Mapping Hatteras: The White Apology

Article reprinted by The Lost Colony Research Group in an effort to stimulate and provide historical context to our archaeological investigations on the Island of Hatteras... 

Much debate has surrounded John White's 16th century maps of the North Carolina coast and the questionable accuracy of Theodore DeBry's engraving of White's watercolor.  Any comparison between White's depictions of the natives of the Carolina coast and DeBry's engravings of those depictions and you can easily question the veracity of the map.  The faces of most of the natives look much more European in DeBry's engravings and several bits of minor details were left out.

That engraved DeBry/White map is important to us as to the accuracy of the locations of the Indian villages indicated on Hatteras Island, or "Croatoan."  The "extra cape" on White's original and on the engraving caused me more than a little concern.  Fear not, however, for White/DeBry's "questionable" detail of the "extra cape," indicated in all these versions for it actually exists... or did exist.  There's proof.  That "extra cape" turns out to be a "false cape" that is still preserved under the surface as the coastal hazard that we now know as "Wimble shoals."

Ever since our project's helpful contribution from Andy Powell, an email about that “false cape” in the area of Rodanthe on the Outer Banks, it has been bugging me about the current water levels as compared with the water levels suspected in 1585 when John White made his map. It had to be much lower in 1585. By how much was the next question. What did the Outer Banks look like at the time that John White watercolored them? Why in the world did he paint such a prominent cape that is not visible today?

Here are the two versions of White’s map, compared in DeBry’s chosen orientation of West on top:

On both maps, “Croatoan” is colored completely red, indicating that the English had spent considerable time there. Note though that on one map the mainland next to Roanoke Island is all red, while the other map has specific towns colored in. There are two dots where “Dasmemonquepeuc” is supposed to be. The supposition is that these two maps might have been done at different stages of the colonization period 1585-1588. For instance, the area of the first “false cape” area (as per Andy Powell) has no red on one map, but some indications of exploration on the other.

The point that I want to make here is that John White, without the benefit of a surveyor’s eye, drew a damned fine map! The extra cape (what I indignantly and once loudly called it) was not a figment of White’s imagination. It’s real. Andy Powell told us where to find it. So, I looked. In 2000, geologists did a survey of the Outer Banks in order to determine sand resources. They mapped the area presently under the sea (see below). On this map, the yellow areas indicate the present Outer Banks but with the water level artificially dropped to five meters, we wind up with a shoreline where the orange/red area is. Go a little further, to about seven meters (specifically for the “false cape” area at the present site of Rodanthe, and you have a shoreline in the area that I have colored purple for illustration purposes. If you go all the way down to 10 meters, you even get the little “claw hook” that White painted and DeBry engraved in the sixteenth century (shown in faint pink below the purple).

Background: Theodore DeBry map engaving of 1590; Inset: Stephen K. Boss and Charles W. Hoffman. “Final Report: Sand Resources of the North Carolina Outer Banks,” Prepared for the Outer Banks Task Force and the North Carolina Department of Transportation, April 2000.

Now, we have to temper this with the fact that this is the famed Outer Banks, site of sand-churning, killer shoals. The sands did not remain consistent over 300 years. Still, the hardened, or partially “cemented” areas of sandstone deep under the banks, are more resistant and are still there for all intents and purposes. So, the basic shape still remains of that “false cape” and we now call that area “Wimble Shoals.” By the way, the inlets that I have placed in there by erasing the landforms I did NOT do so because that’s where White put them but rather because that’s where the geologists indicated in 2000 were areas of possible inlets, or “instability.” Again, confirmation of White’s observations.

What does this have to do with our mapping of Hatteras? I’m glad you asked. John White was fairly accurate. He’s also our eye-witness and his testimony has to be the primary evidence that we use to determine the evolution of Hatteras Island, the past “Croatoan.” This analysis only vindicates John White’s observations and his recording of those observations on his maps. As to Theodore DeBry’s version (as you can see on the map comparison figure), his interpretation of White’s painting was accurate in many details. The locations of the Indian villages are easily identifiable as Buxton, Frisco and Hatteras village at Durant’s point (comparing the exaggerated “bumps” on DeBry’s map). These locations we generally agree are high ground areas where Indians would likely settle (assuming that they didn’t like having their towns flooded on occasion). Indians had centuries of experience with the Outer Banks and would have known about the feasibility of these areas, a subtlety not immediately recognizable to White or DeBry or any other European. So, why did DeBry put the towns where he did? Because that’s where White told him they were! It has to be. These town sites can be roughly defined as “Frisco,” [unnamed], and “Buxton” today.

Archaeology has confirmed the site of Buxton and deed records are confirming the temporally extensive (until 1788) Indian occupation at Frisco. We have yet to examine deed records for the Buxton area to determine who exactly owned the area of that town, but we’ll get there. Progress, folks! Definite progress through archaeology and team work. 
 


[update:  our study produced records to indicate that the site excavated recently by our colleagues from the University of Bristol in the past two years are probably the original home of James Wahab, possibly the home of Henry Gibbs before him.  This area was definitely on the Wahab   "old tract  " sold to him by Gibbs in 1738.  There's more to come on that study.] 

Let’s all give ourselves, but especially, John White a hand… and, from me, an apology. I was really harsh on the guy. I was saying things like, “was this dude on drugs, or what?” Right now, he’d be giving me “the eye.” What can I say? Academics are typically hot-headed and spoiled, right? That’s my excuse.

Archaeology vs. Treasure Hunting (reprint)

This article is a reprint from: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg/nl/nl02-11c.htm Roberta Estes and I both feel that the more that this destructive act becomes known, the less it will happen.  Pics of "Spongebeard Stinkypants" were added by me.

There's more to real archaeology than hunting for the cool display pieces.  The point is to find the history of the culture that you're researching.  Everything must be studied in context, as Roberta points out.  Furthermore, these artifacts become the property of the property owner on whose land they were found.  Professional archaeologists, for instance would never keep or sell any artifacts - they will study them, catalog them, and then return them to the owner.  I strongly suspect that these treasure hunters have already listed their finds for sale on Ebay or other auction sites.  Treasure hunters are only after a profit. If any artifacts have been kept from your property (especially within the last five years or so), please contact me here or Roberta Estes at the link above.  We will report this to the proper authorities.

Do not let Spongebeard Stinkypants ruin your site!

-------------------------------------------------------

Archaeology vs Treasure Hunting
by Roberta Estes

From the snaphaunce article, one can easily see how important archaeology and the resulting research it enables is to history - more specifically - to the search for the Lost Colonists.  The smallest piece, unrecognizable to most of us, certainly to an untrained eye, may indeed hold the clue, and the answer we all seek.



Who among us isn't mesmerized by the thought of finding that artifact that will solve the mystery of the Lost Colony?  But like most things in life, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about that elusive search.



I was recently appalled to find the following information (with names blanked out to protect the guilty) on the internet on a site selling metal detectors.  A small group of people accompanyed an individual who claimed to be a "pro", but who is not an archaeologist (nor was the group accompanied by or working with an archaeologist) discovered and removed over 400 artifacts from a location under study as a possible site of the Lost Colonists.



Quoting directly from the website, is their description of what was done:

We...headed to the Outer Banks at daybreak.  We were all a bit surprised when the first signal was received after only a few sweeps.  Digging through the tree roots and vines, I reached the midden layer and from 10" pulled out a large flat button with engraving on the front as well as some gilding remaining dating from the early 1600's! This was the oldest North American metallic artifact I've recovered on land in more than 45 years of detecting and a great omen for the next few days.

Another area wanted to try the metal detectors out on was a tract that had been examined on previous visits using the Random Shovel Test Pit method.  Laying out a test square, commenced a methodical scan of the area with the new detectors flagging any metallic object located.   After the section was scanned and targets flagged, a survey map was generated showing the location of each target and if the target was shown to be ferrous or non-ferrous by the metal detector.   Due to time and resource limitations, only the indicated non-ferrous items were recovered. Within the test square area, located 41 metallic targets.  All of the artifacts recovered were found at depths ranging from 12 inches to 30 inches.

Did the metal detectors provided help evaluate the Indian village site?  Well, the point that stood out after less than a day of scanning the site was that the Random Shovel Test Pit method which is considered to be standard operating procedure for most archeological surveys had in fact painted a picture totally opposite to what the metal detector survey had revealed.  summed it up by stating "We located and recovered more artifacts and higher quality artifacts in 3 days with only 4 people than we had using conventional methods in 10 days with 20 people at a cost of $11,000.  More importantly, the metal detectors identified the existence of artifacts in a section of the site that had been deemed barren through past excavations and archeologist assessments!"

After 3 days in the field, more than 400 items were recovered.  All of us that spent time at the Croatan site quickly recognized the value that metal detectors have as a tool to increase the efficiency of data obtained in archeological surveys by locating high-value areas of standard archeological methods might otherwise fail to find.

So what is wrong with what these people did?



Archaeological artifacts aren't just antiques sold to the highest bidder or the prize to the luckiest guy with a metal detector.  The context in which artifacts are found gives them meaning, helps provide an age, and gives them a story.  They can't be reliably analyzed outside of that context.  Furthermore, treasure hunters or those who sell artifacts on the black market routinely engage in this sort of plunder with no consideration for history or the damage they are doing.



Let's look at the button they found, for example.  They state that the button was from the early 1600s.  In the early 1600s, Hatteras island had not been settled by whites.  In fact, it was not even visited, according to the records, until 1664.  So how did a button get to Hatteras Island and in the midden?  And where was it in the midden?  What was located around it would tell us a lot about its age.  Was it a trade item from Jamestown?  Or, given that a professional archaeologist was not involved to date the item, was the date off?  Could the button have been from the time of the colonists? If so, and if it was found in the proper context that would suggest or confirm that the button was intermixed with Native items and perhaps also other nonmetal English items, such as pottery that could also be dated - this button could indeed be, or could have been, the smoking gun to prove the colonists went to Hatteras Island.  Furthermore, it could have identified where they lived, the colonists village site. The treasure hunters presumed it was the Native village site.....but maybe not.  But now, it can never be more than a treasure hunter's bounty for the day - in his or her personal collection.  Bragging rights to sell metal detectors, nothing more.



Without the involvement of a professional archaeologist, meaning an individual with at least a bachelor's degree in archaeology, conducting a properly documented removal of the objects, the artifacts lose their meaning - and their authenticity can never be proven or documented after that.



If the treasure hunting group had been fortunate enough to find that elusive artifact that might prove the survival of the colonists, they probably would not have been experienced enough to realize the discovery they might have made.  In fact, they may have destroyed that critical evidence, proving that the colony survived, far more important than the artifact itself, in their quest for metallic treasure.  Furthermore, anything not metal, and specifically not ferrous metal, was sacrificed and ignored, possibly irresponsibly destroyed in the retrieval of the coveted metal objects.  Cherry picking is treasure hunting and plunder.



Where are these artifacts today?  They certainly aren't being cleaned, evaluated, studied and cataloged in a university or professional setting, available for future researchers and to be made available through academic writing to the public.  They are forever lost to history.  As the treasure hunter said - it's his best find in 45 years of treasure hunting.  Did he find the colonists button....now forever lost to history?  We'll never know.



It a situation such as this where the results are so critical to history, this type of behavior is at least unethical.  For someone who knows better and does this intentionally, it's worse.



The commentary about the previous dig taking 10 days, 20 people and costing $11,000 is referencing a legitimate, professional archaeological dig where Charles Heath served as the professional archaeologist.  Yes, that would be the same Charles Heath that has been involved in the excavation and analysis of the snaphaunce in the previous article and who worked with Dr. Phelps.  And yes, archaeologists do expect to be paid, as do all professionals.



What should have been done with the metal detectors is that the items should have been mapped and flagged, and an archaeological crew brought in to retrieve the items, preserving their history and context.



Louisa Pittman, an archaeologist on our team from the University of Bristol reviewed this article for me, and she reminds me that the use of metal detectors is not inherently bad and they are used in a limited capacity in legitimate archaeological digs.  However, the items are not extracted out of context.  Mostly, metal detectors are used after the dig and before the backfill to be sure nothing was missed.  The difference between using metal detectors responsibly and destructively is how the tool is applied by the people involved.



For more info on the difference between treasure hunting and archaeology, take a look at this article  http://www.staugustinelighthouse.com/blog/lamposts/excellent_editorial_on_treasur.php



Are you interested in what has found on Hatteras Island during legitimate archaeological digs?  Great....let's take a look!



Dr. David Phelps Hatteras Island Excavations

In the McArthur collection in the History Center in Manteo, Beatrice McArthur clipped some newspaper articles about Dr. David Phelps archaeology digs which I've partially transcribed here, hoping they might help preserve the history of Hatteras Island.  Unfortunately, Dr. Phelps field reports were never completed before his death, and the information must be gleaned from reports such as this and eyewitnesses who participated in the digs.  Some of the artifacts are currently housed at Eastern Carolina University.



Ms. McArthur did not record the names of the newspapers, so I have not reproduced their stories verbatim.  I have extracted pertinent information from various articles and combined them into a somewhat coherent article.  Most of these articles appear to be from 1997.  This first portion carried a hand written note that said June, 1997.



Dr. David Phelps has spent the past month digging test excavations at a site in Buxton which led to the discovery of what Phelps believes is a workshop that dates between 1650 and 1729.  The crew discovered a littering of lead shot, lead slag and fragments of brass and copper.  Further excavations led to two hearths, mounds of sand which have been discolored and changed in texture due to the repeated heat of intense fires.  It was the red color and density of the sand as well as the abundance of ash content surrounding the mounds which allowed the crew to identify twin hearths.



So far, excavations have turned up a lot of European artifacts; white clay smoking pipes, gun flints, lead shot or various sizes, glass bottles and ceramic fragments.



While none of it confirms the existence of the Lost Colonists, Phelps said, it's helpful in understanding the life of the Croatoans.  "All these things suggest a strong trading relationship with the Europeans".  We're beginning to see what it was like for folks from 1650 to 1715, probably not as good when they owned the whole island."



He called a peach pit discovered a few days ago "a major find".



The peach suggests that the Croatans were trading with other southeastern tribes or with the Spaniards who introduced peaches to the Americas and were growing them on Florida plantations in the 1600s.



One NC historian has suggested that the Spaniards had a trading post on the Roanoke River, Phelps said.  Because no arrowheads have been found it is believed that the musket had replaced the bow and arrow.



The town midden, the area where Croatans threw their trash, overlies evidence of the post molds of Croatan houses.



Phelps and his crew also made a unique discovery of a number of bone rings, made from bird bones and approximately 3/8 of an inch in diameter.  According to Phelps, these rings have not been seen anywhere else in archaeological digs.  The rings could have been used in early trading, but Phelps is unsure about their direct purpose.  He added that bird bones are a common find and decorated bird bones have been found in archaeological excavations along the east coast, but never shaped like a ring.



The Buxton site itself belongs to Ronald Midgett and his wife.  During the past year and a half Phelps and his crews have made 3 test excavations at the site before the 600 square meter major excavation of the workshop area.  The crew initially came upon the workshop after opening an area beside a 24 square meter test pit from last year.  Due to the lack of household debris and the presence of more than one hearth Phelps dismissed the idea of the area once being a house.


According to Phelps, the artifacts found at the site are representative of those that could be found throughout the area of Buxton identified as the historic Croatan.  The artifacts

at the site allow archaeologists to piece together the merging of Europeans into the Indians culture after White's return to England. 

 

At the site the crew uncovered European, Indian and local-made pipes, copper rings and plates, shell beads, Indian and European ceramics and coins drilled with holes to be worn around the neck.

 

[A] small undated coin was [found with] holes drilled in each end are among Phelps favorite find from the recent dig.  The coin he said is similar to a 1563 coin found on Roanoke Island about 50 miles to the north.

 

The team also discovered two fire hearths where Phelps said American Indians and colonists may have manufactured weapons and tools together.  Bill Kelso, who directs Jamestown Discovery, said he is "very excited" about Phelps finds.

 

"We've unearthed twin hearths and all this debris that has nothing to do with household living, lead droppings from molding bullets, copper and brass pieces and all kinds of clay pipes made from red North Carolina soil as well as white English clay.  We think this was their workshop area" Phelps said of the Croatan site near the Pamlico sound in Buxton.

 

"There was a tremendous amount of European influence here and a lot of borrowing of European technology for such an early time period.  Our guess is that these artifacts go back to at least the era between 1650 and 1729."

 

The coin and some pottery pieces are probably even older and could have been brought down the barrier island by the Lost Colonists.

 

Phelps chose the site initially for its dune cover.  "The dune ridge has always been an ideal location for coastal settlements" Phelps explained, citing Kitty Hawk, Nags Head and Kinnakeet [currently Avon] as examples.  The ridge provides protection from wind and storm surge and is close to the neighboring forest.  Phelps attributes the preservation of the underlying strata of Croatan to the forest area.

 

The forest has also helped to preserve a lower strata which Phelps dates between 800 AD to 1650.  The strata was uncovered and easily visible in a text excavation at a higher area at the site.  The excavation referred to as "the monster" by the crew was about 12 meters square and 2 meters in depth.  Phelps was able to date the strata by a number of Algonquin pottery pieces originally identified on and named after Colington Island.  The Colington pottery, circa 100 to 1500 AD is unique for its addition of ground oyster shells around it which helped in drying clay pottery and prevent cracking.

 

Unfortunately despite the recent discoveries the month-long excavation ended Friday and the two test excavations and major excavation were filled in.  Phelps stated that he hopes to reopen the workshop site next year and at the same time open test sites westward.  Excavations are tempered by availability of open land and working around trees.  The upcoming months will be spent in the lab researching and writing about the recent finds. 

 

Lynne Wyche, Marketing Director for the Lost Colony outdoor drame was a volunteer and participated in the excavation.  She feels that the word Croatan found on the stockade and the tree indicates that at least some of the colonists went to Hatteras.

 

Not necessarily so said National Park Service historian John Gillikin "We know what the work 'Croatan' meant, but not what the message meant" said John from his office at the Fort Raleigh Historical site.  "It could've meant that's where the colonists went.  Or it could have means as a warning that the Croatan Indians were no longer friendly.  We have no idea what happened to the colonists.  We simply do not have enough evidence to even come up with a theory.  All those artifacts show is that the natives were voracious traders with the Europeans, whether colonists or shipwreck victims or what.  I'm not doubting that site is where some of the Lost Colonists may have gone.  This could be a very important discovery in finally finding what happened to at least some of them.  But I'd need more evidence before I'd say so."

 

Erosion from Hurricane Emily in 1993 unearthed the first remnants of Croatan Indian civilization along a dirt road in Buxton.  Phelps has worked here the past 3 years.  This month's project included 5 ECU students and a dozen Hatteras island volunteers and was the biggest effort yet.  The dig site extends about a half mile along Buxton's dune ridge.

 

Phelps said that as many as 5000 Native Americans could have inhabited the southern end of Hatteras Island from AD 1000 to 1700.

 

"There is no way to say how many colonists may have been here.  Possibly a few single men  were sent down to Hatteras to wait for John White to come back with supplies while the remaining settlers head up the Chesapeak Bay" said Phelps.

 

Dough [who I believe ran the LC play at the time] says that all the word Croatoan indicates is that "at least one literate colonist went to Hatteras.  They probably didn't leave in a group."

 

Phelps plans to continue digging on Hatteras for at least 5 years.  He hopes that someone will look for evidence of the colonists in the Jamestown area.  He returned to his Greenville lab this week with thousands of Indian and European artifacts that need to be processed and identified.  "Eventually these things should come back to Hatteras island.  They belong here.  What we're trying to do now is to understand the Croatoan society and how those native Americans related to the original European colonists."

 

Phelps is also presently working on a underwater study off of Roanoke Island and plans to return in the fall for a workshop to train volunteers and formally present the artifacts found at the Buxton site.

Lost Colony Research Group's Latest Adventures in the Dirt

This past April, the Lost Colony Research Group was involved with the University of Bristol (UK) in an archaeological dig on Hatteras and a general survey of the island for future work.  A lot of really great finds were made and our group's leader, Roberta Estes wrote a damned fine newsletter for May 2011 explaining in her own "front porch" style the entire week and a half.  An 18th century Hatteras dwelling was part of the dig, with wattle and daub construction and a possible slate roofing material, quarried in Swithland in the East Midlands.  This is just a possible origin of the slate roofing found in Hatteras.  A wealthy person indeed would have to have had this dwelling.  One possibility is that this home was the home of James Wahab, an early settler on Hatteras who purchased the land from Henry Gibbs in 1738 before Gibbs relocated to Hyde County across Pamlico Sound from Hatteras.  No doubt Wahab was well off.  Many early settlers made their living from the sea, coupled with the necessary farming needed to provide other necessities.  They found Hatteras useful in many of those pursuits. 

Anyway, Roberta tells this tale very well and you can find her newsletter here: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~molcgdrg/nl/nl05-11.htm

A Challenge...

I'm reading part of a book for an 18th-century British Political History class.  It's flabbergasting how much of the American system of politics was based on England's.  Douglas Hay's Albion's Fatal Tree chapter on "Property, authority, and the Criminal Law" tells about how capital crimes increased in the eighteenth century... yet, executions did not.  You could be hanged for theft, etc.  Yet, you rarely were.  In other words, the threat of death became a deterrent for crime... if you were rich.

Still, the poorer classes paid the price.  You see, the wealthy, the gentry class, the noblemen of the British realm, the men to whom all plebeians owed deference, seldom faced death.  And, they knew it.  A pardon usually awaited them rather than a noose.

Tenant farmers, of course, weren't necessarily hanged, but they were always more in danger of it and they were made aware of the danger often.  The basic idea was to "remind" them of their position in society, to reinforce their allegiance to the king.

British protected their property.  And, the ideas developed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were taken to extremes.  "Once property had been officially deified, it became the measure of all things," including life and death.  "Human life was weighed in the scales of wealth and status."

Eventually, Britain reformed this barbaric capitalistic system based upon fear.  However, that did not occur until the 19th century, after a remote group of Englishmen had taken these ideas to their extremes and expanded on them.  The interesting part is that what distinguished a poor farmer type from a gentleman was land... property.  America had vast quantities of land and almost every settler on this continent could obtain it.  

What happens when a system of justice that depends upon capital crimes and pardoning of the rich meets a land with no poor folk (amongst the white-colored folk, anyway)?  Well, they are most all seen as gentry, in stark irony with Britain.  And, that difference, among others, led them to separate from their country of origin... as propertied "gentlemen" of a different ideology.  So, "We the people" really did not include ALL the people. There were many people in the shadows.

Furthermore, the class differential that separated the gentry from those at the end of their virtual rope remained in the ideology.  It led to things like "Jim Crow" and the "Trail of Tears."  The ideas of property deification certainly remained and formed the basis of the American capitalistic system.  We even changed the definition of "to capitalize" from that of our English parents, certainly aware of changing ideologies during the British reform.  

Our society today is based upon the older system, still with deference owed to our betters.  You see, the founding fathers saw themselves as the "better" class, as opposed to those without property. 

Thomas Jefferson became a singular opposing voice in that arena, espousing the cause of the yeoman farmer (who still had property...).  But, most people eschewed "mob rule," an idea also gained from our British forebears.  Note that the land-owning yeoman farmer was included in the "mob" by most.  Americans tended to elevate their ideas of the poorer class.  Jefferson was denounced by most politicians who generally followed the Federalist path and instituted the Constitution.  This document protects the gentry, the higher class.  However, it made little provision for the poor, the "mob," most notably in the area of slavery, or property - the ownership of human beings.  The best part of that document was that it wasn't explicit about it... we could modify that meaning later.  Jefferson, of course, was no angel.  He never gave up ownership of other human beings.  Still, he foresaw that any such government would be as oppressive as a king. In many ways, that government does still retain the class distinctions that were innately British.

We have to remember that we are the "mob" while the gentry, the upper crust of America, was who our economic system was designed to favor.  Former slaves are now citizens of our "mob" society, like Native Americans, Hispanics, and many other groups that someone deemed it necessary to delineate by race, or creed, or color. 

So, you see that British ideas were not as far away as we usually thought.  Slavery stemmed from 18th-century British ideology and became uniquely American. Still, it's roots developed from the British... before they reformed their views of property and justice.  America's reform had to cost 600,000 lives and came decades later.  Perhaps we were hard-headed?  We still are.


When I watch commercials on TV or receive expensive fliers in the mail or hear preposterous advertisements on the radio, I think about this.  I question a society that puts property above human life, a society that demands money for health care and such.  I question a society that elevates ignorance and denounces intelligence, seeks the almighty dollar without reservation.  Are we trying to avoid a harsh truth?  I think so.  The dumber we stay, the more money that we will part with and the less trouble we will cause.  It's a simple formula.  


We still show deference to the rich, even though they would laugh as we hang in the noose.  We still elect them to office because of the crazy notion that the poor just don't have the education or brains to lead.  We allow rich corporations to behave like individuals, taking the same rights as us and making us grovel for a living, removing our rights to fair labor practices.  Most of us aspire to emulate the rich... we dream of dollars.


No, the British aren't perfect.  But, they are more enlightened than us about certain things.  African-Americans, Native Americans, etc still remain farther down the class hierarchy than the rich white folk at the top of the ladder.  America, more than most, still has these problems.  


Hopefully, this 18th-century British comparison will open some eyes, perhaps divert those eyes from the flashy BS on television that continually trains us to be dollar-loving, culture-shocked automatons.  I hope that the mind will begin to work for itself rather than for a barely livable wage from some rich corporation, slaves to a system that disregards our diversity.  


A wonderful philosophy comes to mind about infinite diversity... a philosophy of not simply accepting differences, but rejoicing in those differences, even religious ideas.  I appreciate you and you, me.  Thinking like that would nullify much of these desires for dollars, individual "property."  There would be less "me" and more "us."  But that would involve trust... maybe I'm unrealistic.  Maybe we can't be better than the sum of our parts.  Many people tell me this.  Still, they offer no solutions.

I'm an eternal optimist, though.  I think we can learn to think and create a better world, catch up with the rest of the planet.  That's my challenge...

Scandal: Preventing Revolution

Clark, Anna.  Scandal: The Sexual Politics of the British Constitution. Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 2004.


For historian Anna Clark, scandal fueled the democratic process in eighteenth-century Britain.  She saw scandal in government as bringing on charges of corruption and impropriety, men or women exchanging sex and money for political favors, a derisive behavior not sanctioned by the public.  In her book, Scandal: The Sexual Politics of the British Constitution, she attempted to show that scandal illuminated the debate of how British society in the eighteenth century was to be governed, even in an age of revolution.  For Clark, scandals redirected anxiety, prevented rebellion, and were necessary to Britain’s future.  Scandal functioned as a relatively peaceful catalyst for change.  She also explained the necessary existence of rumor and social impasse to fuel this catalyst.


Scandal soothed animosities between rival factions.  Clark used images from popular poems, plays, and caricatures to show how they aided John Wilkes’ efforts to reduce King George III’s overreaching power.  She demonstrated the media’s importance in developing the necessary environment for therapeutic scandal to begin.  By insinuating that Lord Bute had an affair with the queen dowager, Wilkes implied that Scottish blood infected the Hanoverian dynasty, playing on xenophobic feelings and memories of Stuart absolutism and British nationalism.  This perception of a scandal, as ridiculous as it truly seemed, damaged the monarch’s authority.  According to Clark, Wilkes used the rumor of impropriety to give the illusion of a larger, more political threat and thereby instigate reform.  She also demonstrated that, by reviving John Locke’s theories of government, Wilkes derailed George III’s efforts to appear as a father to Britain.  Instead, the popular imagery of the time showed him to be merely a child, led around by his mother’s desires.  His son, George IV would do no better for the monarchy by imprisoning his queen and lavishing upon mistresses.


In her first chapter, Clark superbly demonstrated her case; scandal moderated government, like checks and balances in constitutional theory.  They often aided in reform.  Certainly, however, her book illustrates the dangers of scandal as well.  Wilkes used the theory of “oriental despotism” to give substance to satires and caricatures in his Essay on Woman to portray the phallus as a “floating, insecure signifier of power that could be claimed by anyone” (25).  He eventually switched camps after finding himself hopelessly entangled in his own web, unable to part the libertine hero from the cause of political reform.  Still, like Charles James Fox and Andrew Robinson Bowles, Wilkes championed the cause of the “Commons against the Crown” by equating masculine libertinism with liberty (54).


Scandalous as it may be, some argued that John Wilkes’ ideas could lead to corruption.  That was the nature of scandal and the reason that he felt its bite in his later years.  Clark’s description of scandal’s nature and development strongly depends upon the reification of the extremes of radical versus conservative.  Indeed, rumors float amongst these ideas aimlessly until, pulled to the poles, they become scandals.  At that point, they become definite ideas, easily portrayed to the public and effective political weapons.  Newspapers, pamphlets, contemporary aristocratic accounts, poems, and songs round out her sources.


Clark reveals another aspect to British politics rarely alluded to by most historians.  She believed that eighteenth-century scandals did not further the interests of women personally, only the interests of dynastic aristocratic power.  The rich widow, Mary Ellen Bowes, countess of Strathmore, married a notorious Irish fortune hunter, who took his new wife’s surname upon the marriage to win her affections, but, especially, her property.  Not realizing that he would not have access to the property, he mentally and physically abused his wife, who’s repeated beatings drew no attention at first.  Appealing to the “Bucks, Bloods, and Beaux” of Newcastle, Bowes used his wife’s family and her political connections to his favor (64).  While his character flaws were well known, they did not become an issue until he began bribing voters and strongly defended dynastic politics.  The Newcastle women, however, had an effect on Bowes’ career, but they had to time their attack properly.  The strictly male voters of Newcastle saw nothing wrong with Bowes until “A Lady” began a scandalizing publicity campaign against him.  Clark judiciously portrays how the industry of Newcastle women interrupted Bowes’ run for office in 1785, by “ransacking every anecdote of his private life” (67).


Certainly no stranger to scandal herself, the countess of Strathmore found political influence to be a burden in the end.  Ultimately, however, debating societies began discussing female suffrage and political reform to serve the people, not for their family's personal interests.  Further “Petticoat Influence” derived from Marie Antoinette in the French Revolution, educated writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and “conservative ideologue,” Hannah More, and writer, Mary Anne Clarke, mistress to the duke of York and seller of army commissions.


For Clark, while scandal did not always involve women, per se, its rhetoric reflected differing views.  The younger William Pitt, not conspicuously enamored of women, was portrayed as currying the king’s favor through “backstairs” influence to win the 1784 Westminster election (72).  Fox’s Whig supporters compared him with Buckingham, Piers Gaveston, a “woman-hater,” and alleged sodomite.  For this particular ploy, Fox found it necessary to modify the Wilksian libertinism from one of attacking women to one that contained a chivalric code of feminine virtue.  Still, the libertinism came back to haunt him, as with Wilkes.  Scandal begets scandal.  While Clark did not specifically refer to a balance mechanism within the process of scandalization, she demonstrated this to be true.

She did, however, see balance in political scandal, an equilibrium that defused rebellion.  She viewed also a “balance between the Commons and the Crown” (182).  In her development of radicals versus conservatives and the necessary polarization for scandal to perpetuate, Clark had to view society as having opposite poles.  She saw British political society as distinct between parties, with conservatives consisting of the nobility and the gentry, who sided generally with the monarchy.  The radical Whigs occupied the other end of the spectrum and espoused change.  Political targets of scandals, whether radical or conservative can portray themselves as victims and turn the tide of public derision.  Scandals perpetuated themselves and kept the society active, even healthy.   British made more effective use of counterpropaganda than the French and avoided revolution.
 
Clark’s best argument for scandal preventing a rebellion can be found in her last chapter on the Queen Caroline scandal.  To begin, as the extravagant Prince of Wales, George IV surreptitiously married a Catholic British subject, a grave violation of the Royal Marriage Act.  That marriage annulled, he then married his Brunswick cousin, Caroline.  Meanwhile, he drunkenly wasted money, at £18,000 more than he made per year.  Not long after taking the throne, he disavowed his father’s Whigs, scandalized and exiled Caroline and refused to allow his daughter, Charlotte to see her mother.  When Charlotte escaped her father, the crowds cheered her on, rebuking the king’s behavior.  Rumor had infiltrated everyday society about George IV’s mistresses and how he lavished public funds upon them.  “Caroline’s persecution by the king served as a powerful metaphor for” oppression and the constitutional monarchy, increasingly broke, had never been in such dire straits (177).  Caroline, a shrewd and formidable opponent, exercised scandal against the king, who fired scandal in retort, with John Bull and the full force of conservative manipulators.  Supporters of Caroline drew upon even the middle class for support.  The king’s carriage was stoned and threats to cut his throat openly voiced.  Again, all classes of women came to Caroline and her Whig and Tory allies to oppose the king, instead of outright revolution.   The scandal lasted so long because the country was divided on sexual morality, the basis for much of the scandal incited against Caroline.  Eventually, the whole dispute between the king and queen invigorated parliamentary reform with the Whigs in charge.  Bloodshed was avoided.  The king, nearly impeached, was restored and the monarchy declared safe again.


While Clark feels that her view of scandal is anachronistic when compared to the present, it is not.  Scandal is just as important to the purveyors of mass media today as it was to newspapers and chapbooks in the eighteenth century.  When in doubt, view FOX-News.  Scandals still serve to engage people in politics who might not otherwise.  It still aids in exposing corruption and opens political debate to more than just the electorate.  In every way, it continues to fuel the democratic process.  Former president Bill Clinton is more popular now than ever.  While as president of the United States, a scandal threatened to impeach him and ruin his marriage.  Neither of those things happened.  Still, Anna Clark composed a fresh and highly enjoyable exposition on scandalous British history.

Beggars CAN Be Choosers!

Book Review:
Hitchcock, Timothy.  Down and Out in Eighteenth-Century London, 2nd edition paperback.  London: Hambledon Continuum, 2007.


Beggars can, indeed, be choosers.  Were beggars and the beggarly poor of eighteenth-century London, filthy sellers of ballads or bodies, shoe blacks, chimney sweeps, cinder sifters, errand boys, criers, or hawkers, active social agents?  Timothy Hitchcock explored the often misunderstood, urbanizing, and fast-paced London of this time starting with the bottom up to describe the poor as agents of choice.  He stated his purpose in writing Down and Out in Eighteenth-Century London as an attempt to define the lower level of London society.  He wanted to tell who they were and where they slept, with little money and no connections – yet capable of making choices that determined their fate.  In his view, they even determined the future of London society.

Hitchcock spoke from experience.  This book stemmed from his personal exploration of human endurance and compassion.  For a decade, he hitchhiked on two continents.  He knew what it was to be hungry, to sleep rough, to live the poor life.  After these various personal experiences, he undertook a challenge to explore the paucity of records relating to the nameless portion of society.  Hitchcock performed this task admirably, producing a scholarly and literary work with London-based manuscript sources, the Old Bailey proceedings, ballads, poems, newspapers, novels, and various prints.

Old Bailey proceedings and other legal records generally indicated male defendants.  As Hitchcock makes clear, this was only a small percentage of the London beggar population.  London society understood females to be the weaker sex, the most likely sexual demographic to become beggars.  They often had children to feed, were often deserted by the men that they depended upon for sustenance, and more in need of support.  So, legal records reflected society’s condemnation of “worthless” male vagrants who, in their eyes, merely took advantage of poor laws and charity.  Matthew Martin’s 1796 Mendicity Enquiry Office records showed that of 2,000 beggars on that list, only 197 were male.  In contrast, of those arrested, over forty percent were male.  One Old Bailey record from 1744 demonstrated that Joseph Haughton tried to provide a female defendant with a character witness, but discredited himself when he admitted to being a “ballad-singer,” one of the pauper professions.  Women occupied the backstreets almost naturally and contributed to the abundance of charity and popular literature which Hitchcock used in this book.
 
In fact, accessibility stands as the greatest asset to his book.  Many of the stories told come from the poor themselves, not simply through the legal records, but from stories told by the beggars.  Hitchcock’s book, while originating from the Old Bailey online project, evolved into a smoother production that seemed more like literature than history.  He quotes from many popular sources, including John Gay’s Trivia, stories by Richard Steele, ballads by Henry Carey, and poems by Christopher Smart.  Francis Place spoke of poor women of Limehouse, St. Catherine’s Lane, and Rosemary Lane in the East End in personal descriptions.

Pictures of poor London women accompanied these many literary sources, provided by William Hogarth, certainly, but also Paul Sandby, Thomas Gainesborough, and others – thirty-nine of them in all.   Prostitutes similar to “Raggety Madge,” Mary Long, and Sarah Robinson in St. Giles are reflected in the many prints that Hitchcock provides.  One print showed a spirited girl riding a statue of a horse in Charing Cross, celebrating two hapless men in the pillory below.

Hitchcock showed that the poor took advantage of every opportunity.  The anti-Catholic sentiments expressed in the Gordon Riots in 1780 generated the use of similar tactics in the beggarly population.  When one showed up at Richard Stone’s, pulled off his hat, and said, ”pray remember the Protestant religion,” he immediately showed his impiety by demanding three times as much as he was given.  Scripture words became the most common type of language used by beggars to induce the benefits of Christian charity.  Humor and self-deprecation were also useful.

Still, were these attributes of London’s poor any more apparent than other eighteenth-century European towns?  He provided no data for comparison.  More so, Hitchcock desired to provide a history of the individual poor on the streets of London, an attempt to recover their lives and understand their experiences and options.  He also desired to make a point – that the members of London’s poor were able to hold their own, and more so, to influence the path of history.  Whether Hitchcock was successful or not remains to be seen.  He did show that Mary Cut-and-Come-Again maintained a sense of self-worth and independence, but her defiling of the justice system gained her only a date with the gallows.  The colorful method she used to show this defiance successfully illustrated her enormous self-worth.  Her public disrobing did not, however, suggest a successful strategy.  Most of the accounts were probably quite similar.  A literary history of the poor, Hitchcock created.  Whether that history compared in any way to another demographic or had an effect on the evolution of society as a whole was not so clear.

Another vexing comparison with con-artists of the modern day came from “a very singular man indeed,” Paul Patrick Kearney (131).  Hitchcock focused sharply on Kearney, who drained every last shilling that he could from the “murdering place” of a workhouse in St. Dionis Backchurch parish on Rose Lane (130).  After numerous hypochondriacal complaints of infirmity, disease, and parish corruption added to the numerous failed attempts at work and repeated extortions, he finally left.  While he drained the parish dry of funds for years, one final extortion of 40 shillings bought the parish’s freedom from Kearney.  Again, Hitchcock told that this was not unusual.  Indeed, almost everyone of adult age today has met someone like this.  It was just human nature at its worst.

Hitchcock told a colorful tale, but perhaps he did little more than this as far as historicity goes.  As a clump of popular, yet vulgar and ribald tales, his book reflected its origins as a mere collection, compiled typologically from numerous sources.  He successfully described London poor life in great detail, but lost his scholarly mantle in joyful populism.  His descriptions of prostitutes offering themselves in alleys, vagrants sleeping in obscure, dirty warmth, bunking in a watchhouse, or taking advantage of holiday compassion could be found anywhere.  Today, as then, these guys carry signs.  Beggars who offered work for charity on London streets seem rather familiar to anyone waiting at a stoplight in any urban area today.  Furthermore, Hitchcock’s assessment of Christmas begging as more prevalent in the eighteenth century than today seems rather arbitrary, as he was prone to be from time to time.

Hitchcock said it best, “a literary experiment that self-consciously plays with history as a genre” (233).  That phrase described this book perfectly.  Bold and daring, Hitchcock tried to mix text with context.  He experimented on the historical method itself.  Down and Out reads as wonderfully intriguing and occasionally shocking – tales of women showing themselves and beggars sleeping rough under the bulks.  Even the use of scripture to gain a handout, unlike the “truly pious” William McNamee, was not unusual among the world’s or today’s poor.  As a bold, new experiment, whether it demonstrates that the poor had any more significance in London than in any other town of the same time period remains to be seen.  The data required further analysis.  On the whole, Down and Out in Eighteenth-Century London was most entertaining.  Much value can and has been gained from Hitchcock’s book and from the project that spawned it.  Hopefully, more will come.

Am I Just Picking on the Confederacy?

Originally published in 2011 - in the Obama Era.

You tell me.. was I wrong?

Equal Rights

From  http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking.htm :

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) launched roughly fifty years later after the 19^th amendment was no so fortunate and was never ratified. Phyllis Schafly, leader of the opposition had a celebration of its defeat June 30, 1982 and Norma Russell for the Southern Partisan interviewed her the morning after. A question about the concentration of her support in the South is revealing, implicitly bringing up the issue of States’ Rights. Three reasons were given, one was that some of the southern state legislatures were not in session the year the ratification process started, giving her time to build up opposition in those states, and another reason was that southern states’ laws were held to privilege women, and the third states’ rights. 

PARTISAN: How do you account for the concentration of opposition to the ERA in the South?

SCHAFLY: There are several reasons for opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the South. …

The second reason for the opposition to ERA in the South is that Southerners recognized early the tremendous shift of power to the Federal Government that was involved in Section 11 of ERA. They did not want to give the Federal Government any more power. Now I think the rest of the states in the country feel that way too, but the Southern states recognized the danger sooner.

Well might Schafly appreciate the South, otherwise the ERA would have passed easily. Of the former states of the Confederacy and Oklahoma, 10 states rejected the ERA, a nearly Solid South of 84% opposition. Of the other 38 states, 33 ratified the ERA, a percentage of 87% in favor. However, for ratification ERA would need a total of 38 states. This meant that outside the South 36 states would be needed, a percentage of 94.7%. Unlike the 19^th amendment, the ERA didn’t get nearly 100% support outside the South, so it died.

 The 19^th amendment and women’s rights are just one example elaborated here. You could look at a map of states with Sodomy laws or right to work laws and see confederacies. 

 Does this map look similar to any other?

States in Blue ratified the ERA amendment... States in Red did not.

Unconstitutional Religious Tests for Office

 Rachel Maddow shows map about 2 minutes into this video about Cecil Bothwell in Asheville, NC

Article Six of the United States Constitution states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Seven southern states still ignore this...

Does this map look familiar too?

How about this one?

Red is the Southern Baptist Convention...  Most fundamentalist wackos branch off the Baptist denomination... including Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS with Pastor Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr.

 
Sexual Orientation Rights

No Protection in the South... surprising, huh? Not really...

Westboro Scrapbook:

Pastor Phelps leading his gay-bashers at the pulpit.  He has been so inspiring to many conservative leaders!  What's weird is, that his state of Kansas supposedly affords some rights to gays and lesbians.

Uh...

Another Uh...

There is no wondering why Markos Moulitsas Zúniga calls these guys (today's right-wingers) the American Taliban... Westboro Baptist Church says it themselves... "God is" THEIR "terrorist!"  

Death Penalty

Bible Belt Death

Source: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/death.htm 

Like almost everything else in Appalachian culture, the Bible plays a part in how many people think. Most people may not know it, but the Protestant version of the Christian religion is split over more things than just how to read the Bible. They can be split into two broad groups: 


(1) The death of Jesus on the Cross is a symbol of love by God who was willing to sacrifice His Son to show that love. His sacrifice was a symbol of love and forgiveness, and those were also the words of Jesus and what he stood for. These folks may/may not agree on issues such as abortion or homosexuality but are more "liberal" (I don't mean socialist) on many issues. Many of the best parts of our society , including civil rights, comes from this Christian tradition. These folks usually have a positive outlook on life. 


OR 


(2) Humans are by nature evil, wicked, born into sin and must be controlled at all times. They see God as an angry judge, ready to hand down swift punishment for the smallest infraction of His Laws. This is best symbolized by the Flood in Genesis or Sodom and Gomorra. Some of these folks may go as far as advocate the death penalty for abortion and homosexuality. Their version of God is utterly devoid of reason, love, or compassion in many cases. They simply follow "faith only" and ignore anything Jesus said as they prefer the Apostle Paul (Romans), Revelations, and the harshest sections of the Old Testament (BCBNOTE: you know... like the Taliban with the Quran). There is often an element of racism, social, and religious intolerance. Most view life as a struggle and have a negative outlook. 


... what disturbs me is most death row inmates are poor, non-white, or both. 

--------------------------------------------

Still ethnic cleansing are we?  Like we did in 1898 Wilmington?  It seems to be going well for the "Good ol' Boys" ...

Am I just being unfair?  

Actually, 35% of New Jersey conservatives believe that Barack Obama MIGHT be the... and get this... the ANTI-CHRIST!!

So, maybe it's more than just the former Confederate States today.  I'll bet they had some contribution, though!  Frank Schaffer (in the video above) calls them insane...he asks...
"How do we save Christianity from Christians?"

It seems like I'm not really being unfair to suppose that the harshest laws in our country come out of the Baptist-denominated South.  Looking just in the yellow pages of a rural town in Florida, I found 1 Catholic Church, 1 Episcopalian church, 2 Methodist, various others at 1 church each, and... 69 Baptist churches!  The South is overwhelmingly Baptist.  I was raised Baptist myself, so it's not like I'm swinging a bat at the guy next door.  Some of these churches, like my own growing up, I'd like to think, were relatively comfortable with everyone else.  Many of them, however, are extremists.  Sub-denominations like Pentecostal, Apostolic, and the like represent groups that more or less do not wish to grow into the future... in fact, they stay in the past and chant gibberish and fall on the floor when their preacher touches them.  Whereas, northern religious groups like the Amish clearly desire to stay in the past, they simply plow their fields, ride their buggies in town, and also keep to themselves.  Southern fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe not only that they should ignore reason and civilization, but also that they should proselytize and force everyone to believe the way they do.  In other words, they're intolerant and belligerent with "God's love" (Reference Westboro: how's that done again?).  And, they actively try to make this happen... to "win over souls."

Agreed, most of us regard the extreme ones as "wackos" and ignore them, but many of these groups (politically-minded bunch) opted for moderation to be more accepted by the general public and, for the most part, since the Civil War, they have.  The "Good ol' Boy" code developed out of this socio-political atmosphere.  The Ku Klux Klan, too.  The moderate, acceptable types went to Washington as our Congressmen.  They carried their ideology with them and infected the rest of the country.  Since the development of television, they have hit the air waves.  They "snuck" into the mainstream and, today, they are powerful enough that they don't need to be low-key anymore.  Their political affiliations grew to the point that they now influence presidents and Congress directly.  Ask George W. Bush about that "faith-based" thing...  Then there's the secretive, modern-day "Family" which puts on the National Prayer Breakfast, attended by American presidents since Eisenhour, and highly influential!  Did I mention that they allegedly helped promote Ugandan "kill-the-gays" legislation and maintain the infamous "C-street" residence in Washington where three members were recently caught in compromising sexual encounters (different cases... in a single year)?  George Rekers was one of the most recent anti-gay preachers who went on a trip with a personal masseuse that he hired from "rentboy.com"... to give him erotic massages!


This is not traditional Christian behavior.  It is "Christians on Cocaine" behavior... Kentucky-fried Trinity with a side-dish of $$$ and power... and a huge amount of hypocrisy!  This is why Jefferson said to keep a "wall of separation" between religion and government... because religion go in any political direction imaginable in any of a number of "visions" and can easily turn fundamentalist (like the Taliban or Falwell or the Family) and become dangerous... like they are today, as a matter of fact!  You've been paying attention, right?

A friend of mine proposed that the Union may have been better off without the South and should have avoided the Civil War and let them secede.  He says that the North would probably have suffered the loss of the lucrative exports from the South, but he also reminded me that the South depended on really just one product... cotton.  He suggests that this made the South's economy unstable anyhow.  Projecting the future, he believed that the South would have suffered numerous slave revolts, who decided to free themselves, and the South would have been slowly taken over by other nations, third-world countries, etc.  It might end up as a collection of petty dictatorships.  

That would suck, huh?  But, how would the North get along?  Might they have been better off?  They may actually have been higher in world literacy ratings, education, civil rights, fewer blacks and non-whites in jail or facing the death penalty (racism existed north of the Mason-Dixon, too, but not quite as fervently as in the south).  The Civil War hardened southerners who turned their religion into a political weapon and they continued the war... Reconstruction was a joke, ended by a back-room political compromise (probably the first Falwell-type deal), and racist Congressmen, like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III of Alabama, would make policy for us all.  Consequently, only 40% of Americans today believe in evolution, a proven biological phenomenon (yes, proven!), 35% of New Jersey residents believe that Barack Obama "might" be the Anti-Christ, the United States is 34th on a list of 35 countries that judged science vs superstition (we overwhelmingly opted for superstition).  Turkey is 35.

When does the Fundamentalist government of the new America decide to kill gay Americans like Uganda?  Or re-institute slavery to give those "poor, out of work African Americans jobs"?  Sound insane?  I assure you that I've heard this talk before. 

This is crazy.  But, this is what many of us believe.  So, am I being unfair to the Confederacy?  The Union took them back, allowed them back into Congress to affect national policy... not unlike a virus!  Fundamentalists use an EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE that goes against all truly American ideals... and it gets political.

Take Jerry Falwell, for example.  A Huffington Post article by Mike Papatonio tells how Falwell's corrupt fundamentalist legacy still affects politics at Liberty University.  The 2009 article starts off:

Two weeks ago, leadership at Liberty University in Virginia told young Democrats that they were no longer entitled to recognition as a sanctioned organization on campus. Only young Republicans are welcome there.

You can see in the picture at left who Jerry really worshiped.  Multiply Falwell by the number of crazy fundamentalist leaders out there and think about what effect this may have had on the politics of our nation.  When you read the article, Falwell seems highly corrupt and downright sleazy.   Ever wonder how pseudo-news shows like FOX got started or where they get their validation from?  

Evangelicals and the GOP is absolutely right!  They are one and the same.

Does anybody else see the patterns here?  Am I still being unfair to my ancestors?  It doesn't take long to find all of these clues.  But, most of us don't want to know.  Well, I do.  I don't want to carry on a tradition of idiocy and violence in the benevolent cloak of ministry.  

Keith Olberman, Jeff Sharlet, Chris Rodda, John Amato, etc have all written books about the fundamentalist influence on America.  One evangelical-turned-sane, Frank Schaeffer, explosively opposes these guys now, in his book, Crazy For God, seen in this photo: 

Please think about it!  I'd like to see the United States get better ranking in world literacy or in our ability to use and accept reason.  The only way that will happen is to de-influence evangelicals.  Let's finish the Civil War once and for all... it's over, guys!  Seriously, it's done!  Get on with life, now... open your eyes.  Christians like Frank Schaeffer want you to know this, too.  Let's change the maps of our nation to read as ONE America, with the wonderful diversity that a true "melting pot" of cultures can bring to it.  Don't watch crap like FOX (or FAUX-NEWS, lol).  Use sense and reason and don't give into superficiality.  American laziness is adored by the GOP and guys like Falwell and mouthpieces like FOX.  

Communism or the Taliban or Al Qaeda was never the real threat.  Read history, folks!  The real threat has always been here...  here, where fundamentalists spout off biblical scripture that suggest the assassination of our own president and offered up on Cafepress.com!  Zazzle.com recognized the free-speech rights, but said, responsibly, that this message was not acceptable and removed the products from their website.  Communism was actually pretty cool by comparison!  Keep the Taliban away, though... there's enough of them here already!  The rest of the world is frightened by our religious fundamentalism, like we are of Al Qaeda... only we have more money and nukes!  Think about it... nuclear weapons in the hands of illiterate nutjobs... I said, NUCLEAR WEAPONS... think Iran's a problem?  When will we decide that God needs us to use them?   

One more point... thanks to the bad press given lately to fundamental Baptists, the whole idea of denomination is disappearing from the religious right.  Make no mistake, though.  Fundamentalists are no less fundamental just because they say they are non-denominational.  It just makes it harder to tell who the nutjobs are.  You can recognize these churches by the military-compound look to their gigantic, multi-million-dollar grounds, some with guard gates!  You have to consider where the money came from to build these places... what corporations do they owe their souls to?  The nicest and friendliest church that I've ever been to was a simple, one-room church in a small town with unassuming patient people (like they were before 1860... minus slavery).  They are out there... you have to look.  Even in the old Confederacy!  Otherwise, ask Frank Schaeffer...

I'm not really being unfair...