A perspective on how our Society was Built, Topics on Power in America

By Darrel Nash

The challenge for all of us is to escape from what we WANT TO BE TRUE and let our hearts and minds discover what IS TRUE.

 

History should not be about making us feel good or patriotic. History is

• Language: English
• Publisher: West Point Print and Media LLC
• Release date: Aug 5, 2021
• ISBN: 9781956001181

Darrel Nash

Dr. Darrel Nash grew up on a farm near Del Norte. Although he and several of his siblings left the Valley after high school, each one has kept close contact. His career was with the federal government; he is now retired and lives in Bowie MD, near Washington DC.

Book preview

cover.jpg

ISBN 978-1-956001-17-4 (paperback)

ISBN 978-1-956001-18-1 (eBook)

Copyright © 2021 by Darrel A Nash

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

Books by Darrel Nash

Book I: A Perspective on How Our Government Was Built and Some Needed Changes

Book II: A Perspective on How Our Society Was Built, Topics on Power in America

Some History and Reminiscences of The San Luis Valley Colorado, The United States in Microcosm

Contents

Acknowledgements

Opening Salvo

Chapter I. In the Beginning

Chapter II. The War is On—Now What?

Chapter III. Racism in America

Chapter IV. American Oligarchy

Chapter V. The Federalist Society

Chapter VI. Covid-19

Epilogue

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the ministers I have had over the years who have pushed me to go deeper into my life and examine what should be kept, what should be added, and what should be cast overboard.

A special note of gratitude is given to my friends—persons of color—many of whom are named in Topic III. These people provide me with insights and perspective into the lives of Black and Brown people over the centuries of European and African residence in America.

Opening Salvo

The challenge for all of us is to escape from what we WANT TO BE TRUE and let our hearts and minds discover what IS TRUE.

History should not be about making us feel good or patriotic. History is what happened, recorded or not. If we want to understand what happened or say that we know our country’s history, we must see it as it is—all of it—not how we want it to be. If we choose to ignore or can’t handle the things we are not proud of, we are saying that we are weak or fragile and can’t take the truth—that we can only handle good history. This is contrary to the popular story that we are strong and powerful.

To follow political discussions and actions, a very useful first step is to understand the different kinds of information that we use to understand the world and each other as we go about living today, this week, and really always. Or we can say, how do we discover the truth?

One kind of information is statements that perhaps many people agree with, but can never be proven nor disproven no matter how much we study and analyze the statement. A prime example is: we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.

Here is another: … the public good, the real welfare of the great body, is the supreme object to be pursued, and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this objective. James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45.

A second kind of information and this one can be found to be true by experimentation; every time the experiment is done, the result is the same. Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level, and perhaps a few other conditions such as it has to be pure water, etc. We can always rely on this fact. We use a lot of such information in our daily lives. Even here, however, scientists tell us that when you get to the nano level, things don’t behave the way they do in our everyday world.

There is a third kind of information, really a qualification on the one above. It is knowledge gained by scientific research. The example of water boiling at a certain temperature is quite rare. The vast majority of scientific research yields only tentative results. We use these results as the best available, knowing that future research may disclose something else. For example, according to nearly all scientific information, all of the original residents of the Americas came from Asia. We are currently pretty sure this is true, but new scientific discoveries often surprise us.

But even to get to these tentative results requires strict adherence to rules of scientific research. First of all, the researcher cannot go into a study with a pre-conceived notion, or more importantly, a preferred outcome. Right away, this invalidates any conclusions from the study. The purpose of the result must be to find truth. If the purpose is to find confirmation for a belief the researcher already has, the results cannot be reliable and can be truly damaging. As we shall see in the body of this book, many persons in positions of power say that their conclusions come from science. But if the person has violated the requirements of scientific research, it is not science.

To be dependable, the results of scientific research have to be repeatable by other totally independent researchers. There are other requirements such as how to select the subjects you are studying—a human group or wheat seeds to use two very different examples. There are requirements for sample size depending on the nature of the research. And the sample must be randomly selected from the population.

One further imperative—there is in scientific research the concept called, other things being equal. This means for example, if you want to find out how different sources of water affect plant growth, you must use the same kind of plant for each experiment. In the real world of research, things are more complicated, but the rule still applies. In the following Topics you will read of researchers concluding things about the races in America without taking into account that there are multiple reasons why one group may have different health or academic achievements. The only valid way to make such comparisons is to be sure that all other factors have been accounted for.

This would mean for example, that if you wanted to find out if a disease was more prevalent in one group of people than another, the study must be made on persons in one group having at least the same income, education, housing, kinds of jobs, marital status, the same physical environment, etc. as the other. If this is not done, then conclusions can’t be made as to whether the result is due to some characteristic of the group per se, or whether it is due to one of more other factors in the group’s environment. Examples are studies finding that persons of African heritage or Indigenous people are more prone to a disease than persons primarily of European heritage. Unless all other conditions are the same, except for heritage, no conclusions can be drawn.

From all this, you may get the idea that it is very challenging to correctly make strong conclusions from scientific studies and therefore, one must be cautious in accepting the findings. And that is true. But as is often the case, we must make decisions based on incomplete and tentative scientific findings.

In modern times wisdom often contrasts faith with science. But without faith there can be no accurate science. The scientist seeking to find facts from her/his research must have faith that if the scientific method is used that the research or experiments will lead to the correct result. The scientist without this faith will go into the experiment with pre-conceptions and do things to make sure the result is the one he/she expects or wants.* *I am indebted to Rev. Kathleen Rolenz for this insight.

This description becomes very important for understanding racism—particularly in the US. During slavery, but more aggressively after the Civil War, so-called scientific studies were done with the objective to show the inferiority of African Americans. (Remember, valid research does not start with the goal of getting the answer you want.) Here are some findings from scientific research. Skull shapes and sizes were compared with white people to show the intellectual and moral inferiority of African Americans. Feet and hand sizes were compared. The shape of the nose and hair texture were all found to show the inferiority of Blacks. The Bible was studied to make conclusions that Blacks were inferior in the sight of God. Or that only white people were created in the Garden of Eden, other races come later. Blacks were found to have certain diseases that whites didn’t have, including a running away disease.* For a much fuller treatment of this issue, see Stony the Road, by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

This categorization of kinds of information is needed to make our way through the mostly political discussions of this book.

The first category does not come from research—it comes from inside us. I call it our internal or moral compass. If we believe Jefferson’s words in our heart and soul, then, our actions and advocacy result from this compass. If our internal compass points us in a different direction, then our actions and advocacy will follow where that points. [It is obvious from where our society is now, that many persons in positions of power, and many others in our society, do not believe that all persons are created equal.] Another term for this compass is touchstone or point of reference. If such a statement is your point of reference, you refer back to it when making decisions, both personal and if you are a representative for a group, as the group’s point of reference.

In studying for this book, I have discerned other compass points. Here are some.

only certain persons have the qualities it takes to make decisions for our government, or more generally for our society. This view is embodied in the text of our Constitution.

the purpose of the US is to protect free enterprise where those engaged could amass wealth get rich without interference from government, indeed that government exists to enable them to do so. This is not contained in the Constitution, but several founders expressed this, and we know that most were engaged in gaining wealth.

government exists to promote my religious, moral, and social beliefs. This has a prominent history in the US. Some examples are that 1) many states had laws prohibiting non-Christians from making political decisions; this is prohibited by the Constitution, but the sentiment is often heard today, 2) Sunday blue laws, which enforced adhering to beliefs of some Christian groups, 3) states prohibiting the use of contraceptives, 4) prohibition of marriage between races, 5) prohibition of same-sex relations and same-sex marriage, 6) prohibition of marriages that are not monogamous, and of course, 7) anti-abortion laws.

These compasses have the same quality as expressed by the all men are created equal statement. They are not beliefs that can be proven or disproven by study and analysis. They are the bases for those with these as compass points to advocate for and against issues.

As we shall see, over our 250 or so year history, there are various internal compasses that have been and are used to work toward self-government in the US. I will attempt to identify the points of reference used when the various positions are advocated or acted upon. See if you agree.

In my view, based on the readings and sources for this book and by observing political arguments today, the first compass point, that of all persons are created equal, has been definitely the minority position for most of our history. The others have dominated our history. Brief periods saw the first one—Reconstruction after the Civil War, and during the 1930s and the part of the 1960s and 1970s when we experienced the civil rights and abortion rights court decisions and federal legislation.

Chief Justice Roberts in his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court famously said something like, the job of a justice is to call balls and strikes, not to interpret the law. I don’t know what the follow-up question was, if any, but a good question could have been, "describe for us your ‘strike zone.’ Which of these centering positions do you use to establish your ‘strike zone?’

So, there are things we can do that will more likely lead us to a measure of truth. But we are all too familiar with how to obfuscate the truth. Here are some ways:

One is to so often repeat lies that many people consider them to be true. A lot of social media and TV use this. Sadly, this is now prominent from politicians.

Another is to tell part of the story only. Leave out the rest and so only the part told becomes the whole truth. This is what is done with our popular history.

Match things that don’t match in order to convince others of some truth. Another way of saying this is making false analogies. For example, why should I be required to wear a mask when we let illegal immigrants into the US? Or another: Using the National Guard to enforce school integration is another case of Mother Welfare taking away our rights.

Use emotional language to hurt a person or political position. Accusing someone of being a socialist is a time-honored way of shooting down a government program you don’t like, for example, funds for Head Start. Here are some others: Tyranny is hurled at those requiring face masks to prevent spreading Covid-19; Destroying the Constitution if you are opposed to prohibiting carrying guns in schools; Destroying our values if a government law or order allows all persons to live in our community; Taking away Christmas if this means showing respect for other religious beliefs; Soft on crime if you believe that a person that has completed prison sentence should have his/her civil rights restored; Murder if this mean allowing pregnant rape victims to choose an abortion; Deep State to describe the competent and dedicated federal bureaucracy; and, Fake News and Lame Stream News to describe national and world renowned newspapers.

There may or may not be reasons why any of these positions should not be supported or that institutions make mistakes—the challenge is to debate the issues with respect and with the intent of reaching conclusions that enhance society.

Finally, beware of arguments using natural law as the basis. What is this? It’s right up there with the divine right of kings. These arguments were used during the Renaissance in the battle of ideas. Require the advocate to base what they are saying on evidence.

How Can the Press Best Serve a Democratic Society?

In the nineteen-forties, a panel of scholars struggled over truth in reporting, the marketplace of ideas, and the maintenance of a free and responsible press. Their deliberations are more relevant than ever.

By Michael Luo

July 11, 2020

In 1920, Walter Lippmann, one of the founding editors of The New Republic, and Charles Merz, an editor at the New York World, published an exhaustive examination of the Times’ coverage of three years of the Russian revolution. They found that the paper had been overly credulous of the accounts of the State Department, the Russian Embassy, and others, publishing profoundly misleading stories on a subject of vast geopolitical importance. In the large, the news about Russia is a case of seeing not what was, but what men wished to see, Lippmann and Merz write. "Human beings are poor witnesses, easily thrown off the scent, easily misled by a personal bias, profoundly influenced by their social environment."

The solution Lippmann proposed was journalistic objectivity: a reimagination of journalism as a kind of scientific inquiry, subject to the disciplines of testing and verification. In his book "Liberty and the News, Lippman argues that good reporting must be based on the exercise of the highest scientific virtues; the best reporters are not slick persons who scoop the news, but the patient and fearless men of science who have labored to see what the world really is. To Lippmann, who would become the most influential champion of journalistic objectivity, it was a matter of ascribing no more credibility to a statement than it warrants and maintaining an understanding of the quantitative importance of particular facts."

Topic I

In the Beginning

I am posing the following question right at the beginning for the White reader to think about. Why do we think that someone with a darker skin and different hair than ours is inferior? It is so ingrained in our brains that we just assume it’s true. Why?

At the beginning of the Renaissance, a plague began spreading over Europe. No, I’m not talking about the black plague, this one spread among the merchants, explorers, kings, dukes, princes and other royals as well as the Pope and archbishops and bishops and elders in the Protestant churches. It was codified by the Pope in 1451 as a Papal Bull—a proclamation. This said that non-Christians had no rights to personal freedom nor any claim to land or resources. Targeting non-Christians was just a cover for the real intent—to deprive non-Europeans of their basic human rights.

This plague is still with us today. It is called racism. The most prominent effect is the exploitation of Africans and persons of African descent, as well as the Indigenous people of America.* Its cousin, classism, was also imported from Europe and was prominent in the building of our society. These have deprived untold millions of their opportunities to use and express their talents, brilliance, and dedication.

And this is why we need to know history. We see this plague in schools failing to teach black and brown children, in prisons with high proportions of black and brown populations compared to their numbers in our society, in appalling housing conditions for those on the lower economic margins, where any black person can be arrested for simply driving or walking down the street. Black and brown people working as guards, drivers, janitors, trash haulers, etc. etc. instead of professional careers where they might have worked had not racism and classism prevented them from doing so. Of course, there are also areas of white poverty.

*In recent decades, some have considered what name to give the people living in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans, rather than the name Columbus gave them—indios, (Indians). In considering these names, I have chosen Indigenous people as a way that I think recognizes their being here first and also that they were (are) people whom we recognize as having worth and dignity the same as everyone else. The original residents of the Americas did not have any collective name for themselves—the dominant form of identity was with extended families and language connections. I recognize that whatever name we give to these people it has been first chosen by the dominant white culture.

The mixing of populations

Settlement of what was to become the United States brought together a mix of people from widely separated parts of the world. This is the story of how these populations interacted—and who would come out on top.

The history we are taught in schools and in popular literature includes all these groups, but is woefully lacking in telling the accurate story. We know that the settlers from England and Holland encountered the Indigenous People in the northeast. And we are becoming more aware that Africans were brought here as slaves—captives shipped here to work on farms and other enterprises and received no wages or other compensation. (Owners provided enough food and shelter so that the captives could do the work for which they were purchased.)

In broad outline, there were three cultures—European, African, and the Indigenous people of the Americas. The essential of these three cultures was—and is—this. European culture was one of conquest. Climb the mountain, conquer the enemy, and occupy the land. It also revived the Greek philosophy of learning and research. The Indigenous and the African cultures emphasized living in, rather than conquering, the environment, contemplating the mountain—worshipping certain mountains and physical features of the land, listening to the wind, the animals, and ancestors. Knowledge and values are passed down by story-telling* (unwritten) from generation to generation. I am indebted to Rev. John T. Crestwell for this insight.

*In African cultures, these were called griots. Although the understanding of the griot differed by cultures, he or she was generally looked upon as the repository of the group’s history and tradition. In some societies, the griot was believed to have spiritual powers not possessed by others of the society. [More information can be found on Wikipedia.]

A griot (/ˈɡriːoʊ/; French: [ɡʁi.o]), jali, or jeli (djeli or djéli in French spelling) is a West African historian, storyteller, praise singer, poet, or musician. The griot is a repository of oral tradition and is often seen as a leader due to his or her position as an advisor to royal personages. As a result of the former of these two functions, they are sometimes called a bard.

The challenge for us today is to accommodate to these multiple philosophies of life so that we can live together in the American culture.

The European settlers also brought with them the concept that the Indigenous people essentially had no right to their land—their farms, hunting and fishing areas, etc. As noted above, even though most of the settlers were not of the Catholic faith, the justification for depriving Indigenous people of their possessions was based on a Papal Bull—a proclamation—called the Doctrine of Discovery first issued in 1451 by Pope Nicholas V. This proclamation … specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian territories and peoples. Later, the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), besides dividing the globe equally between Spain and Portugal, clarified that only non-Christian lands fell under the discovery doctrine. This Doctrine has the distinct appearance of the church justifying what the explorers and conquerors were already doing. Here is why this is the likely sequence.

To explore this supposition, look for information on Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal. A very brief account shows that his first explorations outside of Portugal started around 1415 for the purpose of finding a way to intercept the gold and spice trade from east Africa to what we now call North Africa for the profit of Portugal. In the process of discovery, his ships were blown off course leading to the discovery of Madeira and the Azores. These were then claimed by Portugal (without asking the inhabitants). The development of larger ships enabled the explorers to go farther south along the Atlantic coast of Africa. By 1448, the Portuguese had passed the southern boundary of the Sahara Desert, going around the Muslim land-based trade routes from across the desert. Slaves* and gold began arriving in Portugal. This new trade system cut off and devastated Algiers and Tunis. *Note that already, Europeans viewed the Africans south of the Sahara as a people to enslave.

All European settlers and conquerors found the Doctrine of Discovery a convenient justification—if indeed they believed they needed one—for moving onto lands already occupied by Indigenous people; and for capturing Africans to be shipped to America for slavery. "In 1792, U.S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of Discovery would extend from Europe to the infant US government. The Doctrine and its legacy continue to influence American imperialism and treatment of indigenous peoples." From Wikipedia. To this day the US Government has not revoked the Doctrine of Discovery.

As Dunbar-Ortiz teaches us, we must look beyond the common narrative of our country’s founding. This narrative is wrong—not so much on the facts and dates but that it gives us the wrong understanding. I might add and by what is left out. From the Indigenous people’s perspective, the Europeans from their first arrival were engaged in conquering and destroying the lives and societies of those that were already here. Dunbar-Ortiz, p. 2.

There is plenty of evidence that this is true. It is not that we today are prevented from learning this part of our past, it is because we willfully ignore it. Our celebration of Thanksgiving Day is a prime example of this. Our kids are taught that the Indigenous people (Indians) and the Pilgrims had developed a friendship and that the Indigenous people brought food from their farms and from hunting to the Pilgrims for a joint thanksgiving celebration.

This is true as far as it goes. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of the event. The fuller story is that Indigenous groups were already being challenged for their traditional lands by newly arriving Europeans. Alliances were being formed among the Indigenous groups to either ally with or battle the Europeans. Disease brought here by the European fishermen (before arrival of the Pilgrims) had decimated at least one group of Indigenous people, the Patuxent. A member of the Patuxent group, Squanto (or Tisquantum) was a central figure in negotiations with the Pilgrims and among various other Indigenous groups working and fighting to keep what they had. Groups hoping to ally with the Pilgrims brought food from their farms and successes from hunting as a way of cementing this alliance.

There are many accounts and historical research sources surrounding how this, first Thanksgiving happened. On Wikipedia, by typing in Squanto, we find over 450 sources for this part of our history. It is only by our own choice that we ignore this history and stick with the story we tell our kids.

For a much more complete history of the settlement and interactions among the groups brought together here, go to Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.

Captive Africans

It is obvious that well before the European settlers arrived in North America the only way imagined of treating Africans was to enslave them. The recent celebration of 400 years after the arrival of the first Africans in North America, records that dozens of Africans were captured from a Portuguese slaving ship by British privateers and taken to Hampton Virginia where they were sold into slavery.

In general slavers would try to take the younger people, including children, women and males they would get the most money for. That is a chilling aspect of the