeting last June.

Schulzinger thanked the CIA representatives for attending the meeting.

At 11:00 a.m. the meeting adjourned for staff comments and executive session.


Committee Members
Robert Schulzinger, Chairman
Meena Bose [Ad Hoc Consultant]
Diane Shaver Clemens
Lisa Cobbs Hoffman
Warren Kimball
W. Roger Louis
Frank Mackaman
Office of the Historian Marc Susser, Historian Ted Keefer
Monica Belmonte Dan Lawler
Todd Bennett Erin Mahan
John Carland Dave Nickles
Paul Claussen Douglas Selvage
Evan Duncan Luke Smith
Vicki Futscher Douglas Trefzger
David Geyer James Van Hook
David Goldman Laurie West Van Hook
David Herschler Gloria Walker
Susan Holly Dean Weatherhead
Nina Howland Susan Weetman

Bureau of Administration
Brian Dowling, A/RPS/IPS
Harmon Kirby, A/RPS/IPS
Frank Machak, DAS, A/RPS
Dick Morefield, A/RPS/IPS
Nick Murphy, A/RPS/IPS
Margaret Peppe, A/RPS/IPS
Peter Sheils, A/RPS/IPS

National Archives and Records Administration
Linda Ebben, Information Security Oversight Office
David Kepley, Office of Records Services, Washington, DC
Sally Kuisel, Textual Archives Services Division
David Langbart, Life Cycle Management Division
Don McIlwain, Initial Processing and Declassification Division
Jeanne Schauble, Initial Processing and Declassification Division
Nancy Smith, Office of Presidential Libraries

Central Intelligence Agency
Scott Koch, Chief, History Staff
Patricia P., FRUS Coordinator
Michael Warner, Deputy Chief, History Staff

Air Force
Adam Hornbuckle

Bruce Craig, National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History
Tena Rips


Editor - 2/28/2003

NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #9, 28 February 2003 by Bruce Craig <> National Coalition for History (NCH) *****************

1. Humanities Advocacy Day 2003 2. A-76 Update -- Center for Military History Targeted - Immediate Action Required! 3. Update: Florida State Library and Archives 4. Legislation Introduced: Southern Campaign of the Revolution Heritage Study Act 5. Bits and Bytes: "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" Contestant Wins $1 million with History Question; Army Corps Shielded From Privatization; NCPH Annual Meeting; Posting of State Department Historical Advisory Board Minutes; White House Forum To Be Rescheduled 6. Articles of Interest: "Power and Weakness" by Robert Kagan "Policy Review" (June/July 2002).

1. REPORT: HUMANITIES ADVOCACY DAY 2003 On February 24-25, the National Humanities Alliance hosted its 4th annual advocacy event in Washington D.C. The purpose of the two-day meeting was to launch this year's grassroots support effort for the record funding proposal for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some 33 national sponsors supported the event that attracted over 130 participants including representatives from colleges, universities, scholarly societies, museums, libraries, state humanities councils, and individual scholars.

The meeting began on February 24 with a legislative briefing by humanities advocates, government affairs professionals, representatives of the NEH, and congressional staff who discussed the mechanics of advocacy and the current status of NEH funding and programs. Participants were briefed on related bills of interest to humanities scholars, including the USA Patriot Act, the Institute for Museum and Library Services Reauthorization, the Department of Education "Teaching American History " grants initiative, implementation of the Presidential Records Act, and the Digital Promise program. Participants were also told about the current funding plight of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) and were urged to advocate a funding level of $10 million in meetings with members of Congress and their staff.

The briefing was followed by a reception at the Senate Hart office building where NEH Chairman Bruce Cole discussed his hopes for the "We the People" initiative which injects within the NEH budget $25 million in new funds for endowment programs. Civil War historian and American Historical Association President James M. McPherson discussed how the NEH had assisted him in his research and writing of books targeted to academic and popular audiences. Barbara Oberg, the general editor of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson shared her insights on how NEH supported documentary editions benefit scholarly research.

On February 25, humanities advocates visited more than 100 congressional office representing twenty-three states. In addition to sharing the results of NEH projects in home districts, participants urged Congressional representatives to support the President's budget request of $152 million for the NEH -- a 22% increase over the FY 2003 enacted appropriation level of $124.9 million.

Individuals who were not able to attend the humanities advocacy event in Washington D.C. may want to contact the offices of their Congressional Representatives and Senators in coming weeks. To assist in that effort, background materials, briefing sheets, and other links used by the participants during the national advocacy day event are posted at: <>;.

2. A-76 UPDATE -- CENTER FOR MILITARY HISTORY TARGETED -- IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED! Some weeks ago, we reported on the A-76 effort to contract out archeological research within the National Park Service ("NPS and Interior Agency Professionals Subjected to A-76 Outsourcing Assessments;" NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9 #4; 30 January 2003). Now we have information on a history office being targeted for outsourcing -- the Department of the Army's Center for Military History (CMH).

The Department of Army has 154,910 positions held by civilian employees and some 58,727 held by soldiers who hold what are considered "non-core" positions. Because these positions are all not considered "inherently governmental" they are eligible for public-private competition. According to an Army spokesperson, in theory, outsourcing "would free up military manpower for core functions and the global war on terrorism" and thereby use manpower as efficiently as possible "before making it necessary to request additional tax-payer resources."

In January 2003, impacted Army operations chiefs were asked to submit requests to be exempted from what is being called the "Third Wave" of privatization. In a sweeping decision issued 21 February, Dr. John Anderson of the Army's Manpower and Reserve Affairs denied the Center of Military History's request for an exemption from the contracting scheme. According to Anderson who has a doctorate in philosophy and law, "Military history is not a core competency, not required by statute nor inherently governmental, and there is no basis for military performance of the function. Therefore the function can be divested, transferred to another agency, or competed as a matter of managerial decision."

Anderson even goes so far as to suggest that this function might be transferred to the Smithsonian Institution. Should this be adopted as the appropriate course of action, military history could be zeroed out entirely and the CMH as well as field military history detachments would not even have an opportunity to compete -- the function would be simply eliminated.

Sources inside the CMH report that the Army's history operation has 10 days to prepare a response to the decision (coming due 2 March) to "vet issues from a policy standpoint." Insiders see little hope that Anderson will reverse the recommendations of his hand-picked staff (the Non-Core Competency Working Group) on this issue. Ultimately, the decision memo will be passed to the Executive Oversight Committee of the Non-Core Competency Working Group for endorsement before being forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs -- Reginald Brown -- who is expected to weigh in with the Oversight Committee recommendation. Secretary of the Army Thomas White has delegated the ultimate authority for this decision to Brown.

NCH ACTION ITEM! Because of the near autonomous nature of the Army and because the military hierarchy is rarely responsive to public or media pressure, supporters of Army history programs have but only one alternative -- political pressure. Individuals and organizations wishing to express their views on this matter are urged to immediately contact members of Congress. Communicate not by letter but via e-mail or fax (for a listing of members of Congress office addresses via zip code, tap into: and <>;. We recommend the message be simple and clear -- the Center for Military History, indeed the entire Department of the Army military history program should be exempted from A-76 "outsourcing" consideration. After communicating with your Congressional representative ask for a written response from the member to your concerns.

Right now, of particular importance are communications with key members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees (for the Senate membership listing tap into:<>; for the House listing, tap into: <>;. If you are a constituent of Senator John Warner (R-VA) who chairs the Senate Committee on Armed Services, or Carl Levin (D-MI) the Ranking member of this committee, or of committee members Edward Kennedy (D-MA), or Robert C Byrd (D-WV) please make contact today! On the House side, if you are a constituent of Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, or members Joel Hefley (R-CO), Tom Cole (R-OK), or John Spratt (D-SC) please contact them today. The future of federal government military history programs may well rest in your hands.

3. LEGISLATION INTRODUCED "Southern Campaign of the Revolution Heritage Study Act" -- On 4 February, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) introduced a measure (S. 276) that authorizes a suitability/feasibility study designed to assess a multi-county area in South Carolina for possible National Heritage Area designation. The bill was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for action.

4. UPDATE: FLORIDA STATE LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES Recently, we reported on the pending demise of the Florida State Library ("State Budget Shortfalls -- Bad Situations in New Jersey and Florida Demand Immediate Action!" in NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9 #7; 13 February 2003). Now an update....

In order to save $3.8 million a year in salaries and costs of maintaining the collection of the Florida State Library, on February 25, Governor Jeb Bush's administration announced that the Florida State Library's circulating collection of some 670,000 items will be transferred to a private university – Nova Southeastern University located in Fort Lauderdale. In exchange for taking over responsibility for the collection that is valued at $10 million, the governor proposes that the state transfer $5 million over four years for the upkeep of the collection. Librarians are outraged. According to former State Librarian Bill Summers who represented the Florida Library Association in a recent press conference, "That's . . . $50 dollars a book. . . the state's paying them $50 dollars a book to give them books the state already owns."

According to Bush administration officials, the governor does not need legislative approval for the transfer though it will require approval for the appropriations. The governor's office justified the move in part by maintaining that by relocating the collection to a more densely populated area, it would see more use. However, as librarians noted, the collection is mostly specialized to the needs of state government officials and probably won't see much use by the general public.

Not only are Florida librarians raising concerns, but the St. Petersburg Times raised additional questions in a recent editorial when it observed that there are at least four public universities "as well-situated as the private school Bush intends to gift with a $10-million collection" and "were any of the state universities offered the collection on comparatively generous terms? Apparently not."

NCH ACTION ITEM!: The disposition of the Florida Library collections to a private university apparently is still not a done deal and the transfer cannot take place prior to 1 July 2003. For Florida residents, alumni of Nova University, and others who care about the future of the Florida State Library, there is still time to register protests with state legislators.

Florida residents -- Please write or e-mail your local legislators and the governor TODAY to let them know that you consider the continuing operation of the Florida State library is a priority and that you do not want to see the collection privatized. You can find your local legislator online at: or You can e-mail Governor Bush at: or contact his office by phone at (850) 488-4441; for snail mail, write: Governor Jeb Bush, PL 05, The Capitol, 4005 S. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399.

5. BITS AND BYTES Item #1 -- "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" Contestant Wins $1 Million with History Question: When we saw this in the Los Angeles Times we couldn't help but share it with readers. Kevin Smith, a retired truck-driver with a Saint Nick length silver beard was recently crowned the first $1 million winner of the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" television show. In order to win the prize money, Smith correctly answered 15 multiple-choice questions. Some he answered by making lucky guesses but he instantly seemed to know the answer to the last $1 million question that focused on an obscure bit of American history trivia: "U.S. Icon Uncle Sam was based on Samuel Wilson, who worked during the War of 1812 as an (a) meat inspector; (b) mail deliverer; (c) historian; (d) weapons mechanic." Smith instantly knew the answer - (a) meat inspector. Way to go Kevin!

Item #2 – Army Corps Shielded From Privatization: While archeology and history offices are being subjected to A-76 outsourcing competitions, the Washington Post (10 February 2003) reports that Senate supporters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers buried language in the recently enacted 3,000-page omnibus appropriation bill (H.J. Res. 2) prohibiting any attempt to privatize of restructure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This special exemption for the Corps is cited as evidence of the continued dominance of pork barrel politics among Congressional leadership. For more see: <>;.

Item #3 -- NCPH Annual Meeting: The National Council on Public History has posted its 2003 annual meeting program and registration information. The conference addresses the theme "Beyond Boundaries: Diversity, Identity, and Public History." It will take place in Houston, Texas, 24-27 April 2003. For more information, tap into and click on "Annual Meetings."

Item #4 -- Posting of State Department Historical Advisory Board Minutes: The minutes of the December 2002 meeting of the State Department Historical Advisory Committee meeting were approved for release this week. Thanks to the posting by the Federation of American Scientists, the minutes, which provide some interesting gossip and some odd tidbits of information regarding declassification of historical records, may be found at: <>;.

Item #5 -- White House Forum To Be Rescheduled: In spite of several columns and Op-Eds that have appeared in newspapers across the nation stating that the "We the People: A White House Forum on American History, Civics, and Service" that was scheduled for 17 February 2003 took place, in fact, the event was cancelled owing to the snow storm that plastered the northeast over the President's Day holiday. White House sources report though that the Forum, along with the delivery of the "Heros of History" lecture (to be presented by historian Robert Remini), will both be rescheduled for later in the spring -- perhaps in mid-April.

6. ARTICLES OF INTEREST This week we draw your attention to an essay by Robert Kagan and his new book based on a controversial essay. Back in the summer of 2002, Kagan, a State Department veteran, wrote a controversial essay entitled, "Power and Weakness" that appeared in Policy Review (June/July 2002). Kagan argued that Europeans and American no longer share a common view of the world. Ever since its publication the Washington D.C. foreign-policy establishment has been abuzz – the essay has been compared in importance to George F. Kennan "X" article that appeared in a July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs. Now Kagan has written a book based on that seminal essay entitled, "Of "Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order" (Knopf, 103 pp; $18). For the essay, tap into:<;.

*********************************************************** The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete backfile of these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page at <>;.

To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To unsubscribe send an e-mail message to according to the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH. You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at and at the "network" prompt, scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit". **************************************************************

Editor - 2/28/2003

SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2003, Issue No. 17 February 26, 2003


The 1973 CIA covert action against Chile's President Salvador Allende "is not a part of American history that we're proud of," said Secretary of State Colin Powell last week in another occasion for reflection on how U.S. foreign policy can go astray.

The Secretary's remark came in response to a question from a student at a forum broadcast by Black Entertainment Television on February 20.

"With respect to ... what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American history that we're proud of," Powell said. "We now have a more accountable way of handling such matters and we have worked with Chile to help it put in place a responsible democracy." See:

The statement met with intense interest in Chile, eliciting reactions ranging from appreciation to contempt. See, for example, "Gobierno alaba reconocimiento de Powell," El Mercurio, February 22: .htm

Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists web:

Gus Moner - 2/28/2003

This contributor’s comment is interesting in that it claims that the number of deaths inflicted by US forces will be less than those Iraq’s government inflict on their own people. The assumption is that that the amount of killing that we are going to do is better as a result. However, does the author have any clue as to how many people Iraqi forces have killed? When do we begin counting? How do we make this assumption? On propaganda figures alone or on verifiable facts?

In any event, it cannot be proven until after a war, so it’s an irrelevant argument now. Therefore, the invasion is, like, you know, groovy. We’ll invade, kill X number of people and compare that to the number of deaths Iraqi forces have inflicted on Iraqis. If the numbers are less, we were good. If we happen to kill more, then what? Do we go home and re-install Saddam as the lesser evil? Do we get punished? Are we then sadistic brutal dictators like Saddam? Where is the logic here? The more one takes the argument to its conclusion, the more ridiculous it gets.

This is like saying the number of deaths the various US government units inflict each year on their own people is less or more than those to be caused by a war in Iraq. So, if we look at the number of people killed in judicial and policing actions, and compare them to the USA’s eventual casualties, we’ll know if we better the villainous Iraqis or not!

My question is, are we applying this theorem to all dictators, or just the ones with oil resources. For, if anyone has killed a lot of their own people, N Korea has the Oscar for that category, with another for wmd. What about Myanmar, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Libya, Algeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Congo, Zimbabwe, Cuba?

The point of bringing the ethnic diversity is to ascertain the risible boundaries created by the European powers, and the lack of cohesion of these so-called nations. The whole point of my commentary has been to point to the many issues, which are none of our business, in which we seem to becoming entangled. Who are we, or the UK and France before us, to be making and unmaking nations? It’s best to let people sort out their own social order.

Personally, I am not in favour of the original delineation of the borders and think they’d be much more logical otherwise. Not for that reason would I favour any foreign military invasion to the effect! The same principle would have to be applied to the entire African continent. And Turkey’s borders are ridiculous for they’ve been killing Kurds by the thousands to hold on to their land.

Indeed the author is correct in pointing up that disease and logistic played a very significant role in the British Mesopotamian debacle during WWI and the lack of mention of the 41 campaign is also appropriate, although I'd have liked to read more about it. The rest, well…

John Moser - 2/28/2003

Remember when the U.S. was talking about attacking Afghanistan? The internet was abuzz with reminders of the British disasters there in the 19th century. And those reminders were about as relevant as this reflection on the British experience with Iraq.

Alec Lloyd - 2/27/2003

This article is interesting in that it entirely skips over the British campaign of 1941, which broke Iraqi resistance almost entirely with airpower.

It also ignores the massive gains in logistics and disease, both of which were large contributors to the British debacle.

As to the debate between Mr. Moner and “Suetonius,” Mr. Moner’s fears of civilian deaths are admirably humane, but ignore the fact that they will have to reach unheard of levels of excess to even approach what Saddam has done to his own people.

Finally, it is unclear what the point of bringing Iraq's ethnic diversity into the equation. Yes, the boundaries are artificial and imperialist. Perhaps they should be altered.

If find it ironic that the modern foes of "American imperialism" are so wedded to the borders drawn by Britain and France.

Suetonius - 2/26/2003

The whole point of this debate was that the original contention of the author that there was direct correlation between the anti-civilian aerial campaign of the British in 1921 and the current planned aerial campaign is false.

I certainly don't dispute the notion that Hussein has positioned military targets within civilian areas; indeed, he's trying to use his civilians as a shield, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. That the United States will hit these targets, and cause civilian casualities, is a tremendous burden on everyone. Hussein has it in his power not to do this, and he's not doing it.

Gus Moner - 2/26/2003

I do understand the concept that we do not target civilians. Nonetheless, most nations, when under attack, defend their populated areas. Just as the USA put out missile defences in the streets of the DC, other nations likewise. Then, the opponent attacks this military site, within a populated area, and any slight divergence causes civilian casualties. So, while not directly targeting civilians, when we attack something in a populated area, we’ll hit civilians. No one can deny that, Suetonius person, the evidence is clear. Thus, this debate does not suffer form your claimed affliction.

Your ‘knowledge’ of targeting procedures is outstanding, if correct. The result is what we differ on, not the ‘targeting’. We all agree it won’t be a ‘long’ war per say in Iraq. Their military capacity is limited, the USA’s overwhelming.

I appreciate your slight remorse over the civilians. ‘It’s a bad thing’ indeed. Comparing them to the slaughter of WWII is irrelevant. They’ll be killed by our bombs, by people like you.

Editor - 2/26/2003

Bringing life to the 'Niagara Nine'
During the U.S. Civil War, a group of former slaves left the freedom and safety of Niagara to fight against the Confederates. Their story is the stuff of movies, which is the goal of a local production group

Grant LaFleche, The Standard

William Henry had to run hard, rifle in hand, his feet sinking ankle-deep in soft sand. A kilometre or so away, trapped among low scrub and sickly Floridian pines, men were dying by the hundreds.

Sprinting through the humid southern air, the kind that can smother the lungs and bleed strength from the strongest legs, Henry was cloaked in the thick, dark-blue wool overcoat of the northern army. The 20-year-old private carried a heavy pack on his back with 10 days of rations. The pockets of his coat were filled with ammunition.

He and the rest of Company F from the all-black 54th Massachusetts Infantry had just arrived in Olustee, Fla., after a 65-kilometre march from Jacksonville. But they would get no rest. They had to hurry to reinforce thousands of white Union soldiers being cut down by Confederate troops in a nearby battle.

As Henry drew close to the battle, he would have heard the thunder of heavy artillery and smelled the thick sulphurous stench of gun powder over the staccato rumble of rifle and musket fire.

"The carnage became frightful," reads an account of the battle by Civil War veteran Joseph Wilson. "They had followed the rebels into the very jaws of death ... men fell like snowflakes."

For Henry, a stableman by trade, the bloody scene was a world away from the quiet life he had been living little more than a year earlier in Fort Erie.

Like most blacks who found security in Niagara, he was a refugee from the American south, building a new life in a country free of slavery.

Henry's story -- and the stories of eight other black men who left the safety of their adopted homes in a new land to fight in the U.S. Civil War and help strike a blow against slavery -- has set a St. Catharines filmmaker on a quest to document the soldiers' lives.

"It is the human element of it, the great courage of these men that touches me," said Christopher Bessette. "They didn't have to leave Niagara, where they were safe, but they did. They answered a higher calling."

Bessette and his production group, which includes St. Catharines writer Tom Derreck, Rochelle Bush, the historical director of the British Methodist Episcopal Church, and cinematographer John Petrella, have sent a film proposal to Great North Productions in Edmonton, the documentary branch of Canadian studio Alliance Atlantis.

Bush, who has been hosting tours at the church all of February as part of Black History Month, said the sacrifice of the nine soldiers shouldn't be forgotten.

"This is a story that has to be told," she said. "These men were willing to die for freedom and their contribution is part of African-American history, part of Niagara's history."

George Hughes, a Civil War re-enactor from Charleston, S.C. who helps keep the spirit of the 54th alive today, said the course of American history was changed by men like Henry.

"When I speak to schoolchildren today about the 54th, they often say, 'Well that was then. That was so long ago.' But I say to them, 'Where do you think we would be today if they didn't do what they did, and gave up what they gave up?' "

Throughout the first half of the 19th century, Niagara -- and St. Catharines in particular -- was a beacon of freedom to blacks living under the yoke of slavery in the United States.

Through the Underground Railroad, slaves slipped through the grip of the southern U.S. states by hiding in covered wagons, churches, swamps, and farmhouses while moving slowly toward Ontario.

The British Methodist Episcopal Church on Geneva Street was the end- station of the escape route and was presided over by Harriet Tubman, perhaps the most famous of the railroad "conductors."

Bush said Tubman, who lived in St. Catharines from 1851 to 1858, made 11 trips from Canada to the U.S. and back again, leading more than 300 blacks to freedom.

Bush said most of the refugee slaves were single men "who were very hardcore, very militant about being free. Those who rode the railroad were not those who sat around and dreamed of freedom. They were willing to die or kill for it."

St. Catharines was a major centre for the abolitionist movement and black refugees. According to the St. Catharines Constitution newspaper, by 1855 there were 500 blacks living here out of a total population of 7,060.

But despite the advantages found in Canada, former slaves still considered themselves American and, if circumstances permitted, would have returned home to family and friends they left behind.

"We would rather stay in our native land if we could be as free there as we are here," Tubman said in 1855.

The black population of Niagara continued to grow until 1861, when the first shots of the American Civil War were fired. The rapidly spreading violence severed key routes on the railroad, effectively shutting it down.

In the beginning, the war between North and South was not about ending slavery, said Brock University history professor Murray Wickett.

"Initially, (former U.S.) president Lincoln is adamant that the war is about restoring the Union, not about freeing the slaves," he said.

"There were men like (abolitionist) Fredrick Douglass who were lobbying for the raising of black troops and putting slavery on the agenda, but it didn't happen."

Hughes said when the war was expected to last only a few months, hundreds of thousands of whites volunteered to fight.

"They said it would all be over by Christmas. But after two years, it looked like it would just go on and on and the Union had a harder time finding white volunteers."

There were, however, more than a million black men who could be pressed into battle.

Wickett said the motive behind Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the formation of black regiments was a pragmatic military one rather than a moral choice.

But for blacks, the opportunity to join the war meant a chance to free their families and perhaps forge a brighter future for their people, Hughes said.

Added Wickett: "You really have to credit the black regiments, the 54th and those that followed them, with putting slavery on the Civil War agenda. You really have to wonder if slavery would have been an issue without them."

By 1863, men like William Henry would have seen a poster beckoning them home.

"Colored men, rally 'round the flag of freedom," said the poster advertising the first recruitment drive for the 54th Massachusetts Infantry. "Pay, $13 a month! Good food and clothing! State aid to families!"

Nine men from Niagara would join 50,000 other Canadian residents, black and white, who chose to raise arms to fight for the north -- and south.

"The men who had escaped to Canada had left family behind in the south who were still in the bondage of slavery. They came back to fight for their family," said Hughes. "They were safe in Canada, yes. But family is so very fundamental to the African-American community. It was maybe more important than for any other group."

The risk to black soldiers went beyond the possibility of being killed or wounded in battle. The Confederate government decreed that any black man captured in a Union uniform would be executed.

Wickett said white soldiers initially believed black regiments such as the 54th or the United States Colored Troops, would make terrible soldiers.

"At first, they were only used as manual labour. There was still some resistance to black soldiers because the big fear amongst whites at the time was black men with guns. But they needed able-bodied troops and in some ways had no choice but to put them into combat."

Questions about the mettle of black troops, and the 54th in particular, were answered during several battles where they were outnumbered or outgunned by Confederate forces, said Hughes, including the Battle of Olustee, where Fort Erie's William Henry fought.

The regiment, outmanned five-to-one by Confederate troops, "stood like a wall of granite" under heavy rebel fire to cover the retreat of white units on the brink of disaster, according to battle accounts.

Eighty-three men from the 54th were killed or wounded. Henry was among the injured, but the extent of his wounds is not recorded and he left the army in 1865, the year the war ended. He never returned to Fort Erie.

Like all of the 'Niagara Nine', Henry is almost a historical ghost. No letters from him have been found, no photos recovered, no family history located.

Bessette's documentary project, tentatively titled "Son's of Freedom: Return to War," began when Tom Derreck was watching a DVD of the Academy award-winning movie Glory, which depicts the formation and first battles of the fighting 54th.

The disk contains a short historical documentary on the unit. About half-way through, a grainy photograph of a thin, grim-faced young man holding a fife sent a shiver down Derreck' s spine. It was a picture of 25-year-old John Goosberry, a musician in E Company of the 54th, who hailed from St. Catharines.

"I couldn't believe it. Here was a guy from St. Catharines who was willing to take the risk," said Derreck. "After that, I wanted to uncover all I could about this guy."

Although his research into Goosberry's history yielded few clues, Derreck began to look for more Canadians who took up the cause of freedom.

He travelled to other communities in Ontario, places such as Elgin, where ex-slaves had settled, and learned why so little information exists about those who joined the Union army.

"Most of them didn't return to Canada after the war," Derreck said. "They had families in the States and tried to build new lives there."

Bush said the St. Catharines black community dwindled as more moved south to start new lives during the reconstruction period after the war, which saw slavery abolished and new rights for blacks created.

"The numbers are not exact, but I would guess it dropped to around 50 families after the war," she said.

But reconstruction ultimately collapsed, Wickett said. Slavery was replaced by sharecropping. Property and political power was seized from blacks. The strict segregation laws that would come to define race relations in America until the late 20th century, known as "Jim Crow," were brutally imposed.

"Before the war, it was a matter of free man or slave. You could be black and be a free man, for example," Wickett said.

"But when reconstruction failed, it became a matter of black or white. There was no grey area.

"These men bled and died for freedom, only to end up back in a kind of servitude to whites."

When Derreck told Bessette about the stories of Henry, Goosberry and others, the filmmaker recognized the makings of an important movie.

"There were around 50,000 people in Canada who went to fight in the American Civil War," Bessette said. "That is like the entire city of Welland marching off to war."

The project is currently under review by Great North Productions. Bessette said the decision to approve a film project can take a long time. Still, he is going to keep pushing for the story to be told.

Derreck and Bush said it will be difficult, but not impossible, to tell the personal stories of some of the soldiers who fought to destroy slavery in the United States.

"The information is out there. It's in churches, in basements, in family records," Derreck said. "You just have to have the patience and the time to find it.

"I sincerely hope that in the not too distant future, everyone will know about the sacrifices these men made."

- - -


- Private John Goosberry of St. Catharines joined the 54th Massachusetts Infantry in 1864 at the age of 25. He served for three years as a musician in the regimental band.

- Private William Henry of Fort Erie joined the 54th Massachusetts Infantry in 1863 at the age of 19. He was wounded in Battle of Olustee. Henry left the army in August 1865.

- Corporal Samuel Green of St. Catharines joined the 45th United States Colored Troops in 1864 at 22 years of age.

- Private Hinton Griffin of St. Catharines joined the 6th United States Colored Troops in 1864 at the age of 27. He served for three years.

- Private Alfred Harris of St. Catharines joined the 23rd United States Colored Troops in 1864 at the age of 19. He received an honourable discharge after 12 months of service.

- Seaman C.W. Haxie of St. Catharines joined the U.S. Navy in 1864 at the age of 21. He served aboard the USS Midnight.

- Private James Perk of St. Catharines joined the 1st United States Colored Troops in 1863 at the age of 23. He was sentenced to hard labour after a general court martial.

- Private Joseph Thompson of St. Catharines joined the 26th United States Colored Troops in 1864 at the age of 25. He served for three years.

- Private Andren Walker of Niagara Falls joined the 3rd United States Colored Troops in 1863 at the age of 20. He served for three years.

© Copyright 2003 St Catharines Standard

Suetonius - 2/26/2003


This debate suffers from a clear understanding that in current Western air warfare, civilians are not and do not become the deliberate targets. This is fundamentally, diametrically different from what had been done during World War II.

In the Gulf War 1991 the coalition forces did attack targets that were part of the infrastructure of the country. The idea was to destroy Iraq's ability to wage war, but part of the effect was that it hurt the country and its economy (and its civilians) as a whole. The civilians were not the target; the Iraqi military's ability to fight was the target.

Subsequent to the war in Kosovo in 1999, the United States has largely backed off from targeting such infrastructure targets. Hitting that stuff only works if you're planning on a long war. Thus the quote about running out of targets in Afghanistan. Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq 2003 were not and will not be long wars. Destroying the infrastructure is a waste of the munitions.

Civilians will probably be hurt, and that's a bad thing. However, the number of Iraqis, Kosovaris and Afghanis killed was absolutely minute compared to those killed in similar sorts of attacks during World War II. That this is the case is a testament to the interest of the U.S. in minimizing civilian casualties.