My Hero, the Chauvanist Pig

One thing we always have to keep in mind in the study of history is to assess people by the standards of the times in which they lived. In a judgment-drunk society like teeveefied America, the shallowest form of interaction with historical characters is to point out that they weren't as modern as, say, modern people.

The Great Emancipator Lincoln held demonstrably racist views for almost all of his life. George Washington held slaves. Thomas Edison was a serial polluter. Moses didn't support universal suffrage for the working class. Albert Schweizer was a vivisectionist. And so forth...

So it shouldn't come as anything close as a shock when I read the little-quoted quote from Martin Luther King Jr. in Anna Holmes's blog at the Washington Post demonstrating that the good reverend's views on spousal abuse (when he wrote an advise column in the 1960s) would probably offend the most conservative of anti-feminists of the 21st century.

King’s response to a cheated-on wife was to suggest that she “study” her rival to learn what her husband wanted in a woman. (“Are you careful with your grooming? Do you nag?” he asked.) He informed an unmarried woman grappling with whether to have sex that “real men still respect purity and virginity” and instructed an abused wife to determine whether there was anything within her personality to justify such treatment. “Are you sure that you have a radiating personality, a pleasant disposition, and that feminine charm which every man admires?” he asked a Miss Lonelyhearts. To a newlywed having troubles with her mother-in-law, he remarked, “There is an expression that no home is big enough to have two women at its head.”

But let's bear in mind that King was writing in Don Draper's America. Like the fictional Don Draper, Dr. King was a typical midcentury man, a high profile man on rise, a serial philanderer in an age when sexual conquests were a measure of a man's character, when women's suffrage was considered the culmination rather than the beginning of the women's equality movement.

Ouch. I say we shouldn't be shocked. And yet I have to, at least a little bit, do a spit take when I read this excusing of physical abuse from the American prophet of nonviolence. I'm not shocked as a student of history, of course. I'm not even surprised. But as a hero-worshiper, I don't want to read words like this from the guy I extoll as the best exemplar of the American Promise in the 20th century.

The meaning of Martin Luther King goes far beyond the midcentury Civil Rights Movement that led to his death. I don't see him as just a martyr, which I think most people in our sex-death-and-race obsessed society tend to cue in on. But King did more than just speak up for black people; he was more than just an eloquent spokesman. King distilled the essence of the great democratic political experiment of America into a coherent philosophy. His view of how to confront oppression, particularly popularly supported oppression, within the inherently non-violent context of democratic structures was in many ways the culmination of how a democracy, and really of how any civil society, could work once we reject the longstanding imperative of might makes right.

The upward progress of western society, the saving grace of western society, has been the slow moving moral arc coming to prove that right makes might. MLK put that beautiful and almost-naive principle into action and he made it work. He used nonviolent confrontation to hold a mirror up to American imperfection and forced a society to live by the purest intentions of the credos we expressed. He put muscle on the bones of "all men are created equal" in such a way that he fundamentally changed the way all Americans, and all citizens of democratic countries, think and speak today in the 21st century.

Planted in his "Freedom Now" philosophy and in the actions he led in standing up to institutions of power with only the moral high ground for armor were the seeds for the feminist movement and the anti-domestic-violence social aesthetic of today. By changing the language of liberty, equality, and human rights in America, MLK created the social awareness we need today to cringe at a preacher saying "If your husband is slapping you around, honey, maybe you oughta learn to treat him better."

But that's the historical fact we're left with. It's not fair to the man to make that the basis for judging him on the issue of spousal abuse. He was a man of his times, as all people are. He wanted to be known as "a drum major for justice"; he never claimed to have never sung out of key on occasion. It's not easy to think of our heroes as having feet of clay. Maybe it's better to think of them as only having feet of flesh.

Iowa City Has a Superhero. Update: He's Drunk.

It's not just in the movies. There are real superheroes in the world. They are ordinarily ordinary people, albeit geeks, who dress up in outlandish costumes in order to make the world a better place. Most of them spend more time posing in their costumes and updating their MySpace accounts than actually patrolling the streets. And among those who patrol the streets for crime, just about all of them will "take action" by whipping out their cell phones and dialing 911 when they encounter evil-doers.

But apparently there's one guy in Iowa City who's taking justice into his own hands, even of those hands might be a little jittery most days. This fearless approach to vigilante justice leaves the illustrious Captain Save-A-Ho entirely unappreciated by the Iowa City Police Department. Those fools!

'Captain Save-A-Ho' arrested on Ped Mall

A self-professed protector of women was arrested for public intoxication Monday afternoon.

Iowa City Police Officers were dispatched to the Pedestrian Mall at 2:43 p.m. for multiple complaints of a man harassing people. Police said they found 34-year-old Jerald T. Navarre shouting and smelling of alcohol.

Police said Navarre showed signs of intoxication, admitted to drinking and told officers he was “a little drunk.” He refused pre- and post-arrest breath tests.

The man allegedly told officers he is “needed” on the Pedestrian Mall to “protect women.” He goes by “Captain Save-A-Ho,” police said.

Navarre has a lengthy criminal record with various arrests for intoxication, burglary and escape from custody, according to online court records.

Navarre has been charged with public intoxication.

Alas, the neverending quest for truth and justice continues.

Classical Romans believed there were two Chinas

Now, I also happen to believe there are two Chinas. Not in the Nixonian sense in which there's a Red China and a Taiwan China, but in the dictionary sense that there's a geographic China that goes in Asia and a porcelain china that goes on that stupid little shelf over your refrigerator. But I digress.

What the Romans believed was that the place called China by Americans, Chine by Frenchies, and Zhonghua by actual Chinese people (or should I say "by actual Zhonghuans"?) was actually two separate countries. The first, which could be considered sort of the northern area, except that their sense of geography was all screwed up, they called Serica, meaning "the land where silk comes from."



The second place they called "Sinae," which surprisingly does not mean "place where sinuses come from." This was more or less the actual China, although a bit to the south. The name is something of a mystery. Calling it "Sinae" seems to imply that the name derives from the Qin ("chin") Dynasty, only the use of the name Sinae significantly predates the accession of the Qins.

The Romans were otherwise considerably misinformed about China. Some writers reported that the Seres people had no language of their own, but only made strange noises to mimic talk in dealing with their Indian neighbors, and were tall and blue-eyed. Some conjectured that the people of Sinae could live to 200 years old. The map above, courtesy of Ptolemy, indicates that the Romans knew the earth was round, but thought it was bounded by uninhabitable land and 12 great winds beyond the narrow western and eastern oceans.

This all, of course, directly contradicts what we know about the sciences of antiquity as revealed through the later seasons of Xena, Warrior Princess.

The only successful secessionist movement in US history

In 1861 about one third of the Union tried to leave the Union. They formed a confederacy of 11 states, pretended that they owned two more than that (Missouri & Kentucky) although they didn't, and then struggled artlessly for four years against the rest of the country in a war that eventually killed 2% of the US population. They failed, of course, because Abraham Lincoln had the power of awesome.

Other people occasionally have tried to tear off pieces of the United States. But America is like the Bébé's Kids of nation states--we don't divide, we kill Indians and take their land. As a history teacher I sometimes have said that the US has never lost territory to another power. But it turns out I'm wrong. There was another secession in 1861, one that was formally aligned with the Confederacy, and this bunch of rebels, unlike their Southron brethren, actually got away with it.

The villain in this assault on American sovereignty was the little village of Town Line, New York. They never got a star on the Confederate flag, but while the boys in blue were stomping Johnny Reb south of the Mason Dixon, Town Line went through the whole war without ever being challenged on their open defiance of the Lincoln Administration. In 1861 they town called a meeting and, acting in bizarre sympathy with the slave states, voted 85 to 40 to leave the USA and join the CSA.

Why would they do that? The reasons are unclear today. The town was along the Underground Railroad, so perhaps some local incident provoked their anger. Talk of secession in the 1860s was not confined to the South, after all. Abolitionists, for entirely different motives, had long criticized the pro-slavery US Constitution and had openly called for leaving the country ever since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed. But obviously such sentiments were not those prevailing in Town Line. They voted to side with the slaveholders.

Nor can we dismiss their little unnoticed rebellion as simple opposition to warfare among Americans. Five Townliners (or possibly 12) apparently left their homes, crossed over the battle lines of 1861 and fought on the side of the Confederates. Now, within a year everybody somehow managed to forget about their little rebellion. Perhaps the Rebel volunteers slowly drifted back home--it seems unlikely that many southerners in that parochial age would have been very trusting of a bunch of New York Germans showing up and saying "Ve vant to help you keep your slafes, mein freunden."

As a political unit, Town Line had no chance of exerting any real threat to the rest of New York, upstate New York being a Republican bastion at that time. Had they made any real moves to fight or obstruct the war at home, they'd've been noticed and they'd've been stomped like Tokyo. So everyone just went about their business until the war was over and nobody ever bothered getting around to actually renouncing their one-time defiance of the Union. In fact, nobody even noticed this oddity in the town's record until 1945, when it showed up as a human interest piece in the local paper. World War Two was in progress by then, so Town Line, New York, formally rejoining the United States seemed like the patriotic thing to do. A local referendum reinstated their village's status on January 26th, 1946. But they joined on their own terms (fortunately unconditional) and on their own timeline--after 85 years of unchallenged defiance of the United States government, even if no one knew that's what they were actually doing.