WAR DEJAVU

There are a couple different aspects of the website that should be addressed, and I will break down the tutorials accordingly. 

First, the actual DNA part of the Project.  In order to do this, you need to send for the Genographic Project DNA kit.  This kit does cost money, so expect to pay for the service.  I do not believe that this is a for-profit operation – it is run by National Geographic and other philanthropic foundations – but the fee is likely necessary just to offset the cost of running the data and DNA analysis.  When you receive the kit, you will find detailed instructions on how to collect your DNA, how to store it, and how to package it and send it back to the DNA analysis headquarters.  I, personally, have not done this but the steps laid out on the website seem straightforward and easy to follow. 

When you get your results back, it will be accompanied with a couple different things.  First, the results will tell you what “haplogroup” you descend from.  The haplogroups are groupings that biologists have made that designate different early human populations.  You will then receive a map and diagrams – all of this is available online – that will show the specific migrations and routes that your haplogroup has taken throughout human history.  This map allows you to trace your ancestors.  In addition to the map, you will also receive commentary from a member of the Genographic Project that helps explain your individual results – which is a nice, personal touch. In terms of history, this mostly satisfies the personal curiosity to better understand your own family’s past, but, again, the conglomeration of this information can prove to be an incredibly useful resource for historians – especially those studying population dynamics and anthropologically related fields.  Also, for those science novices, the interactive website comes with a “crash course” in basic DNA genetics.  You can click on different tutorials – which includes some short movies – that explain the basic science behind the DNA results.

The “Atlas of the Human Journey” and the “Atlas of Human History” are really easy to use and are a good historical online tool.  For the Human Journey atlas, there is a timeline at the top of the screen, broken down into different eras, that stretches from 25,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C.  If you click on an era, a 3-D globe emerges on the screen.  You can scroll around the globe using the toggle bars on the side.  On the globe, the Project has placed highlighted markers that indicate some significant event or place in the history of the “human journey” or human migration.  Rolling your mouse over any specific marker will give a brief description of it – clicking on any marker will take you to a new screen with more in-depth descriptions and, in some cases, movies.  The “Human History” atlas works in much the same way.  The only difference is that it is more geared towards modern times, as it focuses on events of recorded history.  But it does stretch from Ancient Rome to present day.  The markers on this globe indicate other significant events in the course of human history – WWII, for example, is a marker – that are worth acknowledging.  In conjunction with the personal DNA information, these tools help the individual better understand and contextualize his/her own personal results.  These tools also allow an academic or history buff to better view the global context of human migration.  And, last but not least, the Human History atlas – separate from the DNA testing aspect of the Project – can just be used as basically a 3-D history textbook with basic historical information readily available in web 2.0 format.  The 3-D nature of it makes it better than a linear, text-based timeline because distances and relationships between events can be better comprehended. 

| View | Upload your own

The above slide talks about different ways online tools can be used for teaching techniques.  There are a couple things I like about this slideshow.  First, the color schemes work really well.  I did not find one slide that was difficult to read because of text or background colors.  Secondly, the formatting of the slides was simple but varied.  The creator did not use the same template every single time, but the whole show was simple and straightforward.  The only problem I had with a couple of the slides was that there was too much text – it seemed to be overloaded.  But, generally, I thought it was well done.  The content is not necessarily that relevant to history, but I put it in because I liked the way the slides were visually created. 

      The Genographic Project contains elements of both the science and the history disciplines.  It is science because, well, it deals with biology.  The entire thing is run by geneticists and requires public participation on a basic scientific level.  But the history discipline intersects the scientific realm in this instance because the goal of the project is to trace these biological factors back through time.  The ultimate goal is to find about “where we come from”.  History, in its basest sense, attempts to answer that very same question.

     There are a bunch of interesting tools that can be found on the Genographic Project website which can be useful.  First and foremost, anybody that sends in DNA to the Project gets rewarded with a wealth of resources that help the person understand his/her past.  The Project can trace ancestors back to original “groups” of early human populations and it gives each participant – online – his/her own interactive map to trace this ancestry.  It also comes with  commentary from the Project’s directors, helping you to understand the results.  In a broad conext, this notion of understanding basic human migration patterns can be immensely important for historians.  It can lead to alternative theories for historical human settlements and events, leading the issues to be examined through a biological lens that may ultimately better tell the story.  This is science helping historians understand why things played out the way that they did. 

There are a couple other tools on the website that can be useful reference points for those interested in history.  The “Atlas of the Human Journey” is basically an interactive globe that can be sorted by date – anywhere from 25,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C.  You can click on markers placed around the globe that indicate a signifacnt historical event or place.  Clicking on the event leads you to a new page that gives a more in-depth description.  This part of the online application serves as a basic reference tool for human migration patterns and can be useful to historians by placing all of this information in one place and in one interactive application.

The website also comes with an “Atlas of Human History”, which is similar to the “Atlas of the Human Journey”.  This interactive globe illustrates various important milestones in human history.  While pretty basic, it is useful because it places these events in one, easy-to-reach place.  The 3-D globe also allows for these events to constantly be changed and modified and allows you to place events in good geographical context. 

Ultimately, the Project will be most intriguing when a large sample of DNA information can be added to the web continously to better tell the story of human historical settlements.  This Project, while still in the beginning stages, gives historians and history-minded people a fascinating way to view history through a biological lens and perhaps gain new perspectives on historical topics. 

     National Geograhic - in conjunction with IBM, geneticist Spencer Wells, and the Waitt Family Foundation – has created the Genographic Project online, which can be found at https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/about.html.  The project is designed to better understand the history of human genes and human migration patterns.  The project is interactive and depends on participation from the public.  In order to participate, you have to order the kit – you will then have to take a simple cheek swab to get your DNA and then send it back to the Genographic Project.  The project analyzes your DNA and then “reveal your deep ancestry along a single line of direct descent (paternal or maternal) and show the migration paths they followed thousands of years ago”.  Essentially, you give the project your DNA and it  traces your ancestry ALL the way back and shows the migration patterns that those ancestors took.  The online website also comes with several other features.  It gives a basic teaching lesson on genetics as well as basics on human history.  But it also comes with two important features.  First, it includes an interactive atlast of human history, which can be sorted by time or event.  Secondly, once you send in your information, you receive an interactive map and media overview explaining the DNA results and tracing your ancestry online in an interactive way.   

SECTION I:  WELCOME POST

“History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days” – Winston Churchill

“A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to always be valuable” – Thomas Jefferson.

In the 11^th grade, I was forced to memorize the Gettysburg Address. At the time, it seemed useless. It was tedious. It was boring. But I’m glad that I had to do it. Often times, Americans forget and trivialize the inspiration that can come from remembering history. Today the Gettysburg address serves as a reminder to me of the inspirational lessons of history.

“…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” – Abraham Lincoln.

What a speech. Unfortunately, I feel like these words too often fall on deaf ears. There is a tendency to elevate the present time as disconnected and unique from historical precedent – but that simply is not the case. I intend for my blog to help remind people that history should be learned from – and those lessons are often times very applicable to today. I hope that my blog will draw connections between the important figures of today and the important figures of yesteryear. What does Barack Obama have to do with Thomas Jefferson? Or George Washington? I have yet to find a blog that adequately addresses this historical perspective of today’s issues. Too often, U.S. policy initiatives are seen as being done in a vacuum. But my blog can help trace today’s politics to yesterday’s politics. As new issues arise, I will write blog entries that react to current events. Fundamentally, people study history so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. But I think that people would be shocked to see just how often we repeat the same mistakes.

This is also an excellent time to be writing a blog about U.S. history. The presidential primary elections are the dominant news story right now. And this is undoubtedly one of the most historic election races in this nation’s history. An African-american man and a woman are vying for the democratic presidential nomination. The very notion of this even being possible a hundred years ago was laughable – at best. So we are living in a historic time and I believe that this blog will be especially relevant. We are in the midst of both a war and a historic election. All three of the candidates – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain have used historical references to support their positions on foreign policy issues. But the public needs to be able to objectively scrutinize and judge whether or not those historical comparisons are truly relevant.

My qualifications to write such a blog will probably come into question for some readers. I am not a Ph.D. I don’t even have my B.A. in history yet. But I am a history major. And the beautiful thing about history is that the information is out there to everyone. From a conceptual standpoint, the learning curve on history is not overly steep. A history major can read a primary source just the same as a math major can. Although the background information known by these two individuals may be different, the prose of history is conceptually within everybody’s grasp. For example, I could be handed a book on organic chemistry. I could be given a week to read it, to look over it. Study it. Most likely, by the end of that week, I will have gleaned almost zero important information from it. I will not retain anything. That is because the subject matter has such a steep learning curve. But history does not suffer from this malady. One of the characteristics of my blog is that I want a wide audience to be able to read it, understand it, and comprehend it. It isn’t going to be high-brow, intellectual fluff. This blog will raise issues that people can relate to and find interesting. Only a basic, fundamental knowledge of U.S. history will be needed to read it and engage with it.

My general goal for this blog is two-fold. First, I want it to be different than almost any other blog that I have found on the internet. The little bits of U.S. history that I have found have only been used to convey some other partisan point. But the history used is often not appreciated for what it is, and more philosophical questions about that history are not raised. Instead of spitting out facts, I want to stimulate thought with my blog posts. I will include open ended and sometimes controversial questions that might be outside the norm but that will hopefully interest readers. Secondly, I hope that this blog will help readers – and myself – see the current world through a more comprehensive historical perspective.

SECTION II:  BLOG I PROFILED

The blog that I profiled is titled “Military History Blog” and it discusses various aspects of U.S. military history, foreign policy, and politics. The website is written by Daniel Sauerwein. Sauerwein received a BA magna cum laude from Illinois College and is currently pursuing his MA in history from the University of North Dakota , according to the biography page on his website. The author posts roughly twice a week but there does not seem to be any set pattern to it. It appears that Sauerwein posts when he feels the need to respond to something important or particularly relevant that has happened, but he does not feel the need to stick to any kind of rigid posting schedule. This aspect of “blogging spontaneity” makes it appear like Sauerwein only writes when pertinent, important issues need to be addressed. The reader does not get the sense that any blog entry has simply been created to satisfy some artificial posting deadline.

The blog is not wholly mainstream. The last time I checked, the site has had roughly 5,000 visitors total. But despite the relatively small readership, there seem to be a handful of faithful readers and posters that make regular visits to the site. I have read numerous posts by Sauerwein but the two most interesting posts I am going to link to in the following paragraphs.

“Cold War Deception Coming Undone” discusses alleged maneuvers that the British undertook under Margaret Thatcher intended on tricking the Swedish – and the rest of the world – into thinking that the Soviets were more aggressive than they really were. The content is pretty relevant to my blog because it deals with military intelligence and deception in recent history. The incident illustrates how historical perspective is often necessary to understand political and military realities. Deception, intelligence, and counter-intelligence often coincide to distort reality and truth to the general public. The clarification of this distortion can only be seen years after the fact – and efforts to truly understand the events need to be taken seriously. The post also shows how ambiguous and argumentative history can be. In the entry, the blogger quotes a British Navy official as claiming that “Margaret Thatcher signed approval for every single operation”. Several paragraphs later, he cites a Swedish official claiming that “Tunander’s claims were “completely untrue”. History can be portrayed and manipulated and often needs the benefit of hindsight to more clearly be understood.

The second blog entry is Hitler’s Lost Fleet. This blog entry deals with the recent discovery of some lost German warships from World War II. This blog centers on historical evidence that is only now being uncovered. The history discipline, contrary to popular opinion, is dynamic. Even today, new research and information is coming to light that greatly affects the current understanding of past events. Because of this, it is dangerous to be lulled into forming concrete opinions about the past that can not be changed. The blog’s detailing of the lost German boats is most fascinating in that nobody had thought to uncover them for the past sixty years. It is an interesting historical tidbit – although I don’t know how much it directly relates to the future content of my blog.

In terms of my own potential content, I think that certain aspects of Sauerwein do relate. Honestly, I do not think that I am going to find a blog that exactly duplicates the intent/content of my blog simply because I have a pretty unique focus. This blog does deal with U.S. history analysis, with a particular focus on military history. But I believe my blog will differ in the style of implementation of these historical facts. The history and research is out there on the photosphere – the distinctions come in the manner of presenting and discussing the history itself.

This blog definitely comes off as a product of academia. Sauerwein is currently pursuing an academic career. He already has a degree in history. So in a sense, it does come from the realm of academia. But its important to remember that Daniel (and the site) do not currently represent any actual history professor or academic institution. That being said, the assumption from many of the posts is that the information being used is grounded in legitimate academic research. The presence of certain advertisements and partisan logos do detract from the academic aura of the blog. In terms of post length, Sauerwein’s average entries are pretty hefty. Because of the nature of the content – and the scholarly attitude that the tries to portray – short, choppy posts would not necessarily work for him. Sauerwein wants to give off an aura of academic respectability and, consequently, the posts need to be a decent length in order to reinforce that.

Sauerwein writes to a specific audience. History buffs probably make up the large majority of the blog’s readers – but not necessarily the professional academic. The blog would not attract professionals in the field, but rather amateurs that are interested in military history. The posts do not really advance the discourse on any particular historical topic. Instead, the goal seems to be to take generally agreed upon academic knowledge and pass it onto the masses – or at least the small group of interested persons.

I hope that I will be able to refer to this blog somewhat when writing my own. In a broad sense, it will be helpful to look at how Sauerwein weaves historical conclusions into present day topics while still keeping it interesting. But there will definitely be stark differences between my blog and his blog. In fact, there will be much more that the two blogs do NOT have in common compared to what they DO have in common. It was useful, however, to read the blog and see the vantage point he wrote from – and the purpose behind the blog. Realistically I will not refer to this blog that often but I feel better prepared to write my own after seeing Sauerwein’s blog postings.

SECTION III:  ANALYZING PERSONA

EmpireNotes.org is a political blog that deals with various aspects of U.S. politics and foreign policy. The blog is written Rahul Mahajan. Mahajan, a professional author, has been to Iraq twice as a correspondent and occasionally teaches at New York University, according to his website. His career achievements and the fact that he has written books on American politics and foreign policy signal to the reader an immediate level of legitimacy. The blog posts center on the current political climate with a special emphasis on the Iraq War. He also weaves some historical analysis into his blog from time to time. In analyzing the persona of this blogger, the first thing to do is look at the name of the blog. The title gives the reader his first impression. In this case, “EmpireNotes” instantly clues the reader into the tone of the blog. Although “empire” connotations can cut either way, I was right in anticipating a certain level of cynicism from Mahajan. Mahajan’s blog expresses concern that the United States continues to act in a manner more consistent with an ambitious empire than with a humble democratic republic.

This blog, similarly to most other political blogs that I have seen, is mostly reactionary. The blogger tends to mostly write responses to political events that happen. Now, you might be thinking that all blogs are reactions to something. Well, most of them are. But by reactionary, I mean that this blog does not create more abstract topics for discussion. Mahajan does not try to pose hypotheticals or actively participate in the politics himself. Instead, he observes the world and writes posts about what he sees. Mahajan clearly represents himself as a liberal. Or a democrat. Or a left-winger. Whatever term you want to use. This political leaning colors a lot of his blog entries. But blogging as a liberal, he still tries to keep his persona grounded in rationality instead of controversy. The blogger is not necessarily trying to inflame partisan readers. Instead, he uses his persona to appeal to readers that are perhaps on-the-fence in regards to where they stand politically.

The February 4^th post, for example, is titled “Lessons from Edwards’ Failure”. Mahajan takes Edwards’ recent political failure and analyzes it. He employs sarcasm to get his point across – an unmistakable characteristic of his blogging persona. He leads the posting by proclaiming that “Eli Manning had more fight in him than Edwards” (Mahajan). Mahajan then goes on to say, in the very next line, that he found Edwards’ failure “unsurprising…given [his] perception that Edwards was a poseur and an empty suit”. Another, earlier blog was titled “Democracy Is Dead, Long Live Democracy”. Right off the bat, a new reader to this site is going to see the title, read the first two paragraphs of this blog, and immediately get a feel for the sarcasm and cynicism of Mahajan.

Why the sarcasm? Why does Mahajan feel the need to use this particular style? I think part of Mahajan’s approach is to present himself as somebody that has been in the world of politics and has firsthand experience. He certainly does not present himself as a naïve idealist. He is trying to show his readers that he has been jaded by first hand accounts of the darker side of politics. Sometimes this cynicism can be overwhelming and tedious, but it does play a specific role in his blogging persona. He wants the reader to feel like he has personally been jilted by the system in some way. He augments that by some of the information he puts on his “Bio” page – such as mentioning his stints in Iraq.

It’s important to keep in mind, however, the professionalism of the blog entries and how that affects the writing style. Mahajan is an accomplished writer, has published books, and teaches at a renowned university. His writing style reflects this experience. The word choice, while not flowery, does not lack complexity. I think that Mahajan does a really good job of keeping the prose informal while still reminding the reader of his more academic background. His blog come off as the informal ranting of a very smart man – the thoughts a professor might have behind closed doors. The reader is never worried that he might be unintentionally reading the thoughts of a twelve year old that just got a computer for christmas. And, if at times, Mahajan comes across as pretentious and whiny, it is somewhat more digestible knowing that you are reading an author with some experience and knowledge on the subject.

Mahajan does, however, attempt to blend this cynical voice with a more practical tone. His sarcastic side notes Edwards’ failures and demeans him. But at the same time, he tries to pull some kind of positive message from this skepticism. The blogger – Mahajan – portrays himself as a practical – albeit critical – commentator on U.S. politics and foreign policy. The egregious mistakes of U.S. foreign policy, according to Mahajan, need to be checked. His biting cynicism – and his subtle humor – get his point clearly across to the reader. One may not always agree with his assessment of the country, but one can hardly find fault with the lucidity and cleverness of his arguments.

Recently, some prominent Obama backers (Patrick Leahy, VT., for one) called on Hillary Clinton to bow out of the Democratic nomination election.  All the numbers show that Hillary has no plausible way of gaining the necessary votes to win the election.  Neither does Obama, but he will at least finish with more votes than Hillary will.  Obama will likely win the popular vote and will win more states – just yesterday polls showed he was even cutting into Clinton’s huge lead in Pennsylvania.  My confusion comes in her reasoning for staying in the race.

All throughout this election process, Clinton has derided Obama for focusing on lofty rhetoric and idealism.  Obama, she argued, was living in the world of the theoretical.  A conceptual, romantic view with no base in reality.  She mocked him with her “and the heavens will open up” speech.  In doing so, she set herself up as the experienced, practical politician.  She could get things done because she knows the realities of national politics.  That was her strength.  But now, with her back against the wall, she has shifted.  Now, she is focusing on the theoretical right for every Democrat to have their inalienable right to vote.  She is focusing on the theoretical tenets and principles of democracy to justify her remaining in the race.  Shouldn’t the experienced politician realize that the writing is on the wall?

The longer the race goes on, the worse it is for Democratic chances in November.  But Hillary is willing to focus on “theoretical” idealistic ideas of voter rights instead of doing what is best for the party.  Regardless of whether or not Hillary is right about this idealism, is the practical outcome of the 2008 election not more important?  Should political realities be accepted by Mrs. Experience?

    I read a great post on the “Boston 1775″ blog (which is quickly becoming my favorite one on pageflakes) the other day.  The author was blogging about a talk he went to by an author that was called “Could the British have won the American War of Independence?”.  Essentially, the talk went into detail about all the advantages that the British had at the start of the war.  The British had superior arms, superior training, along with a lot of other tactical and geographic advantages.  So how did the United States win?  It is often assumed in the United States that we “outfought” the British and that our righteousness of our cause was ultimately why we prevailed.  But we COULD have lost the war.  There are strategic and tactical reasons why the British lost. 

For my paper, I want to focus on two main points.  First, I want to pinpoint the critical moments in the Revolutionary War that swung it in our direction.  What could the British have done to win the war?  What were their crucial mistakes?  A series of lucky and fortunate events helped the American cause – along with the brilliant leadership of a select group of men.  If Washington had not had the nerve to cross the Delaware on Christmas Day, 1776, would the morale of the army sunk so low that it would have simply dissolved?  So the first thing I want to address is the reasons why the outmanned Americans were able to win the war – and if the actions that led the American victory were avoidable and simply causes of human error on the British side.

 The second point I want to address in my paper is whether or not the independence of the American colonies was inevitable at some point – even if the initial rebellion had been put down in 1776.  Was the expanding power of the colonies growing too big to be controlled by Great Britain in the long term?  Look at India - India was a British colony up until World War II.  And the population of India is massive.  Was a long-standing reconciliation and partnership even possible in the 18th century given the nature of the dispute and the reasons for the start of the war in the first place?

In short, I want to look at the inevitability of American Independence.  Was the cause a rising force that could not have been stopped given the circumstances?  Or was American Independence in the right place at the right time?  Did the stars just align?   

On last weeks “Real Time with Bill Maher”, Tavis Smiley made a comment that got me thinking. He was talking about how McCain could very well ride flag-waving, fanatical patriotism to the oval office. This idea of patriotism, Smiley was arguing, was focused more on symbols than on real meaning. Wearing a flag lapel pin on your jacket makes you patriotic. And Smiley was saying McCain could ride this wave of nationalism to win the election. Smiley then offered up a great quote. He quoted Frederick Douglass, who said something to the effect that patriotism included the ability to “rebuke the nation for its sins”. It is patriotic to point out the flaws of our country. And I think this kind of thinking is being marginalized today. Commetns critical of America are seen as unpatriotic and we want to see America through these rose-colored glasses. It is becoming politicla suicide to criticize the U.S. And in the wake of watching “John Adams”, this got me thinkg from a revolutionary perspective. We are showing a lot of the traits that Great Britain showed in 1776. We are becoming arrogant. We don’t recognize our own faults. One of the reasons that we severed ties from Great Britain was that the British were too arrogant and self-righteous to admit they had blundered in their policies.  They became obsessed with their own self-righteousness and blind belief in the superiority of England.  Those that opposed the King’s policies – the Earl of Chatham, John Booth – were ignored and Britain paid a heavy price for not acknowleding her own faults.  Hopefully, this idea of blind patriotism/arrogance does not erase the critical commentary that this country needs. 

 The problem with the current war in Iraq stems from the fact that the people that make the decision to go to war are almost completely insulated from the consequences of that decision.  For politicians today, the risk that voting for war entails is strictly political.  Worst case scenario, they vote for an unpopular war and they do not get re-elected.  But this was not always the case.

Up until after World War II, the United States did not have a professional, standing army.  At the time of Pearl Harbor, the armed forces were relatively small.  The swelling of the military only occurred after volunteers flooded the ranks.  But when decision makers had to make the decision to go to war, they knew it would affect EVERYBODY. The burden of the war would not be placed on this “professional” army that in today’s society gets detached from everyday life.  The decision to go to war, nowadays, is the decision of whether or not to send our professional army to war or not.  But it has become less about whether to send the United States to war or not.  We have separated the armed forces in such a way that war takes on completely different connotations.  Politicians vote whether or not to send the army to war.  More and more, this concept of “army” gets removed from the general populace.

In 1776, the second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to decide whether or not to plunge the thirteen colonies into war with Great Britain. These men – and the families of these men- would be directly affected.  The last line of the Declaration of Independence is “and we pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”. The founding fathers willingly went to war with the greatest military power in world, knowing full well that if they lost, they would be guilty of treason and would all be hung.  THEY knew the consequences of the war they voted for.  I wonder how today’s politicians would vote if that much hung in the balance…..