Looking at the cross currents of historical and contemporary events
The Bob Marshall Wilderness (or the Bob as it's called around here) was named for this man:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marshall_(wilderness_activist)
Thanks for dropping a comment in Vilnius Daze. Will try to do more with it.
Beautiful site. It seems like another world from mine.Someone posted a link to the State of Jones earlier. I watched an interesting discussion yesterday on BookTV with the authors. Got to see some of the controversy surrounding the writing of history to support an upcoming (maybe) movie, using a historian from Harvard and a journalist. Funny mix. Still, sounds like a fascinating story -- union soldiers and sympathizers living deep in the heart of the South. They did give a sense of how, after the "20 negro rule," the Civil War in the South became a rich man's war in defense of their livelihood, sending poor men to die like the "hero" of the book Newton Knight (much like Roosevelt's father paid someone to fight for him). They argue that the South in the end won the war because they were able to maintain their "way of life" and they controlled the history of why the war was fought. Here's the book: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/9780385525930.html And a link to the video:http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=288250-1
Sounds like a very interesting book, av. Blight also came to the conclusion that the South won the peace because it was better able to shape the national consensus of the events. Reunion won out over Race. One can't help reading of that period with a sense of sadness at how the Republicans let their gains slip away. It must have been a very bitter pill for the Radicals to swallow, not to mention the Freedmen, who found themselves once again in a state of indentured servitude.
I have mixed feelings about reading it since it so clearly tracks a movie script and apparently counters at least some of the scholarly work originally written about this county (although they do a pretty good job countering that in the BookTV discussion). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/movies/30jones.html Still, interesting period of history.And yes, that's the lasting impression I have of Blight -- about how the South controlled the nation's memory of why the war was fought. I also think that's why historians have gone out of their way to emphasize the other side of the story -- to counter that "winning of the peace." But that's a discussion we've had before.....
This is a great introduction to Obama's mother.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/opinion/11dove.html
I see this is the anniversary of Cortez' victory over Montezuma. I well remember the great discussion we had on "The Conquest."
And in a total meander, NY -- and Rick -- I finished season 2 of slings and arrows, which focused on Macbeth. If you are at all interested in theater and Shakespeare, what a great series. In each series they try to integrate some of the play into the day-to-day story. The argument on stage about whether or not to bring an actual bloody ghost to the table while the director argues with a real (invisible) ghost is brilliant. I have found season 3 on youtube as well so it's on to Lear in 10 minute increments. It's worth it. I may even buy the series again if I can't find the first one I bought...