DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 336 296 SO 021 234

AUTHOR Ferguson, Thomas, Ed.; Goldberg, Steven, Ed.TITLE Interpretations. Volume 3.INSTITUTION Oak Park - River Forest High School, Oak Park,

Ill.

PUB DATE 90NOTE 101p.

PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020)JOURNAL CIT Interpretations; v3 1990

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS High Schools; History Instruction; *Research Papers

(Students); Secondary Education; *Social Studies;Student Projects

IDENTIFIERS Oak Park and River Forest High School IL

ABSTRACTThe Division of History, Government, and Social

Sciences of Oak Park and River Forest High School (Illinois) hasselected the very best student writing done by its students, forpublication in this annual compilation. Works in the followingcategories are featured: oral histories, contrasting viewpoints,historical essays, book reviews, reflections, and speeches. (DB)

***********************************************************************

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

..OAK PARK AND RP/CRFOREST HIGH SCHOOL

J

U.S. DEPARTMENT 0 IDUCATIONOttbee Of Educational ReeereCh and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION. CENTER !ERIC)

Ylifeceived horn the person or otonizationhis document hal been lepleduCed le

Onginating itLl Minor changes hays been made to implOve

leelOduction duality

Points ot view or opinions stated in MI5 detu-ment do not necessarily reptesent otticialOEi iloSition or policy

4";--

PH

STU

WR IT

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

'Ja

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

INTERPRETATIONSBEST COPY AVAILABLE

9

S.*

OAK PARK AND RIVER FOREST HIGHSCHOOL

OAK PARK, ILLINOIS

DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENTAND SOCIAL SCIENCE

"Those Things That Are Best"

jateroretations is the effort of the History Division to showcase,encourage and recognize some of the most outstanding writing nowbeing done in our school. The essays, research paper, book reviewsand other student work herein presented represents only a fraction ofthe work, both submitted and not submitted for publication, now beingproduced across the spectrum of the History Division's curriculum.

We regret that interpretations can not feature even more selections,but the need for variety, and the effort to feature different topics,presented the editors with their most difficult task choosing thearticles to include in the journal.

We hope that this third edition of Interple.tate. Di will enlighten,inform and entertain the reader. We continue to bit imrressed withthe serious, scholarly and creative quality of the many fine workssubmitted. Such efforts give substance to our motto, "Those ThingsThat Are Best."

We would like to acknowledge the hours of dedicated effort andorganization by Louise DeAlba, Jenny Smith, Michael Swierk, LizWeiser and our student illustrator, Timothy Riordan, who wasselected the winner in our competition for the design of the journal'scover.

The Editors -

Mr. AverbachMr. FergusonMr. GoldbergMrs. HutchinsonMr. OstendorfMr. Pobst

3

May, 1990

CONTENTS VOLUME 3 MAY 1990

Oral Histories

Caps Offl by EMILY HALL 1

Vietnam - An Interview With Dr. Paul Palterby NANCY BALTER 4

A Boy Goes To War: A Man Remembersby SCOTT WILLIAMS

Trauma in the Philippines by BRIAN RUDER

8

1 1

Contassting Viewpoints

Abortion: Fatal Fetal Implications by JASON DELL 14

The Morality of' Abortion by CARRIE NELSON 18

Viva In Vitro! by EMILY HALL 21

A Priceless Child - The Ultimate Consumer Productby CYBELE SEIFERT 24

coNTENTs - VOLUME 3 MAY 1990

Contrasting Viewpoints

The English Parlimnentary Revolt: A Religious andPolitical Conflict by ANDREW BOIES 28

The Rise of English Capitalism and The Civil Warb., BRIAN RUDER 30

Historical Essays

On Marx's Historical Materialism by LUKE JACOB 34

The Ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederationby ALEX MARCHETTI 37

Ideology and Power-Politics in the Eras of ReligiousWar and Cold War by BEN SUSSMAN so

The Golden Shell by BRIAN HAMMERSLEY 44

Maladies of the Moderates by ANDREA GREGOR 47

CONTEN1S - VOLUME 3 - MAY 1990

Historical Essays

The Ever Challenged Bismarckby GREGORY A. KROLL 51

John Swanick's Winning Formulaby SHANNON M. SCHAAB 54

The Spider and His Web: Bismarck's Post-UnificationForeign Policy by BRIDGET LAFFLER 56

Book Reviews

Savage Warfare by JOANNA MYERS

A Man For All Seasons by BETH BROWN 61

The Popularization of Abolitionismby GARY HELMLING al

The_&kohiographv of Benjamin Franklinby SARAH HOISINGTON E5

f;

CONTENTS VOLUM 3 MAY 1990

Reflections

The Healing Power of Laughterby NICOLE ZACCARIA 67

Modern Adaptations To Aristotleby MARK HUMOWIECKI

Mexico by TINA MARSICO

The Effect of the Depression On My Grandfatherby LORI LYNCH

Truly Underage - Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Its EffectOn The Brain by JENNIFER BURTON

Campfire Chatter by TERRY O'BRIEN

How He Did It: An Analysis of Gorbachev's StrategyFor Staying in Power by BRIDGET LAFFLER E2

V

73

74

76

so

CONTENTS' VOLUME 3 MAY 1990

Reflections

Two Political Views of Machiavelli and Oliver Northby ELLEN PETRICK AND DAVID CZERWINSKI

The Existence of Evil by ERIC TRUETT

Speeches

The Time is Now For Racial Unification(Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Speech-1990)By JUANTA BENNETT

Patriots of Promise (Memorial Day Speech - 1989)by TRACY CLAY

CAPS OFF!

Herman the talking stapler was my friend. Actu-ally, I have very few memories of Herman, apartfrom the fact that he provided countless hours ofentertainment. Herman was created to divertme to quieter forms of activity in the busy ERAoffice in Chicago. I have other related childhoodmemories, including: givingJane Pau ley a choco-late chip cookie as she attempted to conduct aninterview in our living room and watching mymother on the Phil Donahue show. The subject ofthis essay is not me, nor Herman; it is my mother,Kristine T. Hall.

The 1970's was a time for movement, for change.In the deep south, the cries for racial equalitywere finally being heard. A parallel protest wasarising from women across the nation, demand-ing equal rights with men. During the time thatthe civil rights movement began to gain strongnational attention, Kr Is Hall left her tiny hometown of Fallon, Nevada to study nursing at CookCounty Hospital in Chicago. By the time she wastwenty-eight, she was the head nurse of thecardiac unit at a major Chicago area hospital. "Atthat time the director of nursing at the hospitalran the department under strict and hacknayedregulations." karector required the nurses toadhere to a five-page dress code for female nurses;male nurses had none. It was in April of 1974that vehement anger concerning the dress code,more specifically the rule insisting that all fe-

By Emily Hall

male nurses wear caps, turned into a symbolicfeminist issue. It was a comment from a malenursing supervisor that opened the entire ques-tion.

After spending three hours hel ping resusci tate apatient undergoing cardiac arrest, Hall and twonurses were straightening up the unit. Thearrest had occurred at a shift change, and theyhad not had time to don caps. A male nursingsupervisor entered and demanded, 'Where areyour caps, girls?" Hall was so angered andfrustrated by the remark that she refused towear her cap again. Within a week, she was firedfor not adhering to dress code regulations andnot insisting that her staff observe them either.

It must be noted here that caps, although origi-nally designed for the purpose of hygiene, hadevolved into the symbol of the nurse. Caps weregiven at graduation from nursing school, serv-ing as a symbol of the school, nothing more. Yetsome collegiate nursing programs, such as theUniversity of California, had not awarded themin years. Many hospitals no longer requiredtheir nurses to wear caps, but some did. Thearticle of dress was a symbol of the archaic, yetpersistent, ideology that nursing was regardedas an extension of the unpaid profession of thehousewife. Secondly, nowhere in the countrywere male nurses required to wear caps.

1 9

"My problem became symbolic of the women'smovement," Hall remember "Women were burn-ing their bras, nurses were tossing their caps."Indeed, caps were tossed at the hospital. Aftershe was fired, six of the nurses under Hall refirsedto wear their caps, and the rule requiring caps tobe worn was repealed. But Hall was not re-hired.An asset to the protest, however, was immediateand continuing coverage by the press. "'The dayI was fired I went home extremely depressed. Iexpected no public reaction. Three hours later, Ireceived a call from the Chicago Sun Times whohad obtained the story from an angry physicianat the hospital." By the next day, Hall had anattcrney, a woman from the EEOC (EqualEmployment Opportunities Commi ssion) and hadfiled suit against the hospital on the grounds ofsex discrimination.

The press coverage was continuous and nation-wide. The media frequently quoted from Hall'sletter to the nursing di ector written prior to thefiring. This quote appeared in the Chicago Trib-uneon August 13, 1974: "While most administra-tors are home in bed at night, a very young nursesits in our cardiac unit, alone, watching the moni-tor, and taking full responsibility for the lives ofeight patients. She has to know exactly what sheis watching, and how to react if something hap-pens. Don't you think she is also capable ofm aking decisions about the world in which sheworks?" This reflected Hall's growing involve-ment on the question of women's rights. "I hadnever, ever been a feminist," she said to me, "andI suddenly became very involved."

After she was fired, Hall went to work for theIllinois Nurses Association (INA), the state branchof the American Nurses Association (ANA). Sheworked to gain legal protection for nurses, in theform of organized labor contracts. "Unfortu-

nately 'union' was a dirty word then," she re-flected, "so we tried never to use it." It seemsironic, however, that nurses feared the creationof 1,. nurses union would cause them to lose theirstatus as professionals, when "we were hardlybeing treated as professionals in the first place."

INA worked to establish within each hospital acontract for nurses that would give them collec-tive bargaining abilities, grievance procedures,and other rights. The process was long andsometimes agonisingly slow. "First we wouldtarget a certain hospital in the state. We wouldthen leaflet the hospital, announcing a meetingconcerning the question oforganizing the nurses.The meetings were usually held in church base-ments. If we held them in homes, the residentscould have been targeted as labor supporters andrisked the possibility ofbeing fired. Even holdingthe meetings in churches wasn't always protec-tion from anonymity. Hospital administratorswould sometimes wait outside the meeting placein their cars, just watching to see who wouldattend. Slowly, we would gain support, and morenurses would attend the meetings. We had thesupport of the National Labor Relations Boardshould we need to file grievance procedures.Finally, when we felt we had enough support andattention, there would he a vote. A lot of times wesucceeded, but we lost some, too. Probably thehardest was losing my own hospital by very fewvotes." There were hospitals throughout thestate that voted for organization, however, evenin the down state area where opposition wasextremely strong. "In some of those down statehospitals nurses still had to rise when doctorsentered the room," Hall reminisced with disdain.

Adversity reared its ugly head in many forms:nurses who were afraid of unions, those who feltorganized labor too constricting, nurses who just

2 10

didn't want to change the old ways, and the slytactics of administrators and other hospital per-sonnel. 'Often times, those arguing againstorganization would impose guilt on the nursessaying: 'You took an oath when you entered theprofession. How could you ever go on strike andour patients?'" But nursing strikes had alreadyoccurred in 1973 in California. The movementtoward unionization had begun. "My case wasthe catalyst for organization in Illinois," Hallreflected.

During the time that she worked for INA, Hallalso had to attend three hearings concerning hercase. Each hearing was packed with supporters:nurses, doctors, people who had become inter-ested in the case through its extensive presscoverage, and many members of the National Or-ganization for Women (NOW), the leading femi-nist organization of the time. In the final hearingthe judge ruled that Hall had been discriminatedagai-st. The hospital was ordered to apologize,pay two years back salary and attorney fees, clearher record and give Hall her job back. "It was areal milestone for nursing," she said.

Although it was the case that brought Hall inclose contact with NOW and the growing ERAmovement, it was her work with INA and unioni-zation that made her aware and sympathetic tothe cause of women's rights in employment."nlinois had good labor laws," she feh, "but at thesame time I was aware that many nurses, espe-cially in the deep southern states, would neverget the same kind of support from their legisla-tures. I won my case because Illinois had a strongFair Employment Practices Act. Equal rights forwomen were dependent on state laws." So, Hallbegan advocating equal rights on a federal level,beginning her involvement with the ERA, andmine with Lerman the Stapler.

3

'Illinois was a key state in the ratification of theamendment. The state's main argument againstratification was that there was already equalprotection in Illinois. So what was the point infighting for a federal change?" NOW's argumentwas economically based, stating that withoutequal employment rights, many women acrossthe nation were left dependent and often povertystricken. In the end though, it was the cult ofdomesticity and its offspring that muffled theeconomic arguments, and ratification failed totake place.

With the failure of the ERA, Kris Hall's cap fightreturned to a more personal level. "There is atragedy in all of this. Had nursing been treatedwith the respect it deserved forty, fifty years ago,had nursing programs moved into the universi-ties, and abandoned the ridiculous dress code,maybe there wouldn't be such a terrible shortageof nurses today. The image of the low paid, littlerespected nurse, lives on, and it is an imageyoung women- and men- treat with disdain."

Note: All information for this paper was gath-ered through interviews with my mother, KristineHan.

1 1

VIETNAM - AN INTERVIEW WITH DR. PAUL BALTER

"The system of medical care that the U.S. Armybrought to Vietnam was the most effective inmilitary history" (Doleman 69). Loss of life andthe severity of injuries were minimized throughnew portable field hospitals, new surgical tech-niques, and new methods of disease prevention(Doleman 69). The average length of a soldier'shospital stay decreased from eighty days i n WorldWar II to sixty-three days in Vietnam (Doleman69). Field hospitals in Vietnam grew to be largeand elaborate because they did not move with thebattlefront as had been the procedure in Koreaand Europe (Doleman '75). Many doctors werestationed in these elaborate hospitals and forthose who were, the real war would often feeldistant from their lives. A Newsweek articleprinted during the war pointed out that Saigonwas a 'bizarre center for come-and-visit war." Itclaimed that uniforms were few in this city of"oldAsia". To see the war close at hand, it said, onewould need to take Air-Vietnam's domestic serv-ice to elsewhere in the country.

The city of Saigon was bustling with vitality. Itwas also heavily involved in the black market.An estimated one hundred million dollars a yearwas drhined from the country's economy becauseof the black market (McArthur). Millions ofdollars worth of mili tary items such as batteries,uniforms, gasoline, and food ended up on theblack market annually (McArthur).

The following interview was conducted with Dr.Paul Balter cmcerning his involvement in boththe war and the black market in Vietnam. Theresponses are directly quoted from Dr. Baiter.

I3y Nancy Baiter

Q. When did you join the army?

A. I was taken into the army (drafted) inJuly, 1969.

Q. When were you in Vietnam?

A. 1970-1971

Q. When you left, had many of yourfriends already gone?

A. Quite a few. All the doctors my year(went). Some went two weeks beforeme. Some went two weeks after me.Some people had gone several yearsbefore me, actually.

Q. Did you have to go through basictraining? If 30, where and for howlong? What was it like?

A. Well, medical basic training. Not theregular basic training. It was inFort Sam Houston, San Antonio,Texas. Mostly classroom, four daysin the field. It was like all the pic-tures - riflery and running underfiring guns.

Q. Were you scared when you went toVietnam?

4 1 2

A. Only a little bit. I knew where I wasgonna (sic) be. I was nervous thatthere would be a screw up and Iwouldn't be assigned to 3rd FieldHospital.

Q. Where were you stationed in Vietnam?

A. 3rd Field Hospital, Saigon.

Q. What did you do there?

A. I was a doctor in the dialysis unit (one oftwo). In addition, I was sent to a regularevacuation hospital for two weeks be-cause they needed help when I first gotthere.

Q. What were your living conditions like?

A. Better than almost anyone in the U.S.Army in Vietnam. We were housed tohotel like apartment houses with run-ning water and tile floors. If you couldget an air-conditioner shipped in fromthe States, you could even have air con-di tioni ng.

Q. What were your original impressionsabout whether or not we should be in-volved in Vietnam and did they changeas you worked in Vietnam and sawwounded soldiers?

A. I Originally,) I definitely thought wewere right in being there because Ithought all of Southeast Asiawould fall if we weren't. Yes, increas-ingly I came to the conclusion that we

could not win this war because the poorpeople - particularly the peasants -were'nt with us. However, I did notthink we would lose completely butrather our side would always hold the

Q. What was your worst experience inVietnam?

A. There was this one guy in particular.He had both legs shot off. They couldn'tfix it. They hung him up under hisarms and the blood just dripped ontothe floor. The guy could talk andEverything. That was definitely theworst experience.

Q. What was your scariest experience?

A. It happened) when I took a trip up coun-try. I went up to visit some hospitals upthere. They took us out to show usaround and they handed me a flak jacket(for protection against schrapnell), asteel pot - that's a helmet, and a rifle. IW EIS scared when they handed me that. Irealized that I might need it.

Q. Were you ever in an area where there wasfighting around you?

A. Around me? Yes. That I could see? No.

Q. Articles have implied that Saigon felt veryremoved from the war. Did it &alike a warwas going on while you were there?

A. Well, it's certainly true that it was removedfrom the war. Did it feel like a war? Yes,

51 3

because everyone was running around in fa-tigues rather than the regular dress uniformseen in the States.

Q. Where did you travel in Vietnam and forwhatreasons?

A. I traveled down into the Mekong Delta andup to a place called Chu Lai for the purposeof explaining to the doctors what kinds ofpatients they should call us for.

Q. How were other areas different from Saigon?

A. They were either small towns or rice paddiesor jungle. (There were) some mountainousareas, too. There were a few cities but noth-ing like Saigon.

Q. Can you describe a typical day while workingin Saigon?

A. Yea - Rounds at 8:30 a.m. in the dialysisunit...see each patient (only three or fourwere there) and then we would discuss thepatients in detail - plan treatments for theday. Then, really,that's the only thing sched-uled. War in general is long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of excite-ment. Then at any time during the day andsometimes at night we'd sometimes get atelephone call that a patient was coming andthen we'd have to be around when the pa-tient came which could be anywhere from tenminutes to several hours later depending onwhere the patient was coming from. Then,when the patient would come we'd spendseveral hours examining the patient.

Q. What were other soldiers' and doctors' (around

you) feelings about our involvement in thewar?

A. Some were totally opposed. Some were irra-tional; some hated the situation, hated thearmy, hated the government, and bored ev-eybody to death talking about it. Othersdidn't care and were mostly in the blackmar-ket, chasing women, drinking, or into all kindsof other deals. No one was fanatically in favorof the war.

Q. Were you involved in the black market andhow did it work?

A. Everyone was involved in the black market.You had to do something else or you didn'thave any spending money. First of all, therewere big shortages and there was intense Vi-etnamese desire for all Western materialgoods. So people were willing to pay more.Everything was sold on the street and theywere getting it from wheeling and dealingwith the soldiers.

Q. Did you feel patriotic and a sense of pride?Was that pride stripped from you when welost the war?

A. Yeah ( I felt patriotic). But it was strippedfrom me even before then (the end ofthe war).As the year went on my enthusiasm for thewar decreased and when I got home peoplewere uninterested and thought I was kind ofstupid for getting sent over there.

Q. What did you miss most while in Vietnam?

A. Mommy and Sharon. (wife and daughter)

Q. Did the Vietnam experience affect your

6 4

future and how?

A. Oh yes! It gave me training in acute kidneyfailure that could be obtained almost no-where else. And it was a major factor in Dr.Muehreke hiring me (after the war) for whatturned out to be an excellent position. And it(the Vietnam experience) gave me a taste ofintermational travel unchanged to this day.

Q. Are there any questions I haven't asked?Othei things you'd like to say?

A. Another worst experience was a patient BobbyHartremember when we (the family) wentto look at his name on the Vietnam memorial?He looked so good and everyone thought we'dsave him. And in three weeks he died.

Bibliography

Dol em an, Edgar C. Tools of War. Boston: BostonPublishing Company, 1984

McArthur, George. "Black Market: A Lesson inViet Economics," lb e Los Angeles Timeg (Dateunknown)

I 5

A BOY GOES TO WAR : A MAN REMEMBERS

In 1942, an 18-year old Greek boy by thename ofJohn Katsikas was drafted into the United StatesArmy and chose to join the Army Air Corps.When he entered the service, he hadno idea whatit was about and was completely oblivious towhat could happen to him as a bomber pilot forthe Army. By the time he left the service in 1945,he became aware of what it was to live throughwar and, being a pilot, he had seen how the waraffected the civilian people in North Africa, India,and China. The memories of how horrible thesituation of the civilians was, and the manymilitary casualties which he witnessed, changedJohn Katsikas's views toward war permanently.He became very cynical about the motives ofpeople in power. Mr. Katsikas' attitudes towardsthe U.S. government also changed. He felt thatthe government was able to delude the people,especially the young soldiers, to a point wherethey felt that they were the best. He felt that thegovernment used subtle propaganda to insurethat the soldiers would do what they were told. Itis interesting that Mr. Katsikas' general opinionis that, "War has a tendency to enlighten thepeople and, at the same time, to degrade them".

When John was first drafted and placed in theArmy Air Corps, he visited a variety of placesbefore entering the war. His first stop wasJefferson, Missouri for basic training and pre-flight tmining. Then he was sent to San Antonio,Texas where the men who signed up for the ArmyAir Corps service were separated into differentgroups, includingpilots, navigators, bombardi ers,gunners, and mechanics. Later these men weresent to Elmington Kir Base in Ina, Oklahoma fortheir primary flight training. Finally, the men

By Scott Williams

were assigned to their own flight crews and werecertified to fly a B-24 "IAberator" bomber.

Once he got his crew, John had to start hisassignments. Katsikas and his crew started inSan Francisco, where they picked up their plane.Then they flew to Tennessee, then to Fort Wayne,on to Maine, then over to Newfoundland, andfinally to England. As soon as they landed inEngland, they received orders to fly to the AzoreIslands off the coast of North Africa. Katsikasand his squadron were attached to the 83rd AirForce, which assisted in ''Operation Torch", theAmerican invasion of North Africa. For the nextfew months, the 83rd fought against Rommel'sAfrica Corp and they bombed targets such asTripoli and Bengazi.

The next major combat assignment of Lt. Kat-sikas was the attack on the Romanian oil fields atPloiesti. When I inquired into his initial reactionto this raid, his response was, "I s in my pants!"Thi sjust goes to sh ow how you ng and unpreparedthese men were for the duty that theywere given.

In the first attempted raid on the oil fields, thesquadron suffered sixty percent casualties and inhis words were "...knocked to pieces" by theGerman 'Foch Wolves" and anti-aircraft batter-ies. When they returned to their base, the re-maining forty percent of the bomber crews wenton strike against returning to the oil fields againunless they received fighter support. For theiraction these remaining crews were separatedand reassigned to different arear.

At this time, John Katsikas and his crew were

81 6

sent to India, They were part of the CBI China,Burma, India theater. His longest singleassignment was attacking the Japanese in Indo-Chi na from India over a period of nine months.During his stay in India, he spent a lot of time onthe ground. The formula for a pilot 's duty was forevery hour you spent in the air, you spent 24hours on the ground doing nothing. With all thisground time, he was able to witness the enormousproblems that faced the millions of civilians whowere caught in the war, as well as the individualwars for equality and independence led by Ma-hatma Gandhi.

After nine months of combat against the Japa-nese, he was tl assigned to fly supplies overthe Himalayas irom India to China. This dutywas the worst in John's experience because, as hesaid,'...we lost more planes flying over 'the hump'than we did in combat".

In November of1945, he and his crew were finallyailed home and were to report to West PalmBeach, Florida to check in, making several stopsalong the way. Mr. Katsikas' ground crew of fourmen, however, would have to wait three monthsfor an Army transport ship to arrive and pickthem up. John, who was a captain by this time,decided that he couldn't leave his crew behiud inIndia; so he had them remove all the guns andany other non-essential materials from the plane.This gave him enough room to fit in the fourground crewmen and their gear. On ther triphome, he kept one step ahead of the militarypolice and the generals by taking the long wayhome". Captain Katsikas went from Calcutta toBombay to Khartoum to Dakar, French WestAfrica, across the Atluntic to Brazil, then toBritish Guiana, Puerto Rico and finally to WestPalm Beach.

Needless to say, when they finally got home, thegenerals were upset and threatened him with acourt martial and prison. However, John Kat-sikas got off because military law st4tes that both

he and his crew would have to be taken all theway back to India to be triei. So, on November 17,1945, John Katsikas was discharged from the U.S. Army at Fort Sheridan, Illinois with the rankof Staff Sargeant. Even though he had been acaptain, he was what the army called a "bad boy",and they made sure he was demoted before hewas discharged.

When I asked John about his attitudes and howthey had changed after his experience in the war,he said he had become cynical and resentfultoward our government, as well as against war ingeneral. A large pun, of his resentment camefrom his experience in India. For the nine monthsthat he spent there , he saw so much poverty andstarvation that it made him sick. He couldn'tbelieve that the U. S. government was spending$25,000 on his training, giving him a milliondollar plane and bombs that cost $5,000 each,when all that these people in India needed was $5a month to subsist. Even when they were sta-timed there, they were responsible for exploitingthe Indian people and they didn't even realizethvy were doing it. The flight crews lived to-gether in thatched huts and they had servantscalled Bma-Walas who did the sweeping, Man-chie-Walas who did their laundry, and Cha-Walas who brought them coffee and tea. Thesepeople were paid a dollar a day for their services.

When I asked him why he never got involved withany of the veterans groups, he said, "Becausethey're a bunch of hypocrites". He felt that theymarch areund waving the flag and never stop toremember ali the "garbage ard hellish situations"that they went through waile they were in thewar.

Mr. Katsikas' basic attitude toward war is one ofrevulsion and hatred. He feels that at the age of18 or 19 one should not have to go off and riskbeing killed when one doesn't know what one isfighting for or doesn't want to be there. Youngmen should not go to war just because their

government tells them that they are defendingtheir country.

The last thing that Mr. Katsikas toldme was thatCaesar said in a discussion of war, "Veni, Vidi,Vici - I came, I saw, I conquered"; but that Ishould always remember an older Greek philoso-pher named Diogenes who said, "I came, I saw,and in disgust, I left".

10

1 8

TRAUMA IN THE PHILIPPINES

As tragically became the situation during i.-heSecond World War, thousands of American citi-zens working, studying, or visiting in the Philip-pines were interned by the Japanese. Just one ofthe camps used for this purpose was Santo Tomas,located in Manila. This place alone held over3500 prisoners of various ethnic persuasions.Santo Tomas was a Catholic university wheremany American students had been studying.Manila was also a center of business for manyAmericans, including Ernie Necker. Necker hadbe en located thereby the radi o company he workedfor in the states. Less than one year after arriv-ing in Manila, Ernie Necker and his wife, Rose,were taken by the Japanese and placed in SantoTomas Internment Camp (STIC) on January 6,1942. The following esgay examines ErnestNecker's personal diary' and records kept duringthe time he was held in Manila.

Life in STIC was difficult. Though the Japaneseallowed some autonomy to the prisoners, thefeeling, among the internees was that this wasonly aone to make the jobs of their Japanesecaptors easier. The camp had an isolated andsimple economy of its own, as the money broughtin by the internees was circulated about to pur-chase food, clothing, or whatever met one's needs.Some of the internees were allowed to purchaseshacks in an area of the camp called "Shanty-town." These shacks were cramped and , accord-ing to Japanese order% were missing one side sothat all activity could be monitored. The shacksprovided a place of semi-seclusion during theday, but they had to be evacuated at 6:30 eachnight. Limited space was allotted for the inmatesto grow food of their own, but the gardens neverprovided much food, and certainly not enough tolive on.

11

By Brian Ruder

Japanese discipline proved to be terribly strict.People were known to disappear at times, ru-mored to have spoken spitefully about a Japa.nese officer behind his back, or perhaps caughtstealing food to save their starving families. Menand women were kept separate, end a strictcurfew was enforced. When the curfew was onceviolated and nine women turned up pregnant,the Japanese made clear that this was not to betolerated. The "Big Scandal", as it came to becalled,ended in the jailing of many men, some ofwhom had no involvement in the incident. Once,three men attempted to scale the walls of thecamp, "half out of fim," as Necker described it.The men were caught, beaten within an inch oftheir lives, and then tied to stakes and shot beforethe entire carnp as an example of how "escapees"would be treated. The internees attempted to geton good terms with their supervising officers inorder to avoid especially brutal treatment, andironically a few of the Japanese did the same atthe very end of the war in the Philippines, whenthey came to believe that the camp was to beabandoned. They apparently feared punishmentafter the war for brutal treatment of the prison-ers.

The internees were given barely enough suppliesto keep most of them alive. Rations were meagerand barely nourishing. The hospital in the campwas constantly filled with victims of malnutri-tion, many of whom died. Extra food that theJapanese di d not want was not divided among theprisoners, but instead fed to pigs. At times theonly sustenance that the internees were able toobtain was the hope that they would be freedsoon. Even this hope sometimes failed them, asNecker recounts one instance of watching anAmerican B24 go down near the camp and the

I :1

tearful disillusionment that followed the event.

In early 1945, the internees knew that the Ameri-can forces were nearing Manila. The signs offighting were getting nearer, and rumors per-sisted that MacArthur was blazing a path to thecity. Though this helped to raise the internees'spirits, conditions at STIC reached their lowestpoint since the creation of the camp. Food ration-ing became drastic, and the number of malnutri-tion deaths soared. Seeing this as something thatmight come back to haunt th.mn after the war, theJapanese ordered all death certificates whichinvolved malnutrition to be changed to othercauses such as heart failure. At one point, thenames of all military aged men were taken,leaving the inmates in fear that they would beforced to fight against their own country. Inter-nal strife was another problem. Fights oftenbroke out over garden space and other food mat-ters. As Necker stated, *selfishness predomi-nates as we have never seen it before."

Though secluded, the concentration camp man-aged to communicateit with the outside world.The camp produced its own newspaper, the Inter-

tu s which detailed all of the recent r ews and ex-pected progression of the war. Necker saved acopy of each issue, and the information providedin them and his diary provide the material for ani nteresting comparison. Necker was very carefulin how he reported the information in his diaries.He had to be fairly sure of rumors (by evaluatingand confirming their sources) before putting themin print, and those which were shaky he labeledas such. By evalueing the reported dates of Tv -mored American landings in the Philippines withthose actually listed by the Office of Air ForceHistory, one may develop an idea of how accu-rately information passed through the camp'swalls. The results were impressive: every re-corded date from a source that Necker believedwas reputable was accurate to the extent that allavailable information is able to confirm. Theinternees knew about almost every American

12

landing in the Philippines within one to two daysof their occurrence, and Necker did not report anyfalse war data during his entire stay.

By the time the war in the Philippines wascoming to an end, the Japanese had begun to actmore savagely than ever before. Necker recountsstories of the Japanese holding out againstAmerican conqUest to the very end, using hos-tages as shields in battle. The Japanese mas-sacred the occupants of an orphanage in Manila,and savagely destroyed the Santo Tomas hospi-tal, lobbing grenades through windows andgunning down survivors. Necker did not limithimself, however to the story of STIC alone. ThePhilippine General Hospital was nearby, and thestories he gathered of the massacres there werehorrifying. The Japanese plundered the area,raping and murdering, burning down homes withfamilies inside. Those internees and Filipinosthat could be seen in the darkness were immedi-ately shot dead, and some were tortured. One boyhad his legs brutally cut off before being throwninto a fire. All in all, a bloody, horrifying pictureof the Japanese in wartime was painted by thisdiary and all of its inclusions.

Who was Ernie Necker and what does his diarymean? Necker proves his diary to be a valuablesource of information on the Philippine campssimply by the broad base that he gi ves, addressingall sides of a situation. He gives information in anindirect manner, displaying the nationalistic,resentful attitude of most of the prisoners in hiswritings, while givinga firsthand accountofeventsin the same manner a historian would. He evalu-ates all of his sources of information carefully,giving specific reasons why each one should orshould not be believed. He includes testimoniesof other internees, recounting their opinions andviews exactly as they were stated in a first personmanner. Necker brings out both the hope an d fearthat the internees felt throughout their stay atSTIC. The irrationality of the Japanese at somepoints and the harsh living conditions in which the

prisoners survived are displayed with shockingclarity, shining light on what really happenedduring those years. Necker was liberated on Feb-ruary 17, 1945, and returned home in early April.One of the most resoi inding memories Necker had,and one that may hold a great deal of truth , wasa statement made on the first ofJanuary of thatyearby Willy, one of the camp's gardeners. Thoughhis comment may be disputable, it certainly re-flects the attitudes of whose who stayed in SantoTomas Internment Camp. He said, 'New Year'sand just look at those two women barely able towalk across the garden, staggering from malnu-trition and starvation. There will never be an-other internment camp in history with so muchpathos attached to it." It was a horrible time for all,and the impact of the Second World War in thePhilippines will forever remain as a scar uponJapanese and American history alike.

1. Necker and his wife moved to Wilmette, Illinoisupon returning to the U.S., where they met mygrandmother. They left their house to my grand-mother when they died and she moved there in1988. She found Ernie's wartime diary packedaway in the basement, and is now considering sub-mitting it for publication.

Bibliggiasax

Craten, Wesley and Cate, James. The Army AirForces in WWU (Chicago: U. of C. Press. 1950)vole 3-4

13 r)

ABORTION: FATAL FETAL IMPLICATIONS

Abortion is one of the most heated issues dis-cussed in modern society. Because it deals withthe termination oflife, or ofa form oflife, abortionchallenges us to analyze the meaning of life forour society and for ourselves. We must makesome sort of moral judgment regarding death asa better alternative to life. In addition, the issueof abortion is not clearly defined. Some arguethat abortion is only permissible under certaincircumstances, and others claim that abortion isalways wrong. The issue of abortion demands anunderstanding of a geat variety of opinions andfacts.

People have looked for an easy solution to theproblem of abortion by trying to discover thepoint at which life begins. Birth is not a satisfy-ing answer. A fetus changes location and isexposed to the outside world after birth, but itsphysical development does not advance signifi-cantly in those few hours or minutes. A borninfant also may be more of a part of societybecause it is more easily seen and touched, butthe bulging midsection of a pregnant woman issignificant and apparent as well. Proclaiminglife at birth seems to ignore the scientific knowl-edge we have gained. On the other hand, viabil-i ty, the time at which the fetus could exist outsideof the mother's womb, is an alternative thatseems to offer a more substantive point for thebeginning of life. The decision of Roe vs. Wade+vas based on such criteria with regard to thetrimester specifications. It considers the differ-ence between total dependence and semi-depen d-

e nce. Yet, such an assertion assumes that beingcloser to maturity is more valuable than one who

14

By Jason Doll

merely has potential. Ten year olds are notusually considered more valuable than two yearolds. Technology offers another problem to theviability theory. "Most medical authorities agreethat babies who weigh one and one half poundsand have been developing in the womb for 24weeks or more can be saved by intensive modernmedical care about 25 percent of the time" (Vanand Gorner 14). Pushing the point of viabilityback towards conception, science can save thelives of unborn infants earlier every year. Somepeople believe that the only non-arbitrary pointof human life is at conception. Missouri hasdrawn this distinction in the preamble to itsabortion law (Elsasser 14). At conception, a zy-gote exists with the full genetic code to become ahuman being.

Once spermatozoon and ovum meet and theconceptus is formed...roughly in only 2percent of the cases will spontaneous abortion occur. In other words, the chances areabout 4 out of 5 that this new being willdevelop. At this stage in the life of thebeing there is a sharp shift in probabilities, an immense jump in potentialities

(Mappe and Zembaty 11).

The shift in probabilities is certainly present, butwe must ask ourselves if such mathemat'calanalysis can determ:rie the beginning of hu:aanlife, often described qualitatively rather thanquantitatively. .

Some people do not attempt to define life in termsof such physical stages. Mary Anne Warren

believes that a person must be a full member of amoral community. She suggests five criteria ofpersonhood:

1. Consciousness (of objects and events) andthe "capacity to feel pain,"

2. Reasoning,3. Self-motivated activity.4. Ability to communicate "messages of an in

definite variety of types,"5. The presence of self-concepts and self-

awareness (Nathanson, p.222-223).

Mental criteria, however, may fail to differenti-ate the four-hour old child and the seven-weekfetus, or the two year old and the eight monthfetus. There is certainly doubt as to whether achild under two has enough self-awareness "forpersonhood", but such a toddler is considered avalued person in nearly every society. In addi-tion, the question may arise regarding killingretarded people because of low intelligence, orkilling patients in comas because of lack of con-sciousness.

Both pro-choice groups and anti-abortion groupshave tried to discover when, if ever, the termina-tion of a pregnancy may be justified. Someextreme anti-abortion groups maintain thatabortion is never justified, but most people tendto qualify the argument. In some "self-defense"cases, the mother's life would be jeopardi zed by acontinuing pregnancy. Many people also feelthat a pregnancy caused by rape or incest or apregnancy involving a severely deformed childshould be terminated if the mother desires anabortion. Such a position appeals to our sympa-thy, but it is hard to justify in a "sanctity of life"view where the fetus has the same rights as themother. The most controversial abortion in-volves the mother's judgement: when she sees it

best not to bring the child into the world. A babymay bringridicule upon an unwed mother, i t maycreate financial hardship, or the happiness of themother may be disrupted by the responsibilitiesinvolved in the care of a child. Some would arguefor an abortion benefitting the fetus that mighthave been otherwise always at a disadvantage inlife. 'Indeed, failure to kill such infants...mayitself be a violation of their rights...For if wepermit such children to grow...knowing full wellthat the conditions for the fulfillment of theirmost basic future interests have already beendestroyed, then we have wronged these personsbefore they even exist' (Feinberg 99). JudithJarvis Thomson offers a list of factors that shouldbe considered in determining whether an abor-tion is justified:

1. How the pregnancy came about, and especially the extent to which it was agreed toor invited,

2. The burden pregnancy imposes on thewoman, and especially the certainty andextent of the threat to her life, health,liberty, or well-being,

3. The benefit that continuation of pregnancywould confer upon the fetus, and especiallythe extent to which it will be capable of aworthwhile life,

4. The elapsed duration of pregnancy, and es-pecially the extent to which permitting apregnancy to endure for some time consti-tutes tacit acceptance of responsibility forthe fetus (Sumner 69).

Such considerations do not argue specifics orabsolute standards, but call for mothers consid-

152 3

ering abortion to weigh ultimate consequences oftheir actions.

When we ask ourselves whether abortion shouldremain legal, we are essentially considering whena woman is morally justified in having an abor-tion. The Supreme Court's most famous decisionregarding abortion was Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Itruled that an abortion was up to the mother andher doctor in the first trimester, could be reasona-bly regulated by state law in the second trimes-ter, and could be prohibited except when themother's health was at risk in the third trimes-ter. Since then, there have been numerous courtcases involving a variety of issues: whetherabortions should be restricted to hospitals,whether consent is needed from a spouse orparent, whether government funding should beused for abortions, and how much informationthe mother needs to receive before making herdecision to abort the fetus.

Examining the rights of the fetus and the rightsof the mother can help us to understand theabortion conflict more fully. The anti-abortionmovement assumes that the fetus has rightssimilar to those of any human being who can'tfight for his or her rights. The pro-choice move-ment, however, is grounded in the liberal viewthat a woman has the right to control her ownbody through a pregnancy (Sumner, 47). Mostpeople would agree that both the fetus and themother have some rights, and the conflict ariseswhen the rights of one are interfering with therights of the other. If the mother has the right tohappiness, and the fetus has the right to life,whose right takes priority if the woman needs anabortion to be happy? Does the fetus lose some ofits rights in some cases bacause it is an "agres-sor," even though only an innocent "agressor?"

Si nce it is nearly impossible to determine iwhether

abortion is morally right or wrong, we must ex-amine the effect of abortion on society and itsindividual members. Abortion eliminates lifepotential on a large scale. According to theChicago Tribune on April 26,1989, there wereclose to 1.6 million abortions in 1985. Nullifica-tion of life may seem unjust to the impendingbabies, but on a more worldly level abortion3 arehelpfUl. The Earth's population growth is fastenough without all of those unwanted babies.Such bOias may not contribute to society sincemany of them may be hindered throughout lifedue to lack of life, resources, or a healthy suppor-tive family. We could raise the issue that some ofthose babies could have made a significant con-tribution to the world, but such specualtion isunfair and irrelevant; we cannot go through lifesaying, 'What if..." (unless we work for HewlettPackard).

Abortions can hurt or help both the mothers andthe fetuses. The termination of a pregnancy canmean increased freedom, relief, and a sense ofcontrol for the woman, but it can also bring greatpain, shown in this anonymous testimony thatappeared in New York Times in 1976 :

It certainly does make more sense not to behaving a baby right nowwe say that toeach other all the time. But I have thisghost now. A very little ghost that onlyappears when I'm seeing somethingbeautiful...And the baby waves at me. AndI wave at the baby. "Of course, we haveroom," I cry to the ghost. "Of course, we do"(Brown 108).

For the fetus, abortion certainly is the end ofpotential life, but it also can mean the end of apotential for great suffering and hardship.

As a society, we must accept a pro-choice attitude

16 24

regarding abortion. We are in doubt about whenlife begins, what life is, when abortion isjustifiedif the law should endorse abortion, what therights of the mother and the fetus pre, and howabortion affects society. Some would argue thatsuch doubt necessitates a conservative view of'aborton: aborton is wrong because we mustassume that life exists in a fetus just to be on thesafe side. A less devastating solution is a pro-choice attitude. One does not have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice; one mustjust be able tosay, "Since I don't know, I'm not going to pretendto know the answer." We don't really know theamount of pain an abortion causes a fetus, but wedo know of the pain an unwar pregnancy cancause the mother and the fetus. We do know ofthe effects of illegalized abortion: forced mar-riages, abortions by back-alley doctors who profitgreatly from unclean procedures, more pregnantteens terminating their education early, andattempts at spontaneous abortion by the mother.Denying a woman an abortion cannot be justifiedin moral or practical terms. We must uphold awoman's freedom to make her own decision re-garding abortion, an issue to which we simply donot know the answer. We must follow Aristotleand value the virtue of humanity, not the simplecell division of a zygote that occurs in thousandsof species.

Bibliography

Brown, Harold O.J. Death Before Birth. Nash-ville New York: Thomas Nelson Inc. 1977.

Elsasser, Glen. "High Court Faces Array ofOptions" Chicago Tribune April 26, 1989. 14.

Mappes, Thomas and Jane Zembaty. social Eth-ka.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.

Nathanson, Bernard N. Aborting A m n

17

Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company,Iuc. 1979.

Sumner, L.W. AbortioD: Opposing Viewpoints.St. Paul, MN. Greenhaven Press. 1986.

Szumski, Bonne Editor.Abortion: Opposing Vi ew-&data St. Paul, MN. Greenhaven Press, 1986.

Van, John and Peter Garner. "Medical Gains TestAbortion Arguments". Chicano Tribune April 26,1989. 1-14.

0 t-

THE MORALITY OF ABORTION

The issue of legalized abortion in the UnitedStates has come to the forefront of current eventsas the Supreme Court begins to hear Webster v.Reproductive Health Services, a Missouri casethat may lead to the reversal or modification ofthe 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, which legalized awoman's decision to terminate her pregnancyunder almost any circumstances. Any change inthe Roe decision will likely lead to extendedbattles in state legislatures. The debate overabortion shows no signs of cooling off and willdemand in the upcoming months that everyAmerican take a stand on the issue. Said GaryBauer, a former aide to Ronald Reagan who isnow president of the Family Research Council,"Every once in a while the culture runs smackinto an issue where it's impossible tofind commonground... We either e Ad slavery or not, we eitherget out of Vietnam or not" (Cawley 14). By exam-ining the many facets of the abortion issue, onewill see that the only ethical conclusion at whichto arrive is that abortion on demand is wrong.

Central to the abortion question is a considera-tion of human life. As stated in a briefwritten forthe Minnesota state legislature, "When humanlife exists, no matter what stage of its develop-.ment, society must, for its gymprotection, recog-nize the right to that existence as a paramountright" (Hilgers 1). Recognition offertilization asthe beginning of human life would clearly showthe unethical character of abortion. Conversely,if human life can be proven to begin elsewhere,then abortion is justified. Therefore, it is thequestion of when human life begins that is thecrux of the abortion controversy. Medical evi-dence and common sense, combined with theweakness of the opposing arguments, prove thathuman life does indeed begin at fertilization.

By Carrie Nelson

At the First International Conference on Abor-tion, held in Washington, D.C. in October 1967,a group of biochemists, professors of obstetricsand gynecology, geneticists, and other scientistswere brought together and were representedproportionately by discipline, race, and religion(e.g. 20% were Catholic). This was their almostunanimous conclusion:

The majority of our group could find no pointin time between the union of sperm and egg,or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birthof the infant at which point we could say thatthis was a human life (Wilke 9).

The fertilized egg contains 46 chromosomes, 23from the mother and 23 from the father. "The sexand genetic characteristics of the child that re-sults from this union are determined at this verymoment" (Hall 21). It is this unique geneticpackage, formed from the sex cells of two differ-ent people, that marks thehumanity of this massof cells. Common sense also dictates that thezygote is human. As John T. Noonan, professorof law at the University of California succinctlyput it, "Anyone conceived by a man and a womanis human" (Mappes 11). Women give birth tofarm animals and space aliens only in supermar-ket tabloids. Also, the zygote's guaranteed de-velopment into a mature being proves its hu-manity. When a skin cell reproduces, that newcell will die shortly after it reaches its potentialas a skin cell but a human zygote, if conditionsare conducive, will develop into a mature humanbeing, much like the writer or reader of thispaper.

This genetic package is more than simply a"blueprint" and does more than simply provide

18 26

the potential for life. A blueprint provides theinstructions for building a house but once thehouse is materialized, the blueprint becomesdispensable and is thrown away. It has notbecome the house (Wilke 11). An acorn repre-sents potential life but won't develop into any-thing until it is planted in the ground. Once i t hassprouted, the plant may be called an oak tree,although it does not look like one, because it hasstarted the continuous process of becoming one.The fertilized ovum is different from both theseanalogies because it is a human being. The fetus,at any time after concoption, has intact all thematerials for a mature person. Nothing will beadded.

Thus it can be said that the individual iswhoever he is going to become from themoment of impregnation. Thereafter, hissubsequent development may be describedas a process of becoming the one healready is. Genetics teaches that we werefrom the beginning what we essentially stillare in every cell and in every human andindividual attribute (Dedek 65).

The fact that human life is a process of becomingmakes us all, in ethicist Paul Ramsey's words,"fellow fetuses" (Dedek 65). The scientists whomet in 1967 at the Washington think tank con-firm this continuum.

The changes occurring between implanta-tion, a ,,ix-weeks embryo, a six months fetus,a one-week-old child, or a mature adult aremerely stages of development and matura-tion (Wilke 9).

The argument for life at conception is strength-ened by the weakness of the opposing arguments.All attempts to place the beginning of life at apoint other than at fertilization are purely arbi-trary and have serious flaws. There is no magicalgranting of life that occurs when the fetus cansuck its thumb, or can be viewed outside the

womb, or can read a book.

Viability is a popular argument for denying thehumanity of the fetus. Medical technology hasadvanced to such a degree that a fetus's ability tolive outside the womb has been pushed fartherback toward fertilization. A new medical subspe-cialty, called neonatology, has developed in thelast two decades. It focuses on saving the lives ofpremature infants (Van 14). The perfection ofmedical techniques will likely push the viabilitydate even farther back. Also, every fetus devel-ops at a different rate and is able to live outsidethe womb at a different point (Mappes 9). Anyfactor that is as changing and difficult to deter-mine as viability is an unreliable base for anargument. Another flaw in the viability argu-ment is that dependence is not ended when afetus leaves the womb. Even a young child iscompletely dependent on another's care and woulddie if neglected. Therefore, 'The unsubstantiallessening in dependence at viability does notseem to signify any special acquisition of human-ity" (Mappes 9).

Other reasons for denying the humanity of thefetus are equally faulted, and in some cases,dangerous lines of thought. The idea that thefetus does not "look human" or is "too small to behuman" gives undue credibility to our sense ofsight. Saying that a being that does not look likeus and is, therefore, not human givesrise to racialdiscrimination (Mappes 10). Judging a fetus'shumanity on whether it can communicate orfunction in society is indicative of a culture thatjudges the value of a life on what that life canproduce. Logically, such a society would also con-done the termination of the lives of the elderly,handicapped, and insane. Perhaps the mostdangerous rationale denying a fetus's humanityis that because it is so small and un-babylike, thedeveloping fetus has not evoked any strong feel-ings in the parents and its death can go =-grieved. Throughout hi story certain peoples havehad difficulty feeling compassion for other groups

192 7

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

they feel are less human than they (Mappes 10).Simply because the Romans felt no remorse forkilling their slaves or because the Nazis did notmourn the death of six million Jews, their posi-tions are not any more defensible.

Myriad legal, philosophical, medical and socialarguments further discredit the pro-abortionposition. It simply comes down to this: Once afetus is granted humanity (as it must be afterconception), he or she must be riaranteed fullrights as a United States citizen under the 14thAmendment. This places the fetus's right to lifeon the same level as the mother's right to privacy.Just as a white's rights have no precedence overa black's, a mother's rights may not interfere withher child's, be he born or unborn. It follows thatif the fetus is a human, abortion is a subjugationof that person's rights and therefore unconstitu-tional.

Bibliography

Cawley, Janet. "The Stakes Are High, And So AreEmotions." Chicago Tribune 26 April 1989: 14.

De dek, John F. Human Life. New York: Sheed &Ward, 1972.

Hall, Robert E., M.D. A Medical Guide For Preg-nant,ffianga. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.,1963.

Hilgers, Thomas W., M.D. and Robert P.N.Shearin, M.D. hulnced.AbertipizAapinnientediReport. St. Paul, MN.: 1972.

Mappes, Thomas, and Jane Zembaty. SocialEthics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.

Salholz, Eloise, Ann McDaniel, and SueHutchison. "Pro-Choice: 'A Sleeping Giant'Awakes." Newsweek 24 April 1989: 39-40.

Van, Jon, and Peter Gorner. "-Medical Gains Test

20

Abortion Arguments." Chicago Tribune26 April 1989: 1.

Wilke, Dr. and Mrs. J.C., The Abortion Hand:kook. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hayes Publishing Co.,1979.

28

VIVA IN VITRO!

Aldous Huxley's brave new world may not be asfar away as his first readers might have thought.The simple question "where do babies come from?"does not always have the simple answer it oncedid. In vitro fertilization is one of the processesthat has complicated the issue of technology andprocreation.

When I was first confronted with the idea of invitro fertilization (IV?), I supported it immedi-ately. It seemed a completely beneficial concept:a medical advancement that could help infertilecouples have a child of their own. Unfortunately,IVF is not that simple. I still support the process.There are,however, many other factors and fu-ture issues which entangle the technique incontroversy.

"In the broadest terms, science has given us threenew inventions: synthetic children, syntheticfamilies, and synthetic sex. The first, fetalmanipulation and experimentation, is a threat tohuman dignity. The second...is a threat to thefamily. The third...is a threat to sexuality." Thisis a quote taken from a strongly anti-IVF articlein The New Reuublic by Charles Krauthammer.Because I am Catholic, I was curious about theposition of the church on this issue. I foundKrrtuthammer's opinions extremely narrow andfrustrating. He felt that this was a "Franken-stein world" we are approaching. I do admit thatthe idea of creating children without the act ofsexual intercourse seems somewhat sterile andunfeeling. Yet, the process of IVF can be men-tally and somewhat physically difficult. Anycouple who is willing to spend the time, money,and effort to create a baby by in vitro fertilizationobviously desires a child. Maybe the child wasnot created through "natural" means. The way it

21

By Emily Hall

enters into the world is very natural and theworld it enters probably could not be more loving.

Secondly, Krauthammer insists that IVF is athreat to family and sexuality. The threat tofamily seems completely unreasonable in light ofmy argument above. To want a child, to start afamily, is what drives couples to such extrememeasures. As for the threat to sexuality, that ishardly likely. Sexual desires are, at a basic level,primal. Humans won't stop sharing sexual inti-macyjust because a percentage ofinfertile couplescreate children by IVF or artificial insemination.Even in Huxley's sterile, cold world, sex was stillan important part of people's lives.

Much of Krauthammer's and other theologians'sentiment was influenced by the attitudes ofPope Pius XII. His stand against artificial in-semination was decidedly inflexible. In hiswords, *procreativity is the intention of natureinscribed in the organs and their functions". Thisreturns to the argument: is everything that is"natural" correct und everything "unnatural" in-correct? From his statement I would infer this tobe correct. Yet the main reason why medicineexists is to help when our bodies cannot manage.Artificial organs and organ transplantshave savedthousands of lives but these were not "God givenorgans". In the same sense, IVF is not wrongjustbecause it is artificial. Infertile people were notgiven the same healthy organs of normal humanbeings. We have not figured out a way to recon-struct damaged fallopian tubes or cure impo-tency. In the meantime, IVF is the best solution.

The modern Vatican repeats the views of PopePius XII. In a report to the Ethics Committee ofthe American Fertility Society it wrote, "In pur-

suit of the admirable end of helping an infertilecouple to conceive and have their baby, IVFintervenes in their supreme expression of mutuallove. It separates "baby-making" from love-making". A group ofatheists renamed the report,"Sex Tips for Modern Girls from 60-year-oldBachelors Who Have Taken Vows of Chastity".This rather humorous title demonstrates theirony of the Vatican's position. These men havededicated their lives to upholding Christianity asthey think best. Yet, they do not necessarily feelthe yearning of motherhood or the pain of achildless marriage. Is the Vatican really the bestauthority on how to handle this issue?

I have spent much time discussing religion andits involvement within vitro ethics because, de-spite the fact that many people are not as de-voutly religious as their ancestors were, Christi-anity is still the moral foundation of the Westernworld. The attitudes of the Catholic and otherChristian churches have had an obvious impacton such controversial issues as abortion and birthcontrol.

Yet, their objections are not always 11,..eded; fer-tility clinics are flourishing in Australia, Britain,and the United States. As a result of the successof IVF and strong support from the media, peoplehave become very aware of the process a id itspossibilities. This is where many of the moraldilemmas have arisen. Recently fertility clinicshave been confronted with many kinds of re-quests concerning IVF such as: "donor sperm,donor ova, donor embryo, surrogate mothers,surrogate carriers, single women, lesbian couples,frozen sperm, frozen embryos...."

To examine a of these issues could take hun-dreds of pages. Yet, these issues are important.They are intertwined with IVF.

With each issue, different and additional opposi-tion arises against IVF. There are still manysupporters of in vitro fertilization, however. I

22

have discovered an ardent advocate, Peter Singer,writing for Technology Review. Two importantissues he discusses are the rights of embryos andthe role of women in IVF. I agree with him onboth points.

First, in the last few years fertilization special-ists have discovered the benefits of freezingembryos in liquid nitrogen. Because IVF does notalways work on the first try, couples who do notfreeze embryos must go through the complicatedprocess of harvesting eggs and taking hormonesfor many months in a row if they wish to tryagain. If liquid nitrogen is used instead, all theeggs are fertilized, one is implanted, and the restare frozen, ready to be used in the next fewattempts if the first is not successful. Manyquestions arise, however. If the implantation issuccessful, what should be done with the remain-ing embryos? Should they be destroyed? Used forexperimentation? Many pro-life activists havebecome involved in the fight to protect embryorights. For many people the thought of destroy-ing potential life seems the ultimate sin and theultimate insuh to human dignity. Singer chal-lenges this view: "In terms of its actual charac-teristics, the newly conceived embryo ranks verylow. Unlike dogs, pigs, chickens, and other ani-mals, it has no brain or nervous system and ispresumably quite incapable of feeling pain oranything else."

Embryo protectionists also argue that to destroyan embryo is to destroy a potential human being.This is true. Yet, an egg and a sperm also havethis same potential. No one is ever particularlyupset about their destruction.

This issue does not have an easy answer. Embryofreezing, now such an important part of IVF, doesso much good. In church recently, I delivered thefirst reading which states, "Now the Lord hasspoken who formed me as his servant from the_earah (Is 49:3.5-6, underlining mine). I inter-pret this to mean that Christian values are pres-

ent in Christian people at their birth and through-out their lives. Many people in the parish, how-ever, will probably read it to mean from concep-tion. It is difficult to bridge a beliefin science anda belief in God. In my opinion, however, bringingchildren into the world to love and nurture them,whether they are conceived in a petri dish or in ahuman being, is a truly Christian (or at leastbeautifill) action. The fate of extra embryosshould not put a stop to the possibilities IVFholds.

The second issue that Singer explores is the fu-ture role of women as a result of IVF. RobynRowland, an Australian socielogist, writes, 'Ul-timately the new technology will be used for thebenefit of men and to the detriment of women.Although technology itself is not always a nega-tive development, the real question has alwaysbeen who controls it. Biological technology is inthe hands of men." She predicts a world, similarto Margaret Atwood's world in The Handmaid%Idg, where women are merely "vessels" for bear-ing children, made pregnant by IVF. For a fewseconds the idea frightened me, and then I cameto realize that this is extremely unlikely. Beforethe Civil War, many Americans felt that freedslaves would rise up and destroy the white popu-lation. This, of course, has never occurred. It hastaken many years, but we are on the road to amore racially integrated society. Americansadapted to the changes in society then, just as thepeople of the world can adapt to processes such asin vitro fertilization.

Finally, I would like to close by retelling a storyI read in People magazine: Paul D'Alessandrohad only been married a year-and-a-half when hesuffered an industrial accident that made him aparaplegic for life. It also left him unable to havechildren...or so he thought. A new medical tech-nique was used to collect a sperm sample fromD'Alessandro and a year later his wife was preg-nant by in vitro fertilization. They now have ason-something they never thought could happen.

23

This story does not seem to be racked with contro-versy. It has a wonderful, happy ending. Thepossibility of creating a child-even if it is done ina medical lab-is the basic reason I support in vitrofertilization.

Dthliography,

Plummer, William. People Weekly April 4,1988. V29, p70(2).

Krauthammer, Charles. The New Republiq,May 4, 1987. V196, p17(5).

Singer, Peter. Technology Review, March1986. V88, p22(9).

Note: The three articles listed above are thethree I evaluated in my paper. The otherarticles listed are ones I read for backgroundinformation

Nelson, Robert J. The Christian Century, Jan.27, 1984. V99, p78(5).

Lieber, James. The Atlantic, June 1989.p76(5).

Greenwald, Julie. People Weekly, May 30,1988. p46(6).

Artie Press, Nowa& July 2, 1984, p54(1).

McKormick, Richard A. America, V153, Sept.7, 1985, p396(8).

3 I

A PRICELESS CHILDTHE ULTIMATE CONSUMER PRODUCT

The practice of' surrogate motherhood has be-come the subject of emotional debate and na-tional concern. Media coverage of the Baby Mcustody battle enlightened the general publicabout the legal and medical technicalities involv-ing surrogate mothers as well as the moral dilem-mas posed by surrogacy. Surrogate mothershave literally loaned out their bodies for repro-ductive use. This practice should be bannedbecause it shows a wanton disregard for bothwomen and the contracted child who gets passedaround. This issue serves as a prime example ofa technology which has outpaced our currentmoral capacity.

A woman who agrees to be inseminated with thehusband's sperm and then carry the baby to termis a surrogate mother. At birth she relinquishesthe baby for adoption by the man and his wife.The process of artificial insemination is a simpleone that has somewhat crudely been likened toturkey basting. A syringe is used to deposit thesperm directly into the uterus. Thus the babybeing created is the biological child of the sperm-donating father and the surrogate mother. Thelegal contracts which regulate this practice largelyignore this fact. The language in the contractssuggests that the wife of the actual father has asmuch of a right to rear the child as does thesurrogate mother. The reality is that legally thesocial mothers of chil dren born out of"surrogacy"contracts are just one divorce away from child-lessness (Rothman 24).

The technology to perform embryo transfers, and

By Cybele Seiferthave them result in viable pregnancies, has notyet been developed. An embryo transfer is theprocedure used to place a living embryo into awoman's uterus. The embryo may be a product ofin vitro fertilization with the wife's egg and herhusband's sperm; or it may be an embiyo washedfrom the womb of the surrogate. Thus disputesover the child after birth take the form of custodybattles as in the case of Baby M.

The concept of surrogate mothers was first intro-duced in the Bible as evidenced in Genesis 16. Inthis biblical tale, Sarah and Abraham chose Hagarto be the surrogate mother of Ishmael . Sentimen-tal adoption created an unprecedented demandfor infants in the 1920's and 1930's. It is impor-tant to note that, "By the 1930's, lower-classchildren joined their middle-class counterpartsin a new nonproductive world of childhood, aworld in which the sanctity and emotional valueof a child made child labor taboo" (Rothman 24).Previously, children over the age of ten werepreferred as in the case of nineteenth-centuryfoster faniilies. Pictorial Review signaled chang-ing perceptions when it touted infant adoption tobe the latest American fad in 1937 (Rothman).The "idearchild of that era was exactly the sameas the 'ideal' surrogate prodwt of today: a whitehealthy baby of English or Northern Europeandescent. Blue eyes and blond curly hair were andare definite assets. Then babies were importedfrom London. Today people are paying thou-sands of dollars for special order babies. Yet theNational Committee for Adoption estimates thata minimum of 36,000 hard-to-place children

243 ,)

cannot fin d an adoptive liorne. These children areoverlooked because they are sick, disturbed, black,or too old (Rothman 28). How can people sellhuman beings and at the same time leave othersto spend time in insti tuti on s? Now candidates forsurrogate mothers are being pursued across thecountry at college campuses and in predomi-nantly lower-middle class towns. The tragedy ofthis whole baby market concept is only that the"ideal" child is pursued er produced on demand,while children outside the mainstream haveremained unwanted by adoptive couples through-out history.

The average surrogate mother receives a ten-thousand dollar fee for carrying the contractedbaby to fkill term. Her medical expenses arecompletely covered by the couple who requestsher services. This sum seems to be a profit, butshe can't work outside the home during a largechunk of the pregnancy. Paying a woman to beara child goes back t the 1930's and 1940's in thiscountry. There was a black market for babies atthat time, and it was a seller's market. Mothersof unwanted children were approached by en-trepreneurial brokers. These brokers offered topay medical and hospital expenses and often abonus in exchange for thP baby (Rothman 25).

These arguments are not being presented tocompare the evils of baby selling to the evils ofsurrogate mothers. "'he concept of surrogatemothers is far worse than baby selling! A surro-gate mother is expected to deliver the ultimateconsumer product. She is carefully screened sothat the natural father will have the most healthy,beautiful, and intelligent child possible. Theissue isn't simply that parents want a child tolove or a biologically related child to carry on thefamily line. Surrogacy, in summary, is the delib-erate manufacture of a suitable child (Rothman).

25

The issue of contracts and specific stipulationsshows a perversion and a lack of respect for thesurrogate mother and her body. Mary BethWhitehead's contract was typical of the one manysurrogate mothers have. It had provisions foramniocentesis and obligatory abortion if Mr.Stern, the biological father, did not like the re-sults of the test. If Baby M had been miscarriedor stillborn, Mary Beth WhitPhead would havereceived only an undisclosed small fee for hertroubles (Neuhaus 8). Whitehead suffered froma distorted perception of reality thanks in part tothe contract. She said, "It's such a miracle to seea child born." That's an odd comment: sheseemed to be neglecting the fact that she had justexperienced that birth. Even women's smallerdaily rights shouldn't be overlooked. "Manysurrogate contracts include health habit clauses-against cigarette smoking, consuming alcohol,and taking nonprescription drugs. In a sense, thesurrogate signs away her right to independentaction-to toast a friend's promotion, or pop a coldtablet, say-to manufacture a better product.Obligating a women to subordinate her needs tothose of the infant she's gestating changes anurturing relationship to an adversarial one:"the fetus holds the mother hostage" (Asnes 386).Embryo rights shouldn't precede those of themother.

Free choice on the natural mother's part is thussubjugated to the contract. Women are exploitedby the physician-attorney teams who regulatethe contracts and clinics. In both cases womenenter the 'arrangement" as free agents but, ofcourse, they don't remain in control of their des-tiny for long. One lawyer famous for dealing withsurrogate mothers referred to himself as a "pio-neer" and a "champion of breeders", whom hecalled "surrogate mothers" (Corea 245). Heapparently claims ths. his $7,500 fee does jagt

guarantee a baby or that a surrogate would abideby the given contract.

By selling human beings we are leaving oursociety open to many evils. So-iething is wrongwhen we sell children or give them away in thesame manner as kittens and cars. The concept ofmaternal bonds becomes shattered. Women arebonded to their children from the start becausethey grow inside of them. The idea of a womanbonding to a child after birth is a man's percep-tion. The main evil is the plan to recruit poorwomen from the United States and Third Worldcountries such as Central America to becomesurrogate mothers. Some proponents of surro-gacy hope this market will yield a pool of cheaplabor. They figure these women might accept feesas low as $2,000. Thus they feel as surrogacybecomes more commonplace, prices will be slashedin half (Corea 245). Such plans of seeking outwomen who will 1:reed babies because they needto survive wipes out the notion that women willserve as surrogate mothers in the future foraltruistic reasons. The lot of these women wouldbe very similar to black American women whohad their children sold away from them.

Hiring a womb and raging about exploitationhave been the focus thus far. Some couples doseek out surrogate mothers for very legitimatereasons. Stopping the genetic disease of a par-ticular spouse is a motive for many couples. Inone case, a couple didn't want to risk having achild with neurofibromatosis which is a geneticneurological disorder. Spouses who are in the agerange of thirty-six to forty are sometimes consid-ered already too old to be adoptive parents. Oneout of six couples experience fertility problems.Couples who can't conceive due to idiopathic in-fertility are said to experience the ElizabethKubler-Ross stages of grief.

Certainly there are legitimate demands for thisindustry -it is not just a matter of career womennot wanting stretch marks. We live in a capitalistsociety. Who is to say upper-class people can'tbuy themselves custom made children? Somesurrogate mothers are quite eager to share theirwomb. Some women claim to enjoy being preg-nant for its own sake or they could use the extramoney. Others feel that ushering in new life thatwould not otherwise have existed somehow makesup for a past abortion.

Despite appeals to the virtues of capitalism,surrogate motherhood should be banned. Thishas already been done in California. Both womenand the children being created are disregarded inthe process. Children cannot be assigned a mone-tary value and women can't rent out this wombwithout giving up many legal rights, not tomention their pride. The contracts that governthese arrangements exacerbate class conflicts.This issue affects society as a whole and not justwomen. People should be celebrated for theiruniqueness and shortcomings. Manipulatinghuman genetics while thousands of unwanted,unclaimed children are born each year is "crimi-nal".

Bibliamplax

Asnes, Marion. "The Legal Angle," Vogue August1985: 386-387.

Corea, Gena The-Mother Machine. New York:Harper & Row, 1985.

Halpern, Sue. "Infertility: Playing the Odds," MaFebruary 1989: 145-156.

Neuhaus, Richard John. "Renting Woman, Buy-ing Babies, and Class Struggles, society

26 3 it

March-April 1988: 8-10.

Pen:a, Mark., and Linda Gail Christie. MiracleBabies & Other Happy Endings. New York:Rawson Pssociates, 1986.

Rothrr In, Barbara Katz. 'Cheap Labor: Sex,Class, Race - and 'Surrogacy," Society. March-April 1988: 21-28

Mom, Mary. "Dilemmas of the New BirthTeimologies," Di a . May 1988: 70.

27

35

THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY REVOLT:A RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL CONFLICT

Ever since the development of the theory of eco-nomic history by Karl Marx, there has been atendency to attribute many historical events tothe pressures of the economy and the strugglesbetween classes. However, when examining theEnglish Civil War, a Marxist interpretation doesnot properly explain the events or the motiva-tions on both sides.

The struggle between the House of Commons andthe Monarchy, which began shortly after thedeath of Elizabeth I and the crowning ofJames I,was primarily a legal and religious struggle,where the two opposing viewpoints attempted tofind support for their position in the annals ofBritish legal history (Churchill 179-180). TheParliamentary forces, led by Sir Edward Coke,derived many of their arguments from the medie-val traditions of the Lancastrian kings. James Iand Charles I both had ample precedent for theirpoint of view, which espoused the doctrine of theRoyal Prerogative and the *divine right" of kings,especially from recent English history (Churchill179-180). The division was clearly stated byParliamentary Lt. Gen. Edward Ludlow: "Thequestion in dispute between us and Our. King'sparty was...whether the King should govern as agod by his will [or] the nation be governed by lawsmade by themselves and live under a governmentfrom their own consent" (Young 31). Even reli-gious frnatic Oliver Cromwell tended to dwell onlegal distinctions while trying to put the King ontrial (Wedgewood 23).

These divisions were exacerbated by severalfactors. For one, James a firm believer in thedivine right of Kings, initially had almost noknowledge of the English legal system, and at one

28

By Andrew Boles

point ordered a thief hanged without a trial,purely on the basis of kingly say-so in clearviolation of legal precedent (Churchill 148). Sec-ondly, with the fall of Spain as a major power,England was in significantly less danger of out-side military interferenle. The greatest dangerof another attempt to re-Catholicize Englandseemed to come from James himself, who was theson k,f Mary Queen of Scots, and who expendedgreat effort to attempt to marry his son Charlesinto the Spanish royal family. Also, Parliament,after years of domination by Elizabeth I, was in amood to regain some of its power. One of its firstacts was to state what it felt its rights were in aformal "apology' to the King.

At the heart of the conflict between the King andParliament was religion. Religion became a partof the battle when the Parliament, after beingdefeated on the 'Ship Money" issue in a legalbattle, realized that it would have to make reli-gion an issue to prevail over the King. Later,Charles stirred up religious tensions over hisattempt to mandate church attendance duringhis 'Personal Rule." The Puritans consideredthis persecution. Later, when he attempted tomake the sacrament of the Lord's Supper moreelaborate, h. gas widely accused in Scotland ofmoving towards Roman Catholicism, an asser-tion that was supported by the existence of Char-les' Catholic wife (Wedgewood 18). Charles I alsoreleased a new prayer book that greatly offendedthe Scots. The combination ofall these factors ledCharles to be the target of great anti-Catholicoutbursts among the Protestants of England,especially the Puritans. Charles was attackedand executed as much for religious reasons aspolitical ones.

f;

Charles went calmly to his death after rejectingmultiple attempts at negotiation, also for reli-gious reasons. As a believer in the divine right ofkings, Charles could not simply step down. Hebelieved that he had received his authority fromGod, and to deny his calling would be a grave sin(Churchill 232). He was far more willing to diethan to defy God and face the consequences.

Religion reached its paramount importance withthe emergence of Oliver Cromwell. This Parlia-mentary General, and eventual Lord Protector ofEngland, had experienced a religious conversionwhile in his thirties, and lived by the word ofGod.While obviously brilliant, he described all hisopinions and thought as visions or religiousexperiences (Churchill 232). His letters to othermembers of Parliament seeking his advice areladen with statements telling them to seek theiranswers in God. His later consolidation of powerinvo!ved expelling the Presbyterian factions ofParliament from the House of Commons, andeventually setting up a government that bannedall activities not in accordance with the Puritanreligion. Cromwell took what began as a politicalbattle during the reign of James I and turned itinto a religious purge. Cromwell's beliefs also ledhim to believe that there was no other option toexecuting the King. Both Cromwell and Charlesbelieved that they were doin; God's bidding.

Many of the conflicts between the Stuart Mon-archs and Parliament seemingly centered aroundmoney. Monetary matters triggered many of theevents of the period, including Charles' need tocall Parliament for the second time after his longperiod of "Personal Rule." However importantmoney appeared, it was not a driving force, butrather a tool. Parliament used money as theultimate King controlling device. For example,early in Charles' reign, Parliament forced him toacknowledge the superiority of Acts of Parlia-ment to Royal Prerogative in exchange for moneyto fight wars against Spain and France's Cardi-nal Richelieu. The real issue remained a political

29

and legal one, a fight over how England would beruled. For example, the debate over Charles'leveling of"Ship Money" taxes revolved not aroundthe actual tax, but around the King's authority totax at all.

Class distinctions were also of lesser importancethan a Marxist historian would like. When thebattle lines were drawn at the beginning of theCivil War, they were mainly religious and politi-cal divisions, not economic ones. Cromwell'sarmy was made up of wealthy landowners likehimself, as well as what Cromwell called 'plainrusset-couted captains" (Churchill 232). As inthe American Civil War, individual families wereoften broken apart and fought on different sidesof the war(Wedgewood 4). Although more aristo-crats tended to side with the royalist, bymeans all swayed in that direction. The divisionwas greater among the lower classes, which splitdown the middle (Wedgewood 16).

In the final analysis, there is very little supportfor the position that the English Civil War wascaused by economic and class differences. Thepolitical and religious issues far outweighed anymonetary concerns.

Bibliography

Churchill, Winston S. A History of the EnglishSpeaking Peoples Volume Two. The New World,New York: Dodd, Mead, 1956.

Wedgewood, C.V. A Coffin For King Charles.,ItitSzinljaniEl af /idea New York:The MacMillian Company, 1964.

Young, Peter, Oliver Cromwell. Essex: AnchorPress LW., 1975.

;1 7

THE RISE OF ENGLISH CAPITALISMAND THE CIVIL WAR

It is unusual in history for an event to have oneoverwhelming cause without which it is certainthat the event would not have occurred. Forinstance, it is doubtful that there would havebeen an American civil war if conflict had notarisen about the issue of slavery. It is difficult totrace the origins of the English civil war, and eversince its beginning in 1642, its causes have beenthe object of much controversy. Usually the warhas been attributed to political and/or religiousmotives, yet, until recently, the economic aspectsof the war have been largely put off as being sec-ondary, only augmenting the main causes.However, though ideology, whether political orreligious, was a main factor in causing the Par-liamentary uprising, materi. I interests and classstruggles also played a great part, perhaps thelargest part, in pushing the revolt in England.

Thomas Babington Macaulay provided an excel-lent example of the purely political, anti-mon-archial interpretation of the war. England, ac-cording to Macaulay, was reaching a crisis pointin politics from which either the king or theParliament would emerge as dominant. James Ifrightened Parliament with despotic words, buthe really didn't do anything to spark outrightopposition. Charles I, however, acted on hisautocratic ambitions. He began to levy heavytaxes throughout England, including an unusualdemand of "ship money" during peacetime. TheParliamentary leaders believed that the aim ofthese taxes was to raise a standing armytheone instrument that stood between Charles andabsolute monarchy. This was unacceptable, and

By Brian Ruder

hence so were Charles' money-raising efforts.Parliament rose up in opposition, raised an armyand defeated the despot king. (Macaulay 1-10).

Though this theory seems very simple and clear,it ignores too many aspects of the revolution to beadequate. Professor Robert Ashton explainedthe basic reason why a deeper approach must betaken.

It would be absurd to suggest that con-stitutional ideas per se could haveattracted such wide support if they hadnot been intimately connected with man'smaterial interests (Ashton 105).

The basic economic interpretation was originallypresented by R.H. Tawney. He believed that thegentry was the key class in orchestrating the civilwar, a widely held view among economic histori-ans, including Christopher Hill and Robert Ash-ton. The gentry was the dominant force in theHouse of Commons and was rapidly rising inpower and number. Tawney and Hill attribute achange in the gentry's lifestyle to a change in theeconomic structure of Britain. Inflation was onthe rise and it wreaked havoc with the incomes ofthe landed gentry. As the money received fromthose who simply used their land for profit byletting others use it came in fixed amounts, thatmoney became less valuable while its supply tothe landowner remained the same. Hence thegentry began to develop into a more capitalistclass. No longer could the "passive landowner"be expected to keep up with the rising standards

30 S

of the day. Instead, the "agricultural capitalist",or the landowner who used land for investment,set the pace of the economy. It became possiblefor a man to be economically powerful as a land-owner without any other income tithe were a wisebusinessman. Thus, the economy was shiftingassuredly towards capitalism and away from thetraditional feudal system upheld by the monar-chy. The inflation in England was also creatingproblems for Charles. Now in need of morerevenue, he found that his sources of incomewere unresponsive to the changing value of thecurrency. Not only was the monarchy perhapsthe largest "passive landowner", but additionalrevenue was fixed also, such as, tonnage andpoundage duties and traditional feudal dues.Thus, in order to benefit from the rising capital-ism in England, Charles attempted to "graft"himself onto it. He tried to raise revenue inseveral ways, such as peacetime demand of shipmoney, the monopolization of new industries,and stricter enforcement of the payment of feu-dal dues. In so doing, Charles attempted topreserve the feudal structure ofBri tai n by makingit an integral part of the rising capitalism. Therest of the feudal aristocracy found itself in thesame bind and was forced to become increasinglydependent on loans from the capitalists. Unfor-tunately for Charles, feudal and capitalist socie-ties were diametrically opposed and his efforts,along with the aristocracy's leechlike depend-ence, only led to conflict. As Tawney said, "it wasdiscovered...that, as a method of foreclosure, warwas cheaper than litigation" (36). The countrydivided down class lines, with the feudal aristoc-racy becoming royalists, and the capitalist gen-try, merchant classes, and lower classes formingtheir opposition (Hill 11-19, Tawney 32-42Ashton,93-110).

Not all economic historians agree with the

31

"Tawney School." Hugh Trevor-Roper, for ex-ample, is believed to hold an almost entirelyopposite view. He believes that Tawney's statis-tics, displaying the improving economic positionof the gentry, are flawed in that they assume onlyoffice-holding gentry. These office-holding gen-try would have other primary sources of incomebesides land-based revenue. Instead, the "meregentry" (as Trevor-Roper calls them), or thosegentry without income other than land were in astate of economic decline. These poorer gentrysaw the government going into the hands ofcapitalists, and thus saw their futures threat-ened even more. Instead of a rising capitalistclass rebelling against a feudal society, Trevor-Roper takes the view that a discontented seg-ment of feudal society blindly acted to preventrising capitalist power. The gent.", did not knowwhat they wanted, but only that chey didn't wantcapitalism. A weak monarchy was seen as anopening for capitalist control and the weak gen-try made war to prevent capitalist domination.In this sense, the revolution failed (Trevor.Roper 42-48).

However, too much is assumed to say that theentire civil war was simply a blind revolt. Thoughperhaps such an idea couldn't really be provenfalse, it seems that it could easily he combinedwith other interpretations. For instance, if thepoorer gentry were so irrational in their actions,it seems entirely reasonable that they could endup fighting with men who believed that theywere fighting for capitalism. Hence, multipleand sometimes conflicting motives merged tocreate an overwhelming opposition force toCharles' government. Additionally, thoughTawney attributes most of the support for capi-talism to the "agricultural capitalist" alone, Hillbroadens his interpretation to include all of thegentry who had inherent interests in the rising

capitalism, including those who held office. Thisinterpretation seems to be the most reasonable.

An important question arises when discussingthe economic aspects of the war. What part didreligion play after all? J. H. Hexter wrote thatthe "Puritans had to flee from the Laudian re-gime, or fight it." (67). But once again, as with thepolitical and constitutional issues, one must lookdeeper into these religious motives. Primarily,as Christopher Hill pointed out, religion was anissue that dominated everyone's life in 18thCentury England. Since the church was soimportant, the presiding ruler had to control it tocontrol the people. The same reason explainswhy the revolutionaries had to go through thechurch to get rid of the existing rule. Thus,"soda '. conflicts inevitably become religious con-flicts" (Hill 14). Additionally, each class in Eng-land chose a religion to suit its needs. "Men cometo believe in the ideology which they have sub-consciously adopted because of its apparentharmony with their material interests,"(Ashton106). Puritanism was seen by the capitalist eliteas serving their purposes well. They were the"elect" and the non-elect formed the proletariatbeneath them. Puritanism was also the domi-nant religion in England opposite Anglicanismand the autocratic Archbishop Laud's regimewith its increasing tithes. Thus, it was conven-ient to cover up economic and pohtical protestswith religious qualms. To further the idea thatthe religious conflicts in 1642 were more thanideology, Richard Baxter pointed out that he whowas interested in wealth donned a favorablereligion in order to preserve his reputation andquiet his conscience. It can be fairly said thatreligion was the major reason why the lowerclasses fought in the war. They had practicallyno material interests in it, and perhaps would behurt economically by rising capitalism, but they

sincerely felt that they were waging God's war.As Austin Woolrych stated, to those classes theidea of"church- democracy" was closely linked tothe ideaorstaW-democracy". Hence, they mergedtheir religious motives with the pohtical ones oftheir leaders. Perhaps G.E. Aylmer is correct inhis argument that the lower classes simply hadgreat local loyalties, and thus supported theirparticular county's representative in the Houseof Commons. Either way, the lower classes weredrawn into the war after the gentry, with theirinfluence in parliament, began it. (Hill 11-19,Baxter 29-32, Hexter 48-59, Woolrych 59-78,Aylmer 41-46).

The debate over the causes of the English civilwar will continue for some time to come. AsRobert Ashton admits, each author's interpreta-tion of the war is influenced by whatever timeperiod in which he is writing. Politics, religion,and economics all played great parts in spurringthe so-called "Puritan Revolution". No one willever know if tha parliamentary forces wouldhave had enough momentum to defeat Charleshad any one of these causalities been eliminated.Regardless, economic motives played a decisivelykey role in creating the impetus for revolt. Notonly did they push many people of England torebel, but they were also behind many of thereligious and pohtical motivations of the revolu-tionaries. Hence, though many Marxist histori-ans are criticized as being too determined to findclass struggles in historical events, in the case ofthe Enghsh civil war they certainly have a strongcase (Ashton 93-110).

J3ib1iograpkv

Ashton, quoted in Parry, R.H. The English CivilWar and After Berkley: U Cal Press, 1970.

32 '1

Aylmer, G.E. Rebellion or Revolution? NewYork: Opus, 1986.

Baxter, Richard. "A Moderate Puritan Looks atthe Extreme Policies of Sinful Men", Taylor,Philip, Editor, The Origins of the English CivilWu. Lexington: Heath , 1960.

Hexter, J.H. 'The Wealthy Parlimentary Gentryand The Reality of Ideology", Taylor, Philip,Editor, The Origins of the English Civil War.Lexington: Heath, 1960.

Hill, Christopher. "The English BourgeoisieRevolution: A Marxist Interpretation", Taylor,Philip, Editor The Origins of the English CivilWig Heath, 1960.

Macaulay, Thomas B. "Liberty Versus Despot-ism: The Classic Whig Statement", Taylor, Philip,Editor The___OLiging_sf._thl_EnglialLgazajazLexington: Heath, 1960.

Parry, R.H. Thejanglish Civil War and AfterBerkley: U. Cal Press, 1970.

Tawney, Richard H., "The Gentry Takes thePower to Which Their Economic Success Entitlesthem" Taylor, Philip, Editor. The Origins of theEnlish Civil War. Lexington: Heath 1960.

Taylor, Philip, Editor. The Origins of the EnglishCivil War Lexington: Heath, 1960.

Trevor-Roper, Hugh R. "Poor and DiscontentedGentry Rebel Against Established Institutions",Taylor, Philip, Editor The Oritns of the EnglishCivil War Lexington: Heath, 1960.

Woolrych quoted in Parry, R.H. The EnglishCivil War and After Berkley: U Cal Press 1970.

4 133

ON MARX'S HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

"Any day now, any day now, I shall be released..."Bob Dylan

World economics and politics of the twentiethcentury have been dominated overwhelmingly bytwo very different systems and ideologies. Thesystem of "capitalistic democracy", as exempli-fied by the United States, and the broad systemof socialistic "communism", as employed by theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics and much ofthe Eurasian world, have constantly dashed fordomination of the workl economic and politicalscene. The origin of the massive system canedcommunism lies with a man named Karl Marx,who through hi s own studies (both alone and withhis collaborator Friedrich Engels) and by apply-ing philosophies of the German philosopher,G.W.F. Hegel, developed his own brand of social-ism, which he dubbed "communism", and a set ofphilosophies and ideas to go with it.

The ideal of Marx's communism is a society inwhich everyone is a working man on equal termswith everyone else, with every individual work-ing for a common goal, which is the survival andimprovement of the whole. Not only did Marxbelieve that such a society was possible, he rea-soned on the basis of his theories and those ofothers litie Hegel that the capitalist world inwhich he lived was moving inexorably and inevi-tably towards just such a society. Marx based histheory that the ultimate goal of history is acommunistic society of working people on a con-ct pt known as historical materialism. Historicalmaterialism has two basic components; the ideaof the dialectic as applied to history; and the ideathat the economic substructure of society, asbrought. about by the workings of the two forcesof the dialectic, is the basis of the societal super-

34

By Luke Jacob

structure, consisting of the "religion, ethics, laws,and institutions" of society (Hunt 62).

The first piece of the puzzle of Marx's historicalmaterialism is the idea of the dialectic. This ideastates that, in the search for knowledge, there arecountless theses (statements of ideas), to whichcorrespond countless antitheses (Rossi ter 29-30).Eventually the conflicts of the theses and an-titheses of history were pushing events, in anunderstandable and definable pattern, towardssome great "Absolute Idea" (Rossiter 30). Marxwent along with the idea of the dialectic and withapplying it to history, but he wets a man ofpracticalities and realities, not of absolutes andideas, and thus he did not believe that history isconstantly moving towards some "Absolute Idea".

Exhibiting the new "toughness of mind" charac-teristic of many nineteenth century thinkers,Marx was very practical in his reasoning. Heconcluded that all human relations are directedtowards the one end which all men strive for, thisbeing the "production of the means to supportlife" (Hunt, p. 61). Realistically, to Marx, man'sprincipal object is to survive, and this desiresupersedes all else-all morals, religions, and ideasofjustice. And since the production of the meansto support life is so important, so then is theexchange of those things produced vital. Underthis supposition, the basis of all society, and allhistory, is essentially economic.

Here is where the dialectic comes into play inMarx's philosophy. Changes in the productiveforces of society, the relations between men andtheir instruments of production, lead to neces-sary changes in relations between men and othermen, i.e. productive relations (Hunt 61). Marx

4 2

suggested that productive relations in a primi-tive society were essentially cooperative, but thatat some point along the line a few members ofsociety gained control over productive forces.This gave one sector of society power over therest, causing a situation of animosity betweenthe two groups. Thus arose the two opposingforces of Marx's historical dialectic-the class inpower will always be in conflict with the classaspiring to power, and since this latter class willby necessity of such a relationship be oppressed,the two classes will never resolve their disagree-ments without some sort of drasti c change. Thesechanges occur through great revolutions, duringwhich society progresses by quick "leaps orjumps"(Rossite 32). The steady progress of history plodsalong in preparation for the time at which one ofthese leaps of revolution will occur, and the timedoes inevitably come. It is in this way, Marxreasoned, that the primitive form of society turnedinto a system of slaves and slave owners, whichwould become feudalism, which would becomecapitalism, which in the ultimate end, by neces-sity, would become the communist socialism forwhich Marx believed the world to be destined(Hunt 63). As Engles put it, " ice becomes waterand water steam; slaves becomes serfs and serfsfree men' (Berlin 106).

This idea of course implies that the great changesin history are brought about solely by economicforces and by the relations of men based oncurrent economic conditions and not by greatree ,ations of moral right in the areas ofreligion,et} I, or law. Here lies the second great idea ofhib. xical materialism: that the economic (andthus social) situation of society as brought aboutby the dialectic forms the basis, or "substructure"of society, upon which rests the "superstructure",consisting of the ethics and institlitions of society(Hunt ,.62). The way people in a society think,their ideals, and their beliefs are, according toMarx, determined wholly by the economic systemwhich underlies the society. When the produc-tive forces come into conflict with the productive

relations through some new economic develop-ment, one force hinders the other, necessitatinga change in society, which will of course by accom-panied by changes in the society's superstruc-ture. Marx reasoned that these changes in thesubstructure will no longer be necessary once acommunist society, in which there is no need forconflict between classes, comes into being. Marxwaited his whole life for this final revolution buthe never saw his prediction realized.

With Marx's ideas of historical materialism thuslaid out, the obvious question to anyone living inthe world of 1990 is this-are Marx's argumentsand reasonings valid? Does some sort of materi-alistic dialectic create conflict in the substruc-ture of society upon which the societal super-structure is based? And, ultimately, will Marx'spredictions of the eventual appearance of a har-monious, communistic society ever materialize?

first of all, the idea of the importance of anhistorical dialectic is nearly impossible tO proveor disprove. True, society throughout history hasundoubtedly seen clashes of classes. But to saythat history has been progressing due to thespecific laws which are inherent in the idea of thedialectic is mere speculation based on observa-tion of the past. Marx's ideas on this point fitnicely with the changes in the past from a slavesystem to a feudal system to a capitalistic system,butjust because Hegel's ideas gave Marx a seem-ingly perfect basis for his theorizing, there is noscientific evidence that the chain of revolutionswill end with socialism, as Marx claimed. Afterall, Marx held that the first society was one ofcooperation. If this was so, and if, as Marxclaimed, certain members of society eventuallygained power over methods of production, who isto say that this very same phenomenon will notrecur once socialism takes over, if it indeed everdoes?

On the other hand, it is extremely difficult toargue with Marx's assertion that the substruc-ture of society defines the superstructure. An

354 3

excellent example is the structure of a societybased on a slave labor economy. The idea ofowning another man seems immoral to mostpeople today, but when the slave system pro-vided, for the most part, the wealth of entirenations, slavery was easily accepted with little orno second thought. This was not because theslave owners were devoid of morals, but ratherbecause their primary concern was (as Marxwould argue) their own economic well-being andsurvival, and this well-being was provided forthem by a system which employed the use of slavelabor. Whatever is necessary to maintain a soci-ety's economic survival (and the economic sur-vival of its individuals) will be accepted, notwidely criticized. The same reasoning can justi fythe wrongs of today's capitalism. Capitalismcertainly has its drawbacks, in that it often letscertain individuals amass great fortunes whileothers wallow in akect poverty, but because thesystem as a whole is keeping most members ofsociety in a state of economic survival, its ex-cesses are often overlooked. The consensus in theUnited States certainly does not hold that capi-talism is an evil institution, completely devoid ofmorality.

Marx would undoubtedly agree with this evalu-ation of capitalism, and with good reason. Capi-talism is not perfect for all in the society, for itperpetuates classes which will always be in con-flict until some drastic change eliminates them.But in his ultimate conclusion, that socialisticcommunism is the inevitable goal of world soci-ety, Marx seems to have forgotten about one ofthe basic precepts of his historical materialism:that all men ultimately strive for the "productionof the means to support life (Hunt 61). It wouldseem that man, with this selfish (but not by anystretch had) inherent quality, never could moveinto a state of complete cooperation. Commu-nism has been attempted in the modern world,and if the events of the past year are any indica-tion, it has failed. Marx would of course arguethat the communism of the U.S.S.R. and other

Eastern Bloc nations was not pure socialisticcommunism as he saw it, and he would be right.But it appears that the failure of communism inthis century, regardless of how pure the systemstarted off, lay in the fact that those in a positionof leadership in the communist societies havetaken advantage of their positions, allowing foroccurrences of the most basic sort of class struggle.It is unfortunate to note, but it seems that humannature does not permit all of those in a position ofany sort of power (even if, in theory, the power isonly political) to remain satisfied with equality.Even if Marx could have come up with a way ofbringing about a communist society with no needof government, he Fit"?..ted that in the most primi-tive society, of cooperation, some individualseventually obtained an advantage. Maybe some-day Marxist communism will predominate inthis world, but even if it does, it appears asthough the whole vicious circle of cooperative, toslave-based, to feu dal, to capitali stic society, mightvery well just begin all over again.

Biblintaga

Berlin, Isaiah. Earizarx. New York: TimeIncorporu. ion, 1963.

Hunt, R.N. Carew. The Theory and Practice ofCommunism. Middlesex, England: PeguinBooks, 1971.

Rossiter, Clinton. Marxism: The View PromAmerica. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and theWorld, Inc., 1960.

, 4438

THE INEFFECTIVENESS OFTHE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

In the early years of its independence, the UnitedStates was governed by the Articles of Co nfe dera-tion. The Articles governed the states for nineyears from 1781 to 1789. During this time theArticles proved to be very ineffective and theUnited States consequently suffered severe set-backs. An effective government is one that thepeople of the country have faith in. In addition,an effective government is one which handlesforeign affairs, and does not allow other countriesto infringe upon their rights and their territory.Finally, an effective government is one whichestablishes a favorable balance of trade, and actsfairly toward all of its members in trade policies.The Articles of Confederation lacked these keyingredients, and therefore proved to be an inef-fective government.

An important element in an effectivegovernmentis the faith that the citizens have in it. As theyears passed, it became more and more evidentthat people were losing confidence in their gov-ernment. As stated in a letter from DelegateJoseph Jones of Virginia to George Washingtonon February 27, 1783, one group of people ex-tremely upset by the government s the army.They were angry because they were not beingpaid. This was a result of Congress not havingthe power to tax. The lack of funds created notonly internal problems, but external problems aswell. Congress had trouble in paying off debts toforeign countries. Along with the army, dele-gates felt it was time to meet and amend theArticles. When they got together, they realizedhow many loopholes the Articles really had.Instead of amending the Articles, they decided to

By Alex Marchetti

do away with the Articles altogether. This showsthat not only were the common people and thearmy upset with their government, but so werethe congressmen themselves.

Besides failing to inspire faith in the govern-ment, the Articles were also ineffective in dealingwith foreign countries. Although the UnitedStates won its independence, other countries stillhad control of some areas which rightfully be-longed to the United States. As stated in JohnJay's instructions of March 7, 1785, the Britishstill had possession of land in the United Statesafter the war. Despite their victory, the UnitedStates did not have control over all of their postsand territories. The Articles of Confe deration didnot enforce any territorial laws on any foreigncountry. After the United States won the war,the leaders should have claimed all of the landthat was rightfully theirs, so that there would beno question aa L whom the land belonged.However, due to the lack ofpower in the Articles,this process did not take place, and the Britishretained control of some territories. Along withthe British, the Spanish also had some control inthe United States after the war. As stated inJohn Jay's speech on August 6, 1786 to Congresson negotiations with Spain's Minister Diego deGardoqui, the most important area to the Span-ish was the Mississippi River. The SpanishMinister insisted that the Americans give uptheir rights to the Mississippi. He wanted tomake a life-long treaty with the United Statesthat insured this. However, John Jay remindedhim that as the population increased, more andmore people would move west and take advan-

37 4 o

tage of the Mississippi as a highway to the sea.Jay was in favor of a treaty that would lasttwenty-five to thirty years. Spain did not haveany respect for the United States nor their gov-ernment. Spain wanted to play this politicalgame in order to make it more difficult for theUnited States. Neither Britain nor Spain hadany respect for the Articles of Confederation.Therefore, they were not threatened by the or-ders of Congress.

Perhaps the weakest part of the Articles of Con-federation was the inability to control interstateand foreign commerce. This lack of power was

61 the reasons why Congress had no money.. . revealed in a letter from the Rhode IslandAssembly to Congress on November 30, 1782,Congress was going to put a tax on importedgoods. Howe ver, this was a very unpopular idea.Small states such as Rhode Island were stronglyopposed to this idea because they felt that thiswas very hard on the most commercial states.Also, Congress was going to introduce officersinto each state to make sure this act was en-forced. Moreover, the states were given no indi-cation as to time or quantity on this act. Thestates felt that this was an infringement on theirrights. As revealed in market value and popula-tion statistics, there was a lack of prosperityunder the Articles of Confederation. During theyears 1784 to 1789, the population steadily in-creased. However, the overall increase in UnitedStates exports was minimal. Due to populationincrease, one would believe that there would bean increase in exports accompanying the in-crease in work force. However, this was not thecase. Once again, such statistics reveal the inef-fectiveness of the Articles. Furthermore, as statedin Jay's instructions, England shut off the WestIndies to the United States as a punishment tothem for winning the war. Again, this illustratesthe lack of power that the Articles had overforeigners and trade.

In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation

proved to be an ineffective government for theUnited States from 1781 to 1789. The lack offaith by the people, and the lack of power in theareas of trade and foreign affairs brought aboutthe end of the Articles. Not only were Americanslosing confidence in the Articles, but the foreigncountries had no respect for American govern-ment under the Articles. As the years passed, theleaders of the United States finally realized thatchanges had to be made. However, after sittingdown and pondering the Articles, they finally re-alized that this government was not suitable forthe United States. It was then decided to do awaywith the Articles all together. This decisionpaved the way for one of the most respecteddocuments in the world, the Constitution of theUnited States of America.

38 4 E;

IDEOLOGY AND POWER-POLITICSIN THE ERAS OF

RELIGIOUS WAR AND COLD WAR

The question is a simple one: to what extent areImo eras, namely the Counter Reformation era(1560-1648) and the Post World War Two era(1945-), analogous? Yet the breadth of the ques-tion makes it elusive and open to a variety ofinterpretations. The question might best be ap-proached with an analysis of the politics andevents of the two periods. By examining eachperiod independently, one can analyze the rolesofpower-struggles and i deology in each era. Thusfor each era, a new question is asked: How do theforces of power-politics and ideology contribute tothe conflicts of the time? It is through thisquestion that detailed formulations can be madeabout the two periods of history.

In general, the conclusions drawn are as follows:Seventeenth century Europe was ravaged byreligious war, primarily caused by a mix of ideol-ogy and religious nationalism. By the end of theThirty Years' War, the system of 'balance ofpower" had crept onto the svene, and was beingemployed by a number of nations. As the warslingered on, the system was moving throughcontinuous phases of development and accep-tance. Finally, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648firmly established this system of internationalrelations. In the 20th century this "system" isstill in effect, and had crystallized into specificmechanisms of international foreign policy. Byexamining certain up 38 of the system in currenttimes, a number of similarities to events of thereligious wars can be identified.

By Ben Sussman

The analysis begins with the period 1560 to 1648.In this era of religious war, the question is posed:How did ideology or power politics i nfluence inter-national relations? After extensive examinationof trends, the answer is clear. The religious warswere actually caused by a number of factors, themost prominent being an intertwining of reli-gious zeal and new nationalism. As the warspersisted, the issues became more political andsecular, until in 1648 the Peace of' Westphaliaestablished a modern "balance of power" system(Palmer 145).

It is first impu..tant to understand both the im-portance and inevitability of such a politicalsystem. In the years preceding 1560, the Papacyinsured an international peace. So far there wasno threat of one nation dominating all Europe.Europe was religiously homogenous, and thePope represented a unified "moral" force. Yetgradually, European diplomacy became burdenedwith an internal contradiction. In practice, inter-national relations were for the purpose of pursu-ing "peace for all Christianity"...but in reality,Machiavellian power politics came into play.Thus, treaties of the period were established forpurposes of power struggle although they werefilled with moral and peaceful rhetoric. Thisinternal contradiction of stated purposes versusreal purposes is an example of a developingsecular political system in international affairs(Cooper 34).

394 7

In order to remedy this unintentional hypocrisyin diplomacy, a "balance" system was needed.The system probably would have evolved soonerhad not the Reformation torn apart nations.Successful 'balance" diplomacy can only beachieved in a Europe where all nations have thesame goals. Religious revolution, unfortunately,spurred heterogenous ideologies and destroyedany possibility of unity or 'balance. "Unlesspeople realize that they have to live together, inspite of their differences, diplomats have noplaceto stand" (Mattingly, Garrett 168).

It is also important to understand the unitywhich existed between church and state. Thesum total of Spani sh nationalism centered aroundthe Catholic church. In Germany, the princes,who had been granted power by the terms ofAugsburg, represented both national and reli-gious force. The sense of "localism" was so strongin Germany that the state and religion could not

be separated. England's pride rallied arounddefiance of Catholicism. Gustavus Adolphusrepresented both the power of Sweden and the'Defender of the Protestant Cause.' In each ofthese states, as well as others, the terms "reli-

gion" and "nation" were synonymous. Worse yet,Europe was torn by two ideologies, each of whichdemanded total destruction of the enemy.

There are many factors which contributed to theactual outbreak of religious wars. The two reli-gious ideologies were mutually exclusive. Due tothe melding &ideology and nationalism,the only

logical outcome could be mutually exclusive na-tions. Additionally, the trend in rising state ab-solutism led to more organized armies. Theseventeenth century marked an era ofthe perma-nent, professional soldier in service to the mon-arch, as opposed to the mercenary armies ofyearspast (Wijn 200). The modernization of milita-

40

rism coincided with increased funding and stan-dardization of equipment. The overall result wasreligio-nationalist war machines in service of theever-powerful "state".

Thus, the Wars of Religion were not unexpected.It was during these wars that the nations ofEurope which began as ideological zealots endedas secular strategists. This development can beseen in the war between Spain and the LowCountries. Spain began its "Catholic" crusade tosubdue heretics, but Phillip also sought Habsburgpolitical dominion. Although the Dutch werereligiously harassed, Phillip's policy became anissue of political resistance, with all religions inthe Netherlands uniting to drive out Spain. Eventhe eventual English involvement was not somuch for religious reasons as it was to preventSpanish domination. England merely sought topreserve its national security.

The wars which divided France internally areanother example of a trend toward secular phi-losophy. The Calvinist Huguenots were primar-ily noblemen. Because the Calvinist creed deniedsubservience to any form of higher authority, thecivil wars in Prance may be interpreted as politi-cal, a sort of feudal rebellion. Even the Edict ofNantes had secular tinges to it: the purpose wasnot so much to establish religious peace as it wasto stamp out the embers of political upheaval.(Mousnier 487)

The Thirty Years' War, however, is the bestexample of the transformation to a 'balance ofpower" system. To begin with, the war was multi -layered. On the first layer, it started as a Germanreligious civil war. Due to the power struggle ofthe independent prices and generals, the civil

war became constitutional an.;. moved againstthe Holy Roman Emperor himself. On the first

S

international layer, the Dutch feared a revivedconflict with Spain and therefore allied with theProtestant forces for these political reasons. Onthe moet fundamental international level, itbecame a war between France and the threat of"Universalism" posed by the Hapsburgs. Riche-lieu was perhaps one of the earliest modern"balance of power" statesmen. He forged numer-ous and changing alliances for the sole purpose ofcountering the Hapsburgs, ignoring all mattersof religion. As the war continued, its characterchanged. Religious issues, so prominent in theearly years, declined, and power politics, neverabsent, finally predominated. (Beller 307).

With the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the trans-formation was complete. The German religiouswar had long since been settled by the Treaties atPrague and Munster, and Germans stronglyresented French and Spanish proxy armies fight-ing on Teutonic soil. The Westphalia treatiesended the advance of the Counter Reformation,but religion was not the issue anymore. The HolyRoman Empire was dissolved by granting ft IIsovereignty to each of the German provinces, aswell as the Netherlands. France continued towar with Hapsburg forces. Most importantly, theEuropean *state system' had been started. Thenations of Europe realized that differing ideolo-gies could live together, and that individualpreservation was key to balance. The only threatto peace was the destruction of the balance ofpower. The power of leaders was henceforthrestricted each to his own state, and with thepower came the responsibility of state defensethrough any foreign policy necessary to maintainsovereignty. Diplomacy could be re-establishedand a "balance' pat into effect.

The era from 1945 to the present is known as the"Cold War". Once again, the question is posed:

r ow does ideology and the power struggle affectinternational politics? The answer for today'sworld is both simple and complex. The ideologyelement is simply intensified propaganda usedas a "cover-up" for a firmly established 'balanceof power" system. On a more complex level, the"balance of power" system is sustained throughintricate methods of foreign policy.

To be sure, the "balance of power" theory holdsthat the greatest end is a preservation ofnationalsovereignty. The means to that end are withoutmoral or ideological limitations. The greatestenemy is any force which may subvert a nation(Morgenthau 109). In practice, the balance ofpower can be sustained in one of two ways.

First, there is direct escalation between twopowers. In the Cold War era, an example is thenuclear arms race. In the previous time period,an example was a direct confrontation betweenFrance and Spain at the end of the Thirty Years'War. Secondly, there is indirect escalation overa third power. This is commonly known as a"power vacuum" theoty. In modern times, theUnited States and Soviet Union have fought forbalance by being pulled into less powerful thirdworld countries. This element of "balance ofpower" often entails use of 'proxy" wars. Nicara-gua is one illustration of this idea, as was Koreaor even Vietnam, just as Germany was a battle-ground for the international powers in the ThirtyYears' War (Morgenthau 173-175).

Another instrument of "balance of power" is theability to make alliances (Morgenthau 181-186).In the Cold War, NATO and the Warsaw Pact areclassic examples of alliances created to preservenational sovereignty. The idea is that if onenation is threatened by another power, the "bal-ance" is restored by group protection. In the

seventeenth century, Richelieu allied with theDutch against the Spanish Netherlands, andallied with Protestant German princes and theSwedes against Hapsburg forces. Richelieu wasaware that Prance alone could not balance outHapsburg power.

A third instrument of "balance of power" is thepolicy of prestige (Morgenthau 72-78). By im-pressing nations or maintaining an image, effec-tive power can by psychologically emitted. Al-though debatable, U.S. involvement in Vietnamwas closely related to prestige and national credi-bility. And, as in Spain's case, its leaders foundit difficult to back down from conflict in the Neth-erlands and in Germany, despite heavy economicand military losses.

The role of ideology in modern politics has be-come well defined. Namely, ideology is used as asmokescreen to justify "balance of power" poli-cies. The ideologies of capitalism and commu-nism are mutually exclusive, just as the differingreligions were in the seventeenth century. Propa-ganda, however, has become essential to effectivestability in today's world. Americans are taughtto associate communism with totalitarianism.Russians are taught to believe capitalists are"imperialist war pigs." However, it is throughthis ideological propaganda that the superpowergovernments justify mutual containment (Mor-genthau 250).

Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a phenome-non similar to propaganda in the seventeenthcentury. At the time of the religious wars, ideol-ogy did fall into the background and served as ajustification for power politics. However, in alllikelihood there was no conscious or intentionaleffort to deceive the public. It is probable that theleaders themselves embraced the religious cause

as a psychological rationalization for their powerstruggles.

Thus the two eras have been analyzed, and sepa-rate conclusions drawn. In the time of 1560-1648, there was an emerging system of powerpolitics among states amidst many religio-na-tionalist wars. In the modern era after 1945,it is easy to identify a fully formed "balance"diplomacy system which makes active use ofideology as a justification.It must be noted that it is difficult to makecomparisons between the two periods. Becauseone era demonstrates a still-developing statesystem while another demonstrates a full y-formedone, it is especially tricky not tocontrive similari-ties. Often an example of modern diplomacy canonly be matched with a half-similar example inearlier history. Because historians have thepower of retrospective vision, however, modernc.amples can often serve as models to demon-strate the stage of political development in anearlier time period.

"The Wars of Religion have shown that the at-tempt to impose one's own religion as the onlytrue one upon the rest of the world is as futile asit is costly," says Hans Morgenthau, a professorof political science.

A century of almost unprecedent-ed bloodshed, devastation, andbarbarization was needed to con-vince the contestants that the tworeligions could live together inmutual toleration. The two politicalreligions of our time have takenthe place of the two greatChristian denominations...Will thepolitical religions of our time needthe lesson of the Thirty Years' War,

42 5(1

or will they rid themselves in timeof the universalistic aspirationsthat inevitable issue in inconclusivewar', (Morgenthau 241).

Professor Morgenthau's question is a profoundone which captures the essence of the questionstackled in this analysis. If our modern era insistson examining political struggles in years gone by,perhaps we can learn not to duplicate the mis-takes.

Bibliography

Beller, E.A., "Thirty Years War" The NewCambridge Modern History Vol. IV. UniversityPress 1970.

Cooper, J.P., "General Introduction" The NewCambridge Modern History Vol. IV. UniversityPress 1970.

Cooper, J.P., "Sea-Power" The New CambridgeIbdern History Vol. IV. University Press 1970.

Mattingly, Garrett. Renaisance Diplomacy.Penguin 1985.

Morgenthau, Hans J. alitics Among NationsKnopf 1967.

Mosse, G.L., "Changes in Religious Thought"The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. IV.University Press 1970.

Mousnier, R., "The Exponents and Critics ofAbsoluti 3m" The New Cambridge Modernjiistory.. Vol. IV. University Press 1970.

Spooner, P.C., "The Eumpean Economy" The.New Cambridge Modern History Vol. IV

University Press 1970.

Palmer, R.R. and Colton, Joel.A,Itskay_efaliaModern World Sixth Edidtion, Alfred A. KnapiInc. 1983.

Wijn, J.W. "Military Forces and Warfare"New Cambridge Modern History Vol. IV.University Press 1970.

43 0I'

THE GOLDEN SHELL

The American Heritage Dictionary defines theterm gild in two ways, the first as "to give an oftendeceptively attractive or improved appearanceto", and the second definition as "to cover with oras if with a thin layer of gold." The Gilded Age inAmerican history closely parallels this defini-tion, a prosperous period for some who gainedtheir "gilt" by not so righteous means. The"Captains of Industry", as they were called, builtlavish houses that were very ornately decorated.Beyond that, the appearances of the houses re-vealed evidence of the elite class's real values. Onthe outside they were figuratively covered withgold, bnt these people were actually "robberbarons" at heart with cold ruthlessness at theirinner core.

The houses of the "captains of industry" weregrand in appearance from any angle and alwaysone of the first, if not the only house, one noticedwhen passing. There were many specific charac-teristics that distinguished these houses, butthere were four exterior features that each of thehouses had in common (Wheeler and Becker 55-63). Their sizes varied from large to gigantic, butthey all had at least two floors. Unlike the newlydesigned skyscrapers whose main purpose was toutilize the given space to its greatest potential,these houses were built solely to be large andimpressive, and most times there were not manypeople in the family. There was liberal use ofgingerbread to decorate the houses, along withother ornate patterns and designs. The variousbulbs, columns, and imposing moldings on thesehouses gave them a unique appearance. Thesedwellings were not only large, but each houseseemed to be trying to appear more ostentatiousthan its neighbor. All of these houses had porchesand/or verandas and some even had more than

44

By Brian Hammeraley

one. Some verandas were huge structures thatwrapped around large portions of the house. Allof these houses had also at least two high pointson them, usually one being a chimney and theother a peaked roof. Balconies were also incorpo-rated into the designs of some of these houses, asin figure five. All of these dwellings had thesefeatures for a reason: there was a value por-trayed by each that meant a great deal to thepeople who lived in them.

The prestigious figures who lived in these dwell-ings conveyed their values through their houses.The size demonstrated a need to flaunt theirwealth. By erecting a huge structure in theirname, owners made obvious to other people theirhigh social stature. This satisfied a need toimpress the lower, middle, and upper class citi-zens. The decoration was used as a further ex-ample of their affluence. Anyone walking downthat street would notice that particular houseand its adornments. The house that towered overthe rest of the homes in the neighborhood becamean advertisement of the opulence of the peoplewho lived inside. This was also the case with thelarge porches and verandas. The purpose of theseadditions was wholly to expose the social interac-tions of the wealthy owners for all to see. It wasimportant for the lower-class to be able to viewthe finer life, and also for the wealthy to see whotheir next door neighbors were entertaining. Thisoutdoor display could be related to a high societyfashion show. The guests and the entertainersall wore the latest fashions in clothes and hairstyle, even for the most mundane gathering. Thehigh peaks and balconies epitomized the frame ofmind of th e wealthy during the Gilded Age. Theyfelt as if they were above the rest of the workingworld. Their peaks towered above the common,

5 2

and their bakonies raised them above the work-ing class - literally and figuratively. What betterway was there tangibly to display one's prosper-ity?

The floor plans of these homes were "blueprints ofdreams" that revealed the haughty thinking ofthe "robber barons". All the rooms were veryspacious. The dimensions shown on the floorplans would lead to the impression that thefamilies living in them would be large, but thatwas not always true. At times, it would be a smallfamily that lived in a very large house. All ofthese houses incorporated a great hall with agrand staircase at or near the front door. Thestairwells usually were huge winding steps thatdrew attention to anyone going up or down.Ornate handrails would be another method ofdrawing attention to those traveling on the stairs.How common rooms were described also indi-cates a pretentious attitude. The bedroom insome houses was called a chamber, and the livingroom was called the parlor. The subtle differ-ences in names indicated another way of empha-sizing their social class and need to separatethemselves from others.

The floor plans themselves illustrated the eliteclass's values. All the rooms that guests wouldvisit were large. There seemed to be a constantcompetition among the wealthy to see who couldbuild the largest and most extravagant building.In actuality, then, the rooms were large to satisfythe owner's ego, and not really a space cequ:re-ment for the size of their family. The greatstairways that were constructed showed that theinhabitants of the house always wanted to be thecenter of attention. Making grand entrances an ,iexits made a person feel more important, and theesteem of the public was very high on the eliteclass's list of values. Also, the stairway lookedlike one in a castle, and one could deduce that thewealthy felt much like royalty in their socialposition. The verandas were a perfect way todisplay who they were entertaining, but also

served as a barrier to people. They wantedprivacy, and the verandas and porches made itdifficult for passersby to look in, but the ownerscould easily see out. This physical barrier re-flected the social barrier that existed between theaffluent "robber barons" and the general public.

The parlor was an important room on the floorplan. The definition of a parlor is "a room in aprivate home set apart for the entertainment ofvisitors." This room would be decorated lavishlyin an attempt to impress their wealthy guests.No expense was spared on the wall coverings, fur-niture, lighting, and other garish decoration.The chamber was the robber baron's privatequarters and was an extremely socially signifi-cant room. Both of these nouns (parlor andchamber) had roots from French worcLs, which isnot surprising. Overseas travel had becomemuch easier, and ideas from Europe could beimported to America. The wealthy class thatvisited Europe was enamored by their decor andapparently used the words to describe certainrooms. One could deduce that it gave the roomsa greater feeling of importance to those whovisited them. It also sounds more spectacular togo "to the parlor to entertain" than to show yourguests "to the living room" so they can makethemselves comfortable. All the rooms weredecorated extensively, arguably to ridiculouslengths.

The interior features were much like the exteriorcharacteristics-extravagant, and, in most cases,unnecessary. All of these domiciles had at leasttwo fireplaces, while common houses had at mostone if they could afford it. The decor was veryornate, with garish mouldings and wall cover-ings. There were interior columns, chandeliers,and brightly painted rooms. The many pieces offurniture looked as though they h9.d been im-ported from a French castle. There were mirrorsand paintings of royalty in most of the rooms aswell.

455 3

There was a great deal of fluniture in most of therooms. It gave some of the rooms a cluttered look,and almost defeated the room's purpose. Thesepeople were so obsessed with trying to impressothers with their wealth that they almost ruinedthe flinction of a room in the process.

Regarding the values that can be gleaned fromthe decoration of these homes, much is obvious.The fireplace did not serve as an essential heat-ing unit, as it was to most people, but, as a placefor relaxing or socializing. The castle-like decorin these houses shows the large egos that thesepeople possessed. They put themselves on thelevel of past kings, rulers of nations. They feltthat with their financial positions they were therulers of America and shoul d live in that manner.

The sole motivation of the elite during the GildedAge was to enhance their way of life and tobenefit their person. It was their intention to liveby Benjamin Franklin's aphorism, "time ismoney." The only way, in their view, to gainpower was through the possession of abundantfunds. How this money was acquired, fair or foul,did not matter. These men manipulated the gov-ernment, more specifically the Congress, intopassing bills that would do little or no harm tothem. Their main goal was to continue to gainprofit, end at their political and fiscal level, theywere able to mold the purposes of government tofit their needs. They always attempted to keepbusiness running smoothly and profitably. Therobber barons were very harsh in their treatmentof the common people who worked for them, andhad no remorse when it came to firing people orbrutally crushing strikes. Consequently, theywere not well-loved by the people that theyemployed and there was much resentment to-wards them. As the robber barons became wealth-ier, the rest of society became poorer, and thereseemed to no way to stop this trend. These gold-covered homes were nothing more than an exten-sion of their personalities ana .tisfied an obses-sive desire to be better than the rest. Inside, the

46

houses were cold-not from lack of heat, but fromlack of compassion.

Bibliography

Wheeler, William Bruce and Susan D. Becker.LlinamerizatigAmericaa2aat. Vol. II (Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company, 1986), 56-63.

1

MALADIES OF THE MODERATES

'We are here in a land fabulous but real, wherethe wisdom and common sense of the moderateare not wisdom and common sense, but folly"' nyinton 147). Crane Brinton describes the loftyi ontions of the moderates during the FrenchRevolution and exaggerates their feeble andunexpected results. The moderates from 1789-1792 were intrinsically vulnerable with count-less weaknesses in their coalition and policies.They failed to retain control ofthe French govern-ment and complete most of their projects becausethe leadership of the moderates was only the firsttentative stage of the Revolution. Divided within,and yet unable to please the interests of extrem-ists both to the right and left, moderates executedcontradictory, untimely, or inconsistent legisla-tion. Though extremists occupied a minorityposition within the French Revolution, their ve-hemence and tight network of support ended thereign of the very flawed moderates.

It is true that the initial step in any series ofchanges is dissatisfaction. However, mere dis-satisfaction is futile in bringing about changeunless it leads to a careflal assessment of theproblem and thoughtful propositions for reform.This was the inevitable problem of the Frenchmoderates, inevitable because they were the partyof the initial reaction of dissatisfaction. Theproblems of the stagnant bourgeoisie, the dis-graceftil standard of living for the peasants andworking class, and the domination ofgovernmentby the first two estates were all obvious problemsof the Old Regime. Moderates knew that theywere dissatisfied but knew not what to do. There-fore, their actions had broad aims and wereindecisive, reflecting the whole of the moderateparty. The goal of the National Assembly, af-

By Andrea Gregor

firmed by the Oath of the Tennis Court, wassinply to create a new constitution (Gottschalk123). What that constitution would include, theydid not know. In addition, the group had not evenagreed on how such a measure should be voted(Gottschalk 119). Clearly, the objectives wereneither thought out nor stated and instead ofproceeding to the task of creating a constitution,the moderates had to resolve the primary conflictof the number of chambers, veto power, and vot-ing. Beyond this there was yet another problemwith the National Assembly's agenda. They hadbeen chiefly interested in the financial dilemmaswhich were indeed the primary reason for theirinitial dissatisfaction, but were merely willing togrant a few much needed reforms as an aside(Gottschalk 78). The link between financial andsocial issues was not understood in their earlylegislation and the Assembly members proceededas if they could address finances alone until theyrealized how unworkable that approach was.Such inconsistencies in this early stage of therevolution were confusing to many rura. peoplewho received delayed and unreliable communi-cation from Paris (Gottschalk 138). Many of thefirst and minor rural insurrections resulted. Inall of these ways, the moderates were truly unfor-tunate because the nature of any initial reactionis haphazard, unfocused, and flawed for lack of apre-existing model of revolution.

The moderates assembled as a large, dissatisfiedgroup, bonded only by an oath to draw up a newconstitution. Their formation as a governmentand political party was hasty and expedient. It islogical that out of this group emerged opposinginterests and the need to appease or satisfy them.Soon after the formation of the National Assem-

47 r-

bly, moderates realized that there was lesshomogeneity than diversity among them (Brin-ton 156). This was first apparent in the contro-versy over how many bodies should exist in theConstituent Assembly and what role the Kingshould play. Right wing, conservative loyalistsbecame an obvious group and left wing, republi-can representatives another. The left wing wasmade up of third estate representatives whosupported a unitary government. Having ac-knowledged sharp differences in their goals andmethods for achieving them, the moderates re-fused to dictate their own solutions, at least atthat moment in time. "If voting by head isnecessary when it involves the mere sacrifice ofpart of our property, it must be much moreimportant when it is a question of liberty, thehonor and the lives of citizens...not vicious dis-tinction of the orders" (Dawson 21).

Moderates, as their name suggests, did not repre-sent any truly extremist groups. It is true thatthere began to be a definite polarization withinthe Constituent Assembly, but the Assembly as awhole remained moderate for two reasons . First,the mere act of beginning a revolution was radi-cal in itself, and beyond that, the government didnot venture too much further. The assumptionwas that these groups were taking great meas-ures just by taking the Tennis Court Oath andstruggling over the new format for the Assembly(Brinton 138). This only froze progress andprompted even the confused King to say that ifthe three estates would refuse to cooperate withhim , then he would carry out his own program(Gottschalk 128). This was a very opportunemoment for extremist factions to point out howlittle the new government was accomplishii.g.Had not both the right and the left of the Con-stituent Assembly been trying to benefit noblesand workers respectively, there may have beenmore aggressive and truly helpful legislation.Such circumstances helped to inspire the extrem-ist movements.

There were inherent weaknesses in the moder-

ates' control of the government due to the grow-ing demands of minority extremistgroups. As thelegally constituted government, moderates inpower were forced to shoulder the responsibilityfor all the people, not doing anything that wouldblatantly favor any single social group (Brinton136). It needed to operate under the premise ofequality put forth in the constitution while con-tinuing to use conventions of government. Eachact was under the scrutiny of all special interestgroups looking for ways in which iteither steppedout of bounds or did not live up toits institutionalrole. "If they gave bread to the poor, the Jacobinscried out they were attempting bribery. If theydid nothing, the Jacobins complained that theylacked social conscience" (Brinton 139). Whenfinally something decisive was done, the manygroups considered to be represented by this es-tablished legal government could only be dissat-isfied.

Again, it is unfortunate that the moderates werethe first to attempt change after the Old Regimefrom the position of a conventional government.The examples of the policies of the moderates,such as the assumption of the constitution, theiractions towards the Church, and lack of actionsfor the peasant and working class were all inade-quate and met with severe criticism, criticismthat paved the way for extremist parties.

It was a mistake for the moderates to make loftyclaims in their constitution that they were inca-pable of putting into effect. The constitutionacknowledged each person's "natural rights ofliberty, property, security, and resistance tooppression", and continued to say that theserights should be protected (Dawson 43). Toomany words and too few actions arguably en-couraged future violence in many ways and at theveryleast i t caused many to call these rights to at-tention in writing. The third estate felt that theyhad a right to demand "elimination of all uselessexpenditures in all parts of the administration,after which they will consent to all these for the

48 r,

dignity of the throne" (Dawson 27).

The Assembly's behavior toward the Church wasa simple act of making more enemies than itcould afford. Before the Civil Constitution of theClergy was declared, more than half the clergyhad joined the National Assembly (Gottschalk129). The King was still in a position where hecould conceivably meet the demands of the As-sembly more easily and many workers and peas-ants had not yet been swayed to any one cause.The Civil Constitution of the Clergy was a drasticmeasure in relation to moderate policies andsucceeded in demonstrating the handicappedmeans which the Assembly used to create legis-lation. Confiscating Church lands and bringingthe Church under the state alienated the Churchfrom the moderate regime. Rural people whowere loyal to clergy that happened to be conser-vative, or refractory, were also alienated by theConstitutional Assembly. Those who saw it stra-tegically necessary for the Church to be unifiedwere disgusted: "In all times, but particularly inthis we must be unibus labii, and our conductmust be the same; this unity ought to produce thefortunate effect we intend' (Dawson 74). TheKing was for once and for all completely turnedagainst the actions of the Assembly, leaving nochance for any help from him. Finally, thepractical results of the Civil Constitution of theClergy were not overwhelmingly positive in theleast. Sale of Church lands was not aimed atthose who really needed it and most clerical landwas sold in northern Prance with variable impact(Hunt 147). Due to the weaknesses inherent inthe Constituent Assembly, it is not surprisingthat the moderates failed to produce an effectivepiece of legislation.

Finally, the needs of great masses of people werenot alleviated. The aforementioned incidentalsocial reforms were not even carried through,and in the face of i nflation, scarcity, bad harvestsand unemployment due to political tentative-ness, extremist groups found support among work-

ers and peasants (Gottschalk 147). It was notstrategic for the moderates to address the bour-geoisie over the masses, which is what theirshort-reaching policies did. Of the lofty claims ofrights and needs of their people, most of it waslittle more than propaganda prohibiting pastwrongs but offering no foundations for presentrights (Gottschalk 140). Especially as other na-tions came in and warfare began, which was notaltogether unwanted, rural people often took thebrunt of the violence. It is not surprising thatbeing ignored and beaten upon led to violencetowards the moderates. The moderate regimewas like a curious animal, rushing in an un-known territory only to be pinned to the ground,belly-up, unable to successffilly get back on itsfeet again. In this vulnerable position, the mod-erates could be overwhelmed by extremist grou p,unified by strong ideologies, vehement to thepoint offanaticism, disciplined and centralized inauthority (Brinton 149). Their voices were clear,not jumbled or contradictory. They were able toact with deliberateness because they had learnedfrom the mistakes of the moderates. Extremistgroups were never thought accountable to insti-tutions or conventions since their existence wasillegal to begin wi.h (Brinton 139). Onto thescene they were able to come and attack the manyweaknesses of the moderates, whether they wereweaknesseiof theory or practice. Once violencebegan, the constant cycle of dissatisfaction,change, and reassessment continued.

Bibliography.

Brinton, Crane. tinekraysfiL/leyplutien. NewYork: Vintage Books, 1965.

Church, William F., Ed. The Influence ofEnlight-enment on the French Revolution Massachu-setts: D. C. Heath and Co., 1974.

Gottschalk, Louis R. The Era of the French Revo-lution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1929.

497

Hunt, Lynn. Politics. Culture. and Class in theFrench Revolution. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1981.

50

THE EVER CHALLENGED BISMARCK

On January 18, 1871, in the Hall of Mirrors inVersailles, the German Empire was proclaimed.This was the point from which a new era offoreign policy was to begin. Bismarck, as Ger-man chancellor, continued to follow only theinterests of the state, basing his foreign policyupon real factors in European relations. At thispoint, Germany was militarily dominant with achancellor who intended to keep it that way.Bismarck did not intend to use this power foraggressive purposes though. He was more con-cerned with keeping peace in Europe and neededto assure the other European powers of his in-tent. Bismarck had the opinion that Germanyhad everything it needed, including land, andthat war did not offer any actual gain (Bran-denburg 87). The preservation of peace was themost certain and least costly means of safeguard-i ng the state he created (Rich 181). From 1871 to1890, Bismarck's foreign policy consisted of threemain objectives. The first was to isolate Franceas much as possible so as to make a war ofrevenge out of the question. The second was toprevent an Austro-Russian war by inducing bothRussia and Austria to come to a settlement in theNear East. The third was to prevent a Franco-Russian alliance which would eventually lead toa two-front war.

Basically, the object of Bismarck's foreign policywas to reduce the pressure upon the Germanfrontiers as much as possible by diverting Euro-pean powers to colonial fields and by building asystem of protective agreements that made ac-tion difficult and dangerous (Rich 106). Bis-marck's first move to stabilize the Europeanstate system established in 1871 was an attemptto revive the Metternichian Concert among theconservative powers of Europe. He looked upon

51

By Gregory A. Kroll

Russia and Austria as natural allies in workingtoward this goal. With the threat of revolution inboth of these nations, they would join with Bis-marck in a policy aimed at preserving the inter-national as well as the domestic status quo-for awar, with all its risks, would only assist therevolutionaries (Rich 181). Thus, in the course of1873, several treaties between these three pow-ers resulted in the formation of the first ThreeEmperors" League (joined by Italy in September1873). It would only work as long as the interestsof the conservative powers were in harmony(Rich 181).

With the Three Emperors League, Bismarckwas able to isolate France temporarily. Therewas a lot of anti-German sentiment in France,mainly because of the loss of Al sace and Lorraineto Germany. Thus, with the French looking for awar of revenge, Bisinarck had to seek allianceswith the other European powers. With suchviolent feeling toward Germany, he decided tosanction French colonial activities and attemptto keep friendly relations with France. Bismarckhoped that if he could help this nation acquire anoverseas colonial empire, then maybe the Frenchlove of prestige would be satisfied and the loss ofAlsace and I orraine would be compensated for(Brandenburg 91). When France conqueredAnnam and Tonkin, Bismarck gave his consentand drew attention towards Morocco as a poten-tial French colony. He also encouraged Frenchoccupation of Tunis (Brandenburg 91). Francehad much invested in this territory. When Ital-ian interests closed in on Tunis, France immedi-ately took it over and drove Italy intojoining withGermany and Austria to form the Triple Allianceof 1881 (Rich 191). This alliance was a generalagreement to suppo:t the monarchical principle

5 ;)

and the existing political and social order. It alsoassured Germany of Italian neutrality in theevent of a Franco-German War (Rich 191). Astime passed, General Boulanger rose and theFrench diplomat Ferry fell from power. WithFrench defeats in Indochina and patriotic socie-ties crying out for the return of Alsace and Lor-raine, great anti-German sentiment arose oncemore. Ferry's cooperation with Bismarck wasnow considered treasonous (Rich 196). Bismarckhad to establish once again, new alliances withother European powers. Soon, a more intricatesystem of alliances was arranged, including arenewal of the Triple Alliance.

Before the end of Franco-German cooperation incolonial matters, Bismarck was able to takeadvantage of another colonial situation. In 1869,the Suez Canal was opened, making Egypt anarea of prime strategic importance. Shortly af-ter, France and Britain took joint control of theEgyptian government, which was highly in debt.In January 1882, a group of Egyptian armyofficers overthrew European control and estab-lished a national government. Britain respondedwith force and regained control for itself. WithBritish occupation of Egypt, Italy and Francegrew angry because they, too, had strategic aswell as economic interests in the area (Rich 193).The growing hostility between these nations ledBismarck to discourage war (Rich 193). He usedBritain's awkward position to offer an ultima-tum.

for continued German diplomatic support nowand in the future, Britain should cede to Ger-many the island of Helgoland (strategic base inthe North Sea) and agree to further Germanacquisition of a few other overseas territories.Bismarck was against colonial expansion be-cause he felt it would not benefit the state, but theacquisitions would nevertheless improve hispopularity with the growing number of imperial-ists in his country (Rich 194). With the coopera-tion from Britain, Bismarck was able to maintain

52

peace internationally as well as domestically.

Continuing on territorial affairs, the Balkanpeninsula became a subject of dispute betweenAustria and Russia. One of Bismarck's mainpoints in his diplomacy was the prevention of anAustro-Russian war. Such a war would offer fewgains and many losses for Germany. Therefore,he made it clear that Austria and Russia shouldconclude a peaceflil partition of the Balkans assoon as possible, and if they went to war, Ger-many would intervene to prevent either powerfrom gaining a decisive victory. Soon in 1887, asituation aroee in which Russia and Turkey wentto war. With Turkish defeat came the Treaty ofSan Stefano, and in turn European dismay (Rich194). In June, the Congress of Berlin met to makerevision in the treaty (the most important onesbeing made beforehand) (Rich 183). During thenegotiations, Bismarck played the "honest bro-ker" and set the pace (Rich 184). Bismarckrecognized Russia's historic rights in the Bal-kans and influence in Bulgaria. He thereforeundertook to support Russia in reestablishing aregular and legal government in Bulgaria (Al-bertini 97). The Congress of Berlin was success-flil for only a short while, because in September1885, a revolution broke out in Bulgaria. One ofits objectives was to unite Bulgaria with EastRumelia-a violation of the Berlin treaty. Europewas on the brink of war again (Rich 190). Only acomplicated system of treaties, formed by Bis-marck, would keep the peace.

With war threatening Europe again and a lapsein the Three Emperor's League, Bismarck thoughtit appropriate to set up some new alliances. OnFebruary 12, 1887, in a secret meeting withBritain and Italy, all three powers undertook touphold the status quo in the Medi Lecranean,Adriatic, Aegean and Black Seas. Italy wouldaccept Britain's position in Egypt, and Britainwould support Italy in the event of "encroach-m en ts"on North Africa by another power, namelyFrance (Seton-Watson 93).

Eight days later, the Triple Alliance was re-newed, assisting both Austria and Italy (Rich197). By December 12, a second MediterraneanAgreement had been signed between Austria,Britain, Italy and Germany. The agreementcalled for a maintenance of peace, status quo,local autonomies, and the freedom of the Straitsof Constantinople. In one respect, this treaty wassuccessful in that it restrained Russia from in-vading Bulgaria and pressurin g Turkey (Alberti ni100). By the end of 1887, no power could movewithout involving itself in endless difficultiesand dangers (Rich 104).

The last point in Bismarck's foreign policy wasthe prevention of a Franco-Russian Alliance. BothFrance and Russia were feeling anti-German formuch of the time between 1871-1890. Growingthreats up to 1879 led to the formation of adefensh a Austro-German Alliance which sup-ported both powers from Russian aggression (Rich187). After the Congress of Berlin, Russia be-came hostile once again because Germany al-lowed them to suffer a diplomatic setback. Bis-marck tried to counter anti-German feeling byhelping Russia with establishing a Bulgariangovernment. At this stage, Bismarck addressedhimself directly to British Minister Salisbury,discussing German defense and policy. Bothagreed that France and Russia were the twounstable powers in Europe (Seton-Watson 94).Towards the end of the 1880's, when France andRussia began to draw together, Bismarck againproposed in London an alliance with England,sanctioned by Parliament, for a mutual defenseagainst an attack by France. Bismarck stressedthat the knowledge of such a treaty would help itprevent war (Brandenburg 91). In continuing toappease Russia, Germany signed the Reinsur-ance Treaty on June 18, 1887. It stood for Ger-man approval of a Russian take-over of the Straitsof Con stan ti nopl e. By attempting to keep on goodterms with Russia and establishing defensive al-liances, Bismarck was able to successfully pre-vent a Franco-Russian alliance, and thereby

prevent a two-front war.

In 1890 came the dismissal of Otto von Bismarckas Chancellor of Germany, and the end of a greatperiod in diplomatic history. Bismarck's shrewdtactics and realistic beliefs made him the onlyman at that time who could keep peace in ahostile Europe. Once he left, the alliance struc-tures dissolved soon after and World War I laterfollowed. Maybe if Bismarck was there, he couldhave prevented it. In fact, Bismarck was keepinga world war from occurring during the periodfrom 1871-1890.

bibliography

Albertini, Luigi. "Juggling on Horseback withFive Balls* in Hamerow, Theodore S., Editor.Otto Von Bismarck: A HistoricaLAssessment.Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath & Co.,1972.

Brandenburg, Eric. "Pax Teutonica" in Hamerow,Theodore S., Editor. Otto Von Bismarck: Ajastorical Assessment. Lexington, Massachu-setts: D. C. Heath & Co.,1972.

Rich, Norman The Age of Nationalism and Re-faindar&M. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,1970.

Seaton-Watson, R. W. "A Trois in a World Gov-ernment by Five" in Hamerow, Theodore S.,Editor. Otto von Bismarck: A Historical Assess.tment. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath &Co., 1972.

53

")

JOHN SWANICK'S WINNING FORMULA

Finding out who won the Philadelphia congres-sional election of 1794 can be achieved by a quicktally of the votes. The deeper question, which isnot so easily resolved, is why 'he given candidatewon. By counting the votes cast in this election itcan be concluded that John Swanick defeatedThomas Fitzsimmons by approxi mately 234 votes(Becker/Wheeler Vol . 2 65). To completely evalu-ate the election it is necessary to discover whatmotivated the voters to vote as they did. Swanickwon the 1794 congressional election because ofdemographic variability, opinions which he andhis party held on important issues, and his per-sonal background.

Demographic variables played alarge part in thiselection. The most straightforward dividing fac-tor was religion. It is a fact that most voters inPhiladelphia were either Lutheran or Quaker,but Protestant in either case. Fitzsimmons wasa Catholic and Swanick was a Protestant. Out ofthe six wards listed in a sample from the 1794Philadelphia city directory, with clergy listed ineach, four of the wards were shown by the ele'>tion voting patterns to have been won by Swanick(Becker/Wheeler 62). The assumption can bemade that the vast majority of these clergy wereProtestant in keeping with the mostly Protestantcommunity. This would suggest that religioninfluenced the voting habits of these districts.Further study of these two charts reveals thatanother group can be identified residing in areaswhich supported John Swanick. This group wascomposed of artisans and laborers. Why thepeople of these two occupations voted for Swan-ick cannot, however, be determined from this in-formation alone.

The reason for this support can be found by

By Shannon M. Sohaab

knowing the opinion of the candidates on impor-tant issues and their political affiliations. Themost telling clue about this influence comes fromthe following statement:

...the Democratic Society, a politicalpressure group...to get artisans andand laborers involved in protest a-gainst the policies of the Washingtonadministration...endorsed Swanick in1794 and worked actively on his behalf(Becker/Wheeler 59).

It can be deduced that his affiliation with theDemocratic Society swayed the laborers' andartisans' votes toward Swanick.

The second significant issue in 1794 was theWhiskey Rebellion. Though neither candidatespoke specifically about this issue, the fact thatSwanick was a Democratic-Republican and thatFitzsimmons was a Federalist gave the voters ageneral idea of their views. Biographical infor-mation on Fitzsimmons states, "He was a firmsupporter of Alexander Hamilton's policies, in-cluding the excise tax" (Becker/Wheeler 56). AndHamilton's statement to President Washingtonon August 1, 1794 about the rebellion clearlyindicates Fitzsimmons' pro-tax opinion and ap-proval of the strict punishment of the rebels(Synet 58). On the other hand, biographical in-formation on bwanick says, "He opposed theexcise tax..." (Becker/Wheeler 57-58). This byitself does not help in understanding Philadel-phia voters. But coupled with occupational andvoting ward statistics, this issue becomes key tothe election outcome. In interpreting the electionvoting patterns and the figures from the 1794 citydirectory, an interesting discovery can be made.

54))

Three wards with the most inn and tavern keep-ers voted in favor of Swanick. It is only logicalthat the inn and tavern keepers who serve a lot ofwhiskey opposed this tax.

The final factor in this election was the candi-dates' background. Previously mentioned werethe aspects of religion and political tendencies.The last factor which should be included is theYellow Fever outbreak of 1793. Swanick was notpolitically active during the outbreak but be-cause Fitzsimmons was in office at that time ithad a permanent effect on his reputation. Theelection voting patterns and the figures from the1794 city directory show that four of the sevenwards in which Fitzsimmons lost had more thanone hundred deaths from the fever. Regardless ofwhether he had any control over the sanitationfunding which could have prevented the yellowfever, the people blamed him and remembered itat election time. It is also possible that had thefever not broken out the upper class lawyers,gentlemen and brokers would not have movedfrom the area and may have supported Fitzsim-mons.

Though it is impossible to completely understandall the voters' motivations, some general trendscan be found. In the Philadelphia 1794 congres-sional election, as witi most elections, the pat-terns included demographic variability, generalissues and political affiliations, and the candi-dates' personal backgrounds. Because of themultitude of facts historians have gathered, it ispossible to understand the trends in an electionwhich happened almost two hundred years ago.Is it then possible that two hundred years fromnow historians will be making sense of electionswhich have occurred lately?

Bibliggruhy,

Susan D. Becker and William Bruce Wheeler,Discovering the Amerkan _Past: A Look at theEvidence, 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1986) vol. 2, 65.

Harold C. Synett, ed., The Papers of AlexanderHama= vol. XVII (New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press, 1972) 15-19 in Becker and Wheeler.

55k

THE SPIDER AND HIS WEB:BISMARCK'S POST.UNIFICATION FOREIGN POLICY

"We Germans" proclaimed Otto von Bismarck in1987 "fear God and nothing else in the world"(Seton-Watson 58). Perhaps, on that day in theReichstag, Bismarck's bold words were true. Butthat day could only arrive after sixteen years of apolicy of peace based on fear: fear of an Austro-Russian war and the even potent fear of aFranco-Russian war and the even more potentfear yet of a Franco-Russian alliance. Bismarckallayed those fears until his forced resignation in1890 (Colliers, 1980 ed.). In the following yearshis delicate system would disintegrate, the strainof a changing world finally breaking the intricateweb of alli ances and treaties Bismarck had spun.By so ably maintaining the status quo, he neverresolved the root conflicts that necessitated sucha brilliant statesman in the first place. No onecould fill Bismarck's place, and by 1914 his wholestructure - indeed, all of Europe - had fallen intothe first "war to end all wars".

Germany's greatest threat came from its geopo-litical position. Poised between a potentiallyhostile France and Russia, it could all too easilybe dragged into a war on two fronts that woulddestroy the fledgling nation. Bi smarck concludedthat his best hope of preventing this lay in analliance with Russia rather than with France,still smarting from the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt(Brandenburg 53). In 1873 he resurrected theHoly Alliance with the Three Emperors League,or Dreikaiserbund, which Yale professor PaulKennedy described as "a quasi-alliance whichstressed the ideological solidarity of the Easternmonarchies, as against "republican" France"(Kennedy 189). By 1887, Russo-Austrian rela-tions had deteriorated to the point that theDreikaiserbund could not be renewed. Bismarckand Shuvalov, after a very tricky set of maneu-

56

By Bridget Leffler

verings, hammered out what would be called theReinsurance Treaty. The two powers thus agreedthat if either were at war with a third greatpower, the other would adopt a position of "be-nevolent neutrality". Further, they reaffirmedtheir stance that the straits of Central Asiashould remain closed, and they nonfirmed Ger-many's recognition of Russia's Balkan claims(Kennan 318).

Always one to cover his back, Bismarck also tooksteps to insure German victory should a Franco-Russian alliance solidifY and turn hostile. TheTrip lice, or Triple Alliance between Italy, Aus-tria-Hungary, and Germany was concluded in1881 (Kennan 249). This alliance discouragedthe two remaining powers from any inflamma-tory action because to be "a trois in a worldgoverned by five" was always the stronger posi-tion (Seton-Watson 55). In the Mediterranean,Bismarck enthusiastically supported the 1887Austrian-British-Italian agreements to maintainpeace in the Near East, which, according to LuigiAlberti ni ,"aimed at restraini ng Russia"(Albertini60). The Mediterranean Agreement once againleft Russia and France isolated.

The Triple Alliance also served to pull Austria-Hungary closer into Germany's sphere. A warbetween the Dual Monarchy and the Tsar wouldseriously imperil Germany. Bismarck wanted toavoid this by keeping both sides allied, if only bymutual alliances with Germany. To this end, hesigned the secret Austro-German alliar.ce of 1880(Kennedy 190). He even tried to divide the Bal-kans into separate Russian and Austrian spheresof influence, a policy which ultimately provedunworkable (Langer 62).

f; 4

All of these alliances, treaties, and agreementsmade such a web of promises and threats that nonation could successffilly embark upon an ag-gressive or expansionistic policy. It was a mas-terfill way to protect the status quo, but it wasdependent on the man in the middle. Bismarckcould maintain peace by diplomatic manipula-tion, but his was an isolated genius. He did littleto relieve the underlying stresses that made sucha complex system necessary.

Bismarck failed to make concessions to the grow-ing imperialist, expansionist spirit in Europe.His relationship with Russia could not bear thestrain of Russia ambition in the Balkans. Thequestion of Bulgaria finally became the prover-bial straw that broke the camel's back. Bismarckrefused to mediate the conflict over whetherBulgaria should be dominated by Austria orRussia - not having to choose between the twowas a cornerstone ofhis policy. In 1887,Bulgariadared to take independent action, and PrinceFerdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was crownedking. Russia viewed him as a tool of the Bulgar-ian Regency, which she had never recognized,leaving her with "new grounds of suspicion of theAustrians and Germans...(energi zing) the na-tionalistic faction ...agai nst closer Russo-Germanrelation" (Kennan 403). In 1889, Russia leftGermany's sphere anti improved relations withFrance, the other great power with a major griev-ance towards Germany.

France had never flrgiven Germany for the in-dignities of the 1871. Treaty of Frankfort. ErichBrandenburg describes her aggression towardsGermany as stemming from "not only the loss ofterritory, but also in the supersession of herdominating position in Europe...The emergenceof a new military Germany, economicallysuperior,betokened the end of Frenchhegemony...Alsace Lorraine was the outward andvisible symbol of the overthrow France had suf-fered" (Brandenburg 53). By isolating Francediplomatically, Bismarck did little to improveher attitude towards Germany, although he was

careful not to provoke her any fitrther. This hos-tility was a threat to peace that Bismarck neversolved, only buried.

Britain, for the most part, stayed aloof fromBismarck's continental maneuverings. But inthe increasingly global system, she could notremain unaffected. Germany was beginning tothreaten her as an industrial and economic powerwith its "explosive economic growth' (Kennedy211).

The Germans themselves were aware of theirnew economic and political clout. Bismarck'sefforts at keeping her out of colonial entangle-ments proved fruitless in the face of Germannationalism. Kaiser Wilhelm II himself declaredthat Germany had "great tasks to accomplishoutside the nal row boundaries of oldEurope' (Kennedy). Bismarck, who manipulateda whole continent into doing his will, could notmaintain his position as Chancellor in the face ofgrowing German national spirit. On March 18,1890 he was forced to resign. The German gov-ernment was now in the hands of an expansionistKaiser with no place to expand to without step-ping on another nation's claims.

When Bismarck stepped down in 1890, he hadproven himself one of the most able statesmenthe world had ever seen. By discouraging aFranco-Russian alliance and placating Austro-Russian affairs, he establi shed a peace that wouldlast until the First World War broke out in 1914.But the seeds of that war were laid by Bismarck'sconservative policy that only maintained thestatus quo, not altering it enough to really resolveany of the root conflicts in Europe. Even by theend of Bismarck's rule, the outlines of the sides inWWI were becotiling apparent. For all his bril-liance, he could not keep the ambitions ofhis ownnation in check nor could he halt the growinganimosity towards Germany felt by Britain,France, and Russia. Regardless of his bravewords to the Reichstag, Bismarck and Germanyhad to fear powers much more immediate than

57

the divine.

BibiogrAphy,

Collier's Encyclopedia, 1980 edition, "Otto vonBismarck," by R.H. Lutz.

Hamerow, Theodore, editor. atg_von Bismarck;A Historical Assessment. Lexington, Massachu-setts: D.C. Heath, 1962.

Kennan, George F. The Decline of Bismarck'sEuropean Order. Princton: Princeton Univer-sity Press, 1979.

Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the GreatPowers. New York: Random House, 1987.

58

SAVAGE WARFARE

James Fenimore Cooper's novel, The Deers layer.,was published in 1841. It is set in the wildernessof New York in the 1740's during a war betweenthe British and the French. This is the backdropfor the adventures of frontier hero Natty Bumppo,alias Deers layer. The last of the Leatherstock-jng Tales, this tale tells of Deerslayer's coming ofage, his morals and courage put to the test on hisfirst "warpath".

Raised by the Delaware tribe, but deeply influ-enced by European Christian morals, Deerslayerattempts to reconcile the differences between thetwo races. The entire book recounts the adven-tures of one week in which Deerslayeralongwith Ms rougher hunting companion "HurryHarry" (the former outlaw Thomas Mater),Hutter's two daughters Judith and Hetty, Deer-slayer's best friend the Delaware warrior Chin-gachgook and his lover Hist-attempts to defendagainst the hostile Mingos (Hurons) who areallies with the British-Canadians. For all of thecharacters, this conflict has lifelong significance.Most of all, it raises questions about the nature ofthe relationship between American natives andEuropean-Americans.

The hero, Deerslayer, is uniquely American. Freefrom the moral corruption ofthe settlements, andw:Lh his scrupulous rcorality enhanced by thebeneficial influence of nature, Deerslayer ispraised for his honesty, courage, humility, andfrontier hardiness. Having been brought up byIndians, he has a good understanding of theirnature and beliefs and is willing to defend them,even if they are in conflict with his own. Incontrast, Hurry "had all the prejudices and an-tipathies of a white hunter, who generally re-gards the Indian as a sort of natural competitor"(40).

59

By Joanna Myers

Deerslayer gives his general philosophy whilearguing with Hurry over the virtues of each race.

God made us al-white, black, and red-and no doubt had his own wise inten-tions in coloring us differently. Still,he made us, in the main, much thesame in feelin's, though ni not denythat he gave each race its gifts. Awhite man's gifts are Christianized,while a redskin's are more for thewilderness (41).

Deerslayer acknowledges the differences in thetwo peoples but, sadly, he is unable to convincehis companion, who has hardened his conscienceout of necessity, that they deserve equal respect.Nor is he himself able to keep from being drawninto conflict with the Indians. Deerslayer is well-meaning but naive. The respective "gifts" of theIndians and settlers necessarily collide on vari-ous levels.

Deerslayer's pacifist convictions are called intoaccount when he finds him sel f face to face with anIndian who intends to kill him. He exhausts allpossibilities for a peaceful departure, only to bedeceived by the Indian, who attempts to shoothim as he walks aw, .y. Instead Deerslayer, just"the hundredth part of a second too quick forhim," fatally wounds him. With a mixture ofpride and regret, Deerslayer returns to comfortthe Indian until he diesin his arms. His inten-tions are the best, but the consequences ofhis actare more than he can deal with.

The Mingo tribe, seeking revenge for the death ofa beloved warrior, takes Deerslayer prisoner, thegeneral consensus among the members beingthat he should be savagely tortured and burned

1; 7

that he should be savagely tortured and burnedat the stake. Again, the only effective alternativeto the sacrifice of Deers layer's life, which he isprepared to make, is violence. The guns of theofficers from a nearby garrison decide the issue,saving the life of the hero, but lowering evenfurther the honor of this tribe and only temporar-ily forestalling their wrath on the "palefaces".

Deerslayer, who is willing to withhold judge-ment, to overlouk differences, and to forgive hisIndian enemies, is still unsuccessful at bringingpeace. He has taken a conciliatory position in theconflict, but is ultimately loyal to his race and"gifts." After the battle, he says,

If the young men of this region stood byand suffered the vagabonds to overrunthe land, why, we might as well allturn Frenchers at once and give upcountry and Un. (526)

In order to preserve his, and other white people'slives, he finds he must compromise some Chris-tian morals. For example, in defense of Hefty'sreproaches for killing the Huron and thereforedisobeying the commandment, "Thou shalt notkill," he says, "many things are lawful in warwhich would be sinful in peace (472).

In his depict.on of frontier warfare, Cooper re-flects some of the moral and intellectual move-ments of his own time. The novel is very con-cerned with moral issues, especially racism. Thiswas at a time of religious revival and the growthof related reform movements. He also conveysthe spirit of romanticism in his portrayal of theIndian Chingachgook as a "noble savage".

In the afterward, Alan Nevins says that Cooper's"real weakness was that he rendered (the Indi-ans} figures of melodrama, not of the real world.He never even studied the subject historically, sothat he gives a highly distorted view of the re-spective roles played by the Algonquin (Dela-

60

ware) and the Iroquois (Mingo) tribes in ourcolonial history" (Cooper). If his portrayal of thisera in American History is not very accurate, itmakes wonderful drama. Cooper reveals muchabout contemporary American ethics through hishero, Natty Bumppo and, on the whole, he depictsthe Native Ame7ican much more favorably thanother popular writers of that period.

bibliography

Cooper, James Fenimore. The,Deerslayer. NewYork: Signet Classic 1963.

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

Throughout the play, "A Man For All Seasons,"Robert Bolt makes it evident that Sir ThomasMore was a man with an excellent 'sense of self'.More's conscience cannot be budged because heknows himself so well. In fact, More's conscienceis so purely an embodiment of his "self" that hefeels it is necessary for him not to change hismind because he will lose touch with who he is ifhe does. To accept someone else's understandingof right and wrong calls into question his veryexistence as a human being. So, when the situ-ation involving King Henry and matrimony be-comes tense, More turns to 'the law" for protec-Can. He clings to the law to such an extent thathis faith in the law actually overwhelms histespect for humanity. More finds that his rela-tionship with God is endangered by the impera-tives of his worldly relationship and he counts onthe law to resolve this conflict.

One purpose of English law, in More's mind, is toprotect his faith in Gail and the Catholic Church.More believed that the church was present andtranscendent throughout the universe and itneeded no concrete laws or sanctions to exist.Law is not the method of the Church's authority.But this presents some practical problems asrevealed, for instance, in More's debate with hisson-in-law to be, Roper, over God's law and man'slaw. More says, "God's my God. But I find himrather too subtle...1 don't know where he is norwhat he wants" (Bolt 37). Since to More theChurch was so obscure in its concrete direction oflives, in dissecting good and bad, More looked tonations' laws to provide the guidelines for hisday-to-day 'civil" life. This is seen when Moresays I know what's legal, not what's right. AndI'll stick to what's legal" (Bolt 37) . Again heappeals to law when he observes that "the cur-rents and eddies or right and wrong, which you

By Beth Brown

[Roper] find such plain sailing, I can't navigate.I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh,there I'm a forester" (Bolt 37).

Yet More's faith in God, protected by man's laws,gave birth to mai g of More's ideas, virtues, andbeliefs. And these attributes, not his clever use ofthe law, made up More's character. More hadprofound self-knowledge. Many people spendmost of their lives trying to grasp who they areand usually they fail. More was fortunate toknow of what he was "made" and he intended tostick to it. This confidence in his selfis clear whenMore says "but there's a little area where I mustrule myself" (Bolt, 34). This area was the coreof his selfhood created by the obscure God, andbeyond the reach of any man because of thecocoon of the law.

This belief in his self helped develop More'spassionate commitment to the law. ThroughoutMore's life in the play, he uses the law to protecthis "self". When his ideas went against KingHenry VIII's wishes, More chose to be silentbecause, technically, the tradition in English lawwas that 'silence gives consent'. Therefore, hewould not have to express ideas that could be con-sidered treasonous while neither would he haveto violate his self, his conscience. More expressedthis when he declared, "Stand on the wrong sideof no statute, and no corn-..Lon law. I have notdisobeyed my sovereign. I truly believe no man inEngland is safer than myself' (Bolt 55). Moreviewed the law as a shelter for all in society. Thisis apparent when he observes that "the law is acauseway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, acitizen may walk safely." (Bolt, 89)

At first, More's attitude toward the 'law" in-cludes a concern for others. For instance, he

61

invokes the law to protect his family and heexclaims that "whoever hunts for me will find mehiding in the thickets of the law. And I'll hide mydaughter with mer (Bolt 38) . More shows con-cern for society through his belief in the impor-tance of staying true to one's self. "I believe, whenstatesmen forsake their own private consciencefor the sake of their own private duties, they leadtheir country by a short route to chaos" (Bolt 13).At first, also, More appears to forsake Norfolkand refuse to discuss his problems with Aliceentirely in order to protect his friend and his wife.But his motives go deeper.

Although his use of law sometimes reflects aconcern about humanity and humans close tohim, eventually this devotion to law becomes acommitment for its own sake. More eventually isput to death because he refused even superfi-cially to compromise his beliefs. But he left hisfamily in poverty, his political enemies ascend-ing, and his friends forsaken merely because ofhis individual need to remain at peace withhimself. The law is his instrument of individualrighteousness. Since he knew himself so well, hesaid he wasn't able to "retreat from that final areawhere he located himself' (Bolt 71) . Law andself become intertwined and indivisible.

More states, "I will not give in because I oppose it- I do - not my pride, not my spleen, nor any otherof my appetites, but I do...I!" (Bolt, 71)

It would have been easy for him to outwardlychange his mind and approve Henry's marriageto Anne, but his need to stay true to himself andto prove that the law protects such behaviorprevented this even though the behavior mighthave better served his family, his friends, and hiscountry's political future. Ultimately, More doesnot approve of Henry's marriage because he willnot swear an oath. To him an oath is plainly aninvitation to God to act as a witness and a judge.He could not do this even in exchange for restor-ing his family and friendships. Both his individu-

62

alism and his belief in God are seen when he tellsMeg, "When a man takes an oath, Meg, he'sholding his own self in his hands like water. Andifhe opens his fingers then he needn't hope to fi ndhimself again" (Bolt 81).

Bibliography

Robert Bolt. A Man For All Seasons. New York:Vintage Books, 1962.

7 Ii

THE POPULARIZATION OF ABOLITIONISM

The abolitionist movement of antebellum Ameri-cas society, although suffering from both regionaland ideological divisions, was united behind ahigh moral standard ofracial equality and playeda decisive role in the defense of human rights.While only partially successful, it provided aprecedent for humanitarian reforms for years tocome. In his book The Abolitionist: The Growthof a Dissentirug Minority, Merton L. Dillon dis-cusses the building of the abolitionists fromsupporters of the ideals of the Revolution into anorganized minority that was to a great extentresponsible for the downfall of slavery in theUnited States and with it the collapse of south-ern dominance in the federal government.

Through the book Dillon explores the develop-ment of the abolitionist movement from its startin the isolated efforts of reformers and philan-thropists of the 1790's to the establishment ofcohesive abolitionist organizations in the 1830'sand finally to its dissolution in the 1870's. Overthis time frame Dillon describes abolitionistconcerns and tactic in relation to changingAmerican values and sentiments. Although theywere united on the goals of freeing the blackslaves and integrating them into a society devoidof racial prejudice. ,he abolitionists disputed themethods for accomplishing these ends. In the1830's, when the abolitionists first began to exerttheir influence cooperatively, the North was freefrom the institution of slavery, but Northernerswere far from ready to accept the abolitionists'condemnation of it. A high degree of racialprejudice throughout the country and the popu-lar rejection of extremism kept the abolitionistsin the state of a persecuted minority. Thus thefirst abolitionist pohcies sought the help of thechurch to create a revolution in American moral-

By Gary lielmling

ity, which would result in the voluntary emanci-pation of the slaves and their assumption of anequal role in society. After some twenty years ofthe publication of abolitionist journals such asGarrison's Liberator and the American and For-eig' Society's Natimaurne, andcourn..ess public lectures, the abolitionists stillremained a minority. The church had not takena strong anti-slavery stand, and racial prejudicestill abounded. Thus many disillusioned aboli-tionists turned to political action for reform. Dillondiscusses the growth of disunionist feelings fromthis disillusionment and again shows the fluc-tuation of abolitionist attitudes when they re-acted with strong support to President Lincoln'scall to keep the Union intact.

In his history of abolitionism, Dillon focuses onthe accomplishments and ideologies of a fewindividuals as exemplary of the factions withinthe abolitionist movement. William Lloyd Garri-son was one of the most radical supporters of themovement. He had split with the derp on theirlack of commitment to the abolitionist effort anddenounced the Constitution as condoning slav-ery. He also favored the policy of disunionism inreaction to the annexation of Texas. TheodoreWeld favored a strictly moral approach to the,,uestion of slavery, disregarding its economicand political aspects. Unfortunately, even theabolitionists were somewhat divided by race asmany black abolitionists such as FrederickDouglas accepted more radical measures, includ-ing the use of violence, as means of bringingabout the end of slavery.

The main thrust of Dillon's analysis of the aboli-tionist movement is the growth of the abolition-ists from the powerless voice of protest of the

63 7 1

early nineteenth century to a dissenting bodyinfluential in destroying the institution of slav-ery. Dillon views the critical period in thischange as the 1940's and the 1850's, when theabolitionists were already well established andstarting to shift from the effort to persuade thepopulace of the moral wrong of slavery to aninvolvement in political activity. Through theirown political involvement the abolitionists drewthe public eye to Southern involvement in na-tional politics. Southern predominance in thefederal government, Dillon asserts, aroused anti-South feelings and fears of encroachment onhuman rights by the 'slave power' lent moresupport to the abolitionist movement than itcould possibly have gained on its own. Theannexation of Texas brought sectionalism to theforefront of national politics. Abolitionists claimedit was evidence of the influence of the "slavepower" in the government and launched an ex-tensive propaganda campaign against it. Theirfailure caused many to give up hope and follow adisunionist policy, but more importantly the eventstrengthened the resentment of Southern expan-sionism in the North. The strict enforcement ofthe Fugitive Slave Law included in the Compro-mise of 1850 also angered many Northerners,who felt that this was an intrusion on their owncivil rights. These events set the state for thesecession of seven southern states from the Un-ion in 1861. With war with the south imminent,the abolitionists again launched a propagandacampaign. This time it resulted in an outpouringof anti-southern sentiment and gained popularsupport for the emancipation of the slaves.

The portrayal of the abolitionists by Dillon closelyfollows the evolution of the movement, correlat-ing it with the development of abolitionist meth-ods. The organization of the abolitionists, unitedbehind the goal of emancipation of the slaves butsplit into factions over how to achieve this, is thusalso well defined and the different viewpoints ofthe abolitionists are clearly seen. Dillon alsostresses the importance of anti-southern feelings

64

and sectional crises, such as the annexation ofTexas, in gaining popular support for the aboli-tionists.

Merton L. Dillon illustrates the growth of aboli-tionism out of the ideals of freedom central to theAmerican Revolution. The abolitionists wantedto carry on the revolution in order to extendpersonal freedom and civil liberties to all branchesof society. Although this was first attempted inLincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863and later more completely enacted in the Thir-teenth and Fourteenth Amendments to theConstitution, many abolitionists considered theirmovement a failure. As Dillon explains, theabolitionists, who had advocated a moral revolu-tion, felt that "because abolition has been accom-plished by force and not as a consequence ofmoral conviction, its gains would not last" (p.264).They were quite right in their predictions of theproblems that unchanged racial prejudice wouldcause.

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

Benjamin Franklin was all-American. He wasclever, practical, ambitious, and successful. Hefounded libraries, volunteer fire departments,and civic clubs; and he invented efficient heatingdevices that his countrymen continue to use today.However, Franklin also was a realist who recog-nized his deficiencies, especially his difficultywith public speaking. The first part of his auto-Wography acts as a moral guide to show his sonthe path to success. The second part used Fran-klin's own life as an example of how a good manis capable of becoming better. This is Franklin'stestimony to his own virtue. The story is leftunfinished and it is up to the reader to imaginewhat new achievements await Franklin.

Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Franklin wasthe youngest son in a family of thirteen. Hisrelationship with his father was positive. Theygot along well. Franklin senior made his childrenaware of the good and just conduct of life. Hetried to improve his children's minds by bringinguseful topics of conversation to the dinner table.At the age of ten, Ben ')egan assisting his fatherin his business, the dyeing trade. He disliked thistrade and later served as an apprentice to hisbrother, James, in the printing business. Unfor-tunately, James awl Ben often quarreled. Benbegan to write anonymously for the newspaperand later he dominated his brother's business.

While Ben was growing up, he found friendsamong other studious boys. Ben and his closestfriend, John Collins, often argued because theyliked to debate and broaden their knowledge.They both were avid readers and Ben learnedmuch from Collins through their discussions.Since conversation was not a strong point forBen, he began to pay closer attention to his

By Sarah noisington

manner of writing. One of his friends com-mented, "In his common conversation he seemsto have no choice of words: he hesitates andblunders; and yet, good God! how he writes!" (46)Ben later became a notable writer and oftenpublished his works in journal s. Ben's associateswere all lovers of readi ng. He formed a cl ub cal l edthe Junto and most of his friends were members.They had weekly meetings and would read es-says written by each other and and engage indebate. Ben did not have many opponents.However, some who disliked him thought he didnot make the most of life because he alwaysfollowed a strict routinA. He was in fact a disci-plined person and a perfectionist. Others thoughtthat he was selfish and what he wrote was onlyused to manipulate others. Still others werejealous because he became a successful owner ofa printing business.

Throughout his lifetime, Ben Franklin made manycontributions. His various ideas and inventionshave been a blessing to America. His first projectof a public nature was for a public library. Bendrew up the proposals and obtained a charter.The library, the first of all American public li-braries, was an important contribution becauseit helped improve the education and knowledge ofthe people. In 1732 Ben Franklin published analmanac en ti tled Poor Richard's Almanack. Thiswas a way to communicate useful informationamong the common people who scarcely broughtany other books. He filled it with proverbs suchas "It is hard for an empty sack to stand upright"(93). He wrote that frugality was the way tobecome wealthy and secure virtue. Ben Fran-klin's newspaper, the spectator, was anothervehicle for information and instruction. He filledit with essays written by himself and other mor-

6573

alists. Ben wrote an essay about the usefulnessof forming a company whose purpose was toextinguish fires. He formed the first companycalled the Union Fire Company. After fire com-panies appeared, Philadelphia never lost morethan one or two houses at a time due to fire. In1742, Ben invented an open stove that more effec-tive:y warmed rooms while at the same timesaving fuel. Ben believed in educating the poorand wrote a proposal for opening and supportinga free academy; in 1749 the school opened. Stu-dents increased so rapidly that a larger buildinghad to be found. The Philadelphia Assembly wasso impressed with the schools that they estab-lished the present University of Pennsylvania.Franklin drew up a proposal for paving the citystreets which would end the amount of dirt anddust blowing around the city and light the streetsas well. He also had great success with scientificexperiments. He wrote many papers about elec-tricity and received a medal from the Royal Soci-ety.

Benjamin Franklin wanted to better society andhis innovative ideas and positive outlook helpedhim to do this. Unselfishly, he strived to contrib-ute beneficially to the people who surroundedhim. His ideas enlightened others who then feltdriven to act and help the community. Without adoubt, Franklin promoted change and betteredthe world.

Franklin possessed many special leadershipqualities. He was an experienced, practical,virtuous, wise, and good man. He was multi-talented: a writer, debater, inventor, and clubmember. His ideas, such as starting a publiclibrary and forming a fire company, showed hisindependent and practical side. He was a veryintelligent man. He founded the Junto club andwas an important member. He often dominateddiscussions and was looked up to by many of hisassociates. He was promoted in almost every jobhe undertook, which demonstrates his abilities.The governor of Pennsylvania even asked Ben to

66

take charge of the Northwest frontier and raisetroops to build a line of forts. Franklin wascontinually working; reading was the only amuse-ment that he allowed himself. There was no timefor play. He was a busy and determined man.Ben mastered French, Italian, Spanish, and Latin.He vi es very exact and set up a daily chart withprecisely how much time he should spend on eachactivity. Ben was open to other people's opinionsand advice. One of his friends told him that hewas considered proud and that it showed inconversation. Franklin worked to overcome thisproblem for many weeks until he rid himself of it.

Benjamin Franklin was aremarkable eighteenth-century man who carefully searched to discoverwhat was practical and useful and therefore best,and patched his ideas together in a way whichserved him effectively. Franklin demonstratedduring his life how the many opportunities pre-sented in the new world of America might be metwith diligent work and wise management. Benknew his limitations but also his talents. He usedthem successfully so that he could move aheauand he did.

74

THE HEALING POWER OF LAUGHTER

"If you think you have caught a cold, call in adoctor..call in three doctors and play bridge.*

- Robert Bench ley

In 1964, Norman Cousins came back from a tripabroad only to be hospitali zed. The illness startedas a slight fever while he was flying home. Even-tually, it intensified until he was barely able tomove his neck, arms, hands, fingers, and legs.After several blood tests and many specialists,Norman Cousins was diagnosed as suffering fromankylosing spondylitis, a serious collagen ill-ness-which caused the disintegration of connec-tive tissue in his spine. The doctors were honestwith him and explained that he did not have agood chance ofliving. In fact, it was said that hehad a one in five hundred chance of recovering.Norman Cousins decided he had better act quickly.

It seemed clear to me that if I was to bethat one in five hundred, I had better besomething more than a passive observer.I remembered having read Hans Selye'sclassic book, "The Stress of Life" . Withgreat clarity, Selye showed that adrenalexhaustion could be caused by emotionaltension, such as frustration or supressedrage. He detailed the negative effects ofthe emotions on body chemistry. Theinevitable question arose in my mind.What about the positive emotions? Ifnegative emotions produce negativechemical changes in the body, wouldn'tthe positive emotions produce positivechemical changes? Is it possible thatlove, hope, faith, laughter, confidence,

By Nicole Zaccaria

and the will to live have the therapeuticvalue? Do chemical changes occur only onthe downside?" (Cousins 1979, 34).

Norman decided he wanted to be free of thehospital. He made arrangements to move into ahotel. According to Cousins, a hotel would bemuch better for any seriously ill person becauseof the "lack of sanitation in the hospitals, therapidity with which staphylococci and other or-ganisms can run through an entire hospital, theextensive and sometimes promiscuous use of x-ray equipment, the regularity with which hospi-tal routine takes precedence over the rest re-quirements of the patient, and perhaps the hos-pital's most serious failure was in the area ofnutrition" (Cousins 29). Cousins decided to stoptaking e' aspirins and pain-killers. 'It wasunreasonable to expec t positive chemical changesto take place so long as my body was beingsaturated with, and toxified by, pain-killingmedications" (Cou3ins 1979, 36).

Norman Cousins then took the plunge and had anabundance of funny movies brought to him. Theseincluded several old Marx Brothers films andcandid camera excerpts.

Miraculously, it worked! I made thejoyous discovery that ten minutes ofgenuine belly laughter had an anes-thetic effect and would give me atleast two hours of pain-free sleep.When the pain-killing effect of thelaughter wore off, we would switch onthe motion-picture projector again,

677r)

and, not infrequently, it would lead to anotherpain-free sleep interval. Sometimes, the nurseread to me out of a trove of humor books' (Cous-ins. 1979, 40).

Along with laughter, Cousins combined doses ofvitamin C for the process of combating collagenbreakdown. The combination worked, and cutheavily into whatever poison was attacking theconnective tissue. Consequently, the fever andpulse drastically reduced. Norman Cousin's bodyhas continued to improve and presently he is ableto do numerous activities that his doctors previ-ously thought would be impossible. Although heis slower and it is tougher, he is able to play piano,horseback ride, and play tennis and golf.

Since Cousin's story, there has been continualresearch on the effect laughter has on the healingprocess. Of course, there are many varied andconflicting theories. In his book, Dr. RaymondMoody points out the lack of solid evidence re-garding humor therapy. Many doctors agree thatactual laughter is irrelevant in curing a human.They feel all our healing capacities exist solely inour mind. Where is that? Many medical theoriesstate that if we believe that laughter is working,and we have a unique will to live, we will indeedcure ourselves. This is not a new theory, how-ever. A quote from Socrates gives us an idea ofthe age of this type of belief: "As it is not properto cure the eyes without the head, nor the headwithout the body, so neither is it proper to curethe body without the soul." (Moody 107). Manyyears later, Sigmund Freud also strongly be-lieved in the link between the will to survive andthe sense of humor:

Like wit and the comic, humour has in ita liberating element. But it has also something fine and elevating, which is lackingin the other two ways of deriving pleasure

68

from intellectual activity. Obviously,what is fine about it is the triumph of nar-cissism, the ego's victorious assertion of itsown invulnerability. It refuses to be hurtby the arrows of reality or to be compelledto suffer. It insi .te that it is impervious towounds dealt by the outside world, in fact,that these are merely occasions for affording it pleasure. This last trait is a fundamental characteristic of humour (Moody115).

Contesting this view is the amazing researchwhich shows that the healing power of laughteris not merely a part of our mind, but the cause ofmany physical improvements on our state ofbeing. Brain researchers speculate that laughterinduces the release of endorphines, chemicalswhich are the body's own pain killer and similarto morphine. Another reason laughter decreasespain is that when a person is presented with ahumorous stimulus, he laughs, and the tension ofhis muscles in the affected area decreases (Moody1978).

Despite conflicting ideas about why and howlaughter substitutes for a pain-killer, many ex-periments verify its effectiveness. In one experi-ment, researchers at Texas Tech Universityshowed that students who had first listened to ahumorous tape could withstand the discomfort ofa steadily tightening blood-pressure cuff morethan students who had listened to an informativenarrative or a relaxation tape, or who hadn'tlistened to any material before hand (Cousins1989).

But pain relief is not the only benefit laughterproduces. Laughter stimulates relaxation aswell. "When laughter bursts, your metabolismpicks up, muscles get messaged, and neurochemi-cals stream into the blood. You feel relaxedand

you've raised your pard against depressi on , heartdisease, and pain" (Lang 42).

Anxiety can cause tension in the neckand head muscles and produce a head-ache. When a person with one of theseunconsciously self-generated headaches,backaches, or other tension pain is madeto laugh, the tension may be relieved(Peter 8).

Laughter also increases immune-cell production:"Now researchers think laughter may empowerthe immune system as well...Negative emotionscan manipulate the immune system and it nowseems positive ones can do something similar."says Lee S. Berk, an immunologist at LomaLinda University School of Medicine in Califor-nia. "Cortisol, which is an immune suppressor,has a tremendous influence on the immune sys-tem. Laughter decreases cortisol, which allowsinterleukin-2 and other immune boosters toexpress themselves" (Lang, 42).

Laughter is also a form of exercise. It exercisesthe lungs and stimulates the circulatory system.Hearty laughter causes full action of the dia-phragm. The whole cardiovascular system bene-fits from robust laughter because the deep respi-ration that accompanies it increases the oxygenin the blood. Immediately following the climax ofhumor, the chest, aodornen, and face get a vigor-ous workout. In convulsive laughter, where theindividual really breaks up, even the legs andarm s are involved. During the laughter response,the body is revitalized by what sometimes iscalled internal massage (Peter).

Although researchers offer conflicting opinionsregarding the beneficial effects of laughter, nonecan dispute its power to improve our lives, whetherby acting on our bodies or our souls. With this

report I am not trying to sell you on the healingpower of laughter, I am just trying to make yourealize and ponder what we as humans arecapable of. I see many depressed people who areincapable of enjoying the simple things in life. I

am trying to remind people of laughter before itpasses them by. Wnat could be better thanlaughing and having fun and also having it begood for you? Come on, how many healthy thingsare truly fun? I would just like to leave you witha quote from Norman Cousins which really in-spired me and I hope will do the same for you:

Hope, faith, love, humor, and a strong winto live offer no promise of immortality, onlyproof of our uniqueness as human beingsand the opportunity to experience fullgrowth even under the grimmest circumstances. Far more real than the ticking oftime is the way we open up the minutesand invest them with meaning. Death isnot the ultimate tragedy in life. Theultimate tragedy is to die w.thout discovering the possibilities of full growthl(Cousins)

BibliograDhy

Cousins, Norman, "Norman Cousins Helps OtherPatients As He Once Helped Hmself-By Laugh-ing". Good Housekeeping . Nov. 1989, p.92-96.

Cousins, Norman. Anatomy of an Illness. W. W.Norton and Company, Inc. 1979.

Lang, Susan. "Laughter Is The Best Defense.American Health. Dec. 1988 p. 42.

Moody, Dr. Raymond A. Jr. Laugh.Afterldaugh,Florida: Headwaters Press, 1978.

Peter, Dr. Laurence J. The Laughter Prescrip-tism. New York: Random House Inc., 1982.

697

MODERN ADAPTATIONS TO ARISTOTLE

The question of whether we are objects of deter-minism or agents of free will is fundamental tohow we approach our lives, assess moral blame,and coexist with others. Without a belief in freewill it is impossible for us to assign any blamebecause we would have absolutely no choice inwhat we do. Criminals would be the most unfor-tunate in our society and the most deserving ofpity. Luckily our society does not subscribe tothis idea. We believe in fundamental rightswhich would not exist in a world where action isdetermined. Likewise, we find people guilty ofcrimes. The guilty verdict implies more than justa deed committed., it also implies a conscious, freedecision to commit such an act. If we believe inunfettered free will, we should punish based onthe crime and not the criminal. The trend in thecriminal justice system today seems to be towarda predetermined punishment without regard tomitigating circumstances. Although it may be inan attempt to remove judicial discretion or pos-sible racism, this system assumes absolute freewill and claims that certain people are just moreevil than the rest of us. I think this is unfortunatebecause I believe that there truly are cases ofmitigated free will. There should be correspond-ing reduction in the amount of blame attributedto the individual.

My theory concerning determinism is based onAristotle's self-determinism, modified by theinsights of the social sciences. I think Aristotlewould rejoice in the understanding of humanbehavior that the modern social sciences haveprovided. As Frederick Copleston puts it, 'Aris-totle asserts that it is political or social sciencewhich studies the good for man"(83). If he knewabout the twentieth century discoveries in thesocial sciences, I imagine that Aristotle would

By Mark Humowiecki

say there is a continuum of determinism based onsuch theories as Maslow's needs hierarchy. Aris-totle advocates the development of virtue, moraland intellectual, through training as a prerequi-site to self-control and true freedom. Accord-ingly, she who is self actualized is most free, withthe largest range of choices and the greatestopportunity for success. That person's personal-ity is not rigid and she can behave rationally andflexibly. On the other end of the spectrum is theimpoverished person whose freedom may be se-verely limited by pressing economic needs.Considering Maslow, this person does not havethe luxury of attending to needs of self-love andself-actualization, but rather must attempt tomeet basic survival needs. A mother of six inCabrini Green must be concerned with the prag-matic goal of providing food and protecting herchildren from gang activity. Thus, she does nothave the opportunity, nor perhaps the interest, topursue higher education. This results in seeinga limited range of possible behavior and is onereason why poverty tends to occ ur in an unendingcycle unless some extraneous factor is powerfulenough to break that cycle.

Fortunately, someone can become more freeduring their lifetime, especially through an innerstrength, community or family influence, or per-haps divine intervention. This theory is sup-ported by the example ofJean Valiean, the maincharacter in lies Miserablet who is able to bringhimself up out of a life on a chain gang to becomemayor of a town. We also witness this type ofchange when people recover from addictionsthrough Alcoholics Anonymous or drug rehabili-tation.

A limitation in Aristotle's original reasoning was

Po470

that the Greeks di d not believe that major changesin character could occur. In contrast, VictorFrankl believed that "the last of the humanfreedoms is the ability to choose one's attitude ina given set of circumstances" (104). This freedomof self is not always expected because it is sodifficult, but it is to be commended by society.One's freedom is not solely restricted by econom-ics and addictions, but also by social status,educatie.., moral training, heredity, mental state,and, virycit importantly, environment. If one isnever exposed to anything but evil and is neverloved, she is more likely to feel hatred towardssociety and act similarly to how she has seenothers act. No one can be expected to h ave an ideaof a greater good or moral right unless it has beenpositively reinforced. Any time a person is moreprone to an action, she is less responsible for thataction because it takAs more effort to avert it.This fact provides a rationale for assessing blamein our world. For example, it is commonly knownthat the parent who was abused as a child ismuch more likely to abuse his own child. As asociety we should attempt to help these parentsby teaching them constructive methods of child-rearing that use alternatives to physical punish-ment. If they have greater insight into therelationship between their childhood and theirparental behavior they are more likely to be freeand choose not to abuse their children.

In his Ethicq Aristotle argues that the way tomoral behavior is through the development ofvirtues which not only are admirable traits, butmust also be conscious, habitual actions, regu-larly manifested by one's character as an end inthemselves. We are not born with them, but if weare lucky enough we can be educated and developthem. Once this i s accomplished, we can be moraland free (Velasquez and Barry 79-82).

Our legal, moral, and social systems should bebased on the premise that there are degrees offreedom which vary from individual to individ-ual. If one's privation leads towards something

illegal or socially unacceptable, the person maybe held less responsible for these actions. In thecase of Charles Manson, for example, this per-spective relieves a lot of his blame, but not all ofit. Manson, because of his past, was certainlymore prone to commit violence than I would be.His childhood, a time of very important personalgrowth and shaping of the individual, was spentin a very destructive environment. His harden-ing within the prison atmosphere led him towardimmoral actions. But to say that he is entirelypowerless to overcome his predilections is erro-neous in my view. The fact that others have gonethrough similar environments and not commit-ted such heinous crimes suggests that Mansonstill had some freedom (Wooden). There wasalways the freedom to kill or not to kill. Wecannot expect him to live the model life, but wemust insist that he meet certain minimal stan-dards of conduct, including respect for life. Hisclearly calculated set of murders violated soci-ety's basic fabric and must be punished. Just tosay that he is not fully responsible does not meanthat we cannot put him in prison. We also needto protect society. We must incapacitate him,perhaps even with the additional purpose oftrying to rehabilitate him. Our attempt shouldbe to teach the irresponsible offender some basicvalues about society. In this way we can help thecriminal become freer. One of the challenges thatfaces our society is the balance between protect-ing the rights of society and the rights of thecriminal. If one were totally free or totally deter-mined, this would not be a problem. I see thisdilemma as further proof that the position thatrecognizes that a person is neither totally free nortotall,, determined is valid.

Using this view we can reconcile the idea of moralresponsibility with the theories of the social sci-ences. Becoming free should be a high goal forany person, but with it comes increased responsi-bility for one's actions and perhaps for the greatersociety one lives in. The large range of choicesthat accompany the freedom of self-actualization

71 7

makes it worth the added responsibility.

Bibliography

Copleston, Frederick. PhilosophyVolume L Fart a. Garden City: Image Books,1967.

Frankl, Victor E. Manlikarskialianning.New York: Washington Square Press, 1963.

Valasquez, Manuel and Barry, Vincent. Philoso-phr A Text With Readipgs. Third Edition.Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1988.

Wooden, Kenneth. Weeping in the Plvtime orQgarg. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976.

6 072

MEXICO

By Tina Manion

While vacationing in Mexico, I enjoyed visiting mid would survive to impress and influence count-the Mayan ruins at Tulum, Coba, and Chichen less generations in the future.Itza. Mayan architecture and art are world-renowned. The buildings, artifacts, and design ofChichen Itza are particularly striking. ChichenItza is one of the largest Mayan sites. It coversthousands of acres and includes about fifty build-ings.

One of the most impressive structures is theCastle or the Pyramid of Kulkulkan. Manyarchaeologists believe that this pyramid repre-sented a calendar for the Maya. Each of the foursides of the pyramid has ninety-one steps. Withthe platform on tcp, the total is 365, the numberof days in a year. The seasons are represented bythe four sides. There are eighteen corners of theplatform, the number of months in the Mayancalendar.

Each year during the spring and fall equinoxes, aphenomenal event occurs: a shadow forms fromthe edges of the pyramid when the sun sets. Thisshadowjoins a stone serpent's head carved at thebottom of the stairs. Together they resemble anundulating serpent.

My visit to Chichen Itza left me impressed withthe capabilities of man. The calculations andengineering behind creating this phenomenonare extraordinary. The lack of computers, calcu-lators, and modern architectural tools makes thisartifact truly amazing. These simple peoplecombined their religious beliefs and architec-tural skills to create a structure that would pleasetheir gods. I have great admiration and respectfor the motivation, hard work, and dedicationrepresented by this remarkable work of architec-ture. Little did they know how long their pyra-

73 81

THE EFFECT OF THE DEPRESSIONON MY GRANDFATHER

My grandfather, Walter Lynch, was nine yearsold when the depression hit. As a boy he had littletime to play because he always had jobs to doaround the house. He had to help his dad cutwood for the fire with a two-man saw. My grand-father also had to help with the laundry. Hismother would fill up a large kettle with hot waterand scrub the clothes clean. Then my grandfa-ther would wring the clothes out with the wringer.

When there was time to play, he and his friendsinvented games, as money was scarce. Theyplayed kick the can, spun tops, and played withyo-yos. The girls usually played with jacks orwould jump rope. When my grandfather gath-ered enough friends, they'd play a game of base-ball. When the ball had ripped, they would tapeit and after a few games were playing with a ballof tape. The Board of Education had fine play-grounds for the children, supplying them withbats, balls, footballs, and volleyballs. When itrained, the kids would gather in a playgroundshelter where they could play ping pong or check-ers. My grandfather's playground group wouldcorn pete with other playground groups to see whowas better, but the competitions would always becut short as fights broke out.

My grandfather would also have to find time to dohis daily homework. He attended a pa -. xhialschool of sixty students, where he used second-hand books because they cost less. Clothes tornat school or while playing were either sewn orpatched. Ifs pair of socks had a hole in them, theyweren't thrown away, but mended. NOTHINGwas taken for grantedmy grandfather still hasa tendency to saving things. A month ago, mygrandfather sorted through some "junk" andbegan throwing it away. Still, he saved half of it.

74

By Lori Lynch

As a boy, my grandfather loved milk, but it wastoo expensive to drink every day. The milk wasdelivered to the house by a horse and wagon onthe days it could be afforded. It seemed as thoughall food was unfathornably expensive during thedepression. A fifteeen pound bag of potatoes wasfifteen cents, and a dozen bananas was fifteencents. or two dozen for twenty five cents. Peoplewho didn't have enough money for food went onwelfare. My grandfather's family was too proudto go on welfare,. My grandfather's neighbors onwelfare seemed to eat better than he did. To keepa small quantity of food purchased fresh, everyfamily had an ice box. My grandfather alwaysfelt sorry for the man when he had to climb fourflights of stairs to deliver the ice.

Thanksgiving was one of my grandfather's favor-ite holidays. All his relatives would come to hishouse and each gave him five cents. The nightbefore, each family would purchase a goose, pluckthe feathers and make pillows out of them. Mygrandfather recalls that for dessert, the familywould always eat watermelon. There were fruitpeddlers who would walk up and down the streettrying to sell their goods. To see if the water-melon was ripe, the peddler could cut a triangleout, and if i t wasn't ri pe my grandfather's mothercouldn't waste her money on buying it.

For entertainment, my grandfather loved to lis-ten to the radio. His favori' e shows were "LightsOut", and "The Shadow-. They were scary showsrequiring the use of imagination. The next day,all the kids would talk about the shows they hadlisted to. He also liked to listen to the songsplayed on the radio. "Back In Your Own Back-yard", "Me and My Shadow", and "Strike Up TheBand" were among his favorites. Baseball and

S2

boxing were also on the radio. People wouldstand on the corner by the candy store and talkabout the fights for hours. Baseball games wereexpensive, but my grandfather saved enoughmoney to go to some of them. The cleaners wouldgive a customer half a cent for every hangerbrought back. Also, for entertainment, peoplewould go downtown and see a movie. The manymovie theaters downtown al ways featured a stageshow before playing the film. The movies cost tencents for children and fifteen cents for adults. Mygrandfather never had the money to see themovies. The transportation downtown was alsoexpeniive. The street car cost three cents forchildren and seven cents for adults. Few ownedcars, and those who did were considered ex-tremely rich. My grandfather recalls having towalk everywhere he had to go.

Newspapers were %lso a big part of entertain-ment. The nibune and the Sun-Times were twocents weekly, and the liergld and the Ega werethree cents each. My grandfather remembersreading about Babe Ruth and Charles Lind-bergh. His favorite past time was to go to theamusement park on Addison Street called River-view. Riverview was as exciting to children thenas Disneyland is now.

When people look back and say, "Those were thegood old days, my grandfather is confused.Although the depression brought his family andmany families closer together, he asked, "Werethose really the good old days?" Living in a housewith no electricity and no gas heating; going tobed when it was cold and seeing your breath;having to wear leng wool underwear to keepwarm (coal cost a dollar a ton at the coal yard); nothaving indoor plumbing and using an outhouseevery time you had to go to the bathroom-mygrandfather asks, 'Does that sound like the goodold days to you?"

8 375

TRULY UNDERAGE: FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROMEAND ITS EFFECT ON THE BRAIN

"Guess what honey-I talked to the doctor todayand she says I'm pregnant!"

"Ababy?" "Wow, that's great! Let's celebrate. I'llopen up that bottle of champagne we have beensaving for a special occasion."

This is an all too familiar scenario. Drinkingeven one drink is one of the wgst mistakes thiswoman could Make. It is estimated that in theUnited States each year 50,000 babies are bornalready affected by alcohol. That is approxi-mately two percent of all babies born alive (Miller).The effects on the infant could be anything fromslight hyperactivity to severe mental retardationor death. This condition, called Fetal AlcoholSyndrome (FAS), is named by the U.S. Journal ofDrugs and Alcohol Dependence as the third mostcommon birth defect in this country.

A link between alcohol and deformities andmiscarriages was made as early as the eight-eenth century. At this time there was what wascalled a gin epick iic, whk tuddenly peoplebegan to drink more and more gin. In 1736 areport was sent into Parli m e nt from Middlesexthat the people in that ar.ea were drinking to anexcess.

1Vith rept A ,o Female sex, we findthe contagion has tpread even amongthem, and that to a de,:ree hardly poss-ible to be conceived. Unhappy moth-ers habituate themselves to these dis-tilled liquors, whose children are born

76

By Jennifer Burton

weak and sickly, and often look shriv-eled and old as though they had num-bered many years (Abel 11).

Later in 1751 William Hogarth illustrated alco-hol abuse of the times with his well knownpainting "Gin Lane". Parts of the painting showa baby falling from a drunk woman's arms andanother shows a nurse pouring gin down a baby'sthroat. Despite these startling revelations, FASwas not identified as a disease until the early1970's (Abel). This is probably because the tech-nology was not available to study the physicalaspects of the brain, nor did we have the knowl-edge to understand them until this time.

Some symptoms of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome inInfants are small size, low birth weight, abnor-mally small head, weak heart or kidney prob-lems, trouble bending or moving their arms orlegs or severe mental retardation. In addition,many infants also have distinctive facial abnor-malities including a flattish appearance, narrowsquinting eyes with drooping lids, thin upper lip,blunt jaw and receding chin. Other commonfacial deformities include ears placedlow and farback on the head which leads to loss of hearing,and the lack of an indentation (called the phil-trum) on the upper lip. The upper lip and noseare also sometimes placed far apart. Infantsafflicted with FAS generally fail to develop andthrive. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome can manifestitself to different degrees. Although in manyinstances FAS can be detected at birth or aroundthe age of three, these effects are often not iden-tified until the child begins school. Some symp-

8

toms of modified FAS include mild mental retar-dation, hyperactivity, abnormal sleeping pat-terns, perceptual disabilities or failure to gainweight and grow normally (FAS Work Group,1980).

This failure to thrive is visible in Sterling Clar-ren's experiments with baby Macaques. Nor-mally these animals are lively and curious aboutevery!hing. However, the macaques whose moth-ers were given alcohol during pregnancy arelifeless and uninterested by their surroundings(Restak). Human infants often show the samesymptoms of detachment along with an anti-social attitude. Many of these children don't liketo be touched or held and cry often.

The first trimester of a woman's pregnancy is byfar the most critical. It is during this time thatthe fetus goes through organogenesis. This iswhen the fertilized egg divides thousands oftimes, each cell constantly differentiating. Be-cause of this, alcohol consumption during thefirst three months of pregnancy can yield grossbirth defects, severe mental retardation amongthem (Clarren, video). It is estimated thattwenty percent of the mentally retarded popula-tion are disabled because of alcohol, makingWAS the number one threat to children's mentalhealth, greater than either Downs syndrome orspina bifida" (Dorfman, 60).

During the first trimester the brain is formingcontinually. Therefore, if alcohol is affecting itsdevelopment, deformities are not uncommon.The reason alcohol has such devastating effectsis because the cells that migrate to differentparts of the brain are predestined to stop at aparticular location, but alcohol causes these cellsto not know when to stop. With regard to thenervous system, the axons and den trites affectedby alcohol have difficulties making connections

and with their organization. Neurons also travelaround the brain, "lost.* The alcohol seems toaffect the organization or sometimes cause thepremature breakdown of the glial cells neededfor neuronal migration. In a study of rats, Mi-chael W. Miller found that consumption of theequivalent to twelve ounces of beer in humansper day caused neurons to either fail to reachtheir proper destination or to die entirely (Miller)..This could very possibly be the result in humansas well.

Other common problems involve the white mat-ter of' the brain. The ventricles are often far toolarge, brain density is greatly reduced and theoverall size of the brain is smaller. Alcohol alsois known to cause problems with hormones,peptides, and neumtransmitters (Clarren, video).

During the second and third trimesters, becausethe fetus's brain is a little more developed so thedamage to the brain may be slightly less, but it isduring this time that the fetus's body develops.The most distinctive deformities are those of theface, as mentioned earlier, and deformities of thehands. The mother must also keep in mind,during the last four or five months of her preg-nancy especially, that the baby feels the effectsof amounts of alcohol at least as much as themother. If a woman has a few drinks and is onlyslightly intoxicated baby is "drinking" the sameamount of alcohol and this could make the baby"drunk."

Many defects of those with Fetal Alcohol Syn-drome include abnormalities in the developmentof the cerebral cortex, particularly in motor ar-eas. These abnormalities include language andcoordinative difficulties and deficiencies in cog-nitive and fine motor skills. It is partially be-cause of these defects in the motor cortex that the

brain is of reduced size and that it is in a sheetlikeformation rather than the normal clusters ofcells.

Another area of the brain which has been foundto be greatly affected by FAS is the hippocampus.Within the hippocampus of rats studied, therewere aberrations in the organization of fibers.They were abnormally distributed and therewere fewer nerve cells and decreased dendricsize (Abel). Since the hippocampus controlslearning and memory, an d because it is from herewe derive our inhibitions, the hippocamp us coul dbe responsible for the second most commonsymptom of Fetal Alcohol Syndromehyperac-tivity.

Hyperactivity, also called minimal brain dys-function or attention deficit disorder, is charac-terized by an inability to focus on anything forlong periods of time and a tendency towardimpulsiveness. This disorder is usually evidentby age three but is sometimes not found until thechild enters school. "As a result of this disorder,school failure and conduct disorders are notuncommon" (Abel 141). Hyperactivity is usuallyonly a problem during childhood, but in somecases it does continue into adolescence and evenadulthood. Sometimes the hyperactivity goesaway entirely. More commonly, when the childgrows up, the hyperactivity goes away but the in-dividual rete, attention problems and thecharacteristic hopulsiveness (AbeD.

There are several studies going on now about theeffect of sperm damaged by alcohol and the waythe effect the fetus but as of yet these resultshave been indecisive. Therefore, at the presenttime, the responsibility rests on the mother'sshouklers. Alcoholic women are the group at thegreatest risk simply because they are the ones

who will need the most help in stepping drinking.Other women must also be alert and stop drink-ing even if they are not sure if they are pregnant.As mentioned earlier, the most severe damage isdone during the first trimester. Some women donot find out they are pregnant until well intotheir pregnancy when it is too la'3. Drinkingduring the second and third trimesters does yieldmore subtle effects, but nevertheless, they shouldnot be taken lightly. It has also been found thatbinge drinking can do just as much damage asdrinking every day.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is unlike many otherdiseases. It cannot be cured once the damage isdone, but it is entirely preventable. Before wecan prevent the spread of FAS, parents mustknow about the damage they could be causingtheir child. Across the country people are tryingto educate each other about the dangers. First ofall, now that doctors and other people in themedical profession are aware of the disease andwhat causes it, they can notify their patients.Secondly, a law was put into effect as of Novem-ber of 1989 saying that alcohol now needs to carrya cigarette-type warning, cautioning the drinkerthat the consumption of that beverage may causebirth defects. Finally, awareness campaigns arebeing put forth in different parts of the country.For example, many of the bars in California nuwhave posted displays, warning pregnant womennot to drink (Raetzrnan). When examiningstatistics. the drop since the disease was recog-nized in 1972 and since these programs began isvisible. Since this time, there have been declinesin the number and severity of cases in the UnitedStates. Even though Fetal Alcohol Syndromecan be stopped entirely, this disease will con-tinue to be responsible for hundreds of deaths,deformities, and handicaps until women realizethe danger they are putting their child in.

78 5- ;

Is it worth all those evening cocktails and happyhour beers to have a child who could be deformedand/or mentally retarded for his whole life? Thischild never had a chance to determine his fate.His mom's alcohol use destroyed that right. Thischild's life has ended before it has had a chanceto begin.

bibliography

Abel, Ernest. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and FetalAlcohol Effects. New York: Plenium Press. 1984.

Dorfman, Andrea. "Alcohol's Youngest Vi ctims."lime August 28, 1989. 60.

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Work Group. For Yourliabx:13ake..jkalkink. December, 1980.

Miller, Michael W. "Effects of Alcohol on theGeneration and Migration of Cerebral CorticalNeurons". science. September, 1986. 1308-10.

Raetzman, Kim RN. Interview on 2/18190 atEvanston Hospital, Evanston, Illinois.

Restak, Richard M. The Minct. New York:Bantam Books. 1988.

79

CAMPFIRE CHATTER

Jean struggled out of the twisted wreck andstarted running, trying to put as much distanceas possible between himself and the burningplane. He soon realized he was safe and, ex-hausted, slowed down to a walk. In the middle ofa forest he tried to gather his bearings. He soongrew close to a state of panic. Blindly stumblingalong, he heard the sound of rushing water. Heran in the direction of this noise until he cameupon the stream and, with great relief, got downon his knees and drank until he was content.Feeling eyes upon him, he glanced up to see aman staring curiously at him.

"Hello," said the man, "What's your name?"

"How do you do. My name is Jean-JacquesRousseau."

"Jean, my name is John Locke. Looks like youand me may be the only survivors. Shame. I'mnot much of a mountain man. I can barely starta Ere."

I'm not too skilled myself. Maybe we can man-age together, though."

The two began walking along the stream. Asevening grew near they searched for a place tosleep for the night. To their surprise, in thedistance they sighted a man sitting beside aroaring fire.

"Hello," they shouted from afar.

Glancing up, the man made no reply. When thecwo got to the fire, John spoke up.

"We thought we were the only two here. Boy, arewe glad to see someone else. Mi nd if we stay here?

80

By Terry O'Brien

We could sure use the fire and an extra friend."

Shrugging his shoulders, the man grunted ap-proval.

"I'm John Locke and this is my friend JeanRousseau. Whom do I have the pleasure ofaddressing?"

"Thomas Hobbes."

After a supper offish, the three men settled downby the fire. After some idle chatter, the conversa-tion soon turned to their plight.

Locke suggested a division of duties in whichHobbes maintain the camp and catch fish whilehe and Rousseau concentrated on rescue.

"Wait a second," interjected Hobbes. "I don't seewhere you get off giving orders. I run the camp,provide shelter, and catch food. The way I seethings, you two should be listening to me."

"That's no way to run things," retorted Lockeangrily. "You're talking about a monarchy. Welive in America, and things are done democrati-cally here."

"I know damn well we're in America, and I knowthis is a democratic country. That's why I cameto live out here. I couldn't handle the way thiscountry is run. All that democratic nonsense,what ever gets worked out that way? It leads tonothing but quarreling and confusion, and it'sfrustrating for me to observe. The only way 'zamaintain order is to have one person take con-trol."

"The problem with that," Roosseau broke in, "is

S 8

that power becomes twisted. The whole idea of agoverning body is that it is representative of thegeneral will. When there is only one person incharge there is no way to ensure that this will becarried out."

"Precisely," said Locke. "Therefore, we have ademocratic government made up of threebranches, each of which can check the otherbranch to make certain that power is not being.aisused."

"What do you mean misused?" asked Hobbes."As long as the person remains in charge, then hecannot misuse power. Might is right."

"No, You're missing the point of government,"Locke said. 'Like Jean here said, it is an expres-sion of the general will. When that is no longerbeing expressed, then the government is no longervalid. When the rights of the people are beingviolated, then it's their duty to change the gov-ernment."

"The people sacrifice their 'rights' when theyacknowledge a ruler," said Hobbes, "and thisruler has no duty to represent a 'general will'.This ruler is supposed to protect the people fromharm and enable them to achieve pleasure. Thatis the only reason that there is a need for govern-ment. In my case, for example, my governmentwasn't expressing my will. I didn't need theirprotection or aid in achieving pleasure and so I'mself-sufficient."

"That'sjust selfish of you, " said Rousseau. "You'renot able to see the big picture. It's true that thegoverned do have to sacrifice something, but thatis in the hands of the general will and the govern-ment which carries out this will. And I don'tthink I agree with your reasons for establishinggovernment either."

"Nor do I," spoke Locke. "I think you paint a darkpicture of humans. You seem to think that it'severy man for himself. Well, Thomas, I think

you're wrong. Man is a naturally social animal.Man needs government in order to have a fair andneutral judge for disputes, and not merely assome kind of shelter from the storm as you seemto believe."

"I'm afraid you have far too much faith in humannature," spoke Hobbes. "Look at you two forexample. Why did you come walking into mycamp this afternoon? You saw the fire-you sawwarmth and you saw protection from the un-knowns lurking in the forest. If I did not offer youthese things, you would have no need for me. ButI am providing these for you, and that is why aslong as you remain in my camp, you go by myrules."

This quieted Locke and Rousseau, and for a whilethe three sat gazing at the fire, lost in thought.After some time, though, huddled together closeto the blazing fire, they slept.

81 S

HOW HE DID IT: AN ANALYSIS OF GORBACHEV'SSTRATEGY FOR STAYING IN POWER

Once upon a time there lived an emperor wholoved clothes more than anything else. His desirefor new, fancy garments was famous far andwide, so it was not surprising that two roguescame up with the idea of swindling him by claim-ing to make cloth that only the wise could see.There really was no cloth, but, of course, every-body pretended to see it to avoid seeming stupid.The emperor himsel f un vei ed these new "clothes"at a large parade. As he paraded naked down thestreet, the only person who dared to commentwas one small boy, who shouted "He's not wear-ing any clothes...!"

Recognize Hans Christian Anderson's "TheEmperor's New Clothes"? The fairy tale wasmeant as a cautionary story about pride. Todayit has taken on some eerie political connotations.Eastern Europe is looking more and more likeWilliam F. Buckley's bedtime story, and in theEvil Empire itself Mikhail Gorbachev is shoutingloud and clear that the Leninist Empire is wear-ing no clothes. By uncovering the many flaws inthe USSR's communist system, Gorbachev isputting himself in a position of extreme peril-thelittle boy in Anderson's tale playing in the high-stakes real world. He has managed to keep hishold on power by neutralizing his opposition,divorcing himself from the conservative Commu-nist Party leadership and creating powers andconstituencies all his own through strategic fir-ings, structural changes, and playing to thegeneral population.

Gorbachev started what the New York Times ofFeb. 8, 1990 called the "Third Russian Revolu-tion" in 1984 with his glasnost, or openness, andperestroika, or economic reform, cam pai gns. Sincethose first statements that the system needed

By Bridget Lanier

some change, the world has watched the BerlinWall tumble down, a Solidarity man be electedPrime Minister of Poland, and a one-time politi-cal prisoner take charge of Czechoslovakia.Finally, on February 7, the Soviet Union itselftook the first steps toward democracy as ArticleSiA of the Soviet Constitution was abandoned,and with it the Communist party's "leading role"in Soviet life.

Gorbachev left the ousting of regional officials tothe people themselves. As early as March 26,1989, he allowed open elections of m em hers of theCongress of People's Deputies that would selectthe Supreme Soviet. The turnout proved a vote ofno confideiwe for traditional party leaders. Zbig-niew Brezinski, former U.S. national securityadvisor, characterized the elections as "when-ever there was a choice, the masses voted againstthe Communist regime" (Insight April 17,1989).Public dissatisfaction has grown even in the lastfew months, as, according to The Economist ofFeb. 3, 1990, Gorbachev "seems to have stirred upthe anger of ordinary party member at theirbosses' "unchecked powers and uneamed privi-leges". Now he is calling for open elections oflocalofficials and councils.

With such measures, Gorbachev is bypassing theconservative Communist Party and going straightto the more liberal rank and file. For the moment,this should help him. Even lower-level Commu-nist regulars are growing disillusioned withconservatism at the top. Journalist and long timeparty member Anatoly Pankov characterized thesituation in the Feb. 9, 1990 New York nmeswith the words "there's not much confidence leftin the party...a lot of members are far more

82

radical than the leadership." Gorbachev is viewedas someone who is willing to make changes. Forthis, he has personally become popular ,a greatattribute as the nation begins a multiparty sys-tem. A U.S. style opinion poll conducted last fallshowed Gorbachev with a 47% approval rating,even as support plummeted for the party heleads. His nearest competition came from theeven more liberal Boris Yeltsin, who had 14%(Chicago Tribune, Feb. 6, 1990).

Gorbachev is not trusting the momentary ma-nipulation of personali ties to keep him in power.He has made structural changes in the Sovietsystem that increase the institutional power ofthe president, currently Gorbachev, at the ex-pense of the Party. In reforming the SupremeSoviet last year, he created an alternative powerstructure to rival that of the Party. The presi-dency now has such broad powers that WilliamSatire was moved to remark "Mikhail Gorbachevhas more power than any Czar, more of a person-ality cult than Stalin. He has undermined thecorrupt party and created his own governmenthierarchy in which only the president need notstand for election. Hello, Superczar" (New Yorknines, Feb. 9, 1990.

Mikhail Gorbachev-Superczar, Superman, orwhatever it pleases you to call him-has presidedover some of the most potentially chaotic andrevolutionary years in modern Russian history.In the space of seven years, he has moved theSoviet Union from the model of authoritariani smto a fetal multiparty system. He stayed in powerwhile accomplishing this by neutralizing hisopposition, the conservative high ranking Com-munist party officials, with strategic mini-purges,holding the Party accountable to the people, andmaking structural changes to strengthen andmake independent his official positions. Thedanger of these moves lies in the fact that hisenemy could change. Gorbachev is now at themercy of the people rather than the Party, but ifthe economic and ethnic problems should worsen,

83

as they probably will, the people coul d turn againsthim. Ironically, his greatest threat now comesfrom the measures he has taken to keep himselfin power. The changes Gorbachev has wroughtwill have repercussions across the globe, no matterhow fairy tale-like they seem. And for Mr. Gor-bachev, there is no guaranteed happy ending.

TWO POLITICAL VIEWS OF MACHIAVELLIAND OLWER NORTH

VIEW I

In a time when subjects were merely tools of theirdictator, Nicolo Machiavelli's principles werebased on deceiving the common people in order tomaintain a stable nation. In theory these prin-ciples should not be applied to a nation wheregovernment is based on the people's evaluation ofvalid information. However, this contradictionin theory is not the only thing wrong with apply-ing Machiavelli's principles in a period of height-ened awareness to political wrongs.

Machiavelli's main doctrine was that the endjustifies the means. There are specific ends thatMachiavelli had in mind. First and foremost wasthat the prince in question remain in power, andincrease his power. In The Prince, Machiavellistresses the importame of making sure that thenation is stable and perceived as such by thesubjects, for if the subjects believe the nationunstable they may begin to doubt the ability oftheir ruler.

The means through which a prince can meetthese ends are metaphorically based on the ac-tion of two animals. The actions of a princeshould seem to his subjects like those of a lion. Heshould seem all-powerful and wise and embodythe traits of mercy, faith, humanity, sincerity,and religion. This forged character relies on theassumption that ignorant subjects will take theirruler at face value, for under the skin of the lionlies a fox. According to Machiavelli, a princeshould be able to act like a fox while appearinglike a lion, in order to provide for personal gain orthe safety of the nation. A prince must also havestrong cunning, an ability for manipulation, and

By Ellen Petrick

a willingness to perform immoral deeds if theybenefit him.

In the recent Iran-Contra affair Oliver Northapplied these Machiavellian principles, thoughperhaps unconsciously. His intended ends seemsimilar to those generalized by Machiavelli.During his testimony North says he was the onlylink between the Contras and the U.S. Thisposition implies great personal power which Northprobably wanted to keep. Second, he says thatsomeone had to give aid to the Contras in order tooverthrow the communist government of Nicara-gua and protect the U.S. Third, North says thatthe citizens of the U.S. should have no need tofear an attack from Central America. This soundslike Machiavelli's princi ples of "remain in power","stabilize the nation", and "stabilize the minds ofthe subjects".

North also applies the lion/fox principles. Northportrayed himself to the public as a lion, a super-patriot. He stood before the Congress in his fulluniform, with all of his medals and decorations.He swore to his patriotic intentions, his strictobservance of the foreign policy set down by thePresident, and to how he put himself in dangerfor the good of the country. And as foreseen byMachiavelli, thousands of citizens proclaimedhim God's gift to the U.S. and looked no further,deceived by North's facade. Yet some people wereable to pull back his thin skin and see that he alsohad the qualities of a fox. In order to reach hispatriotic ends he used immoral means. Northbroke the law made by Congress that said thatthe U.S. would not give aid to the Contras. In

84:1 2

order to obtain funds for the aid, he sold weaponsto a country currently hostile to the U.S.. Inorder to hide his actions North lied to Congress,falsified documents, and destroyed papers.

What's wrong with being immoral if it accom-plishes a good end? Immorality is looked down onby society. People want government officials whoperform moral deeds. Therefore immoral deedsmust be hidden by those officials. Yet the demo-cratic system requires that voting citizens haveaccess to correct information. There is a moralconsensus which supports this system. Thismoral consensus is embodied in the law. Law is"democratically morar(Rudman, 602). As statedby Senator Rudman, *the American people havethe constitutional right to be wrong". In theoryNorth's actions of covering up and falsifyllig factsundermines our democratic system because italters the information needed to make the lawsthat are supposed to define the moral consensus.Even if the law which was broken was the resultof improper use of information in the first place,to break it would be to ignore the fundamentalprinciple of our nation.

This is not the only thing wrong. Martin LutherKing said that the endg cannot be separated fromthe means because the means are the ideals orthe ends in the making. In order to 'save ademocratic system, North deritroyed its mainprinciple. He defeated the purpose.

However, North is not the only person who fol-lows these deceitful practices. President Bushrecently led an attack on Panama. Like North hetried to portray himself as a lion. He was beingcalled a wimp, and so he sent his troops toPanama and tried to capture a drug dealer. Andlike North, he also showed the qualities of a fox.He ordered warlike actions on another countrywithout Congress declaring war. He broke inter-national law by suddenly moving in and replac-ing another country's leader. Bush evidently alsobelieves in "the end justifies the means" theory.

In order to stop the drug-caused deaths of thou-sands of U.S. adults and children, he caused thedeaths of hundreds of Panamanian adults andchildren. In order to stop a dictator who causedgrief, Bush caused grief.

Fortunately, although Machiavelli's principlesmay hinder the functioning of U.S. democracy, sofar they have not destroyed it. Using Machiavel-lian principles in a democracy is illogical anddangerous. Once the cycle of deceit starts, thenpoliticians can justify anything because it is goodfor the country. The principles will be appliedwhenever a politician has a chance for personalgain. Soon the ends, notjust the means, will needto bejustified. Citizens h.. ve to prove Machiavelliwrong, and stop taking politicians and politicalevents at face value just because someone saysit's good for the country.

VIEW II

By David Czerwinski

In a democracy, one can't decide if the end justi-fies the means without weighing the means andthe end against each other. There are someguidelines to follow in order to weigh the meanswhich include deciding if something is legally ormorally wrong. The "weight* of the means mustthen be weighed against the weight of the end,which can be determined by considering, amongother things, whether the end is right accordingto the individual's morals, and the public's mor-als, and whether the end will save or injure otherpeople.

To weigh the means, one must first realize that ina democracy, there are two sets of rules thatpeople should follow, morals and laws. An indi-vidual's morals are usually more important thanthe government's laws, unless the individual's

85

9 3

morals contrast greatly with the morals of therest of the public.

The first set of rules, laws, are made for the well-being of the people (also under this heading arebills, which prevent the government from doingwhat the public doesn't want). If the means to theend involve breaking any rules of the govern-ment, which the breaker of the rules would ordi-narily agree with, then his actions are not justi-fi ed by his goal because, if the means were weighedon their own, they would be unacceptable even tothe breaker of the rules. Also, if the means aresuch that they would not be acceptable accordingto the general public, or they would put someonein danger, then the means would be wrong be-cause they violate the beliefs of the general pub-lic, which are the basis for a democracy.

The second set of rules, morals, guide people indeciding whether to do something that, though itis legal, might be "wrong", or though it is illegal,might be "right". These rules are difficult toexplain, but stem from the 'human" quali ty of ourspecies and it follows that they have great au-thority in the human community. The moralvalues of a person outweigh the government'slaws because the laws are made to fit the people'smorals, not the other way around. If the majorityof the people, based on moral judgment, disagreewith a law, the law should be changed. Moralssupersede the law; law does not supersede mor-als.

One .tore thing that must be considered is death.Life is the most important thing on this planet;so, when the end and means are weighed, life isa significant consideration. In order to justify a"means" which includes the loss of someone's life,the end must be very important. If the end is tosave a life, the means may contradict both lawan d moral i ty.

Now let's apply these ideas to the political behav-ior of Machiavelli and Oliver North. Machiavelli

86

wrote about the way a prince should behave if hewishes to keep his power. He believed, basically,that the end, to keep power,justified most means.The first requirement for a prince, according toMachiavelli, is: 'be a fox to recognize traps, anda lion to frighten wolves". In order to do this, aprince must show the qualities of mercy, faith,humanity, sincerity, and religion. However, aprince need not possess all of these qualities,rather just make his subjects believe he pos-sesses them . Also, if a prince is ruling atheists, orinhumane people, he should act atheistic or inhu-mane. In other words, a prince must deceive hissubjects in order to please them and thus keeppower.

Since Machiavelli was making his plans for agovernment in which the people had no power,his belief can not be strictly weighe:, according tothe preceding principles. If he had been makinghis rules for a democracy, it is obvious that hisend does not justify the means because the gen-eral public does not want to be lied to or taken ad-vantage of. Since, however, he was not planningfor a democracy, the scales mustbe adjusted. Hisideas didn't contradict the rule oflaw because theprince made laws and could suit them to hispurposes. Because he preached lying and cheat-ing, his ideas do contradict the rules of morals,but not much because the people wouldn't mindhow immoral their prince was as long as theywere taken care of, made secure and prosperous.His ideas also do not contradict the rule aboutlife, because none of them puts any more lives indanger than any competing system. Thus, on theadjusted scales, Machiavelli's end to get andmaintain power justifies the means.

Oliver North, in his testimony concerning the"Iran-Contra affair", shared several of Machia-velli's views about government. Basically, Northfelt, like Machiavelli, that the end justifies themeans. He said that covert operations must bekept secret in order that they succeed even if thismeans breaking a few rules and actingindepend-

ently of the rest of the government. North de-cided that what he did (give support to the Con-tras) was alright, although Congress had passeda bill prohibiting it, because the U.S. must keepcommunist governments away from our hemi-sphere no matter how they do it. Since Congresswasn't helping the Contras, North took mattersinto his own hands, assuming that it was hisduty, as an individual, to do what he felt correct,regardless of what Congress or the citizens of theU.S. felt at that moment.

Even though Oliver North was acting on behalf ofthe U.S. government, everything the governmentwants to achieve should be achieved according tothe government's rules, because th e. generalpublic wants it that way, and because employeesof the government have accepted those rules tobegin with. North was wrong in doing what hedid because he broke a rule he had accepted withhis office. When weighed against the principlesestablished, North's actions break the "rule ofobedience to law'. They also break the 'rule ofmorals", by violating the code of honor and incor-ruptibility expected of any office holder. As to the"rule of life", North's actions come out about evenbecause, while he was funding a revolution inwhich people were killed, his main objective, inthe long run, was to save, and improve, manylives. Thus, on the scales, North's end of helpingthe Contras does not justify his means.

It is clear that Machiavelli and North both agreedthat the end justifies the means. Both felt anindividual should use his power to achieve anecessary end. Machiavelli was worried abouthis prince's personal fate while also expressingconcern for the fate of Italian unity, whereasOliver North worried primarily about serving thenation's best interests as he saw them. North didwhat he did because he thought he was doingwhat U.S. citizens wanted and thus was helpingthe Contras. There is no evidence he soughtindividual power and little evidence he acted forthe political gain of Ronal d Reagan.

87

Referencea

Machiavelli, Niccolo. MiLltinrig. New York:New American Library, 1952.

Rudman, Senator Warren in Taking The Stan&The Testimony of Lieutenant Colonel OliverNerth. [complete transcripts of testimony beforethe joint congressional committee] New York:Pocket Books, 1987.

THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL

Many skeptics have used the existence of evil andtragedy as proof that a caring, loving God doesnot exist. They state that an all-powerful entitysurely would not allow the scourges of our societyto exist. These arguments are persuasive butflawed. Cod's existence can be reconciled withevil on two levels. First, he gave humans freewill, and that freedom gives him the opportunityto do harm as well as good. Man was supposedlycreated in God's image, and thus must have thesame control over himself as the Lord does.Secondly, suffering and evil are not necessarilybad things. God might be a utilitarian whobalances pain and pleasure. Consequently, hewould allow evil on the basis that it builds moralcharacter among the good, rewards those peoplewho made correct choices, and gives meaning topleasure. John Hick points out that in a world inwhich actions can never have harmful conse-quences, good and evil thoughts are rewardedequally, and there is no incentive to take benevo-lent action, since one's actions can never harmanyone. Furthermore, pleasure is best under-stood after a painful experience. A man who hasnot seen his wife in five years will appreciate anight at home more than a man who sees hisspouse every day. Likewise, a piece of bread to astarving man is filling, whereas others mightthink it a paltry meal.

The concepts of free will and determinism havebeen hotly disputed for ages, but a general con-sensus has formed that free will must be acceptedif life is to have any meaning. If determinism isaccepted, the foundations of society would bedestroyed. No responsibility could be assessedfor any action, and efforts to change would befruitless because life is already planned for thesubject. Accepting free will is an important firststep in justifying the simultaneous existence of

88

By Erie Truett

evil and God. Man was created in God's image,and received the same ability to choose as Godhas. Since God is all-powerful, he has the abilityto choose good, evil, or whatever else He wants todo, guided only by His conscience, and has chosento be benevolent. Likewise, people must havethose same choices. Society creates additionalrestraints against deviant behavior, but it essen-tially depends upon the person which way his lifewill tarn. In order to avoid contradiction, Godhas to allow man to make wrong decisions. Ifmanwas unable to do wrong, he would not truly befree, being more -like an animal guided by in-stinct, and would not be God's image.

This point explains the existence ofhuman-causedharm, but does not fully account for naturaldisasters or seemingly accidental events. Anideal world, in which no harm can come from anyaction, may not be as ideal as some would think.John Hick described a poosible utopia in his Elii;losophy of Religiou:

Suppose, contrary to fact, that this worldwere a paradise from which all possibili-ty of pain and suffering were excluded.The consequences would be very far-reach-ing. For example, no one could everinjure anyone else: the murderer's knifewould turn to paper or his bullets to thinair; the bank safe, robbed of a milliondollars would miraculously become filledwith another million dollars (withoutthis device proving inflationary); fraud,deceit,conspiracy, and treason wouldsomehow always leave the fabric ofsociety undamaged. Again, no one wouldever be injured by accident: the moun-tain climber, steeplejack, or playingchild falling from a height would float

unharmed to the ground...There wouldbe no need to work, since no harmcould result from avoiding work; therewould be no call to be concerned for othersin time of need or danger, for in such aworld there could be no real needs or dan-gers (Hick 45-46).

In order to accommodate such an existence, alllaws of nature and mankind would have to bevariable, operating in some instances and inoper-able in others. Even more importantly, our con-cepts of good and evil would have no meaning inthis 'perfect' world. All actions would receivesimilar rewards; a man trying to kill would get inno more trouble than a man who spent his freetime aiding the disadvantaged. No action couldbe deemed wrong, because nothing would causeany harm to any other person. The traditionalconceptions of m oral i ty would be irrelevant, sincethere would be no reward for doing good. Such anexistence would deSdradistrip man ofhis free will,since free will implies that man takes responsi-bility for his actions. In a utopia, no responsibil-ity need be taken, since no harm can result frompoor judgement. As discussed previously, theabsence of free will would deny the point of man'sexistence, since he would be no different fromanimals. Hick concludes that, "...an environmentintended to make possible the growth in freebeings of the finest characteristics of personallife, must have a good deal in common with ourpresent world...If it did not contain the particulartrials and perils which our world contains, itwould have to contain others instead" (46). Mansimply cannot grow and flourish without ob-stacles to overcome. Society respects those peoplewho have overcome the most adversity, and thepeople who have been able to withstand tragedyand still live life are the ones who appreciatepleasure the most.

Suffering seems inherently bad; people are un-justly punished and deprived not because ofanything they have done wrong. Often, the most

pious persons have to live the hardest lives. Onecan make a strong point about how a caring Godwould never let these events occur. The problemwith this line of reasoning is that it assumes thatsuffering is evil in all instances, and it fails torecognize the benefits that pain brings. PeterDeVries, in ThalgoLd.thajamb, adores hisyoung dau7hter who dies of cancer. He finds noconsolation in religion or the idea of progress.Others try to console him. A youngster gives hima book on Zen, which tells the reader not to worry.This is absurd, DeVries feels, in light of the painhe has experienced. A man on a train offers moreinsightful commentary. He tells DeVries to bethankful for the time he had with his daughter,because a short-lived experience can still bespecial. The man's daughter is not particularlyexceptional, and his wife in an alcoholic. One ofDeVries daughter's teachers tells him to be thank-fill that he could have children; she was toohomely ever to find a husband and to have a childof her own. A person who has suffered greatly,such as a woman who has a paralyzed son, canhave a meaningfiil life, by helping those in needoven at great expense to themselves, while oth-ers' superficially enjoyable existence, such asthat of a playboy, can have no true meaning.

Thus, suffering and an enjoyable, significant lifeare not mutually exclusive. In fact, sufferingmight be a precondition for a meaningful exis-tence, and for true realization of jay. ViktorFrankl has greater insight on the matter. Hewrites that, "Whenever one is confroated with aninescapable, unavoidable situation, when ever on ehas to face a fate that cannot be changed, i.e., anincurable disease, such as an inoperable cancer,just then is one given a last chance to actualizethe highest value, to fulfill the deepest meaning,the meaning of suffering. For what mattersabove all is the attitude we take toward suffering,the attitude in which we take our suffering uponourselves" (Frankl 356). God has the ability tocorrect these crises, but does not da so, becausesuch ordeals build the human spirit and moral

89

character.

Finally, arguments denying God's existence failto consider that existence on Earth might only beone stage in eternal existence for man. The soulwould theoretically live forever, growing witheach life it lives. Thus, death is not necessarilythe end, or an extreme tragedy. It is possible thatwhat man conceives as the world is a mere testingground for his place in eternity. A favorableperformance on earth means he is deserving of aplace in heaven, while an abhorrent existencemeans hell is a certainty. Suffering is a test of aman's strength and his worthiness of eternalpleasure. It is also a test of his faith. Kierkegaardwrites of a leap of faith, in which man decides tobelieve in God's existence, regardless of evidenceto the contrary. Man's willingness to do so meanshe will reap the benefits, but he must have thechoice in order for the reward to be justified. Godis not uncaring when he allows man's world to beless than perfect; instead, He is merely decidir.gwho desires His blessings.

Many people have trouble reconciling God withthe many problems faced by mankind. If Godwere truly kind, they say, he would never allowsuch injustices to happen. These are valid reser-vations, but these people misunderstand thenature of free will and the importance of suffer-ing. In order to avoid contradiction, man musthave the ability to choose evil as well as good.Otherwise, all choice would be meaningless, andman would be determined. Additionally, suffer-ing strengthens the moral character of mankindand prepares faithful adherents for a life inheaven. Only if man is challenged can he deservehis place in eternity. An existence where nochoice can be wrong and where there is no incen-tive to do good is contrary to the idea of mancarrying out God's work.

Bibliography

DeVries, Peter. blood of the Lamb. New Yo.

90

Little, Brown, and Co. 1961.

Frankl, Victor. MathiSearch for Meaning. NewYork: Washington Square Press, 1963.

Hick, John. Philosophy of Religioa. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

THE TIME IS NOW FOR RACIAL UNIFICATION

Why? In 1990, South Africa is not free. In 1990,evident segregation at high school dances isbeing ignored.

In 1990, Nelson Mandela is still imprisoned.

In 1990, there was gross misconduct displayed ata basketball game by students who would notrespect and accept one another, my friends.

There is a war going on-a racial war. In this war,there are no winners. The soldiers in this war arenot defending their countries, but shielding theirhearts. They have yet to apply love to their lives.

They have forgotten the man who wiped the filmof bigotry from the window of the world to allowequality to shine through; the man who upliftedthe spirits of the meek and humble and gave hopethat one day they would not have to hold theirheads down because the pressure of shame wastoo great; the man who reached out to the peopleand up to the Lord and somehow tried to combinethe two.

They have forgotten the man who loved andsaved humanity.

Such a man was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King had a dream that the bias ofracial hatred would be diminished and replacedwith human compassion, and now that our greatleader has passed, it is our obligation to upholdthat dream.

Do you think the war ended when PresidentLincoln signed the emancipation proclamation orwhen Hitler's army was finally defeated? Maybe

91

By Juanta Bennett

you thought the war ended when thousands ofmen and women marched on Washington andlater marched on home. These were mere stepstowards freedom. 'Ave freedom cannot be bought,signed or bargained. True freedom comes fromthe heart, and if we are to live in Dr. King's worldof' peace and harmony, we must no longer allowreligion, race, or creed to cloud the respect wehave for one another.

The holocaust and slavery were ugly realities ofhistory, things that we cannot change. There-fore, we must move forward and not allow our-selves to fall backwards.

Students of Oak Park and River Forest HighSchool, the time is now. It's time for unity. Wemust decide whether we contribute to the dreamor sell out to a senseless color war.

We can rise and be the almighty human race andthat we are truly together in unity, not separatedby color.

(Juanta Bennet is a sophomore at Oak Park andRiver Forest High School. This essay won thehigh school's 1989-90 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.Oratorical Contest, and Bennett read it at thehigh school's Jan. 11 convocation honoring thelate Dr. King.)

99

PATRIOTS OF PROMISEMemorial Day Speech 1989

To honor and recognize. That is our purpose forbeing here this sunny morning in May, far re-moved from the wars which claimed the lives ofthe men and women we are here to remembertoday. Usually, speakers given my opportunity,to address the bulk of my peers, take this chanceto admonish, exhort, incite, or demand some-thing from you. I am going to break with tradi-tion and, instead, make an observation, to sharea realization that I have only recently come by; Iam proud of being an American, and I am proudof this country. Before going any further let mequalify that statement by saying that I am a newbreed of patriotand I think most of you are aswell. In his book, Patriotisrmin America, John J.Pullen examines patriotism as an American phe-nomenon from 1776 to just after the close of theVietnam War. Pullen draws the conclusion thatfor the Vietnam generation and those after them,being "patriotic" would not mean protecting thestatus quo but instead a desire, even a demandfor just change. 'Those generations after Viet-nam will be loyal not only to what this country is,but to what it might be," he said. "How do theylove their country? By making their countrymore lovable." In three short words, we are thepatriots of promise. Of course, there are severalvalid reasons why discovering one is loyal to hiscountry can be socially unfashionable and mor-ally uncomfortable. At one time or another, wehave all been mystified, saddened, and angeredby our government's poor policies, unfoundedprejudice and endless posturing into the worldarena where expediency and not justice seem tobe the rule of thumb in our dealings with Nicara-gua, the Soviet Union, and South Africa. Closerto home, one need but walk downtown to reaV.zethat the American Dream is not an economicreality for all; neither is the equality that our

92

By Tracy Clay

forefathers spoke of. In the face of these enormousproblems, why doesn't that vast majority of usgive in and resign ourselves in inequality? Whydon't we join the apathetic cynics who claim the"system" can never be beaten? To put it bluntly,why don't we eimply give up on this country? Isubmit it is the promise this country has alwaysembodied. The willingness to experiment withideas and institutions that has produced, formost of us, a standard of living unparalleled inthe world; a wealth of social, political and eco-nomic opportunities; a forum to disagree with ourgovernment and the ability to do something aboutit. A willingness to experiment that has createda system flexible enough to expand and includewomen and minorities, and yet firm enough toprotect our basic civil liberties for over twohundred years. For all of these things, I am bothgrateful and proud. However, it is not thesepracticalities that I am most proud ofno, I amproudest of the possibilities and promise thiscountry offers. No peoples have a greater oppor-tunity to better themselves and the human con-dition than we, as Americans. And nowhere isthere a greater chance for success than here inAmerica. I also believe that I an not alone, thatwe are all imbued with a sense of reforrn, a desireto redeem the as yet unfulfilled promise of thiscountry that makes patriots of us all. To realizethat we are being patriotic when we acknowledgethis country's flaws, applaud its virtues, andquestion its leaders and their actions, is to repaya small fraction of the debt we owe to the men andwomen who died to keep the promise alive. Per-haps Robert Kennedy was speaking of this patri-otism of promise when he said, "Some look atwhat is. and ask why? I look at what could be, andsay wh., not?"

OAK PARK AND RIVER FOREST HIGHSCHOOLOISTRICT 200

201 N. Scoville AvenueOak Park, Illinois 60302

BOARD OF EDUCATION

DR. ALEXANDER SCHMIDT, PRESIDENTBUNNY CAREY, SECRETARY

WANDA CORNELIUSWILLIAM R. CRAGG

ALICE M. RALPHNANCY SMILEYJASON STRODE

SUPERINTENDENT/PR1NCIPAL

DR. GEORGE A. GUSTAFSON

CHAIRMAN,DIVISION OF HISTORY,

GOVERNMENT ANDSOCIAL SCIENCES

THOMAS D. FERGUSON