The Myth and Reality of Santa Claus

The figure of Santa Claus has been increasingly commercialized in the 20th and 21st centuries. But who was the real Santa Claus? Daniel L. Smith gives his take here.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

An early 20th century depiction of Santa Claus.

In present day America the day after Thanksgiving is traditionally spent hanging Christmas decorations and various lighting across the house and yard. These fun displays usually fit in the category of snowman, reindeer, or a big jolly old man with a white beard in a bright red suit with white fuzzy trim. We usually see images of this same person in stories or on the television magically hopping down chimneys and delivering gifts to sleeping families worldwide. This image has become something we’ve all been generationally born into, but where did this myth originate from? What is the truth behind this entire story?

The reality and the myth

“The real St. Nicholas lived from 270 to 342 and was known in his lifetime for fighting evil and promoting justice. He was credited with performing many miracles. His body was buried in the church in Myra, but in the 11th century pirates stole the bones and took them to Bari, Italy, where they supposedly are preserved in a Catholic church. About that time Nicholas also became a popular saint in Northern Europe. He was sometimes depicted with a staff, looking more like a Greek bishop.

The legend that has become the basis of the Santa Claus story is as follows.

A poor man had three daughters. Unable to give them dowries, he thought he would have to sell them into prostitution (something the extremely poor were sometimes forced into). Nicholas wanted to help but also keep his charity work secret. He went to their home one night but climbed on the roof when he found all the doors and windows locked. He dropped three bags of gold down the chimney, and the three young women had hung their stockings by the fire to dry. The gifts fell into the socks, and the tradition was off and running.

St. Nicholas Day, Dec. 6, is still celebrated in many countries, and often includes gifts for children and gift exchanges among adults. So, the real person who fought for social justice, elimination of poverty and protection of children has had his image corrupted by a friendly guy in a red suit who brings you generally more than you would ever want.[1]

But in the early days of Christianity, conspicuous consumption was not common among Christians. 

A Material Cause

During the days of Paul the Apostle, greed was an easy reality to observe. The rich get rich and the poor get poorer. Arguably materialism in our times today is the only way to prove any kind of “flaunting success.” Continuing to buy and accumulate “things” has become the way Americans prove our worth to others.[2]

Historian Adam English writes that, “Nearly everyone knows that Santa Claus -- the obese, old gent who squeezes himself down the chimney every Christmas Eve -- is the American alter ego of St. Nicholas. Slimmer and less overtly jolly, St. Nicholas roams about Western Europe showering children with presents on his traditional feast day of Dec. 6. In the Netherlands and parts of Germany, children expect a visit from a white-bearded, ecclesiastically garbed "Sinterklaas" (his Dutch name), who decides whether they have been naughty or nice before handing out treats from his sack.

Dutch and German immigrants brought St. Nicholas to America in the early 19th century, and he began a process of assimilation, trading in his bishop's miter and crosier for a fur-trimmed red suit and cap. The Santa we now know was the creation of poet Clement Clarke Moore (1779-1863), the author of "The Night Before Christmas"; cartoonist Thomas Nast; illustrators like N.C. Wyeth and Norman Rockwell; and the magazine ads for Coca-Cola painted by Haddon Simmons starting in 1931, in which Santa took a break from the arduousness of setting up junior's electric train by pausing to have a coke.”[3]

Christians and Santa Claus

So, here we are in 2020 and most of American society relishes in the contemporary version of St. Nick. One has got to wonder how Christians should feel about the secularized and materialistic view on Christmas Santa Claus?

Ken Ham, Director of the Creation Museum and bearer of 6 honorary university graduate degrees mentions, “The mythical Santa is clearly founded in a man who honored Jesus Christ with his life and his possessions. Nicholas gave freely of his riches to benefit those who were less fortunate than himself. This is clearly a fundamental Christian principle, as we see care for the poor proclaimed throughout Scripture (e.g. James 2:1–17).

Is that the same idea we see in the Santa Claus celebrated today? The popular song extols children to stop shouting, pouting, and crying in order to earn Santa’s favor and his gifts. This is clearly not the attitude that we see in the biblically motivated actions of the original St. Nick—and a far cry from a biblical attitude of raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.”[4]

Hope, Joy, Blessings

Of course discernment is the key here when it comes to a good old-fashioned secularized Christmas. Because even though Christ’s day has been cut down to a materialistic game of possessions, there are still hints scattered throughout the collage of the holidays. Bright stars, Gifts, Blessings of Joy and Hope. These are all principles of the day we know as Christmas. It is a day of blessing others. It is a day of healing and redemption. It is a day to reconnect and start fresh, knowing that there is divine light at the end of a dark road. Christmas is the day that mankind was gifted with the ultimate redemption on life by God Himself.

Other than the divinity of Jesus Christ, humanity has been blessed with the likes of the Apostles, the Christian Church, ministries of giving and selfless service, and much, much, more. Santa Claus, or St. Nick, was a man of Christ. He was known for much more than working with elves, magically transporting down chimneys, and riding a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer across the skyline. He was a man who knew how to live a life for Christ and serve the needs of humankind who ultimately needed it the most.
 

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Allen, Martha Sawyer. "What would St. Nick do? : St. Nicholas - the real guy - was known for his battles against evil and for justice and the downtrodden. Somehow over the centuries his image has been corrupted into that of Santa Claus, who has been called the patron saint of greed." Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN] 4 Dec. 1999: 05B. Business Insights: Global. Web. 7 Dec. 2020.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Allen, Charlotte. "The Real Father Christmas." Wall Street Journal, Dec 06, 2012, Eastern edition.

[4] Ham, Ken. "Christians and Santa Claus: A Biblical View." Answers in Genesis. Last modified December 15, 2009. https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/birth/wintertime-worship-santa-claus-or-jesus-christ/.

Growing up in Post-World War Two Liverpool

World War Two had great impacts on so many people, but what were the impacts and memories of people after the war? In this memoir-based article, Alice Cullinane explains the experiences of her grandfather who grew up in Liverpool, England in the years after World War Two.

The impact of the Liverpool Blitz.

John Rooney was in his 50’s when he discovered his father’s codebreaking history at Bletchley Park, the famed code-breaking site in England. He was born just after the war in Liverpool - the “heaviest bombed area of the country” outside of London, which killed nearly 3,000 people. (1) From wearing gas masks that contained a ‘magic mineral’, to watching the Luftwaffe bomb the Liverpool docks, John has experienced life severely troubled by war. 

“We lived in big Victorian houses…quite run-down, but not derelict.” John was 1 of 12 children in his considerably large family, with siblings contributing towards the ‘Baby Boom’ era. In post-war Britain, the government built new schools and introduced other measures such as free school milk and child benefits to cater for the boomer generation. (2) Bombings destroyed thousands of homes, with Britain facing its worst housing shortage of the 20th century. Around 750,000 new homes were required in England and Wales in 1945 to provide all families with accommodation. (4) “Where we lived, there had only been a small number of bombings." However, on John's road, the bombings destroyed one house, leaving just "a heap of debris" with "no doors or windows." He remembers "my elder brother and I finding a lot of ruined houses…going in one once to be chased out by a family who lived in this ruined house."

Although the war ended before John’s life, it is undeniable that remnants lingered. He recalls having "two gas masks in the house, which we actually needed because my elder brother set the house on fire." His brother caused the house fire by "playing with matches", which he recalls finding very "exciting."

In 1939, the government issued 38 million gas masks to the public, with strict instructions - carry at all times. (5) However, by the beginning of 1940, almost no one bothered to take their gas mask with them; the government announced monthly gas mask inspections as a result. Fear hung around the use of gas, but the Germans never used it against the British in World War Two.  Local doctors noticed factory workers employed in making the masks were showing abnormally high numbers of deaths from cancer; they later discovered the gas mask filters contained Asbestos, consequently seen as the ‘magic’ mineral during much of the 20th century. (6)

Rationing, the Luftwaffe and Bletchley Park

"We found it (the war) all very exciting. There was rationing…I remember my mum tearing out the coupon."  The equality of rationing appealed to many. There was a sense that everyone was doing their bit to fight the war from home. Rationing also helped a black market to thrive; ‘Spivs’ offered extra food and rare luxuries to those who could afford them. (7) "We were told by my mum…to walk down the middle of the road when it was windy" as "the slates would come sailing off the roofs and smash in the road." Housing shortages and little money meant that many didn't repair their homes. There was a neglect of numerous homes which were due for demolition under slum clearance plans before the war. (8) John recalls "areas of a huge amount of damage…everything was damaged and broken. They began clearing that in the 1950s."

“I remember somebody the same age as me saying…he used to watch the Luftwaffe come over and bomb." In the early 1940s, the Liverpool docks were a significant target for the Luftwaffe (9); however they had supply problems and a lack of aircraft reserves throughout the battle. There was a proposal for the Luftwaffe to take on a kamikaze unit, although no suicide missions took place. (10) John's dad, was "originally in Palestine, in the intelligence branch of the Royal Signals." He "was then moved to Bletchley Park, where he was one of the code breakers there." All staff signed the Official Secrets Act in 1939, and even within Bletchley Park discretion was highlighted in 1942: "Do not talk at meals. Do not talk in the transport. Do not talk travelling. Do not talk in the billet.” (11) "He wasn't allowed to talk about it…but we did notice…there were things like we had German bits in the house and codebooks."

In the 1990s, John discovered his dad's exciting history, finding great joy in seeing his name on the computers in Bletchley Park. "My mum, she worked in the censorship." Local officials used censorship and propaganda to maintain the morale of citizens during the war, helping prevent defeat. Specific details which might have caused people to lose hope were kept secret, for the spirit of the country. (12) “She used to do fire duty, watching for buildings going on fire.” The Luftwaffe dropping incendiary bombs worried the British government in particular, so they recruited 6,000 people for the Auxiliary Fire Service, and they went on duty after working their regular jobs. The establishment of temporary fire stations occurred in schools and church halls. (13) John’s mother "would walk along the main road, and the buildings would be burning either side of her."

When John visited France in the 1960s, he felt "it was as if the war had only just happened…20 years later." For many, including John, it's clear that the war had lasting effects on society and the economy, taking decades to return to a new normal.

What do you think of life in post World War Two Liverpool? Let us know below.

References

(1)   Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Blitz

(2) Yesterday: https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/history/article/baby-boom/

3) Historic Liverpool: https://historic-liverpool.co.uk/liverpool-in-the-1950s/

(4) History of Housing UK: http://www.bushywood.com/building/History_House_Building_UK_WWI_WWII_Shortages.htm#:~:text=As%20with%20WW1%2C%20there%20was,had%20been%20destroyed%20by%20bombing.&text=The%20birth%20rate%20climbed%20after,shortage%20of%20the%2020th%20century

(5) Find my Past: https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register/why-britain-issued-gas-masks-ww2

(6) Spartacus Education: https://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL124.htm

(7) Find my Past: https://www.findmypast.co.uk/1939register/rationing-in-britain-ww2

(8) The History of Council Housing: https://fet.uwe.ac.uk/conweb/house_ages/council_housing/print.htm

9) WW2 People’s War-https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/15/a3237815.shtml

(10) Facts about the German Luftwaffe- https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-the-german-luftwaffe/

(11) Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park#:~:text=All%20staff%20signed%20the%20Official,not%20talk%20in%20the%20billet.

(12) My Learning- https://www.mylearning.org/stories/censorship-and-propaganda-in-ww2/483?#:~:text=World%20War%20Two%20affected%20the,in%20Britain%20in%20many%20ways.&text=For%20this%20reason%2C%20local%20officials,the%20morale%20of%20the%20country

(13) Spartacus Education- https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWincendiary.htm

Britain’s Relationship with the European Dictators in the Interwar Years

In the decades between the two world wars, Europe was very unstable, and many countries saw dictators come to power. Here, Stephen Prout considers how democratic Britain engaged with the dictators in Italy, Spain, and Germany over the period

Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler meeting in 1938. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-063-32 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Britain’s relationships with the main West European dictatorships, Italy, Spain and Germany, during the interwar period were often of a cordial and accommodating manner. The view Britain stood alone in defying the dictatorships was not necessarily true in this period.

The treaties established after the Great War did not address all the old grievances. New ones arose. The USA almost immediately distanced itself from the League of Nations and Europe, leaving the victors to preside over matters with their old imperial ways. Democracies largely failed and a precarious economic outlook helped both right- and left-wing extremism flourish. Communism was often the specter most reviled by the democracies and the dictators, ironically bringing unintended consensus between them.

Britain and Italy

Mussolini is remembered as being part of the Axis Powers, but Italy was very much regarded as an asset and the relationship followed a friendlier dynamic and path right up to the war.

During the Great War the British government maintained Italian participation and Mussolini himself was supported financially by British Intelligence payroll to promote pro-war feeling in his journalistic capacity. This cordial relationship continued after fascism installed itself.

Fascist atrocities and violence did little to deter the British from continuing this friendly relationship with Mussolini. They would adopt a partially sighted attitude to many of Mussolini’s actions such as his march on Rome to seize power, the murder of his political rival Giacomo Matteotti, and the removal of opposition figures that followed were simply dismissed with the thought that ‘Italy is not England’.

The condoning was publicly evident. The Times of London proclaimed that British and Italian empires were in perfect harmony. Up to the beginning of the 1930s Italian policy was given full approval by the British press and statesmen, such as Sir Austen Chamberlain. Clearly, Britain would not be shaken when British interests were unmolested.

In 1923 for a few short months Italy invaded the island of Corfu and demanded substantial reparations from Greece.  A short military offensive ensued described by Baldwin as “violent and excusable” for demands that Lord Curzon termed as “extravagant”.  Britain did little to protest; instead Curzon believed that referring the matter to the League of Nations would cause Italy to leave the League, so he bypassed protocol.

Curzon believed the League would have been ineffective as sanctions would have been vetoed by France and the USA, not being a member, would still trade with Italy. The outcome would have isolated a friendly power, which was not expedient to British interests.  In fact, Lord Curzon dealt with the matter by dispensing with all Foreign Office formalities and involving the League little, a behavior or disregard that was no better than those displayed Mussolini.  However aggressive military actions by the British in Iraq around the time were little different, so they had no moral high ground themselves.

Strained relations

Curzon showed limited disapproval of Mussolini’s actions, but Britain needed an ally.  Apart from the Corfu incident there were divisions with France over the 1922 Treaty of Lausanne. Reliance on France was in question after France, with Soviet Russia and Italy, set up formal agreements with Turkey.  His efforts to maintain a relationship with Poincare, the French Premier, were strained and by 1922 Britain saw herself isolated and weakened in the Middle Eastern diplomatic world. Britain and France were on the brink of a European ‘divorce’ from their old alliance. Italy could fill that void or balance out French power and influence. Indeed, Italy appeared to be the one to rival or at least be used in leverage against French ambitions to support British interests. 

More approval came when the Ambassador to Rome Howard Kennel commented “that the Fascist Regime was the thing saving Italy from Communism”.  The anti-communist stance would be of equal importance in influencing Britain’s dealings with the dictators alongside her own financial interests. Much could be tolerated if her own interests were not affected.

This attitude can be found in the circles of the Cliveden set in Britain. This group was an elite networking group of the political and establishment influencers.  Neville Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, and Lord Halifax were known in these circles. They had admiration for fascism and sympathies for German grievances. The Times of London in August 1922 saw fascism as “a necessary subversive force” to counter the perceived menace of Bolshevism.  

Winston Churchill himself was not shy of praising Mussolini and other dictators. In 1927 he quoted from Creeds of The Devil “If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have whole been whole heartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”  He would also later say: “I would not pretend that if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism that I would choose Communism”. 

Churchill often changed his attitudes and allegiances, but interestingly before the Second World War he courted the dictators from Italy, Spain, and Portugal before his overtures to Stalin. Expediency allows many things to be forgotten and overlooked.

The relationship with Italy was further ratified and strengthened in 1925 by King George’s visit to Italy, which “added a glint of respectability to the fascist regime.” Meanwhile establishment circles and media were sharing similarly favorable sentiments.

Another view by the Observer was that “Italy should be kept as an ally against France” at a time when the French occupation of the German Ruhr was seen as just as reprehensible as Italian actions in Corfu by some.

Italy’s later invasion of Abyssinia did little to change British diplomacy.  The reluctance to deal with Italian aggression in 1935-36, which sprang not from timidity of the fascist but of “conservative ideological sympathy with the Fascist regime” (AJP Taylor).

Franco and the Spanish Civil War

Franco’s Spain also enjoyed cordial treatment from the British government.  Spain between 1936 and 1939 was undergoing a Civil War. All the main European Powers played a part. Italy and Germany were actively supporting Franco. Soviet Russia, Franco’s opponents.  The British followed a policy of non-intervention along with France, which did as much to aid Franco as military support from the Axis Powers. 

AJP Taylor also says that timidity was the primary influence behind the British political stance on Spain, Pro-Fascism second and then a significant financial interest.  It has been argued had it been the Communists who had the upper hand then perhaps actual intervention would have been applied.  Churchill, he argues, was also pro-Franco during the civil war.  

Westminster also echoed anti-communist and pro-Franco sentiments as British economic interests were at stake, with Spain accounting for many British imports and exports and with the strategic importance of Gibraltar.

Diplomats such as George Ogilvie-Forbes reported in 1936 to the Foreign Office that “word was needed in the press or parliament that the rebels were guilty of wanton cruelty especially to children” however the response was muted.  These reports detailed regular atrocities, yet Britain maintained her distance. At the end of the war in 1939, Franco quickly gained recognition from Britain.

Eastern Europe and the united front

Trouble in Czechoslovakia and Poland gathered momentum in the late 1930s. Although Britain always kept a distance from Eastern Europe, she took a lead in the 1938 Sudeten Crisis.  The likes of Neville Chamberlain, William Strang, Nevile Henderson, and Lord Halifax did not favor the Czechoslovaks but instead tolerated Hitler’s demands, putting pressure on the Czechs to concede.  Henderson regarded the Czechoslovak leader Benes as “pig-headed” over his refusals.  Strang from the British Foreign Office recommended the surrender of Czechoslovakia, making her a German satellite.

Poland suffered equally dismal treatment.  Lord Halifax said on the very day of his pledge “we do not think this guarantee will be binding”. Alexander Cadogan, another unsympathetic diplomat, remarked that “Poland was not worth the bones of a single Grenadier”. 

While the Czech crisis was in full swing an Anglo-Italian agreement was concluded fresh from the international illegalities of Abyssinian affair. Britain was still prepared to sign agreements with the dictators.

In Britain’s defense the horrors that the Nazi regime committed were not yet known and they perhaps felt no obligation to fully understand what the regime would do. Most countries that were in the center of the disputes were not democracies and some, like Poland and the Soviet Union, had their own virulent anti-Semitic ways.  There was genuine sympathy for German claims after he Great War, a menacing Soviet Union in the background, and few allies to rely on. 

What do you think of Britain and the Great Dictators? Let us know below.

References

AJP Taylor “Origins of the Second War ”

R J B Bosworth “The British Press, The Conservatives ad Mussolini, 1920-34” Sage Publications

Creeds of the Devil Churchill Between the Two Totalitarianisms 1917-45 – Antoine Capet Universite De Rouen

Enrique Moradiellos – British Strategy in the Face of Military Rising in Spain P 123-157 – Contemporary European History – Cambridge University Press

C E Peden – Economic Background to British Foreign Policy 1937-39 – Wiley

C A Macdonald – Economic Appeasement and the German Moderates Introductory Essay – Past and Present P 105-135 – Oxford University Press.

Tommy Douglas: The Greatest Canadian

Scottish-born Tommy Douglas (1904-1986) was an influential Canadian politician over decades. He led the province of Saskatchewan for nearly two decades and after that was leader of one of Canadian’s main parties, the New Democratic Party. Here, Douglas Reid tells us about the life of Tommy Douglas.

Tommy Douglas later in his career. Source: Themightyquill, available here.

The date is October 17, 2004.  The clock reads 7PM, central time.  Canadians across the land are fixated on their television sets.  This night they will choose a winner. The result of the second part of a two part voting system that involved the entire country was about to be revealed. Three months earlier the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had polled thousands of citizens to discover whom they considered to be the “Greatest Canadian”.  Any Canadian was allowed one vote per their choice.  Votes could be cast by fax, by letter, or on-line.  Viewers were presented with the 50 semi-finalists but in random order. From this jumble votes were again registered, and the field was narrowed to a final top ten.

The final ten included the following luminaries:  9th – Alexander Graham Bell, 8th – Sir John A. Macdonald, 6th – Lester B. Pearson – 4th – Dr. Frederick Banting – 3rd - Pierre Elliot Trudeau, 2nd – Terry Fox.  And from this formidable group the clear winner was one Tommy Douglas. So how did this diminutive Scottish-Canadian come to rise above them all and what had he done to attain this honor? The answers are “grit” to the first query and “much” to the second. The Tommy Douglas story begins in a midsized Scottish town located halfway between Glasgow and Edinburgh named Falkirk.

Tommy Douglas’ origins

Tommy Douglas was born to a working-class family in a working-class town of the Scottish central lowlands. His paternal grandfather was known to kith and kin as Mr. Douglas and his father was known as Tom Douglas. But the youngster would be known to the world for the rest of his life as “Tommy.” The elders had toiled for generations working in one of several sooty foundries of Falkirk.  It was in one of the humble dwellings that scarred the town’s landscape that an event would take place that would change young Tommy’s life profoundly.

While skipping home from school one day and splashing through every mud puddle he could find, 10 year-old Tommy went sprawling through the gravel and managed to scrape and perforate his left leg quite badly. Tommy was carried home by neighbors and laid unceremoniously on the kitchen table. A local doctor was summoned who had no surgical skills and who applied a suspect liquid to Tommy’s lips and proceeded to scrape to no good result.  The leg never healed properly and would bother him greatly into adulthood and beyond. And yet, as we shall see, this unfortunate event would years later benefit millions.  But first the Douglas family had some serious travelling to do. Tommy would live in Scotland from birth to age seven, then ship to the Canadian province of Manitoba from age seven to eleven, back to Scotland from 11-15, and finally to Canada again – this time to stay. The specific destination was Winnipeg and events here too would affect Tommy’s worldview forever.

From Winnipeg to Weyburn

Winnipeg is centered on the confluence of the Assiniboine River and the Red River. The year 1921 was a seminal one in Winnipeg. It was the site of the infamous Winnipeg general strike. Thousands of workers in various basic trades assembled in downtown Winnipeg. They were angry and carried billboards that demanded a decent work place and an income that would promise more than bread and potatoes.  The dim-witted mayor of Winnipeg sent in hundreds of police units – with guns – and a protester was shot and killed. The strike would last several days and leave at least one onlooker who experienced it with a profound response. Tommy Douglas was still a teenager when he, and a friend, scaled one of the downtown buildings and witnessed the havoc. Tommy would leave Manitoba for another Canadian province, and one that would become his forever home – Saskatchewan. Weyburn, Saskatchewan to be precise.

For the next few years Tommy would enroll at the University of Brandon while simultaneously completing the requirements that would allow him to teach the gospel of the Baptist Church.  During this time he would also take his lifetime mate in matrimony, Irma, and together they would purchase a bungalow in Weyburn, which they never left.  So much for the wide belief that fat cat politicians all munch at the public trough. And it was during these early years that the folks of Weyburn discovered what sort of a neighbor they had in this friendly Scot.

Doing good to others

Tommy Douglas had asked himself a basic life question years earlier that he answered with a resounding “YES”.  Yes, he was his brother’s keeper. It was a creed he lived by and one that he had formed long ago.  Need a hand threshing wheat? Call Tommy. Need help fixing that leaky roof? Call Tommy. A family is desperate to put food on the table. Call Tommy for a loan and don’t worry when or whether you can pay it back.  If assistance of any sort was needed Tommy was there too.  It was simply in his nature to see hurt and to provide healing hands.

All of this time and much later Tommy Douglas had not the slightest intention or thoughts about running for political office. His sermons at Weyburn Baptist Church were drawing more and more worshippers and Tommy found not a minute to spare. And soon he was pressed to take on another project – one that would tax even the all-round abilities of a fiery and popular preacher. He was asked to cope with eight local mini burglars from the high school who were stealing from the local general store. He agreed to see what he could do and began meeting with them two evenings a week. He taught all sorts of things  - things that a multi-talented man can do. The favorite activity turned out to be boxing. Tommy had learned something of “The Sweet Science” during his own school days.  In fact, while attending the University of Brandon he fought and won the lightweight championship of Manitoba two years running. This would surprise those who later could not picture the peaceful and non-threatening Douglas as a pugilist. When this view was pressed on him Douglas would only say, ‘’Well, I was fast and could hit harder than they were expecting”. The 8 boys soon learned to respect the slim Scot and all 8 boys matured into good members of society – two of them became teachers and one a sergeant major in the military.

Politics

1935 was a federal election year. To his utter surprise a group of citizens from the local federal district came calling representing the left-wing Cooperative Commonwealth party (CCF).  To the outside world, “Tommy Who” won the seat and left the security of pastor of a Church where he was known and loved. Over time Tommy gradually morphed from a situation where he commanded a flock to one where he was but one more anonymous backbencher. But he listened and learned and his reputation in the House became that of an honest broker. 

Douglas was soon wooed by the top brass of the New Democratic Party to enter the provincial race as the party’s leader in Saskatchewan in 1944.  He accepted both the offer and the challenge. The New Democrats was merely the new name for the CCF. The difference being that the new party was now the party of labor interests as well as the farmers of Saskatchewan; Election Day was a rout. The New Democrats, led by Douglas, won 47 out of 52 seats in Saskatchewan.  And now all of Canada knew who Tommy Douglas was. This remarkable performance was due partly to his sunny personality and his honest ways – and he would go on to lead the province for 17 years. But Tommy had another gift too.

Orator

Tommy was a superb orator. The captive cadence of his rhetoric was magic, the way he punctured a hole in the sky with a pointed index finger – and his strong and commanding presence held you in thrall.  Opponents steered clear of taking him on, but he never took advantage of his superior language skills. In truth, Tommy could be considered a latter day Cicero. If you met him you soon learned why.

Ken Lee, a friend and prominent resident of British Columbia, remembers Douglas vividly:

“In 1965 I was Principle of Central Manitoulin High School. One evening I heard a knock on the door and was astonished to find Tommy Douglas there. I had never met Tommy before but with a twinkle in his eye and his charming Scottish way he explained that a 1965 Federal Election had been called and they were searching for the riding of Algoma East. He explained that the incumbent MP was Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. I was deeply impressed that he had found the time to come to my door. This was a moment I will never forget. This incredibly erudite, courageous man, a lifetime inspirational role model had found the time and energy to visit my campaign and wish me well.”

For all his peaceful ways Tommy was adamant that he was no pacifist. Pushed to the extreme Tommy would defend what was his.  This attitude came to the fore in 1936 when he visited Germany. After witnessing a Nazi rally and a tantrum and diatribe from their leader, Tommy described Hitler as a lunatic.

Back home Tommy was building roads, pushing through legislation that guaranteed two weeks’ paid vacation for all Saskatchewan workers, and introducing family allowance and the old age pension. However, he is best remembered for universal Medicare.  It was a long hard battle, and the doctors felt threatened, as the government would take control of how they were paid. The doctors went on strike for nine days and one young boy’s life was lost before eventually Medicare came into being. Along with Medicare came dental care, eye care, and basic prescription coverage. 

His childhood injury never completely left him though, and was a constant reminder of the need for medical care.  On July 1, 1962 a total Medicare package came into being.  This was Tommy’s greatest achievement.

Sense of humor

And last, but not least, a tip of the cap to Tommy’s sense of humor.

Tommy Douglas and Joey Smallwood, by way of their Premierships, were invited to London to attend the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.  So Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan and Premier Joey Smallwood of Newfoundland soon found themselves, on the day, standing five and a half hours – consecutively – with no chance to heed the call of nature. When finally released they scooted out of the Abbey to a nearby building – desperate already, they find the line-up is 60 men deep. This facility carries an overhead sign that says – “Gentlemen”. There is another convenience marked “Peers”. There is no line-up at all.

In a flash Tommy runs over to this one – He hears Joey admonish him  - Tommy, you are not a lord. And you cannot go there.

Tommy hollers back, Wrong Joey - I may not be a Lord but I am definitely a Peer!

Tommy honored both the Saltire and the Maple Leaf.  So do we all.

What do you think of Tommy Douglas? Let us know below. 

Now you can read Douglas’ article on Thomas Paine, the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution, here, the American heroine Abigail Adams here, and one of the 20th century’s greatest writers, George Orwell, here.

The Philippines in the Korean War – The Battle of Yultong

The Korean War (1950-53) saw UN forces, led by the South Koreans and US, fight against communist backed forces, led by North Korea and China. Here, Denise Emille Duque explains the story of one of the countries that formed part of the UN force – the Philippines. In particular he looks at the feats of the Filipino forces against Chinese troops in the 1951 Battle of Yultong.

Filipino soldiers preparing their munitions and weapons for the Battle of Yultong. Source: JamesKillsFour, available here.

"Give me 10,000 Filipinos and I will conquer the world." – General Douglas MacArthur

Artillery shells rained down upon the UN forces occupying the hills of Yultong. It was the opening salvos of the Chinese Spring offensive. The 10th BCT of the Philippine Expeditionary Force sent to Korea braced itself for what seemed to be an incessant typhoon of death and destruction. This is the story of 900 Filipino Soldiers who defeated 40,000 Chinese and North Korean forces on the hills of Yultong.

To understand our story let's travel back to how this war started. On 25th June 1950, 75,000 North Korean troops with Soviet and Chinese support invaded South Korea to capture its capital city, Seoul. In response, the newly established United Nations passed UN Security Council Resolution 83 to urge the UN member states to restore peace and order to the Korean Peninsula through the repulsion of Communist forces by military action.

The Philippines in Korea

One of the UN member states that heeded the call to arms was the Republic of the Philippines, which at the time was still recovering from the scars brought by the Imperial Japanese forces during the Second World War. Philippine President Elpidio Quirino urged Congress to approve the Republic Act 573 to deploy 7,420 Filipino troops to the Korean Peninsula. The President saw this as a commitment to help a friend and as a part of a larger battle to defeat communism. He gave these words when he addressed the PEFTOK soldiers: "Poor as we are, this country is making a great sacrifice in sending you there, but every peso invested in you is a sound investment for the perpetuation of our liberty and freedom."

First to dock in Pusan, South Korea was the 10th Battalion Combat Team of the Philippine Expeditionary Force to Korea (PEFTOK) on September 19, 1950, shortly after General MacArthur's successful Incheon Landing. The men of the 10th BCT, the heroes of our tale, were made up of 64 Officers and 1,303 Enlisted men led by Lt. Col. Dionisio S. Ojeda. They were supposed to be a motorized unit operating tanks, but none arrived with them, so they were turned into a heavy weapons unit. 

Images of ruined cities, refugees, and famine welcomed the battalion. All these were familiar and bitterly nostalgic to the Filipino troops. After all, those were the same sights they saw in their home countries a few years back. Korean refugees quickly ran to them upon sight to beg for food, and the battalion obliged.

Initial fighting

After the melancholic welcome, the Filipino force was assigned to join the Turkish Brigade and the US/Puerto Rican 65th Infantry Regiment into the 3rd Infantry Division.  Soon after, the 3rd Infantry Division faced the Communist North Koreans at the Battle of Miudong, which resulted in their victory. That was the first battle won by Filipinos in a foreign land.

In the spring of 1951, the 3rd infantry division was deployed along the area of the Imjin River. The 3rd and 2nd Battalions of the US 65th Infantry Regiment positioned facing west along the river, with the Turkish Brigade occupying the east flank, and the 10th BCT was at the center. Unbeknown to these men, a storm was brewing under their noses in the form of the Chinese Spring Offensive. 

40,000 Communist Chinese troops of the 44th Division of the Chinese People's Volunteer Army under Commander Peng Dehuai planned to attack and surround the 3rd Infantry Division. He deployed the 15th Army in a narrow zone between the Imjin River and Route 33. The 12th and 60th Armies were deployed to attack the positions held by the 10th BCT and the Turkish Brigade through the Pogae-san ridges.

Chinese Spring Offensive

20:00, 22/04/1951 – Artillery shells, mortar fire, machine gun, and small arms fire greeted the Turks at the start of the battle. At 23:00, waves of Chinese soldiers assaulted the 10th BCT positions and engaged in a series of close-quarter confrontations.

Continuous artillery bombardment and some friendly fire cut the communications between troops in the 3rd Infantry Division. Fortunately, communications returned at 00:30, and the Turkish Brigade received an order to retreat to a position on the line south of Hantan River. Intensifying Chinese assaults forced the 65th Infantry Regiment to retreat several hundred yards to regroup and reorganize. The 10th BCT was surrounded and left alone to brave the ocean of Communist Chinese forces.

The 10th BCT non-combatants such as the chaplain, clerks, medics, cooks, and drivers threw themselves into the fray to bolster the strength of their outnumbered battalion. Men of the 10th fought dispersed and confused because of the lack of communication between the hills. The fighting went on and on where some men were wounded, killed, or captured. Among the captured was Lt. Tomas G. Batilo of the Able Company of the 10th.

Then Lt. Jose Artiaga Jr. led the Baker (B) Company to defend the strategic hill of Yultong but they were pushed back by the unrelenting Chinese forces. At 03:00, enemy forces penetrated deep into the formation and reached the position of the Charlie Company in the reserves. Unfortunately, the company suffered heavy losses including Lt. Artiaga. 

While all this was happening, Lt. Col. Dionisio S. Ojeda received an order to withdraw and all units complied except Captain Conrado Yap's Heavy Weapons Company. Captain Yap led his men to counterattack to rescue the wounded and to retrieve the dead. He opened the hatch of his tank and shot at the Chinese with the mounted machine gun with his gun crew firing as fast as they could. Chinese soldiers fell one by one at the rate of 17 to 1 in favor of the 10th. The Heavy Weapons Company succeeded but at the price of Captain Yap's life.

The 12th President of the Philippines Fidel Ramos, who was also a PEFTOK soldier for the 20th BCT, commented about Captain Yap's actions in his speech during the 42nd Anniversary of the Battle of Yultong: "Captain Yap—his mission accomplished—now ordered a withdrawal. While making a headcount of his boys and directing the withdrawal, he was hit by machinegun fire."

The 10th held their ground until dawn and by this time the Chinese attack slowed down and this allowed the 3rd Infantry Division to retreat. Then the C Company of the 10th, supported by two M24 Chaffee light tanks of the Recon Company and allied artillery, led a counterattack to restore the lost area of B Company. The Filipinos fought until midday when General Robert Soule fell back to Line Kansas, to a position in Anhung-ri.

Aftermath

The battle ended with over 500 dead Chinese soldiers lying dead on the battlefield and 2 of them were captured. On the other hand, the 10th BCT lost only 12 people with 38 wounded and 6 missing. It was a victory for the ‘Fighting Filipinos’.

For the act of valiance performed by Captain Conrado Yap, he was posthumously awarded the Philippine Medal of Valor, the US Distinguished Service Cross, and was awarded the First Taeguk Cordon of the Order of the Military Merit on the 65th Anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement on July 27, 2018. Lieutenant Jose Artiaga Jr. was posthumously awarded the Philippine Distinguished Service Cross. 

This battle, which saved the 3rd Infantry Division, ultimately helped in turning the war in favor of the United Nations. After the war ended in July of 1953, the Philippines and South Korea cemented a great friendship that even stands to this day. UN forces were so impressed with the 10th BCT's valiance that they were nicknamed "The Fighting Filipinos".

To this day the story of the Fighting Filipinos is a source of national pride among Filipinos because they showed that despite poverty, the Filipino people could rise.

What do you think of the Philippines’ role in the Korean War? Let us know below.

Note: General Douglas MacArthur quote at the start of the article also here: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/the-fighting-filipinos.html

Fascism in 1930s America: The Silver Shirts

The Silver Shirts, or Silver Legion of America, were a fascist political movement in America from 1933 to 1941. Founded by William Dudley Pelley, a screenwriter, the group had some notoriety and wealthy supporters. James Zills explains.

A Wanted poster for William Dudley Pelley, founder of the Silver Shirts.

The end of World War One saw the reshaping of boundaries in Europe, insurmountable war debt, the collapse of the German economy, and a growing distrust in democracy. This gave rise to the age of dictators, who through the help of their paramilitary forces grew to power – with their success being most notable in Germany and Italy. A key element in the militias utilized to gain control was the differentiating of the colors worn by these organizations. The Germans sported the Brown Shirts, Italian Black Shirts, and Spain with Blue Shirts. History barely recognizes similar movements in other countries with their own fashionable shirts. Bulgaria with red, Brazil green, Mexico with opposing gold and red, and finally the United States of America and the fashionable Silver Shirts. With the exception of the red shirts who leaned toward communism in Mexico, all were similar in the fact that they shared a distrust and hatred for Jews.

The Silver Shirts, like many novel ideas in America, had their roots in Hollywood. William Dudley Pelley, a screenwriter in the great intellectual desert, formed the Silver Legion (Silver Shirts) in January 1933 shortly after Hitler seized power in Germany. Pelley, an ardent admirer of Hitler believed that he could achieve similar success, openly declaring: “the time has come for an American Hitler” (Murphy 2018). Like most screenwriters in ‘Hollyweird’, originality was not his strong suit. Once the movement began to pick-up momentum, Pelly moved his operation to Asheville, North Carolina. His move to North Carolina was motivated by the need for funding and he found that piggy bank from a wealthy individual in Ashville. With funding established it was time to establish goals - any organization worth its weight in silver has to have goals.

Goals of a Presidential Hopeful

The overarching goal of the Silver Shirts was to bring religion back to the forefront of American Society. The legion also aspired to revert private owned lands back to the state, re-institute slavery for African Americans, and begin the deportation of Jews. Those who were loyal to the cause would enjoy the bounty of sharing the properties seized by the legion. Lifting a move from Joseph Smith, Pelley claimed to have been visited by none other than Jesus himself. In this celestial vision, Pelley claimed that Jesus gave him the stamp of approval for his quest.

Knowing that the Silver Shirts lacked the membership numbers for a hostile takeover, Pelley did the next best thing. Founding the Christian Party in 1935, he used it as a means to run as a third party candidate in the 1936 presidential election. “For Christ and the Constitution” (Finklestein 1938) was the rallying call for the party, but it would do little to gain the necessary momentum. Pelley was only able to get on the ballot in Washington State and solely running his candidacy from Ashville presented problems with persuading voters. The newly formed Christian Party and its leader failed at the long-shot presidential run, garnering just 1,598 votes. To put it into perspective, almost 700,000 people voted in the presidential election in Washington State in 1936.

As for the legion itself, its membership peaked at 15,000. Interestingly, there seemed to be no attempt to use its membership numbers for voter fraud in Washington, especially with most of its members residing on the West Coast. The most the Silver Shirts amounted to was the ability to secure a cache of weapons and ammunition and be mildly intimidating. These achievements would gain the attention of the FBI and after the attack on Pearl Harbor there was probable cause to put an end to the Silver Shirts. The Dies Committee started paying closer attention to the organization as well as the extra-curricular activities of its leader.

Pelley needed funds to support his lifestyle and, like many heads of organizations or cults, he skimmed off the top; in Pelley’s case, he defrauded shareholders (Daly 2018). The ever-watchful eye of big brother, and his run-ins with the authorities forced Pelley into hiding. He spent some time hiding out with likeminded folks, such as the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana, before ultimately disbanding the Silver Shirts after the attack on Pearl Harbor to alleviate the pressure put on him by the FBI. Pelley would eventually spend some time in prison for securities fraud and the publication of treasonable material. After serving his time, he kept up with all things silver and began a fascination with aliens.

The Casting Couch

Aside from the man-crush he had on Hitler, Pelley acquired some interesting reasons for his dislike of Jewish people. His mistrust for Jewish people began in Hollywood. His experience in Hollywood led him to believe that Jews controlled the movie industry, which impeded his creativity. He constantly complained that Jewish directors routinely made changes to his writing that were adapted for film. Furthermore, Pelley mentions the infamous casting couch as another reason for his contempt of Jews in movie city. In Arthuriana Vol. 26 No. 2 Pelley, is quoted as saying

Do you think of me unduly incensed about them? I’ve seen too many Gentile Women ravished and been unable to do anything about it. They have a concupiscent slogan in screendom. Don’t hire till you see the whites of their thighs! (68)

On the surface the Silver Legion, headed by the ambitious Pelley, was just a small blip on the government radar. While they failed to mass number like the American Bund Movement, they gained a wealthy following that allowed a flow of funds to the actual Nazi Party. The brainchild of a Hollywood insider failed to gain enough traction to bring Nazi policy to America and like so many other pro-Nazi organizations, folded under pressure when World War Two began.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Now you can read how Hitler’s Nazis tried to gain influence in New York City in the 1930s here.

Bibliography

Daley, Jason. "The Screenwriting Mystic Who Wanted to Be the American Führer." Smithsonian Magazine. Last modified October 3, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/meet-screenwriting-mystic-who-wanted-be-american-fuhrer-180970449/.

Finklestein, Sarah. "Candidate." Our Campaigns. Accessed November 17, 2020. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=4576.

Harty, Kevin J. "William Dudley Pelley, An American Nazi in King Arthur’s Court." Arthuriana 26, no. 2 (2016), 64-85. doi:10.1353/art.2016.0034.

Moncure, Billy. "The Silver Legion: The Nazi Sympathisers of America." War history online. Last modified September 27, 2019. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-silver-legionthe-nazi.html.

7 Occasions that Europe Changed the Time

The continent of Europe is complicated politically, culturally and linguistically. And if you delve a little deeper into history, you realize that the continent’s association with time is equally complex and surprising. Here are seven of the most peculiar ways that time has been changed in Europe. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

Adolf Hitler and then Spanish leader Francisco Franco in 1940. Franco adjusted Spanish time to align with German time during World War Two. Picture from Heinrich Hoffmann/Krakow-Warsaw Press Publishing, available here.

Ever wondered who you should thank for losing an hour’s sleep every year? 

I’m not a big fan of bugs, and my golf game is, well, let’s just say that getting off the tee is an achievement, so it seems odd that both should have had such a big impact on mine and millions of other people’s daily life.

If Benjamin Franklin was being satirical in his 1784 paper suggesting the firing of canons every summer morning to get people up earlier, New Zealand scientist George Hudson made the first serious suggestion to change time in 1895; he wanted more daylight hours to engage in his bug hunting. The cause was later taken up in the UK by William Willett who, wanting the chance to play golf for longer, published The Waste of Daylight in 1907 hoping to promote the idea. 

By 1916 and the onset of the Great War, the argued reason to change the clocks in order to save energy took on more urgency; Germany was the first to introduce the policy in April 1916 and Britain adopted the practice a month later along with France, Italy and Russia.

So, the next time you wonder who causes you to lose that hour’s sleep every year, you can blame bugs and golf.

Did you think that a year could only be either 365 or 366 days?

It is a fact that every child is taught in school that the year consists of 365 days in a standard year and 366 in a leap year. Fact, yes?

Well, not in Europe.

In 46BC, when Julius Caesar introduced his new calendar, he created a year that was 445 days long. Unfortunately, the Julian calendar gained a day every 128 years, so, by 1582, a new calendar, the Gregorian, was introduced which required Europe to lose days. Every time a country swapped to the new calendar, they lost between 10 and 13 days a year. In the UK, the first day of the year was actually March 25, so when they and their dominions (including America) finally made the change, it meant that the year 1752 was only 282 days long.

Why were France and Britain not always in the same year?

The countries of Europe were, and are, pretty good at disagreeing with each other and, unfortunately, the introduction of the Gregorian calendar sparked all sorts of underlying religious turmoil. It was seen by some countries as a papist plot not to be trusted and certainly to be resisted. So, when France, Spain, Italy and other Catholic countries adopted the new calendar in 1582, a lot of Protestant countries didn’t. And, so began five centuries during which different parts of the continent used different dates. It was often the case that they were even in different years. Take just one date - January 1, 1700: France, Spain Italy and even Scotland (which by then was part of the United Kingdom) were all in 1700, whilst England and Wales were still in 1699 and remained so until March 25. Even after the UK as a whole moved in line with the majority of Europe, other countries did not – Europe was not on the same calendar until Greece finally transferred in 1923.

Who made the decision to cancel Christmas?

The name of the man (and it would have been a man) who decided the timing of the change to the Gregorian calendar in the Spanish Netherlands is now lost to us, but he was surely an inspiration for Scrooge and the Grinch.

By December 1582 it was clear that 10 days would be wiped out of existence by the change; the people of Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland had gone to bed on October 4 and woken up on October 15. So, making the decision to make the change on December 21 was surely asking for trouble? Unfortunately, for the Spanish Netherlands that is what happened and, officially at least, there was no Christmas Day for them that year.

Which raises the question of why Greece didn’t learn the lesson. Their change in 1923 also affected the Christmas season, with New Year’s Day occurring before Christmas Day. However, Greece did manage to come up with some kind of solution and 1924 saw two Christmas celebrations. 

Why the years 1793-1806 never existed in France

The French Revolution ushered in a lot more changes than just the removal of the monarchy. The New Republic’s leaders were also keen to introduce a scientific revolution that saw the introduction of all things metric. This was the era of the meter, something that we have since adopted, and the decimalization of time, something that has not been as successful. 

Under the French Republican Calendar, years remained 12 months long, however, the first day was changed to 22 September and the old dating system was abolished. The year 1792 ceased to exist and instead was renamed Year One of the Republic.

Not just mathematicians, but also poets and painters were employed to design the new calendar, with special pictures used to represent the months, ten-day décades replacing weeks, and months being given new names.

A new clock was also created, introducing ten-hour days with a hundred minutes per hour and a hundred seconds per minute.

For twelve years France operated on a separate time and dating system until the Republic fell in 1806. Whilst the French have undoubtedly come up with some stunning inventions over the centuries, 100,000 seconds a day clocks and months named after fruit are not two of them.

Is the UK ten minutes late?

In 1884 (when Britain dominated all things naval and trade) it was decided by the International Meriden Conference in Washington that Greenwich in London would become the prime meridian, or, in other words, the center of time. It would mark Longitude 0º and it would be from here that the various zones would span out around the world.

But Greenwich had a rival in Paris, whose longitude is 9 minutes and 21 seconds ahead of GMT.

This was also the era of Anglo-Franco rivalries and no self-respecting French navigator or scientist was going to allow the nation’s time to be dictated to by the English. Paris Mean Time (PMT) had been created in 1881 and, being only 2 degrees east of Greenwich, there was no future for it in a world now dominated by GMT. It would take until 1911, before France finally gave up their hope of it remaining a contender as the Prime Meridian and turned their clocks back by 9 minutes and 21 seconds to match GMT. Nevertheless, it remained as Paris Mean Time; any reference to Greenwich was firmly kept out of the title.

So, all was well…and then along came the Nazis.

How Hitler caused a late lunch in Spain

Trying not to turn this into an essay on my failings, I’ve never been that up on geography. I know a few capital cities, can tell you the names of the continents and can actually locate a few countries on a map, but in nearly 50 years on this planet, I never noticed that a large proportion of Western Europe is not where, or rather when, it should be.

And we have Hitler to thank for it.

Until the 1940s the countries of France, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were all on GMT/UTC as fitted their latitudinal position. But the Nazis wanted their war machine to be coordinated, and they adjusted the time of their occupied territories to match Germany’s. Although nominally neutral, Spanish leader Franco ensured that Spain changed to the new time zone to show support for his Fascist ally.

At the end of the war, France should have moved back to GMT+0, but two weeks before they were due to do so in November 1945, the French government changed its mind and decided to stay on Central European Time (GMT+1). 

Similarly, Spain did not return to GMT, a decision which has been linked to the reason why the Spanish eat so late in the day compared to other countries; lunch stayed at the same solar time whether the clocks had jumped forward or not.

I doubt that when Hitler set out on his chosen career path of genocidal maniac, he did so with the intention of disrupting Spanish mealtimes or leaving a lasting impression on European time. Nevertheless, he did.

The future?

Time still remains an issue in Europe, from whether to keep Daylight Saving Time to if Spain should revert back to GMT to be in line with Portugal. But for us who live on the continent, we can only hope that the days when we weren’t even in the same year are over. 

What do you think of changing the time in history? Let us know below.

References & Further Reading

Time and Date.com

The Guardian: Paris Mean Time

Vanessa France: A brief history of (French) time

WEBEXHITS: Calendar - French

The Atlantic: The creation of modern time

ADSB: Calendar Reform 1752

Atlas Obscura: Why England was a year behind Belgium, Spain and Italy for 170 years

Time and Date: The Julian-Gregorian switch

Mirlibooks: Confusion and Myth in the Gregorian Calendar reform

Here’s why Spain has been in the wrong time zone for the past 76 years

Why do we Love History?

The study of history has very important across cultures, and places for millennia. But why has it been so important for so long? Here, Tom Daly explains some of the reasons why he loves history – via stories, understanding, knowledge, and context.

You can also read Tom’s articles on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here and 14th century French female pirate Jeanne de Clisson here.

The 1471 Battle of Barnet in the Wars of the Roses. The Wars of the Roses are often said to have influenced the TV series, Game of Thrones. Representation shown is from the Ghent manuscript, 15th century (Source: Ghent University library, MS236).

A conversation at work about our favorite school subjects led to me, naturally, enthusiastically declaring my love for history. My colleagues were in general agreement that they too had enjoyed history at school, but had not necessarily loved it. Too narrow, they said. Why did we have to learn about the Liberal government’s welfare reforms in the early 20th century? Who cares about Weimar Germany? Where was the glamour, the action, the irresistible storyline, in Jethro Tull’s agricultural revolution?

I resisted the urge to say that all those subjects are interesting, in their own way. But the wider conversation got me thinking – why do I love history so much? I had never really thought about it because it has always been natural to me - history was always my favorite subject at school, and something I loved learning about outside of school. But what is it about history that still draws me in? It sounds like a simple question, yet it is so difficult to answer.

Stories

I suppose the first place to start is in the name itself – history. Derived from the Greek word ‘historia’, which roughly means the act of inquiring, it shares its roots with the word ‘story.’ Therein lies reason number one for loving history; it is, in a sense, a collection of personal and societal stories that have interwoven and shaped the world we live in today. These individual stories are often exciting, and there are so many intriguing characters and sensational plot lines throughout history that it can sometimes feel like a TV show. It is no coincidence that so many successful films and TV shows have been based on real historical events; indeed, it is commonly accepted the entire Game of Thrones saga was loosely based on the Wars of the Roses, a very real era that was full of scarcely believable figures – greedy, lustful, treacherous and occasionally brilliant men and women – all vying for the throne of England. History is interesting, dramatic, full of action.

Understanding

Characters in history can be fun, but they are also useful for understanding the lot of certain groups in society throughout the ages. Read about the life of Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Queen Matilda, or even the two Margarets of the Wars of the Roses (Anjou and Beaufort), and we gain an understanding of the situation women found themselves in during the Middle Ages – difficult, their lives often defined by their relationships with the men around them, but able to exert considerable power if they could dictate those relationships on their terms. Boudicca is another interesting example, as we learn from her story that women commanded a large degree of respect in Celtic Britain, but that she was still undermined by male violence and misogyny. Of course, the important caveat here is that these are all examples of women of high birth, and the opportunity for common women to exert such power was virtually non-existent. But then perhaps the same could generally be said of men who were not born into nobility. In any case, the point still stands – the stories of individuals can help us learn about the lot of groups they belonged to.

Curiosity

A third, perhaps more personal, reason for my love of history is a simple fascination with the way people lived in the past. I constantly find myself looking at videos or photographs from over 100 years ago (I’m not pretending I’m the coolest person on earth) and being genuinely fascinated by the people I see. What was their story? What brought them into that image or video on that day? What did they do after that image or video was taken? It doesn’t sound academic, but simple curiosity is a completely valid reason for loving history – in fact, it is probably what attracted most of us to history in the first place. While paintings from the pre-photography age cannot give the same sense of realism and relatability as photographs, these eras can still be brought to life. In London alone, there are numerous roads and buildings that have stood for centuries, and it does not require a huge leap of imagination to picture a scene from hundreds of years ago, with normal people scurrying around, with people to meet and places to be. Venture to Pudding Lane in London and you can imagine the scene one evening in 1666 as the Farynor family escaped their bakery, unaware that the fire in their dwellings was to rage for days and destroy most of the city. Nearby, the Tower of London has witnessed some of history’s most famous figures parting company with their heads. Of course, London is only one example – all across Britain, across Europe and North America, across the world, there exists remarkable pieces of history. Ever visited the temples at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, and imagined the mysterious rulers who presided over them? Ever walked the streets of Pompeii and imagined the hustle and bustle of a wealthy Roman city? Real people, with thoughts and hopes and emotions just like ours, walked those very streets on their way to work, to watch sporting events or meet their friends for a drink. Just like us.

Context

Perhaps a more academic reason for loving history is the way it allows our world to be put into context. The most obvious example of this has come in recent times, with the turbulent politics we have seen in the Western world over the past few years having led to constant historical comparisons, with the 1930s in particular. Whether you think these comparisons are merited or not, it is important that we are able to make them, to contextualize our world and learn lessons from the past. Incidentally, I personally happen to believe that the slide towards populism and nativism in the past decade would have been even starker were it not for people being wary of what happened all those years ago. Though people like me see history as a past time, it also has a vital role to play in our understanding of where we are and where we are going. History matters. Don’t let people tell you otherwise.

History Today

These are just a few reasons for my love of history, and I’m sure anyone reading this could add to my short list with a whole range of reasons. History is so wide-ranging and all-encompassing that it can mean different things to different people. To me, it is fast, exciting, intensely interesting – and constantly evolving. This may sound morbid, but despite the agony of the current pandemic it is not lost on me that we are witnessing history first hand. What will our descendants think of us and the way we dealt with it? It is a question any history lover will ponder. 

Why do you love history? Let us know below.

Now, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

Was it Right to Topple President William McKinley’s Statue? Part 1 – Statue Toppled

William McKinley was the 25th president of the USA - from 1897-1901. While before becoming president his political career was focused on Ohio, there was a statue of McKinley in Arcata, California until it was toppled in February 2019. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the case for and against the removal of the statue.

In part 1 we provide the background to the statue removal and look at how McKinley treated Native Americans.

William McKinley is sworn in as US president by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. To the right is outgoing President Grover Cleveland.

Introduction

With media attention focused on statues of former slave-owners, very little media coverage has focused on the removal of a 111-year old statue that took place on the west coast of America. It was not Father Serra or Columbus. In fact, little information got to the general public about this statue to a figure not usually linked with California history: William McKinley, 25th president of the United States. In the small town of Arcata, California a diverse group of activists and city officials targeted the statue for removal beginning in 2017. The average American has not even heard of McKinley let alone that a statue of our 25th president graced the Golden State. He clearly is famous, or infamous, enough, though, to have stirred the wrath of the residents of this lovely seaside community. 

The illustrious career of William McKinley Jr. came to a sudden and untimely end at the hands of an assassin. This pointless act of violence took place on September 6, 1901 at the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley was greeting a long line of visitors at the Temple of Music. He liked people and, to the consternation of his security service, insisted on shaking everyone’s hand. Among those who waited in line to meet the president was an anarchist named Leon Czolgosz. When his turn came McKinley reached out but instead of an open hand Czolgosz presented a revolver. The assassin fired at the president at point blank range twice. Taken to a nearby house for medical attention, McKinley, despite rallying briefly, succumbed on September 14 due to infections caused by the wound. The death of the popular McKinley was immediately met by a widespread and genuine outpouring of national grief. 

As if that terrible ending of his life were not bad enough, he has recently been condemned to a “second death” by character assassination. The questions the article seeks to consider are:

·       Was the decision to remove this statue appropriate?

·       What standards were used to justify the statue’s removal?

·       Did the standards have merit?

This article will attempt to answer these questions by examining the arguments of those that demanded the removal of the McKinley statue. The facts of the case will be submitted to the candid readers that they may decide if our 25th president deserved his “second death.” Let’s begin!

Copy-Cat Statue Topplers?

In this small community of 17,000, overlooking the Pacific only two-hours’ drive from Oregon, debate over the statue can be traced to the 1970s. Discussion turned into a demand for action after the Charlottesville, Virginia riots over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in 2017. With a reputation for being one of the most left-wing cities in the country, any statue politically to the right of Ho Chi Minh would probably have not survived long in these extremist times. Inspired by Charlottesville, local Native American activists began a petition drive to remove the statue. Protests became a fixture on the plaza where the statue was located. Normally dull City Hall meetings came alive as both defenders and opponents of McKinley’s removal generated lively public debate. A common rationale amongst the protestors was that after seeing Confederate statues fall, they became convinced that their remote city needed to take care of its own “statue-problem.” Rapidly all the real and alleged grievances of Native American activists and other marginalized groups were projected onto the silent, long-suffering 8 ½’ image. Essentially, McKinley became a symbol of everything the protestors opposed or disliked. 

What holds Water?

Now let’s look at each accusation in turn and weigh their merits. As lovers of history I invite you to be deeply concerned that history is “done right.” The standard we use is not whether it is right or wrong to topple a statue or whether McKinley took actions that are deemed morally wrong by the protestors. Was McKinley actually guilty of the charges brought against him? Also, the issue is whether McKinley’s actions were justified in the context of the 19th century given the norms of the time and the information McKinley possessed. For example, a nineteenth-century factory owner whose employees contracted illness due to exposure to chemicals cannot be condemned if no one at the time was aware of the effects of those chemicals, and he otherwise treated them fairly. 

McKinley and Indigenous Americans

Now, on to the accusations: first, Chris Peters, head of the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People called McKinley a proponent of “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.” He furthermore claimed that McKinley was responsible for "directing the slaughter of native peoples." 

How does this accusation hold up? First, clarity is needed on the terms “settler colonialism.” Settler colonialism is a form of colonialism that results, often unintentionally, in the replacement of the original population of the colonized territory with a new society of settlers. This phenomenon has been going on since Ancient Egypt. It also includes what amounts to “settler colonialism” among American indigenous tribes themselves. For instance, the Lakota Sioux undertook a migration to the south in the same century that McKinley lived, in which they pushed aside the Omaha tribe. In the words of one source “Attacks from the Sioux Tribe and disease often meant the relocation of the villages.” Following Peter's logic, every statue created since the days of the Pharaohs should be removed and the statue of Crazy Horse, near Mount Rushmore, as well. This is the first reason the accusation is unfair: one cannot apply different standards to different people for the same crime.

Second, McKinley is absolutely innocent of this charge for the following reasons. The Homestead Act was passed when McKinley was a 19-year-old sergeant in the Union Army and thus he had nothing to do with that measure. During the post-Civil War period he was busy establishing a career in Ohio as a lawyer and raising a family and had nothing to do with anything remotely akin to “settler colonialism.” Elected to congress in 1876, the up-and-coming politician ultimately gravitated toward the Ways and Means Committee and became an expert on the tariff. His focus was on policies that would encourage national prosperity, which he felt would benefit all people. Once again, he was not known for any overt statements or actions promoting “settler colonialism.” From 1892 to 1896 he was Governor of Ohio and continued to have nothing to do with policy towards indigenous peoples. On the other hand, since McKinley served as president for several years, he did ultimately direct policy affecting Native Americans. Is it here that McKinley committed the alleged misdeeds? Let’s look at the McKinley presidential record with regard to Native Americans.

President McKinley and Native Americans

Counted among his many friends were two men who were themselves great friends of Native Americans: Senator Matt Quay and Ethan Allan Hitchcock. Mr. Quay was part Native American, and an official member of the Delaware tribe. He was also a champion of both Native American and African-American rights. Hitchcock served as McKinley’s Secretary of the Interior from February 20, 1899. He has been called the most effective leader of the department in its first half century of existence. Among other things, the Department handled issues related to Native Americans. As Secretary, Hitchcock set a new standard for the department, vigorously prosecuting land fraud and assisting Native American peoples and protecting their rights. This represented a turning point in the Office of Indian Affairs, which had been notoriously inept. Additionally he fully embraced the conservation movement, influencing McKinley in taking many measures to expand and protect forests and other resources.

One example of McKinley’s attitude towards indigenous people regards the Navajo Tribe. A bill was sent to the chief executive’s desk which involved a group of white entrepreneurs scheming to open up what was left of the Navajo lands to exploitation. McKinley and Hitchcock saw through the scheme and flatly rejected it, ruling in favor of the tribe. In fact, this was the most important veto the 25th president ever issued. In a careful and strongly worded message, McKinley explained why he would not sign the bill. He began by describing the condition of the tribe and the land, that, under the treaty of June 1, 1863 and subsequent executive orders, was reserved for the Navajo people. He next declared that those boundaries were inadequate for the tribe. He had thus, by executive order on January 8, 1899, enlarged the tribe’s boundaries. The territory of the Navajo was therefore significantly extended so as to, in his own words, provide “sufficient grass and water for their flocks and herds, and avoiding the prior contention and friction between them and the whites.” The president’s opinion was that it would be neither “just nor possible” to confine them to the previous smaller reservation. McKinley next noted that the Navajo had accepted the new, revised boundaries. He then turned to the proposed bill, which desired to open a substantial amount of the Navajo land to mining operations. McKinley protested that no effort had been made to gain the permission of the Navajo people. He stated that the inevitable effect of the law would be to take the remaining land from the Navajo and asked why such a bill was being proposed that made no effort to negotiate with the tribe in question. He also praised the Navajo’s “habits of industry and husbandry.” More than once he mentioned his concern for the Navajo’s flocks of sheep, which are, by the way, an extremely important part of Navajo culture and economy.

This doesn’t really sound like “savagery, raping and killing” does it? In studying the career of McKinley one will find the same pattern of fairness, high standards and broadmindedness in most of his dealings. When McKinley had the facts, in this case given to him by the vigilant Hitchcock, he was eager to do what was just. His Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock was alert to prevent further injustices to Native Americans. He knew his boss McKinley shared his views and so the two worked as a team to do what they believed was right by the Native Americans.

Now you can read part 2 on McKinley’s relationship with Native Americans here.

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Real Change, Enduring Change

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020) was on the US Supreme Court from 1993 until 2020. She was a very influential figure while on the Supreme Court and part of the liberal wing of the court. Here, Amanda L. Walton tells us about Ginsburg’s cases as an attorney, her time as part of the Supreme Court, and her lasting legacy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg accepting the Supreme Court nomination in 1993. President Bill Clinton is next to her.

“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) spoke these words about the impact of change and how we all can make a difference, but there couldn’t be better words to describe her lengthy career working towards equality and justice for all. Ginsburg was a pioneer, activist, lawyer, and eventually justice who dedicated her life to fighting for equality and social justice. She is one of the few women who truly worked their way up the patriarchal ladder.

Her career is defined by the work that she did to help ensure that women would have gender equality and marginalized peoples would have equal rights under the law. She co-founded the Women’s Rights Project under the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1961. This project helped to guarantee that women would have equal pay and equal employment rights.

Fighting for Equality – A Look at RBG’s Landmark Cases as an Attorney

Ruth started at Harvard Law School in 1956 where she was one of just nine women who were admitted to the program. Harvard only began allowing women to attend law school in 1950. As a lawyer, she would try six cases in in front of the United States Supreme Court. 

While Ginsburg was largely fighting alongside the ACLU to prove that women deserved to have equal protections and rights under the law, she would go on to try cases that dealt with issues facing men. This was a unique and strategic way of being able to open the doors for cases where women could prove that they were being discriminated against legally.

Equal Protection Under the Law – Frontiero v. Richardson

On January 17, 1973, Ginsburg first stepped foot into the Supreme Court to argue for the ACLU and assist with expertise and insight that has a bearing on the case. In this case, Shannon Frontiero had sought to have her husband get the dependent’s allowance that her fellow soldier’s wives were receiving. The law at the time stated that husbands could not be considered dependents unless their wives were the providers of more than 50% of the total income. In a ruling on May 14, 1973, the court ruled that this violated the due process clause and equal protection requirements based on the fact that the government could not legally justify gender-discrimination, as it was the same as race-discrimination. 

This case was one of the first to discuss gender discriminations and how women and men should be viewed the same under the law. 

Arguing Against Gender Clauses – Kahn v. Shevin 

Ginsburg argued for the appellee on February 25 & 26, 1974 in a case based on gender biased Florida law that allowed for widows to be granted a $500 property tax exemption that did not apply to widowers. She lost this case with a ruling on April 24, 1974 that stated that women faced more hardships when they were without a spouse and therefore needed this type of protection that men did not.

While the ruling was not in her favor, the dissents argued that gender classifications (a classification where there is no control) should be looked at judicially and that to have a gender-based classification there needed to be a significant justification that was not present.  

Social Security Gender Discrimination Cannot Stand – Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld

On January 20, 1975 Ginsburg argued for the appellee in Weinberger v. Wisenfeld. In this case Stephen Wiesenfeld had applied for survivor benefits for himself and his son after his wife died in childbirth. Wiesenfeld claimed that he was being discriminated against based on sex, because if he had died both his wife and son would have received benefits. The Supreme Court issued a ruling on March 19, 1975 that gender-based discrimination did not serve a valid legislative purpose.

This case paved the way for women to fight against gender discrimination as the court had ruled that there was no legislative purpose for gender-based discrimination. 

Old Gender Laws Must Go -- Challenging the 5th Amendment with Califano v. Goldfarb

In this case, Ginsburg argued on October 5, 1976 for the appellee, Leon Goldfarb. He had been widowed and was denied Social Security survivor’s benefits because he was a man and he was not getting half of his support from his wife at the time of her death. Under Social Security Act 42 U.S. C. Section 402 men were required to receive at least half of their income from their spouses in order to claim this benefit, but women were excluded from this clause. The Supreme Court ruled Goldfarb’s favor on March 2, 1977.

The courts rejected the generalization that women were more likely to depend on men for support as the old notions of gender law did not apply to justify different treatment of widowers and widows.

Tried by a Representative Jury – Challenging the 6th & 14th Amendments with Duren v. Missouri

Ginsburg argued the case of Duren v. Missouri on November 1, 1978. In this case, she challenged the petitioner’s right to be tried by a fair cross section of the community (a right that is guaranteed by the 6th & 14th Amendments to the Constitution). The issue came from a Jackson County, MO rule that allowed all women to be exempted from jury duty on request. Thus, in a county where the population was 54% white women, the jury for his case was comprised of all men who were selected from a panel that included 2 women and 48 men. On January 9, 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that selection process violated Duren’s Constitutional rights.

This case proved that the underrepresentation of women was unconstitutional.

Ginsburg’s 6th Supreme Court case was Edwards v. Healy (argued on October 16, 1974 and decided on June 9, 1975) which was vacated and reprimanded after the State of Louisiana changed their state constitution to be on the right side of the law.

Serving the People – A Look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Time as a Supreme Court Justice

In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. However, before she served there, she was serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia which she was appointed to in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter.

While being seated as a justice for 27 years, Ginsburg heard a number of landmark cases. It would be impossible to talk about all of the cases that she was a part of without writing a book. There are some landmark cases that she took part in whether through decisions or dissents that show her as a champion for women’s rights.

Cosmopolitan Magazine politics contributor Sara Li argues that there are five basic rights that we would not have without Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court rulings. These are: 

·       The right to equal pay and a fair wage

·       The right to have an abortion

·       The right to attend any public university regardless of if you are a man or a woman

·       The right to marry anyone whom you may fall in love with

·       The right to be a part of the community if you have a mental illness

Court Decisions

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a part of many landmark court decisions. Many of the cases that she wrote the opinion for had to do with social justice or women’s rights issues.

Ginsburg wrote the opinion that gender equality is a Constitutional right in 1996 under the U.S. v. Virginia. The case centered around the Virginia Military Institute’s gender discrimination that only allowed men to attend. As a public university, it was decided that gender discrimination would not be tolerated in higher education. This case supports that women have a place in all areas of public life even within the U.S. military.

Ginsburg also fought for those who were suffering from mental illness. She wrote the opinion for Olmstead v. L.C. in 1999. This case focused on the rights of individuals who were suffering from mental illness and her opinion supported that individuals suffering from mental illness are guaranteed the same rights and protections under the law. The case revolved around two women who had finished treatment at a state hospital in Georgia and were cleared for release, but then held against their will in isolation.

She became a champion for marriage equality. When ruling on Obergefelly v. Hodges in 2015 which granted the right to marriage for same sex couples, The Guardian reported that she was asked about procreation and she argued that a couple in their 70s could not procreate but was still allowed to marry. She went on to say, “Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female that ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down… Would that be a choice that states should (still) be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was.”

In 2007 she wrote the dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear which was a case that centered around the gender wage gap. She argued that the law was biased, because it did not account for the fact that comparative pay information was not readily available for employees. She urged Congress to amend Title VII. It was not until 2009, when Obama took office, that this would be signed into law. The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first bill that Obama signed after taking office.

Finally, in 2016 she supported the upholding of Roe v. Wade in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This case challenged the Texas abortion bill that put unnecessary restrictions on the process to obtain an abortion that made abortions inaccessible to many women. The court ruled that the bill was to be struck.

Court Dissents

Communications professor, Katie L. Gibson, argues in her book Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy of Dissent: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law that one of Ginsburg’s most powerful attributes is that she was willing to take a stand on issues of democracy through her court dissents. On page 2 she writes, “one of her great contributions to American law is that she boldly challenged the traditional boundaries of legal language to make way for a feminist jurisprudence and more democratic rule of the law.”

One of her major dissents was with the 2000 Bush v. Gore where instead of writing “respectfully” in her dissent she began “I dissent.” This case changed the course of history for voting and elections as there was a Florida Supreme Court request for a manual recount of the presential election votes. This case has paved the way that in a tight election, there is no recourse for vote recounts, even if there could be potential errors with automated voting machine readings. Her dissent is powerful because it is a dissent that protects the voting rights of all citizens.

In 2013 when she wrote her dissent on Shelby County v. Holder which was a case that resolved around minority voting suppression, she said, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory practices is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” The court’s ruling was that it was a violation of the Constitution for Congress to set election terms rather than the state.

In the 2014 case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Ginsburg wrote her dissent against the ruling that the company would not have to provide access to birth control and emergency contraceptives for their employees. Her dissent argued that it gave a disadvantage to employees who had different religious views than their employers.

Finally, in one of her last dissents in July 2020, Ginsburg argued that striking down Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate was forcing women to have to look into alternative healthcare options on their own. She argued that this was forcing workers to “fight for themselves.”

Legacy

Whether it was through the landmark court cases that she fought in front of the Supreme Court or her opinions and dissents as a Supreme Court justice, RBG paved the way for women to stand up and fight against the suppressive culture within the United States that often led women to believe that there were things that they could not do. In 2018 On the Basis of Sex was released about her career. In an article on the popular website The Daily Beast Ginsburg fact checked the film and said, “This film is part-fact, part-imaginative, but what’s wonderful about it is that the imaginative parts fit in with the story so well.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped to pave the way for social justice and gender equality. In 2017 she spoke at Stanford and said, “I wish that there was a way that I could wave a magic wand and put it back to where people were respectful of each other, when Congress worked for the people, and not just along party lines. That’s the kind of legislature that the United States should have. I hope that comes when I’m still alive.” Sadly, with the current turmoil amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and one of the most contested elections in history, Ginsburg lost her long battle with cancer on September 18, 2020 before this wish could be realized. 

What do you think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy? Let us know below.

References

https://www.inc.com/peter-economy/17-powerfully-inspiring-quotes-from-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html

https://libguides.wlu.edu/c.php?g=601727&p=4166850

https://www.aclu.org/other/about-aclu-womens-rights-project

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1978/77-6067

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-699

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-759

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1892

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-78

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-rulings-to-know-about

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/421/772/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/rbg-supreme-court-decisions-dissents/index.html

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a34097011/ruth-bader-ginsburg-most-important-supreme-court-case-rulings/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage-arguments-supreme-court

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-fact-checks-her-own-biopic-on-the-basis-of-sex

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/02/07/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-speaks-on-the-court-the-state-of-womens-rights-and-a-meaningful-life/

Gibson, Katie L. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Legacy of Dissent: Feminist Rhetoric and the Law. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 2018. 

Resnik, Judith. “Opening the Door: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Law’s Boundaries, and the Gender of Opportunities,” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 25, no. 1 (2013): 81-91.

Rurbio-Marín, Ruth. “Notorious RBG: A Conversation with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” International Journal of Constitutional Law 15, no. 3 (2017): 602. 

Siegel, Reva B. “Equality and Choice: Sex Equality Perspectives on Reproduction Rights in the Work of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 25, no. 1 (2013): 63-80.