Blessed Among Nations – Eric Rauchway

Cover of Blessed Among Nations


Blessed Among Nations
Eric Rauchway
240 pages including index
published in 2006

The main reason I picked up this book from the Amsterdam library was because I recognised Eric Rauchway’s name; a quick google confirmed that this was the same Eric Rauchway who writes on The Edge of the American West, an excellent history orientated groupblog. It’s always nice to see somebody who can write clever blogposts is able to sustain that cleverness over the length of a book, as Rauchway did here. It’s even better if it’s done in a book I actually would want to read anyway, of course.

Blessed Among Nations is an examination of “American exceptionalism”, the idea that America as a country is different from other countries in more than the trivial way in which every country differs from every other country. In several ways the United States differ from its peers in Western Europe. It is the largest economy in the world, but depends on investment of foreign labor and capital to keep its economy running. It spent much less on social welfare than other rich countries, its government is somewhat less centralised as well and finally there has never been the kind of broad mass socialist or social democrat movement in the US as there has been in Europe. What Rauchway wants to do in his book is to explain these differences without either explaining them away or falling in the trap that America is special, unbound by rules that govern lesser nations.

The explenation Rauchway reaches is contained in the subtitle of the book: How the World Made America. He argues that the foundation for modern post-world war America was laid in the period between the Civil War and World War I, during the first era of globalisation. During this era America was a favourite destination of both labour and capital, the first in the shape of mass immigration from Europe, the second through investments made by British investers. America was far away enough from Europe not to be sucked into the great power conflicts there but near enough through new technology like the telegraph and the steamship to be integrated in the worldwide capitalist system. What’s more, America could make do with a relatively small army and navy as it could shelter behind the might of the Royal Navy as Britain kept the oceans free for their own purposes, while its expension westwards brought the country into conflict with mainly military inferior opponents.

Read more…

Incluing is not good enough for Wikipedia now?

Logged in to Wikipedia tonight to get a message that the article on incluing I wrote almost five years ago was considered for deletion:

Apparently a neologism, but I can’t find evidence of wide use. Google Scholar and News searches turn up nothing but misspellings of “including”. Only references currently are a newsgroup faq, and the livejournal of the (admittedly notable) author who coined it. Quote: “This is totally a word I made up when I was fifteen”.

If reliable sources can be found, there could possibly be something on the concept to salvage into Exposition (literary technique), but I very much doubt it.

It’s this bloody attitude that has increasingly soured me on Wikipedia over the years. Way back when I started getting involved with Wikipedia, around 2003-2004 or so the idea of an online encyclopedia that would hold everything and which you could write articles for yourself was intoxicating. It was easy too to whip up a quick article, just a stub and see it grow over the days and years. But those days are long gone, smothered by the ever growing self-important bureaucracy that has grown up around it.

Too many people seem to think that noticability means everything, that if a subject is obscure or too fannish or cultish it doesn’t deserve an entry, when it’s those very things that makes Wikipedia different from every other encyclopedia. Incluing is a useful term of literary criticism, especially within science fiction and is precisely the sort of semi-obscure concept that should have an entry at Wikipedia explaining it.

I just don’t understand the mindset of people who go around Wikipedia looking for articles to delete. Sure, there’s a certain amount of spam and such to get rid off, but I’ve seen so many examples now of editors and administrators who went out of their way to get rid of articles that are clearly not spam, but just obscure or fannish or not suited to the New Seriousness of Wikipedia. As if an entry like incluing demands Wikipedia by being there.

Terrorism wank

Stratfor on the “Manchester terrorism plot”:

While the plot as described by the British authorities would not have been a significant, strategic threat to the United Kingdom, it could have been quite deadly and could very well have surpassed the July 7, 2005, attacks in terms of final body count. Because of this potential destruction, it is quite possible that the British government decided to err on the side of disruption rather than on the side of prosecution. This is something we have seen in the investigation of several other plots in recent years in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, perhaps most notably in the August 2006 Heathrow plot, in which a cell of operatives was preparing to bomb a series of trans-Atlantic airline flights using liquid explosives.

Wank wank “strategic threat” wank wank wank, wank “quite deadly” wank wank “disruption” wank wank wank “liquid explosives” wank. How the professional analyst knocks off a few knucklechildren out of few facts and a lot of jargon.

(Via Blood & Treasure.)

a liberal is a conservative who has been ­twatted by the police

In the light of the death of Ian Tomlinson, George Monbiot talks about his own experiences with aggressive coppers, the cozy relationship between them and the rightwing press and how this relationship has changed in recent years:

But none of this featured in the ­conservative press. The story was always the same: we would ­stagger home after our peaceful protests were attacked by uniformed ­skinheads to ­discover that we were ­”Anarchist thugs on the rampage” whose attempt to destroy civilisation had been thwarted only by the calm ­professionalism of the police. Violent police action mutated into violent ­protests. The papers believed ­everything the police told them.

This began to change when the police foolishly attacked a ­Countryside ­Alliance march in 2004. In the spirit of impartial policing, the cops gave these reactionaries the treatment they had doled out to ­generations of ­progressives. It was grotesque, ­disproportionate and ­familiar ­policing, but there’s a world of ­difference between bloodstained hemp ponchos and bloodstained tweeds. The exposure of the lies the police then told about the killing of Jean Charles de ­Menezes and the shooting of ­Mohammed Abdul Kahar made the papers – which had reproduced the ­official version – feel stung.

Tomlinson’s death, as well as all the other documented police thuggery during the G-20 demo might finally have shocked the press out of its reflexive habit of trusting the police, but I wouldn’t count on it too much. It’s just too deeply ingrained.

Lovery links

A Game of Thrones to be filmed for tv …in Belfast? Cue dry as dust press release:

First Minister Peter D Robinson MP MLA and deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness MP MLA, have confirmed that HBO, the USA’s leading pay cable network, will film a TV pilot in Northern Ireland this year.

‘A Game of Thrones’, is scheduled to arrive in the third quarter of 2009 and is set to be an epic project. It is expected that the production will utilise various locations, as well as build a massive set in the Paint Hall.

Mr Robinson said: “This is the first time that a TV production of such vast size and scale has been filmed in Northern Ireland. The announcement comes following the visit by the deputy first Minister and I to Los Angeles in March. It will be a welcome boost to the production sector, helping develop the industry here and bringing employment and investment to Northern Ireland.

(Incidently, Paul Cornell, amongst others, is going to write for Martin’s Wild Cards series.

Samuel Delany on racism and science fiction:

Since I began to publish in 1962, I have often been asked, by people of all colors, what my experience of racial prejudice in the science fiction field has been. Has it been nonexistent? By no means: It was definitely there. A child of the political protests of the ’50s and ’60s, I’ve frequently said to people who asked that question: As long as there are only one, two, or a handful of us, however, I presume in a field such as science fiction, where many of its writers come out of the liberal-Jewish tradition, prejudice will most likely remain a slight force—until, say, black writers start to number thirteen, fifteen, twenty percent of the total. At that point, where the competition might be perceived as having some economic heft, chances are we will have as much racism and prejudice here as in any other field.

How to teach historical context via a single comic; that is, Planetary/Batman: Night on Earth.

Factor in the photorealistic gestures and that can only be the Batsuit of the 21st Century. But why did folks at DC decide to go with the throwback costume at the dawn of a new century? Nostalgia? What happened in 2000 that made the less cartoonish Batsuit more attractive to fans of the book? Because the subtraction of the shield was not the only change: the greys now skew black, the blues shift black-navy, and the yellow of the utility belt pales to a washed and muted gold.