History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Ted Widmer,"Champlain Was Here," Boston Globe, 9 March, re-asserts the priority of Franco-American history. Hat tip.
William Grimes,"Say What? It Wasn't a Just War After All?" NYT, 12 March, and Adam Kirsch,"War Games," NY Sun, 12 March, review Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization.
At Papercuts, Dwight Gardner points out that David Hajdu's The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America features"the career of Fredric Wertham, a particularly wild-eyed, energetic anti-comics zealot." Fans of C. Wright Mills may wince at Mills,"Nothing to Laugh At," NYT, 25 April 1954, a positive review of Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent.
Scott McLemee,"The Soiling of Old Glory," IHE, 12 March, reviews Louis Masur's The Soiling of Old Glory: The Story of a Photograph that Shocked America.
Finally, in case you missed the fact that Barack Obama is an African American:
I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. I wonder whether "race is an important factor" could mean, strategically, different things to white and black Dems in Mississippi? Your point about racial preference is probably only going to become more important. I think that identity politics has gained strength during this primary, accounting for some voters' choice, and that dynamic seems to have become amplified in some states. Overall, "according to CBS News exit polls, the economy was the most important issue on the minds of Democratic voters in Mississippi. This has been the case throughout the primaries."
William Hopwood -
3/17/2008
"Well, I suppose that establishing a circumstantial case for voter intent would need data that could speak to intent."
There is some such data. Although it must be difficult for exit pollers to get an honest answer on a question pertaining to racial intent, here are some interesting figures from CBS exit polling at the Mississippi primary:
""Four in 10 blacks said race was important in choosing their candidate. Of that group, nine in 10 supported Obama....Among whites, a quarter said race was in important factor in deciding their vote. Nine in 10 of them voted for Clinton."
Accordingly, on the basis of the figures above and the relatively heavy black percentages for Obama vis-a-vis white percentages for Clinton in all of the primaries so far, it would appear that similar patterns may have prevailed elsewhere. Therefore, on the evidence at hand, it does not seem unreasonable to believe that more blacks than whites could have been casting their votes on the basis of race.
Jeffrey R. Terrell -
3/17/2008
Well, I suppose that establishing a circumstantial case for voter intent would need data that could speak to intent. In the survey you posted above, where Republicans voted in Mississippi’s Democratic primary, there were a number of reasons GOP-leaning voters had for supporting Clinton rather than Obama. I think you need similar data that probe voter intent to support your argument that African Americans’ primary reasons for supporting Obama are race-based.
William Hopwood -
3/17/2008
I believe your "what if" to be highly unlikely, but as for voter intent, when there is plenty of good circumstantial evidence available, some pretty intelligent conclusions can be drawn.
Jeffrey R. Terrell -
3/17/2008
What if many African Americans were voting for Obama for purely tactical purposes, much as Republicans, rather than in racial solidarity? Voter intent can't be proven in either case.
William Hopwood -
3/16/2008
"...I was arguing for the right of voters to vote for a candidate they support...."
We certainly agree on that. Our major area of disagreement seems to be is in our differing views of the principal reason some voting blocs may have for their support of a particular candidate.
"How many Republicans voting in Mississippi's Democratic primary do you think would vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain in the general election? That question wasn't asked. Try 0%."
Well, since it's a free country, voters do have the right in an open primary to vote for a candidate they DON'T intend to support in the general election, probably for tactical purposes. I don't like open primaries for that reason.
Ralph E. Luker -
3/16/2008
No. You didn't read me right. I was arguing for the right of voters to vote for a candidate they support. How many Republicans voting in Mississippi's Democratic primary do you think would vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain in the general election? That question wasn't asked. Try 0%.
William Hopwood -
3/16/2008
If I read you right, you are implying that there may have been a racist motivation for the Republican votes in the Democratic primaries.
Mark Blumenthal in Polster.com. points out that Republican voters in the Mississippi Democrat primary consisted of only 9% of the total and that from exit polling it was determined that their motivations were largely as follows::
"91 percent said Clinton is more qualified to be commander in chief; only 3 percent said Obama is more qualified.
94 percent said Obama does not inspire them "about the future of the country."
89 percent would be dissatisfied if Obama were the Democratic nominee.
86 percent said Obama is not "honest and trustworthy."
86 percent said Obama has not "offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems."
82 percent said Clinton should not pick Obama to be her running mate if she is the nominee."
Ralph E. Luker -
3/15/2008
No. I, too, am opposed to voting for or against a candidate on the basis of their race or gender. I support the right of voting for the candidate of the voter's own choice. I haven't seen your objection to white Republicans in Mississippi and elsewhere voting in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton (they were at least 15% of her support there) -- when they have no intention of supporting her in November. In other words, why is your criticism directed exclusively at African American voters?
William Hopwood -
3/15/2008
"... exactly what would be an "out of proportion black vote" be?
Well, I'd say something like this::
Jan 26, South Carolina--Obama got 78% of the black vote. Later due to 88% of his state's black vote supporting BO, "civil rights icon... John Lewis abandoned his long-standing loyalty to the Clintons" and switched to support Obama. "Mr. Obama's share of the black vote dropped below 70% only in Massachusetts and New York, and in numerous states it hovered around 90%"
[From Abigail Thernstrom--"Beyond Black Politics"--The Wall Street Journal 3/14/08]
"You'd prefer that black folk only vote "proportionately"?"
No, I would prefer that no one vote for or against a candidate primarily on the basis of the candidate's race or gender. But perhaps you don't agree.
Ralph E. Luker -
3/14/2008
Well, no, actually. In the first place, if Ferraro's comment ("The only reason that ...) were literally true, *any* woman would have been a satisfactory running mate for Walter Mondale in 1984; and *any* African American would be running ahead of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. Beyond that, Walter Mondale would know better than Geraldine Ferraro why Walter Mondale chose her as his running mate in 1984 and I'd prefer to have his observation about that in a context in which he's not trying to excuse Ferraro's foolish remarks in 2008. Beyond that, exactly what would be an "out of proportion black vote" be? You'd prefer that black folk only vote "proportionately"? You'd prefer 3/5s of a person proportionality, perhaps?
William Hopwood -
3/14/2008
"....Ms. Ferraro demeaned her own qualifications by saying that she would not have been nominated for Vice President had she not been a woman. Would she say that Senator Clinton would not be where she is if she were not a woman? Why, then, would she say that Obama would not be where he is if he were not an African American?....."
Qualifications aside, it would seem that no one should know better than Geraldine Ferraro what the primary reason was for her selection as Walter Mondale's running mate. Also it seems a rather good chance that Hillary would not be where she is today had she not been a woman, i.e., the wife of President Clinton. But so what?
Ms. Ferraro's observation with regard to BO's advantage with Democratic voters was not unique. There have been several prominent commentators who have thrown "political correctness" to the winds and opined that BO's current lead is due in no small measure to the out-of-proportion black vote he receives. As for the finger-pointing over who's playing the race card, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Ralph E. Luker -
3/13/2008
By "the candidate OB," do you mean Barack Obama? How would one know?
In fact, Geraldine Ferraro is the person who claimed that she was being called "a racist". Senator Obama explicitely said that he did *not* think that she is a racist. Ms. Ferraro demeaned her own qualifications by saying that she would not have been nominated for Vice President had she not been a woman. Would she say that Senator Clinton would not be where she is if she were not a woman? Why, then, would she say that Obama would not be where he is if he were not an African American?
You're certainly entitled to support whatever candidate you believe is best qualified for the office. That does *not* mean that you are obliged to defend every bit of nonsense said by your candidate's other supporters. I'm an Obama supporter. I'm not obliged to support every idiotic thing said by any of his other supporters.
judith weingarten -
3/13/2008
Who's putting out this stuff? Does it make OB Dems feel good?
A lot of us Dems don't feel racist (sorry, sorry, SORRY) but don't like the candidate OB.
