Showing posts with label bad history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad history. Show all posts

Sunday, February 17, 2013

The worst possible example


The Washington pundit class is in love with the idea of bipartisanship and compromise for their own sake. That is, they don't really care what actual laws are passed or policies adopted as long as they represent bipartisanship. If you were going to argue for this, you would probably look for good examples from the past of both sides giving a little to move forward on an important issue. But, what if you were looking for a bad example? What if you wanted an example of compromise that brought shame on the American form of government? What would be your choice as the worst possible example of compromise and bipartisanship in American history? It might be this one:
One instance of constitutional compromise was the agreement to count three-fifths of the slave population for purposes of state representation in Congress. Southern delegates wanted to count the whole slave population, which would have given the South greater influence over national policy. Northern delegates argued that slaves should not be counted at all, because they had no vote. As the price for achieving the ultimate aim of the Constitution—"to form a more perfect union"—the two sides compromised on this immediate issue of how to count slaves in the new nation. Pragmatic half-victories kept in view the higher aspiration of drawing the country more closely together. 
Some might suggest that the constitutional compromise reached for the lowest common denominator—for the barest minimum value on which both sides could agree. I rather think something different happened. Both sides found a way to temper ideology and continue working toward the highest aspiration they both shared—the aspiration to form a more perfect union. They set their sights higher, not lower, in order to identify their common goal and keep moving toward it.
James Wagner, the President of Emory University in Atlanta, wrote those words in an editorial entitled "As American as … Compromise" for the university's alumni magazine. I'm not sure when the winter issue of Emory Magazine began hitting people's mailboxes, it could have been months ago because no one ever reads these Letter from the President columns. But it began getting attention yesterday, including attention from the Black Student Alliance.

For those who aren't sure what he's talking about, this is what is usually called the "Three-Fifths Compromise" in the US Constitution. The Constitution requires the federal government to take a census every ten years and to use the census numbers to apportion seats in the House of Representatives. Each state is told how many seats they get and the states draw their own congressional districts according to their own processes. That sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? Well it wasn't. The Southern states had, within their boundaries, a huge number of people who were not allowed to vote, who weren't really citizens, African slaves. The Northern states had a much larger population of real citizens than the South. The Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention assumed that the main divisions in the new congress would be regional and wanted more power for their region. They demanded that slaves be counted in the apportioning of House seats, giving them more power in Congress and in the Electoral College. Northern delegated argued that the apportioning of House seats should reflect the number of voters in each state. Eventually, a compromise was reached allowing the Southern states to claim three-fifths of the number of slaves in each state for the purpose of apportioning of House seats. Wagner was holding up one of the most shameful examples of compromise in American history as a shining example of doing things right.

There is one popular misconception about the "Three-Fifths Compromise" and that is that it implied that African slaves were three-fifths of a person. This is often brought up as a grave injustice against the ancestors of African-Americans. That would have been an improvement of their lot or, at least, a concession that they were entitled to a certain amount of human dignity. Prior to the Civil War, slaves were not people at all; they were property; they were zero-fifths of a person. The only concessions that African slaves were even marginally human was their forced conversion to Christianity and the fact that laws were eventually passed making it illegal to kill a slave without first conducting a sham trial.

I imagine that when President Wagner arrives in his office Tuesday morning he will find several unpleasant message waiting for him including requests for interviews from local and even national media. Someone from the University's press office is probably already spoiling his three-day weekend. What will happen next is that he will issue a standard non-apology apology. He's sorry IF anyone took offense. He won't admit he was wrong to say it; he's just sorry he created a shit-storm. He'll call it a "misstatement," meaning his argument is valid, he just chose a bad example.

So, what was his point? It's hard to tell because, even without that horrifying example, its a really badly written column. He starts out saying some "distinguished public servant," speaking on a forum last Fall, mentioned political polarization, the Constitution, and compromise. He them pulls out the three-fifth compromise as a shining example that we should try to emulate. Then he mentions the fiscal debate. He's halfway through the column now. This, he says is just like trying to consider different view points in a university. Then something about teaching liberal arts classes at a research university. Maybe he's arguing for creationism in the biology classes. It's impossible to tell what compromise he's talking about.

I cannot imagine anyone defending this mess except those who think every word in the constitution was dictated by God and white supremacists (just to be clear, I'm not saying the two are the same). In any case, It's not going to be fun to be James Wagner for the next week or so. He'll be lucky to get out of this with his job.

Update: And he's already issued the non-apology apology: " Certainly, I do not consider slavery anything but heinous, repulsive, repugnant, and inhuman. I should have stated that fact clearly in my essay. I am sorry for the hurt caused by not communicating more clearly my own beliefs. To those hurt or confused by my clumsiness and insensitivity, please forgive me."

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

I, mini-Snopes

In all the time I've been blogging, I've often checked out where people come from when they visit archy, but I've never looked their entrance page. That's the one  that tells me what they were looking for. About two weeks ago I started doing that and was amazed to see that most people were coming to look at an old Snopes-style debunking posts I'd written. Because there is a real Snopes out there, it had never occurred to me that my debunking had anymore value than just me blowing off steam. It just drives me crazy that people I know and like get taken in by chain letter like things on Facebook. The specific one that has been getting the most attention is this one playing on resentment towards the supposed cornucopia of benefits that undocumented immigrants get for coming to America.

When I mentioned this on Facebook, I suggested maybe I should open my own mini-Snopes. A couple friends said maybe I should. Thinking about it, I wish I could. The post I'm working on right now is a perfect example of the problem with this sort of rumor-mongering. There is an anti-gun control piece spreading across the internet today. A very little bit of research (really, less than a minute) revealed that it's BS. By the time I started looking into it, the lie had been picked up by two very big right wing sites. From there over 6000 blogs, fora, and what-have-yous had picked it up and were spreading it. Those who were brave enough to leave the right wing bubble were using it to troll left wing and moderate sites.

After hours of research and writing, I'll put my debunking up on my blog. I will. But, about seventy-five people a day visit my blog. I have no idea how many actually look at my front page or just determine that I have no nude pictures of Ann Coulter and move on. If people Google around trying to find out if something like this is true, where will my little blog rank on the six hundred pages of results? If Snopes picks it up--they might or they might not--they'll rank several hundred pages above me. I wish there were hundreds of mini-Snopses out there, even if they are just people who copy/paste our debunkings into fora after the right wing bubble children copy/paste their unsubstantiated propaganda there.

Moving back a couple paragraphs, for me, what is the cost-benefit analysis for doing this? On the plus side: 1) it allows me to blow off steam when I see my friends being manipulated, 2) I might educate them, and 3) they might be a little less credulous in the future. Okay, I put that last one in there for humorous purposes; no one escapes their bubble. Which leads us to 4) I'm funnier than Scopes. That helps.

On the minus side: 1) comprehensively researching these things takes a lot of time. Look at my debunking of the 90-foot plum tree. This is something I've been pondering for years. I own many of the sources I needed to research it. I spent well over a week writing that piece, off and on with my serious writing. For each of these Scopes things, I need to bring myself up to speed in a new field, track down the origin of the rumor, compose and write a response. And, it's best if I do it in a couple of news cycles. 2) There is more to number 1), but we needed a break here. Okay; are we all rested up? Good. 3) We were talking about how long this takes. Writing one of these things within news cycle time can take all of my time for a full day. For reasons I have mentioned before, I have very little free time. I must finish the book. Short breaks to write these things is good for clearing my mind for more mammoth writing; longer breaks fall into the minus side of the cost-benefit analysis.

So, four small things for, and one very, very large thing against. The objections really come down to two: 1) no one will notice (lots of linky-love will help there (PZ, I'm looking at you)) and 2) Time is money and I can't afford either. Is it worth trying to monetize such a small blog? The mighty and majestic Bora Zivkovic seems to think it is. I've always been shy of this because getting a 33 cent check each month would just be an insult I don't need to invite. However, if I had some money coming in from the blog, it might justify the time spent giving the rubes what they want (that's a literary reference and not an insult. Okay?).

Apropos of nothing, I wonder if blogging has hurt the business of talk therapists. Read the debunking I linked to. Read the one I'll probably finish tomorrow (depending on your timezone). Now that the comments are working again, give me your advice. Or just anonymously send me your money. I'm sure we can make that work.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Tell it to Mexico, Dave

The Religious Right's favorite mock historian, David Barton, went on the radio show WallBuildersLive to day to demonstrate that conservatives can do comedy. At least that's the only explanation I can think of for this.
One of the things we often see with other militaries is they rule by intimidation, by threats, by terrorism really, they want to scare the dickens out of the enemy and America didn’t do that.

That's true as long as you don't count the neo-con years of this century, the gunboat diplomacy years of the last century, or the "with us or against us" treatment of small countries during the Cold War.
From the very beginning when George Washington set this thing up he said, "ok we’re having chaplains with everybody and here’s the only kind of war you can fight is you can fight defensive wars not offensive wars, you have to respect the rights of property, you can fight back when attacked," so we have a whole different mentality, we’ve never been a colonialist nation, we’ve never gone out to conquer others and make ourselves bigger, we’ve just never had that mentality.

Maybe you should look up the phrase "Manifest Destiny." After that, ask the Mexicans how they feel about our lack of expansionism. Or the Sioux. Or the Cherokee, Or the Seminoles, Apache, Lenape, Yakimas, Utes, Shoshone, Nez Pierce, Hawaiians, Navajos, Chickamaugas, Creeks, Spanish, Cheyenne, Nisquallys, Phillipinos, Modocs...
That’s exactly what made America so different, we don’t have that colonial aspect of let’s go conquer somebody else and make our nation bigger and that’s because of the faith element.

Christians never try to expand the faith by force of arms? Go ask the... Oh hell, what's the use?

Friday, October 01, 2010

What the hell is Glenn Beck talking about?

Really, what?
I would like to propose that the president is exactly right when he said, "slaves sitting around the campfire didn't know when slavery was going to end but they knew it was would and it took a long time to end slavery." Yes it did. But it took a long time to start slavery and it started small and it started with seemingly innocent ideas. And then a little court order here and a court order there and a little more regulation here and a little more regulation there and before we knew it, America had slavery. It didn't come over in a ship to begin with as an evil slave trade. The government began to regulate things because the people need answers, they needed solutions. It started in a courtroom, then it went to the legislatures. That's how slavery began. And it took a long time to enslave an entire race of people and convince another race of people that they were somehow or another less than them and be done.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Rand Paul fails history

While making the "we're slipping into tyrrany" claims so beloved of tea partiers, Rand Paul offered this bit of historical wisdom:
In 1923, when they destroyed the currency, they elected Hitler. And so they elected somebody who vilified one group of people, but he promised them, "I will give you security if you give me your liberty," and they voted him in.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of the interwar years knows that Hitler was elected chancellor in 1933, not 1923. The Thousand Year Reich lasted twelve years, not twenty-two.

The famous Weimar hyperinflation began in mid 1922, accelerated at the beginning of 1923, and lasted all year. In November of that year, the government introduced a new currency, the Rentenmark, at a value pegged to the pre-war price of gold. Initially, Reichsmarks could be exchanged for Rentenmarks at a rate of one billon to one. Even though the Rentenmark held stable, the conversion took some months to complete during which the Reichsmark continued to loose value. The hyperinflation was over by late 1924, over eight years before Hitler was appointed chancellor.

What was Hitler doing during this time? Hitler was a relative unknown during most of 1923. Though rapidly expanding, both in numbers and new chapters around the country, the Nazi Party was still a fairly small, mostly bavarian affair. In November, Hitler led an attempted coup against the government--usually called the Beerhall Putsch. It was a pathetic failure. Hitler was arrested, tried for treason and thrown in jail. The Nazi Party was temporarily banned.

In 1932, Hitler ran for President and was trounced by Paul von Hindenburg. When he came to power the following year, it was not because the German people voted for him personally; it was because they gave his party enough seats in parliament that Hindenburg allowed him to form a government--and only after the other parties had failed to form a stable coalition. During the elections of 1932, Hitler and the Nazis made many campaign promises; a vague law and order plank being only one part of their platform. The rest of Hilter's rise to dictatorship was achieved through deals with Pres. Hindenburg and with the other parliamentary parties, and not by a vote of the general electorate.

I'll leave it to someone else to examine Paul's conspiratorial hints that there was some sinster "they" who destroyed the German currency.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Headline writer gets "D" in history

The author of the press release didn't write this headline and the author of the study most certainly did not. This goof-up falls on the head of a junior editor who needs to stay after school for some remedial history lessons.
Did ancient coffee houses lay the groundwork for modern consumerism?

If you think that your favorite coffee shop is a great gathering place for discussion, you should have been around in the Ottoman Empire starting in the 1550s. A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research examines the role of coffee houses in the evolution of the consumer.

Authors Eminegül Karababa (University of Exeter, Exeter, UK) and Güliz Ger (Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey) dug wide and deep into the history of coffeehouses in the early modern Ottoman Empire and found they offered their patrons a lot more than coffee. [My italics]

The sixteenth century is not ancient, it isn't even medieval. In Europe, that century is called the Renaissance and, even though they did not share in the Renaissance, it's not ancient in the Islamic world either. If the headline writer had actually read the press release, he (she/it?) would have seen the phrase "eary modern" used twice and found out that the title of the articl that the press release announced is "Early Modern Ottoman Coffeehouse Culture and the Formation of the Consumer Subject." So, call your mom, kid; you'll be missing the bus for some private tutoring today.

PS The article itself sounds pretty interesting.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Bad history about Finland

Stupid never sleeps. Therefore, we must remain ever vigilant and never let down our guard. For if we do, stupid will slip into our world, unrecognized and unmocked. Sadly, I let my guard down last May (I think I was taking a nap that day) and the stupid escaped from its box. Luckily, Sadly, No! noticed something on Media Culpa that resurrected the stupid from the pages in MacLean's magazine. First some background.

The town of Tampere, Finland has a small museum dedicated to the life of Lenin (not Lennon, the Beatle, Lenin, the Commie). Lenin has a few connections with Tampere and Finland in general. During the failed 1905 revolution, Lenin stopped in Tampere on his way to Russia. In those days, Finland was ruled by the Russian tsar, but not considered part of Russia proper. He was met there by a group of Russian Communists, including Stalin. It was their first meeting and Lenin wasn't especially impressed. During the next revolution, March 1917, Lenin again passed through Tampere on his way to Russia. Once again that whole revolution thing didn't work out so well and Lenin returned to Finland, wearing a devilishly clever disguise, and hid out for a couple of weeks. The third time Lenin returned to Russia for a revolution, October 1917, it was a roaring success. Three weeks later, Lenin recognized Finland's independence from Russia. That's about it for Lenin's connections to Finland and Tampere.


Lenin's disguise, clean shaven and a wig

What brought the Lenin Museum to the attention of Susan Mohammad, the Maclean's reporter, was a minor brouhaha over public funding for the museum. Some local conservative political groups, who didn't like the results of Lenin's last revolution, want to make the museum an anti-Lenin museum and rename it the "Museum of the Victims of Totalitarianism." By "totalitarianism" they only mean Lenin's kind and not the kinds practiced by Hitler, Franco, various Latin American Caudillos, Ayatollah Khomeini, or the Plymouth Colony. In an attempt to demonstrate why some Finns would think Lenin was a bad man, Mohammad wrote the following sentence:
[A]bout 10 million Finns died under Lenin, almost half due to starvation.

Lenin ruled Finland for a little over three weeks in 1917, which is not enough time for most people to starve to death unless they're locked up indoors. The population of Finland during those three weeks was around three million, a number that is considerably smaller than ten million (but you already knew that). The collectivization famine, engineered by Stalin, five years after Lenin's death, did kill up to ten million people in Ukraine and South Russia. The only resemblance between that atrocity and what Susan Mohammad claims is that it both involved foreign people and both were the fault of a half Russian guy whose nickname ended in -in.

Despite having Mohammed's fantasy pointed out to them, the MacLean's editors have never issued a correction. The Finns had a good laugh over the article. One paper asked the questions "how [could] Lenin have pulled off the feat of exterminating us three times over, and ... who is living here now?" We should join in the fun, because it's never too late to point and laugh at stupid.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Reeding comprenshun not so gud

At today's conservative "Code Red" rally against the health care bill, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) rallied the faithful with a fun historical and literacy (sic) reference: "It's the charge of the light brigade!"

Someone should let the good congresswoman know that the Light Brigade was chopped to pieces in that charge. The battle took place on 25 October 1854, during the Crimean War. After receiving confused orders, a brigade of British cavalry charged up a short valley directly into the guns of a Russian artillery battery. When they reached the end of the valley, the light brigade realized no one was backing up their advance. They then turned and retreated back down the valley while Russian artillery pounded them from three sides. It was pointless action that cost the brigade almost forty percent of its men and two thirds of its horses. I'm not sure what part Bachmann sees for herself and the teabaggers in that historical image, but I think we can safely assume they aren't the Russians and the Russians were the winners of that particular engagement.

Friday, November 27, 2009

Bad history - Christian nation edition

Facebook is promoting a poll today that reads, "Obama said we are not a Christian nation. Do you agree?" The results--45% yes, 55% no--are alarming, but probably confused. I think some people who were thinking "we are not a Christian nation" might have voted "No" instead of the correct "Yes" we are not, with the Christian nationalists suffering the reverse confusion. It is possible that the results are right--Facebook poll takers are only a little less conservative than AOL poll takers--but the comments seem to running in the opposite direction at the moment, so I'm voting for confusion.

As might be expected, the comments are just as confused as the polling. This exchange shows bad history on both sides. Sharon Bland takes the Christian nationalist side.
This country was founded by Quakers and its laws are based on that quaker faith. Therefore this is a Christian country.

Um, Sharon? Quakers didn't found this country. They founded Pennsylvania long before this country was founded and long after Virginia and the Plymouth colony were founded. Besides, if we want to define what this country by the intentions of the first settlers, then we would have to say that this country is a British colony. Fortunately, we have Calvin Yeager to set Sharon straight>
No, they didn't. Teddy Roosevelt put "God" in the anthem to scare off Communists. You need to go back to Grade School.

Sigh. Let's go through this one at a time. We didn't have a national anthem when Teddy Roosevelt was president. No one has ever changed the lyrics to the "Star Spangled Banner." If we want to talk about adding "God" to something to tweak the Communists, that would be the Pledge of Allegiance (something that was written by a Socialist) which was changed during Eisenhower's tenure. Most Communists are made of sterner stuff than to run away from the mere word "God." There were also no Communists when TR was president. All of the Marxist Parties called themselves Socialists or Social Democrats until the Russian Revolution. TR's big bugaboo was Anarchists. Did I miss anything?

I'm not saying that both sides are equally misinformed. For the most part, the Christian nationalists spout a lot more nonsense that the secularists do.

It doesn't matter that the majority of Americans call themselves some sort of Christian. It doesn't matter whether the majority of the founding fathers called themselves some sort of Christian. The Constitution says we are a secular country. Our treaties say we are a secular country. The law says we are a secular country. The courts say we are a secular country. We are no more a Christian nation than we are a white nation. The majority is not entitled to a special position in America. Cows outnumber us three to one, that doesn't make us a nation of cattle. In America we do not merely tolerate minorities. Minorities are part of our society, part of our culture, and part of our national identity. Minorities have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as the majority. To say otherwise is un-American.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

The Alamo was like Custer's Waterloo

Glenn Beck's grasp of history is as weak as his grasp of reality in general. Steve Benen says pretty much everything I have to say on Beck's latest display of historical ignorance, so I'll just quote him.
Earlier this week, after nearly breaking down in tears (again), Glenn Beck told his television audience that they're not alone: "It's you and me and the Fox News Channel -- the Alamo for truth."

If this sounds familiar, it's because Roger Ailes, Fox News' chief executive, told Glenn Beck in January that he wanted to bolster the Republican network's opposition to the Democratic administration. "I see this as the Alamo," Ailes said, according to Beck. "If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we'd be fine."

Um, guys? As I recall, the Alamo didn't turn out too well. Most of the Americans who fought in the battle were killed.

If Fox News is "the Alamo for truth," doesn't that mean it's the place where the truth gets killed?
The only thing I can add is, it wasn't "most of the Americans" who were killed, it was all of them. If that's the position where Beck sees Fox and himself, I can only hope he's right.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

How old is Grandpa???

A friend of ours is a hardcore e-mail forwarder. Today she sent us this gem. It's called How old is Grandpa???. The punchline is that Grandpa is only fifty-nine. Someone fifty-nine today was born in 1950. I've abridged things a little, but this the truth about that e-mail.
One evening a grandson was talking to his grandfather about current events. The grandson asked his grandfather what he thought about the shootings at schools, the computer age, and just things in general.

The Grandfather replied, 'Well, let me think a minute, I was born before:
  • television (not true, invented by Philo Farnsworth in 1927 and the first networks began broadcasting right after the war)
  • penicillin (not true, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928 and widly available for Allied troops during the war)
  • polio shots (somewhat true, the Salk vaccine was first tested on humans in 1952, so although it wasn't invented when grandpa was born, he was vaccinated by the third grade)
  • frozen foods (not true, freezing food is thousands of years old and the first frozen meals were manufactured for the airlines in 1944)
  • Xerox (barely true, xerography was patented by the Haloid company in 1942, but they didn't change their name to Xerox until 1958)
  • contact lenses (not true, several scientists experimented with contact lenses during the 19th century and German lens makers were making useable contacts before 1890)
  • Frisbees (barely true, kids have tossed pie pans as long as there have been pie pans, Captain America was beaning Nazis with his shield during WWII, toy companies started marketing plastic throwing disks in the late forties, but Wham-o didn't name their disc Frisbee until 1957)
  • the pill (true)
  • credit cards (true)
  • laser beams (true)
  • ball-point pens (not true, different types of dry ink pens were sold through the first half of the twentieth century and the completly modern ball point was available before WWII)
  • panty hose (true)
  • air conditioners (not true, air conditioners were invented along with refrigeration, it was used in offices before WWI and was part of the home building boom that came after WWII)
  • dishwashers (not true, also invented before WWI and common during the post war boom)
  • clothes dryers (not true, same as the last two)
  • man hadn't yet walked on the moon (true)

We hadn't heard of:
  • FM radios (not true, the first FM station began broadcasting in 1937)
  • tape decks (maybe true, magnetic tape recording was developed in the thirties, reel to reel recorders became common in the fifties, but the cassette wasn't invented until 1963. So it's only true if by tape deck, grandpa means cassette player)
  • CDs (true)
  • electric typewriters (not true, Edison invented the electric typewriter and IBM introduced their first model in 1935)
  • yogurt (depends where you lived or what your ethnic background was)
  • guys wearing earrings (not even pirates?)

Your Grandmother and I got married first ... and then lived together. (probably true)

Every family had a father and a mother. (not true, almost every sit-com (and Bonanza) on television in the sixties featured single parents)

Until I was 25, I called every man older than me, 'Sir' And after I turned 25, I still called policemen and every man with a title, 'Sir.' (the prevalence of "Sir" depends on where you lived. This was definitely true in the South but varied elsewhere. In the parts of the West where I grew up, it was more common to say "Mister fill-in-the-blank" and to use the title of people who had titles)

We were before queer-rights, computer-dating, dual careers, day-care centers, and group therapy. (mostly true. Though if grandpa still says "queer-rights," he's an asshole)

Our lives were governed by the Ten Commandments, good judgment, and common sense. We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions. Time-sharing meant time the family spent together in the evenings and weekends-not purchasing condominiums. (Blah blah blah. This is so much nostalgic twaddle. Maybe grandpa lived this way and maybe he didn't. In any case, life was never that simplistically black and white)

We listened to the Big Bands, Jack Benny, and the President's speeches on our radios. (not true, grandpa listened to the Beach Boys, The Beatles, and Janis Joplin)

And I don't ever remember any kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey. (That's because you were too young to remember Tommy Dorsey's heyday)

If you saw anything with 'Made in Japan' on it, it was junk. (true)

Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and instant coffee were unheard of. (not true, 1958, 1955 (or 1940), and before WWII)

We had 5 & 10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents.(true)

Ice-cream cones, phone calls, rides on a streetcar, and a Pepsi were all a nickel. (not true, they cost a dime and street cars were mostly gone before Grandpa was born)

And if you didn't want to splurge, you could spend your nickel on enough stamps to mail 1 letter and 2 postcards. (not true after 1951)

You could buy a new Chevy Coupe for $600 ... but who could afford one? Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon. (not true, a 1953 Bel Air sold for $1700. When gas was 11 cents, it was the inflation adjusted equivalent of three dollars a gallon.)

In my day:
  • 'grass' was mowed, (not true)
  • 'coke' was a cold drink, (not true, listen to the lyrics of "Minnie the Moocher")
  • 'pot' was something your mother cooked in , (not true)
  • 'rock music' was your grandmother's lullaby, (not true)
  • 'Aids' were helpers in the Principal's office, (true)
  • 'chip' meant a piece of wood, (true)
  • 'hardware' was found in a hardware store, (true)
  • 'software' wasn't even a word. (true)

And we were the last generation to actually believe that a lady needed a husband to have a baby. (every generation has known how babies are made and that marriage has nothing to do with it, or does Grandpa think the word "bastard" was coined after the pill?)

No wonder people call us 'old and confused' and say there is a generation gap ... and how old do you think I am?

I bet you have this old man in mind ... you are in for a shock!

Read on to see--pretty scary if you think about it and pretty sad at the same time.

Are you ready ?????

This man would be only 59 years old. Feeling old yet?

People born in 1950 include Jay Leno, Morgan Fairchild, Stevie Wonder, Gary larson, David Duke, Peter Frampton, Fran Lebowitz, Julius Erving, John Sayles, and my big sister.

This e-mail would have been mostly true twenty-five years ago, in 1984. Of course, in 1984, our friend wouldn't have had e-mail to send this geezer's rant to us. On the other hand, I could have a lot of fun rewriting this for my grandparents, who were all born in the 1880s.

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Mammoth on ice

This is too fun not to share. While looking for some pictures to use in another post, I came across this.


Yvette Gayrard-Valy and Herbert Thomas, Les fossiles, empreinte des mondes disparus (Fossils, imprint of vanished worlds) 1987

According to the back cover (and Google Translate), it's a short history of paleontology. The current edition (2000) has a non-frivolous photo of an Ammonite on the cover. This is, apparently, what the publisher's art director thought was an appropriate representation of the science of paleontology in 1987. He was probably recycling the artwork from an out-of-print adolescent adventure story.* Gayrard-Valy and Thomas must have been thrilled by the choice.

This got me thinking about the old mammoth in an ice cube motif.** It's an old staple of boy's adventure stories. Usually, the mammoth is seen deep in an surprisingly transparent glacier--real glaciers are not at all clear--standing upright while looking both life-like and sinister.

Samuel Scoville's "The Boy Scouts of the North; or, The Blue Pearl," was serialized in issues of St. Nicholas Magazine, in 1919-20. In the story, three plucky scouts and a token grown-up/side-kick head into the Arctic looking for the legendary blue pearl. Along the way they are tested by sporting and hunting competitions, are adopted by blond Eskimos, and fend off attacks by bears, walruses, killer otters, cougars (the feline variety not the feminine one), and a giant squid. Chapter 10 (August 1920) brings them face to face Mahmut, the monster.
As the boy looked up at the wall of transparent ice which towered above them a strangled cry of alarm broke from his parted lips. There, frozen in a solid block of clear ice, towered a monster such as had not walked this earth for ten times ten thousand years. Unburied from the grave where it had rested, untouched by time, and intact as when some unknown fate had overtaken it when the last Ice Age overwhelmed the earth, the monstrous creature, standing erect, seemed ready to step forth out of an age-long sleep. ... There was something sinister and menacing in the great beast's appearance. The wicked little pig eyes were set much farther back than those of an elephant; and they were wide open, seeming to threaten the boy as he looked at them. Almost he expected to see the huge trunk upraise and to face the terrible charge of those curved tusks, as when the mammoth fought the hairy rhinoceros on those northern plains...


Mahmut, the monster. "The Boy Scouts of the North; or, The Blue Pearl," was serialized in issues of St. Nicholas Magazine, August 1920, p. 897.

H. Rider Haggard, in one of the last of his Allan Quatermain stories gave us his frozen mammoth in Allan and the Ice Gods, published posthumously in 1927.
Deep in the face of the ice, the length of three paces away, only to be seen in certain lights, was one of the gods who for generations had been known to the tribe as the Sleeper because he never moved. Wi could not make out much about him, save that he seemed to have a long nose as thick as a tree at its root and growing smaller toward the end. On each side of this nose projected a huge curling tusk that came out of a vast head, black in colour and covered with red hair, behind which swelled an enormous body...

The SciFi channel gave us one of the most memorable contributions to the genre in the movie Mammoth. In which a zombie mammoth escapes from crystal-clear block of ice to prowl the Louisiana bayous is search of blood. How that block of ice came to be Louisiana is never explained, but fortunately, Summer Glau and Tom Skerit are there to re-freeze the zombie mammoth.


Dr. Frank Abernathy (Vincent Ventresca) checks out the zombie mammoth

Those stories and a hundred others like them are fiction. None of you will be surprised to hear the mammoth in an ice cube motif is common in pseudoscience and forbidden history circles--the next best thing to fiction. In an essay on crypotozoology, J. Rainsnow chose to remain neutral on whether or not their were still mammoths in the world--real ones, not zombies like in the movie--by saying:
Regardless of whether or not living mammoths still roam the earth, Siberia has produced numerous examples of frozen mammoth carcasses, which are periodically yielded by the ice of melting glaciers, disinterred by the sun and returned to the world of the present.

In the internet age, the glacial mammoth has made its way into various chat rooms and fora. In its most recent incarnations the motif is used a a straw man argument about the dumb things orthodox scientists, or "scientists," believe. This one comes from a 2004 thread about the Beresovka Mammoth on the conspiracy and UFO site Above Top Secret. In the first post, BlackJackal writes:
Here is how scientists have attempted to explain the amazing freezing mammoth.

Theory # 1

Huge herds of mammoths used t [sic] roam the tundra feeding off the grasses, reeds, and other plants that still cover the land in summer. Every now and then one of them would get trapped in ice or would fall to its death down a crevasse in a glacier, there the carcass would freeze and be preserved almost unchanged forever.

BlackJackal wastes no time in demolishing that straw man. His victory was so impressive that SpicyGirl decided to repeat it at 4Forums.com Political Debates and Polls in a 2008 thread on "Fluid Mechanics, The Fossil Record and the Flood" (you knew creationists were going to get into this, didn't you?):
Now lets get into some of the quoted claims that others have made.

1. We have the claim that huge herds of mammoths would roam in the tundra feeding off of the grass, reeds and other plants that cover the land in the summer. And every now and then one of them would fall to its death down a crevasse in a glacier, there the carcases would freeze and be preserved.

SpicyGirl takes more time than BlackJackal to kill the straw man, but her victory is just as complete. Unfortunately, this particular straw man is like the villain of a slasher movie; just when you think he's finally, really dead, he gets up one more time. Project Avalon Forum, a site dedicated to defending against Illuminati type conspiracies, including the plot by environmentalists to covertly kill off most of the human race. On a climate change denial thread, this was posted by Jack:
Theory # 1

Huge herds of mammoths used t [sic, again] roam the tundra feeding off the grasses, reeds, and other plants that still cover the land in summer. Every now and then one of them would get trapped in ice or would fall to its death down a crevasse in a glacier, there the carcass would freeze and be preserved almost unchanged forever.

I'm going to assume that Jack is the same person as BlackJackal and not a plagiarist like SpicyGirl. Apparently, he wasn't satisfied by the response he got at Above Top Secret and decided to try it again. The Project Avalon crowd didn't have any more to say about than the Above Top Secret crowd, so we will probably see this assault on Mr. Strawman show up again.

SpicyGirl wasn't the first creationist or flood geologist to call the frozen mammoths to her aid. She probably won't be the last. Dr. Walt Brown, the founder and director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix, is an old school Young Earth creationist. He's fond of issuing debate challenges accompanied by elaborate lists of conditions. He explains his version of flood geology in his online book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (you can order a nice hardbound copy of the book from his ministry). Naturally, frozen mammoths are evidence for his theory. The mammoth in the glacier, however, shows up in the straw man role to show what silly scientists believe. He believes the mammoths were killed and frozen by a forty day and forty night hailstorm. He lists nine theories which include Hapgood's pole shift theory and the flood geology idea preferred by Kan Ham's group, Answers in Genesis.
Lake Drowning Theory. No catastrophe occurred. The well-preserved mammoths, with food in their stomachs and between their teeth, died suddenly, probably from asphyxiation resulting from drowning in a partially frozen lake, river, or bog. Such burials can preserve animal—and even human—tissue for thousands of years.

Crevasse Theory. Some mammoths fell into ice crevasses or deep snowdrifts. This protected them from predators, while ice preserved them for thousands of years.

The list of competing theories is followed by a table showing how real science--meaning his science--proves each theory wrong.

My personal favorite pseudoscience/forbidden history idea has always been the hollow earth. For those not familiar with the idea, the hollow-earthers believed that the Earth and other planets are hollow balls with giant openings at the poles lit by their own tiny suns in the center. The inner surface has gravity similar to the outer surface and is inhabited. A pedigree for the idea can be constructed that goes back to the underworld found in most mythologies. The direct lineage of the idea as a supposedly scientific concept springs from an attempt by Edmund Halley to explain variations in the Earth's magnetic field by visualizing the interior of the Earth as a series of onion-like, rigid concentric shells that each rotates at a slightly different speed.

Marshall Gardner's 1913 self-published hollow earth book Journey to the Earth's Interior, or Have the Poles Really Been Discovered? placed the mammoths in drifting icebergs, which were, of course, proof positive for Gardner's theories.
We further claim that the fresh remains of their bodies which have been found in Siberia are those of mammoths which in their wanderings came a little further south than usual-for the climate around the polar openings would be quite warm enough for them, and that these animals fell in to ice crevasses in places from which they were carried to the present situations by the movements of the ice-by those great glaciers which have from time to time been referred to in accounts of Greenland.

Gardner's idea about the mammoths was that, first of all, they were tropical animals just like elephants. They came to Siberia by wandering too close to the North Polar hole, where they were flash frozen into ice bergs and drifted out to the Siberian coast. Gardner's idea was adopted by most later hollow-earthers.


Gardner's Hollow Earth. Mammoths in icebergs drift out through the North Polar opening. From Gardner's Journey to the Earth's Interior, or Have the Poles Really Been Discovered?, p. 324.

The best selling hollow earth book is Dr. Raymond Bernard's (real name Walter Siegmeister) The Hollow Earth which came out in 1964 and has been reprinted by a half-dozen different publishers since. Bernard's consists largely of enormous block quotes from Gardner, William Reed (Phantom of the Poles, 1906), and Ray Palmer's various UFO magazines. Bernard makes explicit the iceberg theory and uses a straw man version of what orthodox scientists believe:
Inside the icebergs, the mammoth and other huge tropical animals, believed to be of prehistoric origin because never seen on the Earth's surface, have been found in a perfect state of preservation. ... The usual explanation is that these are prehistoric animals which lived in the Arctic region at the time when it had a tropical climate, and that the coming of the Ice Age, suddenly converted the Arctic from a tropical to a frigid zone and froze them before they had time to flee southward.



An Arctic explorer is amazed to discover a mammoth in an iceberg. From Gardner's Journey to the Earth's Interior, or Have the Poles Really Been Discovered?, p. 222.

As an actual case study of a mammoth in an iceberg, Gardner cites the Adams Mammoth, the first complete mammoth carcass recovered and one of the most famous mammoths of all time. For most of the story, Gardner uses a block quote from an 1884 book The World's Wonders As Seen by the Great Tropical and Polar Explorers... by James William Buel***. Here's what Buel had to say:
In 1799 a fisherman of Tongoose, named Schumachoff, discovered a tremendous elephant—perfect as when, a thousand years before,death had arrested its breath—encased in a huge block of ice, clear as crystal. This man, like his neighbors, was accustomed, at the end of the fishing season, to employ his time in hunting for elephant tusks along the banks of the Lena River, for the sake of the bounty offered by the government... [S]uddenly there appeared before his wondering eyes the miraculous sight above alluded to. But this man was ignorant and superstitious, and instead of hastening to announce his wonderful discovery for the benefit of science, he stupidly gazed upon it in wonder and awe, not daring to approach it. ... At last he found the imprisoned carcass stranded on a convenient sand-bank, and boldly attacked it, broke the glittering casing, and roughly despoiling the great beast of its splendid tusks, hurried home and sold them for fifty roubles.

Buel never uses the word "iceberg," but his description of a "huge block of ice" that becomes "stranded on a convenient sand-bank" can't be mistaken for anything else.

The imperial nineteenth century didn't treat the memory of Ossip Schumachoff very well. Besides the gratuitous insults heaped on him by Buel, he was almost completely deprived of credit for his discovery. History and paleontology know the mammoth as the Adams Mammoth, after the man who bought the mammoth remains from Schumachoff and took them to St. Petersburg. We only know Schumachoff's name because Adams was gracious enough to give his full name and quote Schumachoff's version of the story of the discovery in his (Adams') report on recovering the remains. An English language version of his report was published in The Philadelphia Medical and Physical Journal in 1807 soon after he filed the French original with the St. Petersburg Academy. In reading Adams' report, we can see that Buel's purple prose introduced some incorrect details into the story including the iceberg image. Adams makes clear that the block of ice that encased the mammoth had broken off from a ridge at the center of an isthmus several versts (kilometers) wide. Adams also mentions seeing other mammoth bones "frozen between fissures of the rocks." While Adams' terminology isn't always clear, what is clear is that he was not describing a drifting iceberg.

None of the hundred or so frozen mammoths discovered in the last three centuries was found in a glacier or iceberg. They were found in frozen soil, indicating that they were covered with mud soon after death. If no mammoth was found in that condition, what is the source of, what can only be called, the urban legend of the mammoth in an ice cube. I can identify a couple of possible suspects.

Adams' report might share a large part of the blame for the myth. As I said, his language isn't always completely clear. Adams describes the block in which the mammoth was found and the ridge from which the block fell as "rock ice." Later in the century, after the concept of ice ages caught on, "rock ice" (or stone ice or dead ice) was the term used to describe stagnant parts of glaciers that had become buried by wind-blown soil. The insulating qualities of the soil preserve the ice for centuries, even millenia, after the rest of the glacier has melted away. Explorers like Fridtjof Nansen and Baron Toll, as well as textbook authors like Sir Archibald Geikie, all described that specific section of the Siberian coast as being underlain by rock ice and specifically mention that rock ice as containing mammoth remains. The problem is, that part of Siberia wasn't glaciated during the ice ages. The wind that carried the moisture to form the ice sheets was completely snowed out by the time it reached that part of Siberia and the Siberian mammoth steppe was actually drier than at present. What Adams may have been trying to describe was a large ice lens. An ice lens is an layer of solid ice that forms on the border between true permafrost and the surface soil that seasonally thaws. An ice lens, while still cloudy, is much clearer than the surrounding frozen soil. Whatever it was that he was trying to describe, the Schumachoff/Adams Mammoth was the best known mammoth for the entire nineteenth century and impressions gleaned from his report decisively influenced the formation of popular images of frozen mammoths.

Another, and probably quite important influence on the persistence of the legend, is public's general unfamiliarity with the Arctic. While most people do know what permafrost is--frozen earth--they're missing an understanding of what permafrost does to the surface of the far north. If the ground is frozen a few feet beneath the surface is means the water from melting snow can't soak in. It stays on the surface. All lowlands are muddy bogs and in the Springtime the rivers flow all over the place, carving new channels and burying things in mud which freezes and gets added to the permafrost. Cartoon stereotypes of a land of snow and ice don't involve any soil at all. For most people, the first image that comes to mind when they hear the word "frozen" is ice. Therefore, "frozen mammoth" means "mammoth in ice." In the nineteenth century, explorers and scientists were just beginning to understand the nature of the Arctic and the processes that had created it. Even they would have occasionally made that association.

A third suspect, is the Benkendorf Mammoth. Gardner and Brown both call on this infamous mammoth to support their theories. The story of the Benkendorf Mammoth is that it was discovered standing upright and bobbing up and down in a river by an engineering survey team. Although the mammoth wasn't described as being in block of clear ice, the image of a life-like frozen mammoth, standing upright, and bobbing up and down in the water, just like a block of ice would, fits very nicely into the mammoth in an ice cube myth. The punchline to the Benkendorf Mammoth is, that although it has been cited by various writers both fringe and reputable (Donald Prothero for one), it never existed. The engineer Benkendorf and his mammoth came out of a German children's book.

Walt Brown, while demolishing the Creavasse Theory straw man, placed blame for the idea on Charles Lyell, one of the most important geologists of the nineteenth century. This attribution serves a double purpose for Brown, he makes his straw man more credible by attaching a specific name to it and he discredits orthodox geology by going after one of its founders. Brown accuses Lyell in two places.
Charles Lyell, the most influential founder of modern geology, advocated this theory to explain some frozen mammoths.

[...]

Mammoths are encased in ice. Their preservation is complete. Charles Lyell popularized this myth by writing that mammoth remains are found in icebergs and frozen gravel.

I'd like to say Brown is making this up, but he isn't. His reference is to the first edition (1830) of Lyell's Principles of Geology:
That the mammoth, however, continued for a long time to exist in Siberia after the winters had become extremely cold, is demonstrable, since their bones are found in icebergs, and in the frozen gravel, in such abundance as could only have been supplied by many successive generations.

[...]

When valleys have become filled with ice, as those of Spitzbergen, the contraction of the mass causes innumerable deep rents, such as are seen in the mer de glace on Mont Blanc. These deep crevices usually become filled with loose snow, but sometimes a thin covering is drifted across the mouth of the chasm, capable of sustaining a certain weight. Such treacherous bridges are liable to give way when heavy animals are crossing, which are then precipitated at once into the body of a glacier, which slowly descends to the sea, and becomes a floating iceberg. As bears, foxes, and deer now abound in Spitzbergen, we may confidently assume that the imbedding of animal remains in the glaciers of that island must be an event of almost annual occurrence.

If Lyell really did mention mammoths falling glacial crevasses, is it fair to call Brown's dismissal of the theory a straw man? I'm going to say it is fair. Brown is making an effort make his flood geology the last man standing, by eliminating all of its competitors. For Crevasse Theory to be a competitor, he would need to give some evidence that someone still believes it. Lyell only offered the theory as a possibility; he doesn't push the idea beyond this suggestion. By the third edition of Principles (1834), both mentions of icebergs had been dropped. In the fourth edition (1835), the crevasses of Spitzbergen were dropped. In most of the later editions, Lyell put forth a scenario in which mammoths lived in a warmer climate further south and that their bodies were washed to the Arctic coast by flooding rivers. He went on to say that the coast itself was further south in those days and that the general climate was warmer. It was the change in the coastline that made Siberia as cold as it is today. He added that if it was true that some mammoths were found in solid ice they could have gotten in that condition by getting frozen trapped in while crossing in the fall, or by becoming buried in snow, as in an avalanche, which later hardened into ice. These possibilities were extraordinary circumstances and not the source of most of the frozen mammoths.


What a real frozen mammoth looks like. The Berezovka Mammoth during recovery, 1901.

In the end, the mammoth in an ice cube motif probably doesn't spring from any one source. It was brewed from a combination of nineteenth century elements. Scientists in new fields struggled to assemble a basic framework within which they could even begin to define the problems they would tackle. The word "geology," as the name for various earth sciences was first used in 1778. Paleontology, as a science separate from geology, didn't have a name until 1834. Many basic concepts of the fields, deep time, organic origin of fossils, evolution, extinction, slow geologic change, ice ages, came into existence during a century or so ending in the 1840s. Adams, Lyell and their contemporaries were inventing a language for their fields. Naturally, there were communication problems. Even today, people who have never been to the Arctic have a hard time grasping the nature of the seasons, soil, climate, and sheer scale of it. In the nineteenth century, vast swaths of the north were unexplored and even the experts were still figuring the place out.

Like most bad ideas and urban legends, mammoth in an ice cube motif is impossible to stamp out. Even the people who most should know better, science journalists and educators, still fall back on it as a shorthand more complex ideas.

This is from a USA Today story that was run last year:
Anthropologist David Overstreet helped excavate the fossils from cornfields in southeastern Wisconsin. He discounts the idea that the mammoth may have become frozen in a glacier and had its meat scraped off after it thawed 1,000 years later.

This is from the class notes a 100 level Geology class taught at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater last semester.
Review questions for April
6. Which one of the following is NOT a fossil?
a. an insect trapped in amber 20 million years ago
b. a frozen mammoth preserved in a glacier in Siberia that died in the last ice age 1 million years ago
c. dinosaur footprints in a sandstone layer
d. an Egyptian death mask dating back to 4000 years
e. all of the above are fossils by definition

I'm sure there's a bus load of object lessons for the science communication crowd, but I'm not going to join that particular holy war. I'm an intellectual history guy. The mammoth in an ice cube motif is only a tiny part of how frozen mammoths have been used by catastrophists, creationists, and popular culture. I have lots more to say about this topic.

* It's not an uncommon practice. I remember working in a bookstore in the mid-eighties and being puzzled by a new edition of Philip K. Dick's The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldrich that used the cover art from a mid-seventies edition of Frank Herbert's Dune.

** Remember "motif"? That's what we old people said before "meme". Does anyone except English and Art History majors still say "motif"?

*** Bernard blockquotes Gardner blockquoting Buel. These guys were natural-born bloggers.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Quist, Antarctica, and all that

I left a few things out of the previous piece because A) the piece was too long already and something had to be cut, B) I didn't want to digress too much, or C) I forgot.

I only touched on the geographic aspect of the ancient maps concept. Quist's version of it is even loonier if you look at the geologic aspect. For example, if the world was warm enough two thousand years ago for Antarctica to be ice free, sea level would have been a few hundred feet higher. Rome, Athens, Carthage, Alexandria and all of the other homes of his mighty ancient mariners would have been under water.

Antarctica would have looked completely different. Simply removing the ice, without changing sea level puts vast areas of Antarctica under water. If you add the rise in sea level caused by melting all of the ice back into the ocean, Antarctica becomes a chain of islands. If you allow for isostatic rebound, the rise in land when you remove the weight of all of that ice, a lot of the continent rises back above the waves, but the coastline would change into something completely different than today's Antarctica. Finally, a lot of the coastline that Quist points to is ice; if the ice goes away, the coastline goes away.

Though Hapgood only suggested the possibility, there is a whole school of hidden history buffs that believe that the iceless Antarctica was Atlantis. It's the Antarctica as Atlantis school of thought that keeps the ancient map idea alive. Some of the better selling authors who push this idea are Barbara Hand Clow, Rand Flem-Ath (yes, that's his real name), and Graham Hancock. Google around and you'll find thousands of pages on Antarctica as Atlantis.

Quist believes in dragons. No, really. He believes in dragons. This is something that comes out of the Ken Ham, of Creation Museum fame, school of creationism. Ham tells people that dragons are the dinosaurs that Noah took on the ark. They've been lurking around in the forests and other remote places ever since, though most of them are probably extinct by now. If anyone is going to the museum, take some pictures and blog it. Quist teaches this in one of home-schooling "Curriculum Modules."

I only looked at a couple of the modules, I'm sure there are lots of goodies hidden in there for any bloggers with the stomach to read through it all.

As a history guy, one of the things that really offends me about this kind of thing is that it postulates one super race that benevolently handed out knowledge and that all of the rest of our ancestors were too stupid to figure anything out for themselves. It doesn't matter whether the fountainhead of all knowledge was ancient astronauts, Atlanteans, Roman super-mariners, or Yetis with PhDs, it insults and diminishes all other human achievement as nothing more than imitation or plagiarism. Sailing techniques of Classical antiquity were impressive enough without this nonsense. The cartography of the Renaissance involved developing new mathematical tools, new navigational tools, and organizing enormous amounts of paradigm-challenging data the grew and changed with every returning ship. The Spanish and Portuguese sailors who sailed into the unknown were amazingly brave and innovative, to say they couldn't have done it with out a how-to manual is slanderous.

I'll have a couple of other posts someday that touch on various aspects of this. For now, we can argue with the Quists and Hams of the world, but the best tool for resisting them is mockery. It will be hard for others to take these types of ideas seriously if we can make the speakers look silly.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The intellectual dishonesty of Allan Quist

Ever since the recent outbreak of sanity in Kansas, Texas has been virtually unchallenged in its position as the state with the most embarrassing people in charge of its education system. To maintain their dominance, they have taken to poaching fringe ideologues from other states. One of the most recent attempts was an unsuccessful effort to recruit Minnesota's Allen Quist for a board tasked with doing to history what they had already done to science.

At first glance, Quist would seem a natural for the Texas education system. He has impeccable conservative bona fides. During three terms in the Minnesota state house in the eighties, he was famous for his anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-pornography rants. His platform when running for governor in 1994 included the usual planks of tax cuts, abortion restrictions, and states' rights. His wife runs a group called EdWatch--which publishes his books and posts his essays--dedicated to fighting liberal curricula and promoting home schooling. He says all the right things about the Judeo-Christian origins of the United States, young earth creationism, and the "hoax" of global warming. But for some reason, the other board members couldn't bring themselves to support his candidacy and his nomination was dropped.

Those last three positions might be what got him into trouble. While Christian nationalism, creationism, and climate change denialism are almost articles of faith for the modern conservative movement, all three involve a certain amount of conspiratorialism. Too often, a little conspiratorial thinking is a thin wedge that opens the door to a lot of conspiratorial thinking.

Michael Barkun wrote about this phenomenon in his 2003 book, A Culture of Conspiracy. Barkun has written several books about American apocalyptic sects and the religious beliefs of racist groups like Aryan Nations. In researching these groups he was surprised to find that believers in one form of fringe thought often embraced other, unrelated, forms of fringe thought. Timothy McVeigh was a UFO buff. Militia groups often push natural foods and alternative medicine. Occultists become anti-vaccination crusaders. The key, he explains, is that all of these groups trade in something he calls "stigmatized knowledge." The basic concepts of each group's beliefs have been rejected by mainstream intellectual authorities. These authorities, as perceived from the fringe, constitute monolithic blocks that wield their power to suppress the truth as perceived by the fringe. Once fringe believers take the first step of rejecting conventional authority in one area, it becomes easier to reject it in other areas and, eventually, in all areas. Once they have made the adjustment to seeing hidden forces working to suppress the truth in one area, it's easy to accept the claims of other fringe believers that hidden forces are at work suppressing their truth. The final step is to determine that all of these hidden forces are actually one all embracing conspiracy.

In Quist's case, it's clear that he has made the jump from believing in conventional conservative bogeymen (secularist, liberals, environmentalists) into a more broadly conspiratorial worldview. His latest essay, available on the EdWatch site, uses a staple of pole shift theory in an effort to discredit the idea of climate change driven by human activities (global warming).
A recently discovered and publicized ancient map of the globe disproves the theory of man-made global warming. The enormous significance of the map has only now become apparent as Congress considers sweeping legislation intended to combat global warming supposedly caused by human activity.

The map was discovered in the Library of Congress, Washington DC, in 1960 by Charles Hapgood. It was drawn by well-known French cartographer, Oronteus Finaeus, in 1531. There is no serious question about the authenticity of the map. Finaeus was a well-known scholar and was an expert in cartography, astronomy, mathematics and military weaponry. The map is based on numerous source maps, some of them going back to the time of Alexander the Great (335 BC).

One section of the map pictures the globe from the perspective of the South Pole. Antarctica is clearly shown on this map and is pictured as being largely ice-free with flowing rivers and a clean coastline. Some of the mountain ranges pictured on the map have only been recently discovered.

A section of one of the Curriculum Modules, written by Quist and offered by EdWatch, is dedicated to the "ancient maps" idea made famous by Hapgood in his 1966 book, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. This book was an expansion of one line of evidence that he used for his earlier work on polar shift theory.

Polar shift theory is an idea that the earth's crust occasionally slips with reference to its spinning core and mantle. The part of the surface that used to be over the pole moves to a lower latitude and a new part of the surface slips over the pole and begins to freeze. The driving mechanism, according to Hapgood is ice. As polar ice builds up, it creates a great weight at the poles that destabilizes the crust. For the Earth's spin to be stable, the greatest weight should move out to the equator. Thus, when enough ice gathers at the poles, the entire crust of the Earth begins to slip toward the equator. When the ice caps reached a warmer latitude, the ice all melts, flooding everything and destroying civilization. Naturally, this explains Atlantis, Noah's flood, and frozen mammoths. Hapgood was neither the first to propose polar shifting nor the first to propose that mechanism, but his exposition is the best known and the one quoted by later pole shift writers.


The source of our trouble, the Oronteus Finaeus map of 1531.

The ancient maps enter the story as evidence of advanced pre-slip civilizations. Hapgood pointed out that, although the coast of Antarctica wasn't sighted until 1818, Renaissance mapmakers had portrayed a southern continent in considerable detail three centuries earlier. This could only have been possible if sixteenth century mapmakers had access to earlier maps by mariners who were intimately familiar with the coastline of Antarctica. Hapgood went on to say, that, since the Renaissance maps do not mention an ice cap, Antarctica must have been ice free when those ancient mariners visited it. According to Hapgood, the 1531 Oronteus Finaeus (Oronce Finé) map is the most accurate Renaissance map of all. Quist's statement that the Finaeus map is "based on numerous source maps, some of them going back to the time of Alexander the Great" is founded on Hapgood's speculation and nothing else.

Before going into what the Finaeus map does or does not portray, it's worth fisking Quist's version of how the map came to light. Quist says:
A recently discovered and publicized ancient map of the globe disproves the theory of man-made global warming. ... The map was discovered in the Library of Congress, Washington DC, in 1960 by Charles Hapgood.

To his credit, Hapgood never claims to have discovered the Finaeus map except in the sense that it was new to him. In Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings he tells how he came to know of the map.
In the course of this investigation I arranged to spend some time in the library of Congress during the Christmas recess of 1959-1960. I wrote ahead to the Chief of the Map Division asking if all of the old maps of the periods in question could be brought out and made ready for my investigation, especially those that might show the Antarctic. Dr. Arch C. Gerlach, and his assistant, Richard W. Stephanson, and other members of the Map Division were most co-operative, and i found, somewhat to my consternation, that they had laid out several hundred maps on the tables of the reference room.

By arriving at the Library the moment it opened in the morning and staying there until it close in the evening, I slowly made a dent in the enormous mass of material. ... Then, one day, I turned a page and sat transfixed. As my eyes fell upon the southern hemisphere of a map drawn by Oronteus Finaeus in 1531, I had the instant conviction that I had found here a truly authentic map of the real Antarctica.

From his narrative, it's clear that the map was not something in a dusty back corner of the library, forgotten for centuries. The LOC staff were familiar enough with it to know that it met the requirements of Hapgood's request. Furthermore, their treatment of it, laid out on a table and left there for days, shows that it was not a rare item requiring special treatment or care. The Finaeus map was not a drawn map, it was a printed map and dozens, possibly hundreds, of copies still exist. A glance at the Bernard Quaritch auction catalogs from the 1880s and 1890s (viewable through Google Books) show copies of the map for sale almost every year, and multiple copies in some years. The Finaeus map was well known in historical, art, and cartography circle long before Hapgood ever laid eyes on it.

The map itself, is quite beautiful (if you like maps, and I do). The projection, called double-cordiform, looks strange to our eyes, but was quite advanced for the time. The right hand side of the map is dominated by a southern continent called Terra Australis, which Finaeus describes as "recently discovered but not yet explored." The aspect of the southern continent that most excited Hapgood and other lost world writers is its two lobed shape which they find suspiciously similar to the shape of Antarctica as we know it.


Robert Argod lost world alignment of Terra Australis and Antarctica.

The above map from Out of Antarctica by Robert Argod is a fairly typical example of how lost world writers line up Finaeus' Terra Australis and our Antarctica to maximize the similarities. However, even in this portrayal, the lack of the Palmer Peninsula on Finaeus' map is a glaring problem. That great hook reaching toward South America is arguably the single most distinctive feature on Antarctica. How could the ancient mariners have missed it? Hapgood handles the problem by pointing to one of the bumps on the smaller lobe of Terra Australis, and identifying it as the base of the peninsula. He then points out that the rest of the peninsula would actually be an island without an ice sheet to connect it to the mainland. His unspoken conclusion is that someone then forgot to draw the island.

The superimposition of the two southern continents involves some trickery without which the dissimilarities between the two would be much more glaring. To make the two continents line up, Hapgood and his followers needed to ignore the position of the south pole on the Finaeus map. I've marked Finaeus' pole with a green dot. The Hapgood alignment also depends on changing the orientation of Terra Australis. On the Finaeus map, Terra Australis is rotated (on its pole) 70 degrees counter-clockwise. Even if the Palmer Peninsula was on Finaeus' continent, it wouldn't point at South America; it would point at Hawaii and South America would point at the blue spot that I've placed in the sea at a little past eleven o'clock.

Finally, and most significantly, Terra Australis is several times larger than Antarctica. Antarctica, for the most part, lies within the Antarctic Circle. The curve of East Antarctica follows very closely to the circle and the two great embayments, the Ross and Weddell Seas, push deeply south of the circle. The Antarctic Circle is entirely enclosed by Terra Australis whose coasts almost reach the Tropic of Capricorn. South America is separated from the continent by the Straits of Magellan and nothing else. Diego Cuoghi, an Italian writer, prepared a more accurate comparison of the two southern continents (below).


The correct alignment of Terra Australis and Antarctica and as shown by Diego Cuoghi.

The pole slip explanation for the amazing concordances that Hapgood and his followers see in Renaissance maps of the world is not the theory preferred by Quist. Quist dates the mighty mariners who mapped an ice-free Antarctica a mere twenty centuries ago rather than the ten to twenty thousand years ago preferred by the pole slip believers. Rather than Atlanteans, Quist prefers Romans.
How can the accuracy of this map be explained? One of the earliest authorities on map-making was Claudius Ptolemaeus (referred to in the West as "Ptolemy") who lived from about AD 85-168. Ptolemy was a cartographer, mathematician, astronomer and geographer. He lived in Alexandria under the Roman Empire.

Ptolemy wrote a monumental work on map-making, Guide to Geography, also known as Geographia, in about 150 AD. Geographia was lost to most of the civilized world for more than a thousand years until it was re-discovered around 1300 AD.

By "lost to most of the civilized world" Quist means the text was well known to the Muslim world. The Kitab surat al-ard ([Book of the Description of the Earth) composed by Al-Khwarizmi around 820 incorporated Ptolemy's geography. Al-Mas'udi, writing around 956 described a colored map of the world based on Ptolemy. Al-Idrisi studied Ptolemy to create his influential map of the world completed in 1154.
The book demonstrates that Mediterranean people of 2,000 years ago had the knowledge and expertise to sail far and wide and to make accurate maps of their travels.

Ptolemy's book describes longitudinal and latitudinal lines and how they are drawn. The book identifies the location of numerous geographical sites by means of those lines. The book additionally specifies how important locations can be accurately placed on maps by means of celestial observations. ... When Ptolemy's Geographia was translated from Greek into Latin in Western Europe in 1406 its global coordinate and navigational system revolutionized European sailing and mapmaking abilities-putting them on a previously unknown scientific basis. The knowledge Europeans gained from Ptolemy enabled them to engage in their own explosion of exploration and cartography beginning in the 15th Century.

That's some pretty powerful exaggeration. Ptolemy's Geographia arrived in Europe just as Europeans were attempting long distance sea travel. For a thousand years or so, European maps came in three types: fairly accurate local maps used for delineating property; navigation maps, which showed important landmarks along a coast or road, but rather indifferently depicted the shape of that coast or road; and mappamundis, illustrations that showed the entire world as a religious allegory. What the new explorers needed were accurate large scale maps. The practical map making tips in the Geographia seemed to be the perfect answer. But there were problems.

While his advice was good, Ptolemy's facts were of mixed quality. The idea of using lines of longitude and latitude to identify locations was almost four hundred years old when Ptolemy wrote the Geographia. Ptolemy's contribution was to attempt to unify various earlier measurements into a single coordinate system. While measuring latitude was a fairly straight forward task in his day, Ptolemy had no method for measuring longitude except for making rough approximations based on reports of travel time between various points. Such a method was useless for maritime navigators. Realistic longitude measurements wouldn't become possible until the development of clocks that could work on a pitching ship, without losing more than a few seconds per day. Ptolemy's Mediterranean was several degrees of longitude too wide. However, Ptolemy's prestige was so great that Renaissance map-makers had difficulty rejecting any part of the Geographia.

Ptolemy's Geographia was a summation of the best geographical and cartographic knowledge the Mediterranean world had to offer. In many respects, it was superior to anything Europe had to offer at the start of the Renaissance. By the time Finaeus set out to compose a map of the entire world, the most important advice he could gather from reading Ptolemy, was the discussion of map projections. Finaeus' cordiform projection was one possible solution to depicting the surface of a sphere on a two dimensional surface. His contemporary, Gerardus Mercator, used the projection eight years after Finaeus and before developing the projection that now bears his name. Mercator's cordiform map makes changes to the northern hemisphere, but copies Finaeus' southern hemisphere in almost every detail, especially Terra Australis.


A later copy of Mercator's cordiform map of 1538.

The Terra Australis of Finaeus and Mercator not a map of Antarctica based on lost Roman sources. Ptolemy, the Romans, and the other peoples of the Mediterranean were good, but not that good. Terra Australis is a big blob that only superficially resembles Antarctica, and only if you turn your head sideways and squint. By that same logic, if I stand far very away, in deep shadows, and don't speak, I look just like Antonio Banderas.

But Finaeus and Mercator's blob was not a figment of their imagination. They were not fantasists. Both were serious scholars trying to solve a difficult problem. Finding the best projection to represent the whole world was only one part of the problem. The other part was trying to make sense of the new and disjointed information that came in every day from sailors, priests, and spies. Finaeus and others tried to connect and faithfully represent these fragments of information using what seemed to be reasonable conjecture to fill in the blank spots.

In 1569, over thirty years after his cordiform map, Mecator published a new map of the world incorporating additional information. This map still featured an enormous southern continent beginning in Tierra del Fuego, but this Terra Australis featured some place names along the coast. From Tierra del Fuego, the coast tends straight east before jutting north to form a headland named Promontorium Terrae Australis in the South Atlantic near the Tristan da Cunha island group. Further east, it forms a second headland. near a group of islands called Los Romeros. The coast then loops south before turning almost due north the tropic of Capricorn where it almost touches Java. This land has the names Beach, Lucach, and Maletur. East of Beach the coast dips below the tropic again before heading gradually southeast across the South Pacific. Directly east of Beach is an island called Java Minor and beyond that is the enormous island of Nova Guinea. from Nova Guinea, the coast runs gradually southeast until it meets Tierra del Fuego. This stretch of coast is called Magellanica Regio (Magellan's Land). A dozen or more other map-makers published maps in the last part of the century showing a southern continent with the same outline and place-names as on Mercator's (e.g. Abraham Ortelius 1570 and Sebastian Munster 1588). From these-maps, it is possible to get a glimpse of the process by which these map makers created the outlines of Terra Australis.


A 1587 map by Rumold Mercator based on his father's 1569 map.

Each of the named places along the coast is based on land visited or sighted by European sailors. Tierra del Fuego on the south side of the Straits of Magellan has the same name today. At the time, no one knew that Tierra del Fuego was an island. That fact would not be learned until 1616 when Willem Schouten sailed around the south side of the island and named Cape Horn. Promontorium Terrae Australis is probably Gough Island, 230 miles southeast of tristan da Cunha. The island was discovered in 1506 by Gonçalo Álvarez, but misplaced, discovered again by Anthony de la Roché in 1675 and misplaced again, and, finally, permanently discovered by Charles Gough in 1731. Los Romeros is most likely Amsterdam Island in the southern Indian Ocean, discovered, but not named, by Juan Sebastián Elcano and the survivors of Magellan's expedition on their way back to Spain. Beach, Lucach, and Maletur are the northwest coast of Australia. The names are those of rich southern kingdoms mentioned in Marco Polo's Travels,. The first, officially reported European visit to Australia was made by Willem Janszoon in 1606, a merchant for the Dutch East India Company. However, Portuguese merchants knew about the continent for a century before Janszoon arrived. Abel Tasman, in 1642, was the first European to sail around The southern side of Australia, proving it was not attached to a polar continent. Java Minor is most likely Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentraria, though it could be any of a number of larger islands in Indonesia. The names Java Major and Java Minor, or variations on that theme, moved around the East Indies and Australia for about a century before being combined into one Java, the one we know today. Nova Guinea is, of course, New Guinea drawn too large and placed too far to the east.

Since each of the named places on Terra Australis turned out to be an island, the question arises, why did generations of Renaissance map-makers insist on constructing a southern continent out of reports of isolated islands? The answer is that they "knew" there had to be a very large continent in the south. It was the logical conclusion of an intelligently designed world.

Almost as soon as Classical Greek scholars figured out that the Earth was a sphere, they decided that it must have a land mass in the south large enough to balance out the known lands in the north. In part, this was a scientific opinion based on their lack of knowledge about how gravity and celestial mechanics functioned. At least equally important in coming to that conclusion was the belief that the gods would not allow the world to be asymmetrical. Symmetry and aesthetics demanded that a perfect creator would design the world that way. The idea that an intelligently designed universe must use perfect, that is symmetrical forms was later adopted by the Church, to the detriment of scientific progress. In particular, the insistence that the orbits of the planets must be perfect circles hampered astronomy and navigation for twenty centuries before Kepler finally did away with the idea. Ptolemy wrote about the southern, Antipodean continent, and the Renaissance map-makers accepted his judgment on the matter.

Mark Twain wrote "God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor" (he stole the line from Rousseau). That is the problem of intelligent design. The only way ID can produce usable scientific predictions, is through a clear understanding of how the designer works. The The only way to do that is by saying, "we know how the designer thinks; we know the innermost thoughts of God." Unfortunately, that inevitably means putting ourselves in the place of God and and believing God would do thinks the same way we do, or wish we could. The Classical Greeks, the Medieval Church, and Renaissance map-makers all believed that God's designs must be based on perfect geometric forms and symmetry for the simple reason that they found those design elements the most pleasing. Modern creationists exalt their own minds as equal to the mind of God while at the same time denouncing secularists and atheists, whom they imagine being guilty of exactly that form of hubris.


The symmetrical world as envisioned by Macrobius, a fifth century Neoplatonist philosopher.

This is the level of Allen Quist's intellectual honesty and his understanding of geography, geology, and history. He's willing to push a fringe theory of science, for the sole reason that he imagines it supports his political position on climate change. Everything else is expendable in the pursuit of that agenda. If he was a lone loony barking in the wilderness, his opinions wouldn't matter. But he was being considered for a seat on board tasked with writing a social studies curriculum for Texas. Because textbooks are authorized at the state level in Texas, the state has an out-sized influence on the content of textbooks everywhere in this country. Texas, and our public schools, may have missed that particular bullet, but thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of home schooled kids will not. Quist has dedicated a section of one of his curriculum modules at EdWatch to the ancient maps idea. Home schooling parents who don't know better will read his curriculum and use it to teach their kids. At the very least, those kids will grow up to become ignorant citizens. More individually tragic, those kids will be held back by their warped understanding of science when they try to go to college or compete in the job market.

Hapgood and other believers in pole shift and ancient civilizations with advanced navigational skills are mostly harmless. For the most part, they are grown-ups who are entitled to believe whatever they want, even if it is stigmatized knowledge. The problem with such belief comes when someone like Quist comes along with a political agenda who is willing to throw his weight behind the idea. Quist should be ashamed of himself, but somehow, I don't think he is.


Update: Jon H in the comments pointed out that I said Australia in a few places where I meant Antarctica. I think I've fixed them all. That's what I get for writing late at night. Sorry if that caused any confusion.