London in 1940 vs. America in 2020

This post was published in the Wilson Times July 24, 2020

My wife recently got into reading “Citizens of London” by Lynne Olson, which I had read a few years ago after a friend strongly recommended it and lent me the book. Because I have a fear of losing a loaned book, when my wife said she was reading something else and wasn’t in the mood for a history book, I returned the borrowed book, and we both turned to other reading.

             Several days ago, my wife expressed an interest in Olson’s history of England in the early days of World War II, so we ordered our own copy of  “Citizens of London,” and my wife, usually a fiction reader, devoured the account of Winston Churchill and his family, journalist Edward R. Murrow, the little-known U.S. Ambassador Gil Winant, and presidential adviser Averell Harriman in early 1940s London.

            My wife’s takeaway on this well-written and fascinating history has to do with similarities between 1940 Great Britain and 2020 United States. What impressed both of us were the similarities in the two nations as Hitler’s war machine threatened Great Britain in 1940 and a pandemic threatens the United States in 2020.

            When Murrow, known as the father of broadcast journalism for his pervasive broadcasts from a London under siege by German bombing, rotated back to America briefly, he found the atmosphere in New York surreal. Unlike London, where food and other items were being rationed, children were being relocated outside of cities to avoid German bombing, strict blackouts kept homes and businesses dark, German submarines were strangling shipping, and bombs fell almost every night, New York streets were quiet, and the economy was humming as the Great Depression waned. It was business as usual in the U.S., despite the threat of Hitler’s venomous speeches backed up by a seemingly unstoppable war machine.

            Murrow and others had trouble readjusting to ordinary life in New York, having lived on the edge of an arbitrary scythe in London for so long. Despite the horrifying existence of the British population, there were few complaints. The populace hung together, knowing that anyone could be next; Germany targeted residential areas as well as military targets. A Londoner could be killed by a bomb at any time, day or night. Valiant British fighter pilots harassed and shot down some German bombers but could not stop the attacks. Through it all, with inspiration from Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the British population accepted the shortages, dangers and discomforts of the year-long “Blitz.” There was never any doubt that the enemy was Germany, not each other or a political party.

            Contrast that to the situation in today’s America. Leaders, including elected officials, are pointing fingers, blaming others and forsaking the common good for “what’s in it for me?” Wildly fanciful conspiracy theories are increasingly accepted in preference to scientific and historical facts. Some Americans stubbornly refuse to accept the truth because a fanciful conspiracy is more fun. Some refuse to accept simple rules aimed at stopping the spread of a virus that has killed more than 140,000 Americans.

            The Washington Post recently published an article about the difficulties of a general store in Oriental, N.C., which had posted a polite sign asking shoppers to wear a mask in the store, in accordance with a state mandate. The first sign did no good. People ignored it, putting the store’s staff and other shoppers in jeopardy. Another sign, more prominent but still polite, was also ignored. The 63-year-old female clerk behind the counter was screamed at and threatened. One shopper brandished his handgun. The county sheriff refused to enforce the statewide mask mandate

            The store finally gave up on the mask mandate, fearful for the staff’s safety, and locked the door. Shoppers could ring the doorbell, say what they wanted and have it delivered to them outside the store.

That would not happen in 1940s London or anywhere in any time when the population was polite, considerate and reasonable.

Titles and colors change over the years

This post was published in the Wilson Times July 17, 2020

How people are referred to in newspaper articles is not a discussion topic that attracts much of an audience, but that issue has been discussed, criticized and defended periodically throughout my three-decade career as a newspaper editor.

The earliest controversies of my career (in the 1970s and ‘80s) were over the use of courtesy titles for women. The growing feminist movement saw feminine courtesy titles as antiquated or offensive. The prevailing “Miss” and “Mrs.” were supplanted by the more modern “Ms.” Some women objected that the titles revealing marital status were not applied to men. Newspapers set their own rules, but daily papers mostly abided by the Associated Press Stylebook, for consistency if nothing else. For a time, reporters would ask a woman what courtesy title she preferred — we left it up to the woman being interviewed or written about. She could be Miss, Mrs. or Ms. Take your pick. This led to some awkwardness, as you might expect. But it seemed necessary to follow the guidance that a woman should have the right to decide how she is referenced in a news story.

Keep in mind that, as this evolution was going on, most newspapers used courtesy titles only on second reference. On first reference, a woman would be referred to as “Jane Doe.” On second reference she would be Miss Doe, Mrs. Doe or Ms. Doe.

Old ways of thinking about women and their roles in society resulted in some women insisting that they be identified by her husband’s name, e.g., Mrs. Donald Doe. I fielded a few phone calls from (mostly older) women who were irate that the newspaper used her first name instead of her husband’s in a first reference to the woman. Explaining that the newspaper’s courtesy title rule gives women their right to their own identity didn’t go over well. A revision of AP’s rules made all second references, male or female, last name only. Two major newspapers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, took a different tack: They used courtesy titles on second reference — Ms. or Mr. Not many smaller papers followed that lead.

Another courtesy title, Dr., caused some consternation when the Associated Press Stylebook ruled that the public associates the title of Dr. with medical doctors and could be misleading if the reference is to another type of doctor, such as a Ph.D., doctor of divinity, etc. To avoid complaints and to more clearly identify people, I recommended that all references to doctors of all stripes use the degree or certification after the name, such as, Jonas Salk, M.D., or Albert Einstein, Ph.D.

Those issues of the past 40+ years have largely been settled by societal evolution and other factors, but a new reference controversy has generated some controversy and a quick change of heart. My daughter brought this to my attention. A young, African-American reporter became angry when a copy editor told him that “black” as a reference to race should not be capitalized. The AP Stylebook at the time (just months ago) had declared that black should be lower case because it’s a color, not a nationality (e.g., Italian), ethnicity (e.g., Arab) or race.

But in light of the worldwide protests following the murder of George Floyd, the AP changed its policy. Black, referring to race, is now capitalized. Some have wondered whether people now referred to as Hispanic or Latino might lobby for a capital-B Brown. And if Black and Brown are capitalized, won’t you have to capitalize White, to be consistent.

Uh, Oh. That runs into a problem, some have noted. White supremacists have been insisting on capitalizing White. My guess is that AP will not want to follow the lead of white supremacists.

'Lift Every Voice and Sing' can lift America

This post was printed in the Wilson Times July 11, 2020

Lost among the news from a busy Independence Day weekend was a Washington Post report that the National Football League would begin its first game of the 2020-21 season with the playing or performance of “Lift Every Voice and Sing,” a hymn often known as the “Black National Anthem.”

            On July 4, the annual music and fireworks celebration on the National Mall included C.C. Winans singing “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” The Post story mentioned that the anthem had been sung by demonstrators at various recent protests of racial injustice in cities around the country.

            I, for one, applaud the revival of the rousing anthem, which was written 100 years ago by two brothers, James W. Johnson (lyrics, originally formed as a poem) and J. Rosemond Johnson (tune). It’s a hymn that I very much enjoyed singing at church. The song was used as an opening or closing hymn frequently for several years. I can’t recall how the hymn had been introduced to our mostly white and traditional congregation or why it slipped from our repertoire, but the hymn could have easily been forgotten as pastors and music directors changed. This year, I complained to my wife that “Lift Every Voice” had not been included in the service the Sunday before the Martin Luther King holiday.

            Our congregation had sung the hymn to an upbeat, defiant tempo, which I loved. I was surprised at one MLK Day breakfast several years ago when Bill Myers, arguably Wilson’s most beloved musician, led the singing of “Lift Every Voice” from his keyboard with a doleful, almost funereal tempo. Both styles work, and I don’t know enough to know which one is “correct.”

            However it’s sung, “Lift Every Voice” is a wonderful song with powerful words and an uplifting melody. I have suggested to friends who would listen that “Lift Every Voice” deserved to be more than the “Black National Anthem.” Its message, though originally intended for African-Americans in the first generation after slavery ended, can speak to Americans of all races and ethnicities. Lines such as “We have come, treading our path through the blood of the slaughtered” clearly resonate with African-Americans, but other Americans can identify with lyrics such as “Lest our feet stray from the places, our God, where we met thee; Lest our hearts, drunk on the wine of the world, we forget thee; Shadowed beneath thy hand may we forever stand, true to our God, true to our native land.”

            In this time of racial re-examination and reformation, songs like “Lift Every Voice” can enhance understanding and bring the American people together. I would suggest a national sing-along with every congregation including “Lift Every Voice” in its service on a designated Sunday.

            Periodically, we have seen proposals that the National Anthem, “The Star Spangled Banner,” be replaced with an anthem that is more singable without such a difficult vocal range and without the bellicose wording of this poem from the War of 1812. If this debate arises again, “Lift Every Voice” should be considered as a replacement, along with “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” and “God Bless America.” I won’t push my personal favorite patriotic song, John Philip Sousa’s “Stars and Stripes Forever”; it needs an orchestra and is a bit bellicose.

Confederate monuments tumble; and others?

As we watch the continuing saga of demonstrations against Confederate memorials and statues vs. Southerners who claim removing these icons demeans their history and heritage, America needs more clarity and understanding on this issue

 

As I wrote last week, the statues of Confederate soldiers that can be found in most county seats of the old Confederacy, which was defeated 165 years ago, pose no threat to Americans in the 21^st century.

 

Last week, a San Francisco mob protesting Confederate statues tore down a statue of Gen. U.S. Grant. The Union general was largely responsible for defeating the Confederate army and freeing the slaves. As president from 1869 to 1877, Grant presided over what was probably the administration friendliest to African-Americans until the Truman administration. Grant had ordered U.S. troops to defend the civil rights of freedmen, a practice that would end after the “Compromise of 1876,” which ended Reconstruction.

 

Yet, the mobs who want to tear down statues tackled Grant, too, reportedly on the grounds that he, at one time, owned an inherited slave. The same San Francisco mob knocked down a statue of Spanish missionary Father Junipero Serra, a Catholic saint. A statue of Christopher Columbus was beheaded last week by protesters condemning his treatment of indigenous Americans. Where will this attitude lead? Are the tombstones and homes of soldiers and slaveholders off limits? How strong a disinfectant will be needed to purge America of its infection of racism, slavery and white supremacy?

 

The protesters want to punish men and women who lived in the 19^th century or earlier and failed to adopt the moral principles and social norms of the  21^st century, but those fighting to preserve the heritage of the Confederate years may not be truthful in their protection of statues, flags and other icons.

 

James McPherson, a Princeton history professor who wrote what is to me the best one-volume history of the Civil War (“Battle Cry of Freedom”), has a new essay in The New York Review of Books in which he breaks the news to defenders of the Old South that their version of history of the Civil War and of the antebellum and post-war years is seriously flawed. McPherson calls it “Southern Comfort” — a comforting explanation of how and why their southern armies failed to defeat the Union and what caused the war. The myth of the “Lost Cause” claims superior armies, greater sacrifices and better leaders succumbed only to the superior numbers and wealth of the enemy. Southerners had to comfort themselves that their cause was greater, wasn’t about slavery and wasn’t a fair fight.

 

But it was slavery. McPherson and other historians make clear, slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War and its 620,000 deaths. Worse, the iconography of the South after the war, its tale of noble cavaliers and fearless infantrymen. States’ rights and economic differences perpetuated the lie that the South had God and morality on its side. This led to the discrimination and racial segregation that continued halfway through the 20^th century.

 

But Confederate soldiers and leaders do not bear the guilt alone for slavery and racism. New England merchants profited from the slave trade. Universities, including Yale, Harvard and Georgetown, exploited slave labor to build their institutions. British ships carried Africans in chains to slave auctions in the South and the Caribbean. To participants, these voyages were, as a Mafia don might explain, “just business,” and a profitable business at that.

 

Protesters who want to wipe out every vestige of slavery and discrimination will have to require a lot of historic figures and institutions to do penance for their crimes. Many historians have argued that it is wrong to judge people of the past by today’s (vastly changed) standards. That warning should add nuance to the roles of people in the history of slavery and race in America.

Romanian Orphans, American kids behavior similar

This post was published in the Wilson Times July  3, 2020.

If you were around in 1990, you probably remember the worldwide shock at the revelation that thousands of small children in Romania were housed in abominable conditions by the former Communist regime under Nicolae Ceausescu, who was overthrown and executed on Christmas day1989.

 

With the end of Ceausescu‘s 24-year dictatorship, the world discovered the horrible conditions in Romania, one of the last European Communist regimes to fall. Romanian children, orphaned by parental deaths, poverty, parents unwilling to raise the children they had made, were warehoused in large rooms filled with children, who were imprisoned from birth in what were essentially crates. They were fed inadequate diets that left them malnourished and prone to various nutritional diseases and deformities.

 

Worldwide media, including ABC’s 20/20 program showed the world what had happened in Romania under Ceausescu, who thought increasing Romania’s population would be economically beneficial. He outlawed contraception and abortion, thereby ensuring that many babies would be unloved.

 

The Atlantic magazine’s July-August issue contains a follow-up on the discovery of these warehouses euphemistically called orphanages and the children who survived their early life in little prison cells. The discovery of these warehouses has been compared to the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1945, as sickeningly disgusting as the Nazi horror.

 

The Atlantic reports that these Romanian orphans provided an opportunity to study the impact on children of withholding parental love, care and contact. Some of the children were adopted by American families, who bravely lavished love and comfort on children who had never felt loved. Sadly, many orphans had difficulty responding to parental love, nutritious meals, possessions, safety and care after the deprivations they had experienced in Romania.

 

Some children rebelled. The Atlantic article told of one child who soon wanted to return to Romania until he realized that his birth parents were living in abject poverty — a hut with no privacy, a dirt floor, no running water, etc. Despite being lavished with love and attention, many of the Romanian orphans grew troubled, disobedient, dishonest, destructive and violent, a terror to their adoptive parents.

 

Some might take the Atlantic article as a warning to naïve couples contemplating international adoption, but I had a different thought: These displaced orphans were “acting out” in much the same way troubled American children do — children who had not experienced the horrors of living in cages inside a warehouse with a handful of employees to attend to scores of children in one big room.

 

Both the Romanian orphans and American children might be suffering from one need that affluence and institutions, including child psychology, can’t provide: sufficient doses of unconditional love. American children aren’t living in squalid conditions as in Romania, but they sometimes miss out on loving attention as parents rush to work or other commitments. Over-scheduled children are busy and seemingly happy spending more time with teachers and care providers than with parents, but many say they wish they had more one-on-one time with mom and dad.

 

The Romanian children and this pandemic lockdown have shown again that children (and adults, too) need physical expressions of love. The lockdown’s effect on mental health has been documented. Will our children be affected by today’s loss of hugs, slaps on the back and handshakes? Humans are touch-oriented, whether it’s holding hands or hugging.