« May 2009 | Main | July 2009 »

June 25, 2009

Detroit in the 17th and 18th Centuries

By Red Sox Steve

Up to the start of the 17th century, indigenous people in Michigan were largely interacting with other indigenous people when dealing outside their own tribe. Just after the turn of the century, French explorers who had arrived in the area were the first European contacts made by the indigenous tribes. Stated French aims in the region were to create a colony and find a westward route to the Far East. In 1603, a French expedition travelled into the St. Lawrence River, and by 1608, Samuel de Champlain, a member of that expedition founded Quebec City. "Habitation de Quebec" of "New France" would serve as a fur trading outpost in order to build relations with the natives. From here, military alliances were soon forged with Algonquin and Huron nations - the region's furs were traded by the Indians in exchange for metals, guns, alcohol and clothing.

In 1610, de Champlain's protege, Étienne Brülé, left the Quebec settlement and was sent to live among Algonquins and then Hurons, ultimately learning Iroquois culture and gaining acceptance among indigenous tribes. Brülé continued going west, following the St. Lawrence and ended up at the northern end of Georgian Bay; he was the first European to see Lake Huron within a few years of his arrival in Quebec.

Starting in 1621, Brülé began another expedition into the Great Lakes, this time going west along Lake Huron's northern shore. When he reached the Manitoulin (between Lake Huron and the Georgian Bay), he came across copper deposits, so valuable to local tribes for centuries, and moved through Sault Sainte Marie and the St. Marys River, becoming the first European to enter Lake Superior. A dispute over the St. Lawrence Valley with British explorers led to Quebec falling under British control for a year in 1628, and Brule was killed at the age of 41 in 1633 when he fell out of favor with Huron tribes.

Before the end of the 17th century, the fur trade ran along a 3,000 mile route with one terminus in Montreal and extending through northern Michigan, controlled by French interests in the region. Although its roots are in the incidental trading of animal pelts among fishermen, fur trading grew considerably through the 17th century. French traders Pierre-Esprit Radisson and Médard Chouart des Groseilliers explored north and west beyond Lake Superior, expanding both the possibilities for profit and control of territory in the region. Furthermore, explorers Robert de LaSalle and Jacques Marquette claimed much of the Great Lakes and Ohio and Mississippi River valleys as French territory. By 1671, the competing English Hudson Bay Company had also become an important company in the fur trade, and as a result, French interests were under threat.

In 1673, the French constructed Fort Frontenac on Lake Ontario and in 1679, had built a ship named Le Griffon, a 45 ton warship and the first sailing ship in the Great Lakes to buttress their interests in the region. In 1694, New France's governor, Louis de Buade Comte de Frontenac, appointed local filibuster, explorer, trapper, mariner and alcohol and fur trader Antoine Laumet de la Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, to manage St. Ignace, a fort on Michigan's Upper Peninsula. With a 1701 charter from Louis XIV, Cadillac founded a trading post much further south in Michigan called Fort Ponchartrain du Detroit, at the end of the Detroit River and the present-day site of Detroit, Michigan.

The Detroit River had already been named by the French, its meaning arising from the French Rivierie du Detroit ("River of the Strait") after it was explored in the late 1670s. On July 24, 1701, Cadillac arrived in Detroit with 100 soldiers, missionaries, and colonists from Montreal, founding Fort Pontchartrain on a location now bordered by Larned Street, Griswold Street, and the Civic Center in downtown Detroit. The fort was named in honor of Louis Phélypeaux de Pontchartrain, minister of the French colonies; settlement around the fort by the Algonquins (who were sympathetic to the French) was promoted, especially due to tensions with Iroquois. Cadillac, because he was allegedly trading with the British, was removed by Ponchartrain, later appointed governor of French Louisiana in 1710, and was briefly imprisoned in the Bastille prison due to the influence of his numerous enemies in Quebec and Paris.

The subsequent decades saw Indian tribal conflict precipitate around the fort. In 1706, Ottawas attacked the Miami tribe who then sought refuge in the fort. Around 30 Ottawas were killed, and in retaliation for the initial attack, Miami indians attacked an Ottawa village. Because the fort's commander, Étienne de Veniard, Sieur de Bourgmont (Cadillac was away), was criticized after a priest and French sergeant were killed, he and a few of his soldiers deserted their service. In 1712, Cadillac was replaced by Charles Regnault, Sieur Dubuisson, and when the Fox tribe heard of the leadership change, they attacked the fort along with the Sac and Mascoutens.

When the attack came, French sympathetic Ottawa and Huron tribes were not in the area, however assistance arrived from Jean Baptiste Bissot, Sieur de Vincennes, commander of the French settlement at Kekionga (present day Fort Wayne, Indiana). After Dubuisson sent messages to Ottawa and Huron tribes hastening their arrival, the Fox were trapped and fled to Windmill Point (now Grosse Pointe). After four days of fighting the Fox surrendered to their attackers, one term of which was the release of families of the warriors - after the Fox were disarmed, however, the French killed all the Fox present in an event now known around Grosse Pointe as the Fox Indian Massacre.

In Europe in the mid-18th century, the Seven Years War pitted Britain and Prussia against numerous other nations, including France. The fact that the British and the French opposed each other on one the other side of the Atlantic was not lost on the colonies, resulting in what is known as the French and Indian War. In 1760, Fort Detroit was turned over to the British Army's Rogers' Rangers, just after French surrender at Montreal. By 1763, the Treaty of Paris had been signed ending the Seven Years War, and across the Atlantic, the French lost all their American colonies to the British. After the British took over the fort and economic control of the colonies, their primary interest in Michigan was fur trading, and settlement by whites was not specifically promoted by the new colonial power. As a result, there were only a few hundred white settlers in the area.

Due to concern that the British would try to punish native populations who had aligned with French interests, Ottawa war chief Pontiac called about 500 warriors from Ottawa, Ojibwa, Potawatomi and Huron tribes to a meeting in what is now Lincoln Park, Michigan in April 1763. There, they planned to attack British held Fort Detroit. Initial attempts to infiltrate the fort were rebuffed by the British, however by May, natives began a series of attacks to break British resistance. Although there were successful raids by Pontiac's warriors, their supply of gunpowder was limited and reinforcements reached the fort within months. By October, the Indian attackers had lost much zeal - winter was coming and the possibility of French assistance was not materializing. Pontiac sent a message of peace to the fort's general and withdrew the Ottawa from Detroit.

During the American Revolution, Fort Detroit's main contribution to the effort was to arm native populations, who would attack American settlements to the southeast. By late 1778, interim British Captain Richard Lernoult began construction on a new fortress, just to the south of Fort Detroit called Fort Lernoult. The American Revolution ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, and Michigan became part of the new country, the United States of America. The region encompassing present day Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin and northeastern Minnesota became known as the "Northwest Territory" until Ohio was admitted to the Union as a state in 1803. Under the 1794 Jay Treaty between the Americans and British, Forts Detroit and Lernoult along with the surrounding settlement were finally surrendered by the British.






June 19, 2009

Process and Speech (Iran)

By M. LeBlanc

One thing that I, and many other people who are riveted by what's going on in Iran, have been truly heartened by is the extent to which global information sharing means that authoritarian governments and dictatorships can't exercise nearly as much power as they once did. Because of the existence of a [mostly] free press in places like Britain and the United States, and mobile phone technology and the internet, activists and protesters in Iran have been able to get their information out of the country where not only the rest of the world can see it, but other people in Iran can as well. The regime has shut down Facebook, Gmail, Yahoo, access to news sites, and more, but they can't shut down everything. People are still sending pictures and video to the BBC, and Twitter, a home-grown American service, has been indispensable for the resistance.

Here's some good reporting on the censorship and supression of information that has taken place, not just of individuals trying to communicate, but of newspapers, foreign journalists, and even the state's own sources ["Even governmental news sources have been targeted in the crackdown. Four interior ministry officials have been arrested for given results that were different from those announced by Ahmadinejad’s allies."]

The regime is trying to combat the flow of information from the protestors with its own flow of information. Unfortunately, they're making some of it up. Here's just one example, an explanation of how the state-run newspaper photoshopped images of a pro-Ahmadinejad rally to make it appear larger.

But the story's not over. I can't claim to know when or how this will die down, but a lot of people seem to think that Ahmadinejad will be president. The question is--how will the regime deal with dissent? So far, it's not looking good. Young people who have tried to access or send information to outside sources have been threatened:
"Anonymous" from Norway emailed to say a friend in Iran had rung BBC Persian, without getting through.

"Now she has received a message on her answering machine from Sepah [Revolutionary Guards] saying they know she has been involved in criminal activity - and now she has to report to the police."

Fahimeh emailed BBC Persian TV from Shiraz, dismissing such warnings as random scare tactics.



The words she described finding on her answerphone: "We know you went to the rally on Monday, if you repeat that again, we will deal with you" match those described in an email by Parinaz.

Here's some reporting from an Australian journalist who's defying the government ban on foreign media. He says "You've got to realise that what's happening at the moment is that the actual authorities are losing control of what's happening on the streets and that's very dangerous and damaging to them." He also has some interesting information about the security forces becoming more sympathetic to Mousavi supporters--read the whole thing, as they say.

The point of all this is that it matters when people have a right to speak, a right to dissent, a right to access information. People have misinterpreted my and other liberals' anger about what is happening as support for Mousavi. I actually don't know much about him or his platform. No one has any illusions that he would suddenly change the course of Iranian foreign policy to make everything all better. The problem is that it may have been the will of the Iranian people that he be elected president. And if that will was defied, if the election results were fabricated, rigged, inflated, or otherwise doctored, that is a miscarriage of justice. Perhaps Ahmadinejad did win. But it's rather likely that if he did win, he won by a much smaller margin, or won without obtaining a majority of the votes, which would have forced a runoff.

The regime didn't want a runoff. They didn't want a win by Ahmadinejad with 52%. Because with a small margin, they'd have deal with accusations of irregularites. Unfortunately, it seems that they seriously miscalculated the reaction they'd get by rigging the entire thing.

Some Links:

Robert Dreyfuss has some great insight about the kinds of people who are against Ahmadinejad:
The anti-Ahmadinejad coalition is deep and broad. It includes conservative, Old Guard founders of the Islamic Republic, who view Ahmadinejad with disdain and who resent the coming to power of his coterie of Revolutionary Guard commanders; the large and growing majority of Iranian clerics and senior ayatollahs, many of whom have long viewed the Leader, Ayatatollah Ali Khamenei, as an upstart and usurper since he was elevated to his position 20 years ago; nearly the entirety of Iran's business class, especially those involved in high-tech, aviation, oil and gas, and heavy industry, who blame Ahmadinejad for his catastrophic mismanagement of the economy and for the crippling economic sanctions; the entire class of Iranian reformists, from more liberal-minded clerics like former President Khatami to more centrist ex-officials such as former Prime Minister Mousavi, the presidential candidate; a large contingent of Iranian women, energized by the role of Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi's wife, who I met in Tehran, who campaigned vigorously for her husband and for women's rights; and of course, the educated elite of Iran, including students, artists, filmmakers, intellectuals, writers, and musicians.

Today's NYT reporting of events in the last 24 hours, including threats of execution by a government lawyer:
Reuters reported that Mohammadreza Habibi, the senior prosecutor in the central province of Isfahan, had warned demonstrators that they could be executed under Islamic law.

“We warn the few elements controlled by foreigners who try to disrupt domestic security by inciting individuals to destroy and to commit arson that the Islamic penal code for such individuals waging war against God is execution,” Mr. Habibi said, according to the Fars news agency. It was not clear if his warning applied only to Isfahan or the country as a whole, Reuters said.
More Robert Dreyfuss on the the effect of American rhetoric about Iran:
Right-wingers in the United States are already comparing the Iranian unrest to Hungary, 1956, and calling on the United States to give its full support to the Green Wave. Nothing could be stupider. What they miss is that President Obama's outreach to Iran, including his Cairo speech — which got a word-by-word exegesis prepared for Khamenei and was widely viewed by many Iranians — is in part responsible for the sudden upsurge of support for Mousavi. And it happened not because Obama called for military action in Iran, and not because Obama backed Mousavi, but precisely because he didn't.
Here's Dan Rather (I know!) with a surprisingly good piece about the importance of a free press:
It is too soon to know or to say how the situation in Iran will turn out, but there are lessons in this for our own country, for a democratic system more fragile than we at times like to believe. One of these lessons is the centrality of freedom of the press to the entire enterprise of democratic government: You cannot have the latter without the former. And the other is the lesson that citizen journalism is a way for the people to hold on to freedom of the press, even in times of oppression. In a turn of phrase that seems to be cropping up everywhere, the revolution may not be televised…but it very well could be Twittered.

UPDATE: Here's Ken Ballen reiterating that even Ahmadinejad supporters support a free press and free elections:
Put all together, our polling shows that Ahmadinejad, running a competent campaign, may have had enough support three weeks before the vote to possibly win the election under the electoral rules as they stood. With Ahmadinejad's early lead, it is possible that the vote reported did actually reflect the will of the Iranian people, though now, it is impossible to know...

Yet the government's actions since the election may have changed the debate in Iran from being about candidates to being about democracy. While we do not know whether the election results were rigged, the government's handling of the election itself runs counter to principles of democracy, free press and free elections -- goals our polling shows almost all Iranians, whether or not they support Ahmadinejad, strongly support.
UPDATE II: Here's Yglesias with an excellent point about Obama's role in the Iranian election crisis:
Something I think people don’t always get is that the President is not the columnist-in-chief or the National Blogger.








June 18, 2009

Indigenous People in the Great Lakes Region Before European Exploration

By Red Sox Steve

One of the most popular theories for migration into North America is based on evidence discovered during a construction project in New Mexico in the 1920s. Workers dug up what appeared to be arrowheads while building a road in Clovis, New Mexico. Since that time, further discoveries of what has come to be known as the "Clovis point" have been found throughout much of North America. Although Clovis points were widely believed to be related to the first inhabitants of North America and are over 10,000 years old, similar findings in South America date early habitation to over 30,000 years ago. Nevertheless, finding Clovis points has allowed archaeologists to posit theories of prehistoric migration patterns in order to develop an understanding of Indian settling of the Americas.

By about 8000 BC, a warming period had begun, leaving behind what would be the final Ice Age. Glaciers melted, leaving a great deal of moisture behind in the form of lakes, rivers and swamps. Within a few thousand years, deciduous (trees that change with the seasons) and cone-bearing trees would appear; it is thought that North America evolved to its present climate by 5000 BC. Additional theories as to extinction of large mammals such as the wooly mammoth revolve around the prevalence of humans and their hunting tools.

The theory espoused by archaeologists that hunters came across a land bridge, which has now been submerged by the Bering Strait near Alaska, differs among numerous sources only in its timeline. Although a vast sheet of ice covered much of North America, the land bridge region, now referred to as Beringia, was only thought to experience light snow fall, due to the Pacific Ocean wind patterns. This made it relatively easy to migrate into North America. Although clear evidence places migration at about 7000 BC, there is additional information that these "Paleo-Indians" were already well scattered across the continent by about 8000 BC.

Without a doubt, the dates associated with various eras of post Ice Age Indian tribes are very general. The Paleo-Indian era gave rise to the Archaic Indian era which is thought to have lasted from about 5000 BC to 1000 BC, The transitional era between these two is known as the Watershed Age, primarily as a result of the significant climate change that took place.

Much of the difference between Archaic Indians and Paleo-Indians can be found in the increasingly complex diet, tool set and wider variety of materials available. By the Archaic era, big game was now extinct, forcing tribes to hunt species that are more familiar to us today. They also fished in the newly formed rivers and lakes, in addition to gathering wild plants, and organizing migrations around ripening berry schedules and movement of animal herds. Furthermore, the Archaic Indian crafted many more tools and utensils than his Paleo-Indian predecessor - spears, harpoons, knives, scrapers, hammers, anvils and wedges were available to the Archaic Indian, and materials such as stone, wood, bone and antler now became widely used as well.

In the Great Lakes region, an Archaic Indian culture called the "Old Copper" culture existed from about 4000 to 1500 BC. The name comes from the copper objects utilized in the region, one of the earliest uses of metal among Indians north of Mexico. Natural deposits found in rock or nuggets were repeatedly heated and hammered to make tools and ornaments.

The end of the Archaic Indian period is provided by scholars in order to facilitate the study of ancient North American tribes, again, however the dates are not absolute. The phase of Indian life following the Archaic era is known as the Formative period. The Formative period is commonly defined by farming, animal domestication, existence of villages, skilled craftsmanship, religious ceremony and further evolution of discrete tribal customs. By this measure, many of the traits were developed during the Archaic period, however, many typical Formative era practices did not permeate North America until about 1000 BC.

During the Formative period Michigan's Indian population grew out of both Algonquin and Iroquois roots in what is known as the Northeast Culture Area. This area extends from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River, and from the Great Lakes to the Ohio Valley, and even includes Canada. Most of the Indians spoke dialects that originated from Algonquian and Iroquois and shared a number of cultural traits as well. The various Northeast Iroquois included the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Seneca, and Tuscarora—as well as the Erie, Huron (Wyandot), Neutral, Susquehannock, and Tionontati. The Algonquians in this region are known as the Great Lakes Algonquians - Chippewa (Ojibway), Menominee, Ottawa, and Potawatomi.

When speaking of the collective Iroquois nation, the Iroquois refer to themselves as the Haudenosaunee ("ho-dee-no-SHOW-nee"), for "people of the longhouse." The Haudenosaunee were organized into the Iroquois League, also known as the Iroquois Confederacy. In about 1570 the Haudenosaunee formed the League of Five Nations - Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca.

Two men brought the five tribes together, forming the League: Deganawida, the Peacemaker, a Huron prophet from the north, who had a vision of united tribes involving a Tree of Great Peace; and Hiawatha, a Mohawk medicine man, who paddled through Haudenosaunee country preaching unity and carrying a belt symbolizing the Great Law of Peace. In the early 1700s, when the Tuscarora migrated to New York from North Carolina, the alliance became the League of Six Nations.

For the Algonquians, intertribal organization came in the form of confederacies - the Abenaki Confederacy, the Wappinger Confederacy, and the Powhatan Confederacy to name a few. Relative to the Iroquois League, Algonquian confederacies were much looser networks of villages and bands. Algonquians traded together, helped one another in times of conflict, and the confederacies had a grand sachem (chief) which would hold authority over tribal sachems. The structure of authority within and among the tribes was subject to numerous interpretations - in some tribes, the grand sachem was an absolute ruler, while in others, sagamores (those in charge of a village or band) would have their conflicts mediated by sachems in intertribal councils.

In the Great Lakes area, instead of a grand sachem, it was more common to have two chiefs for each tribe, the peace chief and the war chief. The first was a hereditary position while the second was chosen based on his military prowess in times of war. Some tribes also had a third leader, the ceremonial leader who served as a shaman or even a medicine man.

Very early in the 17th century, however, the history of the Indians living in the Great Lakes region would face a new challenge. European explorers coming west would alter tribal relationships and change the economic, military and political reality of the region forever.

(To be continued...)





June 11, 2009

Poland - Partition, the 20th Century, and Post-Communist Existence

By Red Sox Steve

Continued from here:

In efforts to resist the partitioning of its nation, Poles sought but were unable to obtain British and French support. As a result, Poland was forced to enter into a partitioning agreement with enemy Prussia in 1790. By the Polish Constitution of 1791, a Polish middle class was formed, threatening Russian ideology, buttressed by the results of the French Revolution. In early 1793, Prussia and Russia obtained more land during the Second Partitioning of Poland.

Sensing dissatisfaction among Poles at having surrendered about 30% of its land to its enemies, Tadeusz Kościuszko, a Polish military leader, led a revolt against Russia and Prussia in Poland and Lithuania in 1794. As a result, Poland's neighbors sought to eliminate any evidence of an independent Polish state. In October 1795, Polish, Prussian and Russian representatives signed a treaty, dividing the remaining territories of the Commonwealth between their three countries.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Poland's independence and territory were both in the nation's past. Russia acquired much of Lithuania and the Ukraine, Austria had much of the territory to the south and southeast of Warsaw, and Prussia controlled northern central and northwestern Poland. Napoleonic conquest over Prussia in the early 1800s temporarily established a Duchy of Warsaw which also later reclaimed some Austrian land in Poland. However, as Napoleon was retreating from an unconquered Russia, the Russians, Prussians and Austrians reclaimed parts of the Duchy for themselves as of 1815.

After the Congress of Vienna again created a fractured Polish state, the Russians granted the newly formed "Congress Kingdom of Poland" various freedoms, including an independent army and a parliament. Before the newly established kingdom was 5 years old, Russian tsars abused the absolute rule they held over it. Alexander I, who would later institutionalize Christianity in Russia, removed some of the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the Polish kingdom. By the 1820s, tensions between the Russian government and its Polish subjects increased to the point where parliamentary sessions were held in secret in Poland.

By 1829, Orthodox Christianity had taken root in Russian government and Nicholas I had succeeded Alexander. Papal bulls could not be read in Poland without Russian permission and many democratic institutions in Polish government were terminated in favor of an administration appointed by the Russian government. By late 1830, the Russian government had designs on using the Polish military to fight against revolutionaries in France and Belgium, which would be a violation of the military independence previously granted by Russia. Armed Polish rebels forced Russian leaders out of power, and a Polish-led revolutionary dictatorship took office in what would later be called the "November Uprising". Unfortunately, due to an overwhelming military response by the Russians and infighting by the Poles during a lull in hostilities, the Russians would take back Warsaw and crack down on the Poles more severely as a result. By late 1831, the Uprising was over and in 1832 the Polish constitution, army, and legislative assembly were abolished.

When Alexander II, Nicholas' son came to power in 1855, Russia was embroiled in conflict against France, the UK and Sardinia (now Italy) in the Crimean War. After Russia ultimately gave in to an Allied coalition, Alexander commenced with a number of reforms in his kingdom, some of which were intended to loosen Russia's grip over Poland. Nevertheless, the desire for Polish nationalism hadn't been satisfied and Polish citizens were inspired by the ideas espoused by the German Karl Marx and reminded of their ideals by the Polish composer Frederic Chopin. Because of a number of uprisings, in 1861 martial law was introduced and public gatherings were banned.

Soon after, meetings of aspiring revolutionaries took place throughout Europe, and ultimately split into two separate ideological factions. The Reds organized peasants, workers and members of the church, while the Whites represented the landowners and bourgeoisie (middle-class whose status in society was not derived from aristocratic lineage, but rather employment, education and wealth). The Reds operated primarily in Poland while the Whites were organized in Lithuania.

The Polish provisional government declared in a manifesto "all sons of Poland free and equal citizens without distinction of creed, condition and rank." When hostilities began in 1863, the Russians had 90,000 men at their disposal, while the Polish government relied on a scattered guerrilla-based fighting force. By May 1864, Russian forces were victorious and the Russian government sought to eliminate any evidence of a free and independent Poland, starting with efforts in schools and churches.

The national mood in Poland prior to the end of the 19th century, has been described as one of resignation. Germany was able to grow its empire in the early 1870s, Russia was bent on eradicating a Polish identity and Austria-Hungary, although quite lenient, retained control over Galicia in southern Poland. At the same time, considerable pressure was placed on the Roman Catholic Church by both Russia and Germany.

The increase in both mining and manufacturing in German and Russian controlled regions of Poland helped to alter the prevailing social and economic forces on the Polish people during the late 19th century. Urbanization increased and the power of the aristocracy decreased during this time as well. Millions joined the urban labor force, while millions of others left Poland for North America and other parts of the world. Because much of the peasant population was unable to find employment, this gave rise to urban-based social tension which ultimately led to the formation of socialist parties. In 1905, the Polish Socialist Party was the largest socialist party in the Russian Empire. In addition, the extreme right was represented as well - by focusing on nationalism and hostility towards Jews, the National Democracy of Roman Dmowski was able to gain support among some Poles.

After the start of World War I, Poland found it had greater leverage over those that partitioned it more than a century earlier. Russia defended Serbia and allied with Britain and France as Germany and Austria-Hungary opposed them as part of the Central Powers. Poland was therefore able to form national organizations in Galicia, as permitted by Austria-Hungary and the Polish National Committee, as allowed by the Russians. Briefly during the war, the Germans and Austrians supported the formation of a new Kingdom of Poland. This kingdom had its own parliament and government as well as its own currency. What was called the Regency Kingdom of Poland would end up being the fourth and final monarchy in Polish history.

Leftist leader Józef Klemens Piłsudski assisted the Central Powers in defeating Russia in order to gain Polish independence. This proved a solid strategy because, as the war continued, the Germans and Austrians were able to push Russia back towards the east. During the conflict, 1 million Polish refugees fled eastward for Russia, 2 million troops in total fought on behalf of all the occupying powers and nearly a half-million of them died. Much of the conflict zone was uninhabitable as a result of the fighting.

During 1917, both the US entering into the conflict to strengthen the Allies and the revolution in Russia weakening Russian forces on the Eastern Front would bring about the end of the war. Russia would finally be forced into signing a peace treaty which would grant all Polish lands to the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). Before the year was over, Germany and Austria-Hungary created a puppet Kingdom of Poland and the United States gained greater influence over the Allied coalition. One of the reasons Poland supported the Allied forces was the result of the thirteenth of US President Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points read before US Congress in January 1918:

"Establishment of an independent Poland with access to the sea."

By late 1918, Austria-Hungary was defeated and the Allies were victorious. In November,
Józef Piłsudski was released from a German prison and ultimately given the title of "Chief of State" by the Regency Council of the Polish Kingdom. Sovereign Poland, free of any obligations to Russia, Germany, or Austria was the result.

One of Pilsudski's earliest goals after the end of the war was expansion of Polish territory. In May 1920, 200,000 Polish soldiers marched on Kiev, but was defeated by the Red Army and the Cossacks. A few months later, Soviet forces established themselves just outside Warsaw. Pilsudski formed a counteroffensive starting a conflict known as the Battle of Warsaw. By October 1920, an armistice between Poland and the Soviet Union had been achieved; by 1921, Poland's land claims in the Ukraine and White Russia (present-day Belarus) were granted by the Treaty of Riga entered into between Poland and the Soviets. In what some historians call one of the most important clashes of the 20th century, 50,000 Polish soldiers were killed, while 150,000 were lost on the Soviet side.

Pilsudski, as a result of the conflict, was in control of territory that had strong ties to both Poland and Russia. Because of his desire to remain in control of all the nation's territory, his leadership style grew more and more dictatorial, and when he left power in 1924, the government quickly became ineffectual. Just two years later, however, Pilsudski gathered three army regiments and marched on Warsaw. By May, although Pilsudski was successful in overthrowing the government, he appointed a puppet leader in his place; he still managed to control and manipulate citizens through organizations like the secret police. Just before he died in 1935, Pilsudski managed to negotiate a non-aggression agreement with Germany, which guaranteed territorial rights for Poland for 10 years.

As a result of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles which formally ended WWI, Poland was able to acquire the territory of East Prussia. Hitler, subsequently rising to power in Germany, appealled to Germany's sense of nationalism by promising to liberate the Germans still in East Prussia as well as the area known as the Free City of Danzig ("Danzig"). As Hitler's desire for Danzig grew, the Poles mistrusted his intentions to construct a connecting highway and appealed to the British and French for protection from him.

On April 28, 1939, Germany withdrew the non-aggression treaty it signed with Polish Chief of State Pilsudski 5 years earlier. By late August, the British and French signed treaties to protect Poland if it was attacked. On August 29, the German Foreign Minister outlined to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson the terms which would ensure peace in regards to Poland - Danzig would have to be given back to Germany, and there would be an exchange of minority populations between the two nations. When the Polish ambassador went to see the German Foreign Minister, he was still unable to sign the proposed agreement. Negotiations came to an end when it was broadcast that Poland rejected the Germany's proposals. The Germans were amassed at the Polish border, and on August 31, 1939, Hitler ordered an attack to commence the following morning.

On September 1, 1939 at 4:40 AM, the German airforce attacked Wielun; at 4:45 AM, a German battleship attacked a Polish military facility at Westerplatte in Danzig on the Baltic Sea; At 8:00 AM, German troops, still without a formal declaration of war, attacked near Mokra. Later that same day, Germans attacked at the western, southern and northern borders of Poland. By October, Poland was divided between Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia.

By mid-September, many government officials had already fled to Romania. The Polish military commander in chief moved to France with the intent of reforming the military there. General Władysław Sikorski was instructed by the exiled leadership to form a government out of Paris. France immediately recognized the new government, and by 1939 had formed a parliamentary government in exile. Although it had no legislative authority, the Rada Narowada ("National Council") had some moral authority, as conferred by its first president, a well known pianist, composer, nationalist and patriot, Ignacy Paderewski. Subsequently, Poland was Britain's only ally after France fell and before Germany invaded the Soviet Union. After the Soviets entered the war, the Polish government signed a treaty with them, promising full cooperation against Germany. As a result, much of the Polish military was controlled by the Soviet Union for the rest of the war.

In the area of Poland under Soviet occupation, there was a quick assumption of control of many aspects of Polish life by the Soviets. Polish universities were closed and reopened as Soviet universities where much of the focus was on Soviet propaganda. Polish literature and language studies were dismantled and books were burned; Polish currency was removed from circulation without any exchange - the population lost their entire life savings overnight. Polish political groups were broken up and all existing organizations were subordinated to the Communist Party.

In continuing efforts at "sovietization" of Poland, religions were persecuted and churches were closed. Many members of the clergy were discriminated against via higher taxes, mandatory conscription, arrests and deportations. Agriculture was made collective, but food was scarce; although Polish citizens were given Soviet citizenship, many refugees refused to provide their mandatory consent and were thus threatened with repatriation to Nazi-occupied Poland.

By the time the war ended in late 1945, Poland had become an entirely different country. During the interwar years, it was a capitalist country emerging from both feudalism and partition. During the war, the Polish interregnum was portrayed by the Soviets as evil and exploitative. Prior to the war, Catholicism dominated a nation heading towards a self-determinative future. Because Stalin persecuted religions and closed churches, it became one occupied by a foreign government focused on atheism. Most telling of all was that prior to the war, Poland was a diverse and tolerant European nation, but as of 1946, Poland had lost 20% of its citizens in addition to almost 100% of its ethnic minority population.

In 1947, the United States initiated the European Recovery Program (commonly referred to as the "Marshall Plan"). US Secretary of State George Marshall's idea was that the rapidly growing US economy would subsidize growth in Europe. At a meeting in Paris among European officials, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav M. Molotov walked out, calling for Soviet rejection of the plan. Because the Soviets saw it as a system that would promote American-style capitalism and economic unity throughout Europe, Soviet premier Joseph Stalin pressured Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary into rejecting it as well. The Polish government in exile had little control over Polish affairs during the war, due to the grip the Soviets held over much of the country, which only strengthened as the post-war world was being sorted out.

Stalin countered the Marshall Plan with an idea intended to further unify Eastern Europe. In 1949, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance ("Comecon") was formed among the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. By 1955, 2 years after Stalin's death, and in response to the arming of West Germany in the US-led NATO coalition, the Warsaw Pact was formed after a meeting in its eponymous city. The pact's original members were Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union. The pact, originally called the "Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance" extended Soviet power in the region; furthermore, it granted supreme military control of all Warsaw Pact nations to the Soviets.

Before the end of the 1950s, Władysław Gomułka, who had been a member of the Polish Communist Party since 1926 was appointed head of the Polish United Workers Party in 1956. Initially, Gomulka's rise was welcomed by Polish citizens, as he sought to resist Soviet influence. However, this resistance as well as the liberalization of Polish elections was a relative comparison, as compared to other Eastern European nations at the time. Soviet control over Poland remained highly repressive, especially by Western standards. There were propaganda campaigns against Western Germany, infused by communist ideology, and during the 1960s, Soviet top-down focus on heavy industry and military development served to slow the economy rather than stimulate it.

The 1960s were tumultuous in Poland and much of Eastern Europe - the economy was crumbling, but the Soviets, by fixing food prices low, prevented urban unrest. In 1968, a theatrical play was banned because it allegedly contained "anti-Soviet" references, although it was originally written in 1824. In spite of public protests, the Polish army participated in the suppression of a 1968 uprising against the Soviets in Czechoslovakia.

Economically, the 1970s were no easier for Poland. Despite further economic and social liberalization allowing freer international travel by Poles as well as inducements made by the government for Polish expatriates to reinvest in their native country, prices swung violently. Initially, wages increased, raising living standards for all Poles, but because of the 1973 energy crisis, food prices and inflation grew quickly. Polish foreign debt grew 60 times in 4 years to 1975. Edward Gierek, who succeeded Gomulka as First Secretary, was losing control of the economy. By the late 1970s, food prices had risen again and Communist regime's influence began to erode, especially after a 1979 visit by native Pole Karol Józef Wojtyła, better known as Pope John Paul II.

The significance of the former Archbishop of Krakow becoming head of the entire Catholic Church as well as the tumultuous events of the 1970s served to deligitimize much of the power and control of the Communist regime. Not only was the papal visit a sign of the importance the pope had in his native country (a quarter of the population attended his outdoor masses), but protests led in the industrialized city of Danzig by a portly electrician would ultimately lead to the undoing of the Communist regime.

Riots, bloodshed, financial tumult and widespread repression characterized much of Polish life since WWII. The Workers Defense Committee, an organization that had formed during the 1970s in response to many of these events codified resistance to the Communist regime. However, in Danzig in August 1980, strikers at the Lenin Shipyard in Danzig locked themselves in the yard, communicated with other striking groups and presented a list of demands to the government. By September, a new party was formed which replaced the Workers Defense Committee - the new party was called Solidarity and it was led by Lech Walesa, the portly electrician who would later rise to become President of Poland.

The Polish government had recognized Solidarity as a legal organization, although this placed considerable pressure on both the Soviet Politburo and Polish head of state, General Wojciech Jaruzelski. Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev insisted that Jaruzelski crack down on Solidarity and even moved Soviet and other Warsaw Pact troops to the Polish border in 1981. By December of that year, Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders were imprisoned, and Poland was under martial law. Solidarity, although in a repressed state, continued to exist - the leaders were quietly released, Solidarity went underground while the Western media drew its attention to the situation in Poland.

Soviet control over much of the Eastern bloc was loosening, however its support for Warsaw nations seemed to be endless. By 1985, Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev was in power, and Jaruzelski and the Communist regime were weakened, mostly as a result of the rule by martial law over the Polish. The ruling powers were simultaneously opposed by a stronger Solidarity. Gorbachev had repealed the Brezhnev doctrine, which stated that any attempt to abandon Communism would be met with force. By the late 1980s, unrest in Poland, especially strikes by Solidarity led the Communist government to approach the party for Round Table Talks which resulted in the recognition of power in the legislature and president, who would be the sole chief executive of Poland.

Although the Soviets considered the June 1989 Polish elections semi-free in that only a small number parliamentary seats were restricted to Solidarity members, Solidarity captured every single available seat in the new Sejm, and 99 of 100 seats in the Senate. Later that year, the Communist Jaruzelski barely won the presidential election while the new Polish prime minister was a Solidarity member, Tadeusz Mazowiecki. By the next year, after the fall of the Berlin wall, Lech Walesa became president of Poland. By July 1991, the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved, and within a matter of months the Soviet Union as well.

Although the immediate economic result of Polish sovereignty was hyperinflation and a high national deficit, Poland slowly started to grow into a post-Soviet modernizing nation. GDP rose throughout the 1990s, and new technologies and an international focus replaced a stagnated and isolated economy. Poland received $50 billion in FDI over a 10 year period ending in 2005 and had Germany as one of its main trading partners. The agricultural component of Poland's economy which is now centuries old today makes Poland the leading producer of potatoes and rye in Europe. Some historians say that the only stagnation in Poland's growth is social, resulting from high expectations based on the intense political and economic changes that took place at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s.

Through the 1990s, political power shifted to the hands of the Communist party, which had then reorganized itself as the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD). The SLD was voted into power in coalition with the Polish Peasants' Party (PSL), a socialist-leftist party in 1993. By 1995, Walesa, voted to a 5 year term in 1990, lost the presidential election to SLD leader Aleksander Kwasniewski. By 1997, Polish values of Catholicism, patriotism and family asserted themselves in the election of new Solidarity leader Marian Krzaklewski as parliamentary deputy. Although Solidarity managed to coalesce a fragmented religious and right-wing, Krzaklewski's party was defeated in 2000, by the SLD. Because Solidarity was not voted to the new parliament in 2001, both the SLD and the PSL formed a coalition, this time with a smaller center-left Union of Labor (UP).

In the first decade of the 21st century, the SLD-led government managed to negotiate Poland's entry into the EU, culiminating in a "yes" vote in the corresponding 2003 Polish referendum. Poland joined the EU in May 2004. However, due to scandal and an economic crisis, the SLD was overwhelmingly defeated in the parliamentary elections of September 2005.

Led by a post-Solidarity center-right coalition, the Law and Justice Party (Pis) was successful in both parliamentary elections and the presidential election of 2005 - Lech Kaczynski (PiS) was victorious over Donald Tusk of the Civic Platform (PO) (a post-Solidarity, conservative-liberal party). By 2007, however, the PO returned to parliamentary power, evidencing dissatisfaction among Poles about PiS leadership, and following the collapse of a PiS coalition. The PiS however, increased its share of the vote, at the expense of its lesser coalition partners who were unable to return to parliament. Today, the PO-led government still enjoys high levels of support among Poles. As a result, it does not wish to risk party stability by introducing bold reforms ahead of the 2010 presidential election.

By the mid 1970s, Polish acquiescence to Communist rule began to evaporate, especially as a result of the economic crises of the decade. The 1980 emergence of Solidarity crystallized Polish resistance to Soviet control. It was only a matter of time before the relationship would end. Between 1989 and 1992, Poland and the entire world's relationship with communism would change, and with it a number of former Soviet-controlled states would be granted sovereignty for the first time in a post-WWII world. The changes were relatively quick and intense, despite the fact that many Poles had desired freedom for over a decade. Since that time, Poland has remained very close to an ideological center, in my view, moving slightly right and slightly left. As a result of this centrist position, and its membership in the EU, Poland's future is promising. It should certainly celebrate not only the fact that it was able to break free of the constraints of communism, but also its rich tradition of religious and ethnic tolerance as well as a commitment to diversification and modernization of its economy.





June 05, 2009

Poland - Celtic and Germanic Expansion to the Third Partition by Russia, Prussia and Austria

By Red Sox Steve

For the last two weeks, we've looked at Turkey, a region that was home to the earliest agricultural settlements in Europe, starting in about 7000 BCE. As farming spread from the southeastern part of Europe towards the west and north, it displaced mobile hunter-gatherers with agriculturally-based organized settlements. One piece of evidence which indicates the presence of a centrally organized, sedentary lifestyle is a town or other planned settlement. Ancient settlements have been found in places as varying as windy and chilly Scotland and the marshy foothills of the Alps. One of the most famous ancient settlements, however, is in the nation we are looking at this week: Poland.

Biskupin, an outpost that arose after 1000 BCE, is well known among historians due to the amount of advance planning that went into its construction. Biskupin is located 140 miles west of Warsaw on a marshy peninsula. It was one of the first locations to have distinct and straight rows of houses, built end to end as one long structure and sub-divided into single room dwellings. Because the entire town was on top of a marsh, the streets had to be paved with wood. Biskupin was surrounded by a 20 foot wall of wood and dirt as well. There were 100 dwellings within the wall, and by 720 BCE it was thought to house around 700 people, who performed numerous professions, including metalworking. The structure and organization that went into housing and protecting Biskupin's settlers was unprecedented, particularly because of the predominance of nomadic tribes in the region.

Just after 400 BCE, during the middle part of the Iron Age, Celtic tribes started to arrive in Poland, from Bohemia and Monrovia (each, Czech Republic). In Celtic history, the era in which they commenced this expansion is known as "La Tène" (450 BCE - 50 CE, named after a location in Switzerland). During La Tène, the Celts reached their territorial peak and attacked Rome and Delphi. Moving north, they settled in the southern part of Poland. By approximately 170 CE, however, Celtic influence in southern Poland started to decline.

Furthermore, archaeologists have found evidence that Germanic tribes inhabited northwestern Poland prior to the Common Era. Named after Jastorf, a village in Lower Saxony (Germany), a proto-Germanic culture started to expand in about the 6th century BCE. From 300-100 BCE, they settled western Poland in two distinct groups - the Oder in western Pomerania (Oder River) and the Gubin, further south.

Just before the end of the 1st century BCE, Julius Caesar pushed his army into Gaul and was heading further north to Brittania. By doing this, the Roman army was able to defeat the Suebi (Germanic) tribe, which wiped out much of the population of the Oder River Basin. In the process, Rome established the Rhine River (Germany) as an artificial dividing line between Germanic and Celtic tribes. People on both sides of the Rhine, however, were of mixed ethnicity due to intermarriage, commerce and custom. Germanics arriving on the east Rhine from the north pushed other occupants across the Rhine, which made the eastern Rhine a more purely Germanic region.

Further Roman conquest, especially after the start of the 1st century CE, pushed the limits of the Roman empire to Germany. As a result, member tribes of the Suebi moved east, displacing Celtic tribes, before settling in Moravia (the Quadi, a sub-tribe of Suebi) and Bohemia (the Marcomanni, a sub-tribe of Suebi). The Marcomanni were able to conquer the Lugii who occupied that region. The Lugii tribe was well known for controlling a major trading route from the Baltic to the Roman Empire, known as the Amber Road.

The Amber Road was an ancient trade route for the transfer of amber. Amber is a tree resin, and is thick and sticky due to its chemical makeup. Because of its ability to preserve objects and to come in a wide variety of colors, it was highly coveted in empires from Rome to Greece to Egypt to Asia. The main trading route went from the Baltic coast through Prussia (northern Germany and Poland), to the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the Adriatic Sea.

Just after the beginning of the Common Era, eastern Europe was ultimately determined to be unconquerable by the Roman Empire. The Romans considered land east of the Rhine River, up to the western edge of the Baltics, to be Magna Germania ("Greater Germania") for a few centuries. Multiple dialects were spoken in this region, due to the number of tribes that migrated through the area.

The next critical movement into Poland was the migration of the Slavics. Some historians have linked a proto-Slavic culture to the Przeworsk cultural identity. Przeworsk is a city in southern Poland where historians and archaeologists first found artifacts related to this unique culture. Thus, some date Przeworsk and Slavic settlement of Poland to the 2nd century BCE. Other historians, however, link Slavic origins to areas of the Ukraine, prior to the beginning of the Common Era.

By the beginning of the 6th century, though, there is little debate about Slavic presence in present-day Poland. Cultural ornaments found in southern Poland, along with other evidence of Germanic tribes migrating from the north, lead investigators to the conclusion that the culture there was a blend of both Slavic and Germanic. Around this time, there is scant evidence of Slavic migration, which has caused researchers to postulate that Slavic identity and culture from the Danube to southern Poland was relatively uniform.

By the 8th century, discrete Slavic traditions began to appear in various parts of central and southeastern Europe. Slavic culture was dispersed and distinct enough throughout this region to designate Poland and other western Slavic regions the Western Slavic zone. Along the Warta River (western-central Poland), a Western Slavic tribe called the Polanians had settled by the 7th century. The name Polanian comes from a Slavic word for "prairie" and can be taken to mean "those who live on cleared fields." The Polanians were centered around the Kujawy region (central Poland), which was a densely populated rural area.

By the ninth century the Polanians had established trade links with the Pomeranians in the Baltic region. The Islamic Near East (considered the "Middle East" today) was the source of silver, which went to Pomerania through France and western Germany, while amber and furs went from the Baltic region southward. The massive amount of silver which passed through the hands of the Pomeranians in the 10th century is one of the reasons that extensive construction took place in Poland around the same time.

The first ruler of Poland was a leader of the Polonians (also referred to in historical research as the Poles or Polans) named Mieszko I. Mieszko, a descendant of Polonian tribal leaders and member of the Piast dynasty, ruled as Poland's first king beginning in 960. He used his own military and political skills along with Polonian wealth to increase his influence and rise to power in the region. In 965, he married Dobrava, daughter of a Bohemian prince. Soon after, he converted to Christianity, more interested in following the Roman church than the Eastern Orthodox Church adopted by many Slavs.

Before he ruled for a decade, Mieszko battled the Pomeranians, Veletians (northern Germany) and Wolinians (northern Poland) to obtain Pomerania. In the process, he sought peace with German emperor Otto I because their territories were adjacent to each other. Mieszko, before his death in 992, conquered the Polabians and Obodrites of northern and eastern Germany, and Silesia (southern Poland) to gain control of trade routes in the Oder valley. Control of the Oder valley trade routes was a way for Poland to control trade routes to both Kiev and Byzantium. In 991, Mieszko drafted a document called the "Dagome Iudex" (by some accounts, this means "I, Prince Mieszko") which outlined his kingdom's boundaries and was entrusted to the pope. The Dagome Iudex outlines boundaries that closely resemble those of modern Poland.

Although Mieszko left his kingdom to his half-German son by his second marriage, his earlier alliance with Bohemia through his first marriage came back to haunt Mieszko's family. Boleslaw, Mieszko's son through his first marriage, and of Bohemian (western Czech Republic) origin, deposed his half-brother and took the throne in 992, ruling as Boleslaw I. Boleslaw continued to rule over Pomerania and Silesia, and was able to obtain Krakow (southern Poland) during his rule as well. He sought Prussian territory, however his representative, the Bohemian bishop Adalbert, was martyred by the Prussians - they did not seek to ally with Poland. Adalbert was later canonized St. Wojciech and buried at a church in Gniezno (western Poland).

In 1000, German emperor Otto III sought a conference with Boleslaw at Gniezno, the goal of which was to advance Roman Christianity in Slavic territory. Because Germany desired Boleslaw's assistance in controlling more Slavic territory, Otto anointed Boleslaw "brother and partner of the empire" and a friend an ally of the Roman people (both references to the Holy Roman Empire, not Rome itself). German historians view this event as a subordination of Boleslaw to German imperial desires, while their Polish counterparts tend to see this as a coronation of their leader by the Holy Roman Emperor. As a result of the new alliance, Boleslaw provided Otto with the arm of St. Wojciech as a relic. In return, Boleslaw was given a replica of what is known as the "Holy Lance", a part of the imperial regalia which contains a nail from the Holy Cross. With the support of Otto, Boleslaw was able to expand his reach. He gained Polabia (northern Poland), and Prague (Bohemia), and was able to ultimately control much of Moravia and Bohemia by 1003.

Otto III died at age 22 in 1002, and relations between Poland and Germany changed quickly. Boleslaw supported a member of German nobility for the throne, Eckard I, who was then assassinated. Boleslaw then put his support behind Henry IV, Duke of Bavaria who ruled Germany as Henry II. Because of the weakened status of Germany during this tumultuous change in leadership, Boleslaw was able to occupy areas west of the Oder river as well as territory in eastern Germany. Henry permitted Boleslaw to keep much of the land he conquered, with the exception of Meissen (eastern Germany). Although relations between the nations improved, a later attempt on Boleslaw's life was found to be organized by Henry II, sundering an already tense German-Polish relationship.

Boleslaw was able to control Kiev as a result of an attack in 1018, and in 1025 was crowned king of Poland upon receipt of headdress sent by the pope. Boleslaw was Poland's first king, as recognized by the Holy Roman Empire. Tensions with Bohemia during this time led to a loss of Moravia by Boleslaw's army. Further conflict with Germany led to a retrenchment of Polish authority out of Silesia and western Pomerania as well. In 1034, Bohemians reclaimed by force the body of St. Wojciech, sent to Prussia as a Polish emissary many years earlier by Boleslaw.

Just after the start of the 12th century, a power struggle erupted as two half-brothers of the ruling Piast dynasty were given territory in Poland. Boleslaw was effectively given southern Poland, while his half-brother Zbigniew was given much of northern Poland. As a result, Boleslaw sought territory in northern Poland and allied with regional monarchs (Hungary and to outflank his rival brother, while Zbigniew sought to pressure his brother through alliance with the southern Bohemians. As a result, Boleslaw desired to compress his brother's influence through bribery (Bohemia) and attack (Pomerania). As a result of armed conflict, Zbigniew ultimately relented and Boleslaw was able to rule Poland as Boleslaw III starting in 1107.

By 1112, Boleslaw had his brother blinded to prevent Zbigniew's ascent to the throne, and had rescinded Bohemia to the Czechs. To the Polish north, Pomerania remained well within his grasp. Not only was he able to conquer the territory, but he also allied with the Holy Roman Empire to Christianize the Slavic pagans in the region. By forcefully imposing Christianity in Pomerania, Boleslaw felt he would be able to strengthen his control over the region. By 1135, just before his death, Boleslaw gave his allegiance to Holy Roman Emperor Lothair II, and was forced to pay 12 years worth of tribute to the church. Before he died in 1138, Boleslaw divided his land among his four sons, establishing a "Senioral Principle" in the process. This principle stated that the eldest son was to have ruling power over the his siblings, control a north-south strip of land running down Poland's center and control Pomerania.

Although Boleslaw's desire was to allocate lands among all his heirs and simultaneously establish central authority, the result of the Senioral Principle was an era of dissolution of power and fragmentation of the kingdom. Boleslaw's oldest son, Wladyslaw, sought to restore unity by preventing his brothers from taking power - this was confronted by the church and other regional ruling interests. As the result of a civil war, much of Poland's principalities became further divided and realigned leading to an environment of persistent warfare. In 1180, during the reign of Casimir II as Duke of Poland, there was a struggle with the aristocracy and clergy over the extent of duchy privelege in Krakow. As a result, the Council of Synod (1180) abolished the "Senior Principle" and established primogeniture - in other words, Casimir II was given perpetual right to Krakow.

Each of the smaller states, permitted to ignore the authority of the Duke of Krakow, became highly independent. They were able to establish alliances, enter into treaties and create their own tariff systems, dissolving the control of a central authority. During the 13th century, as a result of absolute power of the princes of each territory, both landowners and the church increased their jurisdiction. Because the Church was an organized institution with centralized authority, it was able to grow more powerful - gaining wealth and influence over the moral code adhered to by its subjects. At princely councils, the church and the landbarons were able to influence the affairs of each principality. Because affairs related to foreign policy, administration, and taxes were discussed at these meetings, called Colloquia, these meetings would eventually evolve into a Senate.

As a result of Mongol invasions during the 13th century, much of Galicia (southern Poland) and southern Silesia were devastated. However, because the Mongols efforts were mostly to repel European interest in the east (through invasions of much of the Slavic territory), they were not interested in an occupation of the territory. Because this was the case, many German immigrants moved into Poland, and were encouraged to do so because of the declining influence and wealth of the princes.

German immigrants in what is known as "Lesser Poland" (southern Poland) found an arable land, and were thus spared the hard labor required to work it. Because the German charter (conferring rights on German subjects) was more evolved and more easily adopted than its Polish counterpart in these regions, many Polish settlements received these new rights. Germanic legal language was adopted, and settlement was highly encouraged by the prince, as evidenced by his policy to provide all lands tax free (but not rent free) for a number of years to new settlers.

Although persecuted all over Europe during the Crusades, the Jews were well received in Poland. Prince Boleslav imposed serious penalties for acts of vandalism to Jewish cemeteries and synagogues and the statue of Kalisz was erected welcoming the Jews to this town in central Poland. Anyone who accused a Jew of murder had to provide three Gentiles and three Jews as witnesses; being unable to prove the Jewish defendant guilty meant the accuser was subject to punishment himself.

Before the end of the 13th century, German influence over the throne of Krakow increased, as a result of aggressive German behavior to control the church and the monarchy. Although initially supported by the German government, the German descendants in Poland became more Polonized, asserting a separation of Poland from Germany which would first require Poland be unified around a central authority. In 1295, the new King of Poland was Premislas II (or, Przemysł II). At the time of his anointment, Premislas had the support of the Polish clergy, and had already governed as duke of a number of Polish territories. Although he was assassinated a year later, because he accumulated a great deal of power, he had overseen the initial efforts towards Polish unification.

After Premislas' death in 1296, Wladyslaw, duke of Cuiavia (central Poland) proclaimed himself Premislas' successor and also controlled Lesser Poland and Pomerania. Because Władysław faced resistance from local lords in Lesser Poland, he had to conquer the region in 1304 to establish full authority there. Later, Wladyslaw was forced to cede control of much of the Baltic coast due to similar resistive forces there. By 1314, Wladyslaw controlled Lesser Poland, Cuiavia, Krakow, Sandomierz and Greater Poland (central/western Poland) and was able to repel Bohemian and Teutonic claims for the throne and territory. In 1320, the Pope crowned Wladyslaw king of Poland (Wladyslaw I), officially reinstating Poland as a united and independent kingdom.

Poland was ruled by Casimir III the Great, son of Wladyslaw I, for much of the 14th century. Casimir is credited with improving relations with the Teutonic Order (German religious order), the Bohemians and the Hungarians. He also conquered Galician Ruthenia (western Ukraine) to double the size of Polish territory by 1366. Domestically, he oversaw the creation of 500 agricultural villages, 70 new towns and 50 military strongholds. He established a new judicial system and changed the administration and financial structure of Poland as well. In 1364, he founded the University of Krakow, which is the second oldest university in central Europe, and still in existence today.

After the death of the heirless Casimir, the throne was claimed by his nephew, Louis of Hungary. As a result, Louis formed a union between Poland and Hungary in 1374, known as the "Privelege of Koszyce". Under this agreement, the Polish nobility agreed to allow Louis' dynasty over Poland to continue even though Louis had no sons. By the time Louis died in 1382, the union had broken up after a conflict. Polish nobility, in honoring their prior agreement, named Louis' daughter Jadwiga the new King of Poland at age 11.

Poland at this time opposed the German Teutonic Knights as well as the increasing power of the Grand Duchy of Moscow (who considered the entire Russian territory to be its property). Thus, it sought a union with Lithuania which began with the marriage of Lithuanian Grand Duke Jagiello (later Wladislaw II) to Queen Jadwiga in 1386, beginning what was called the Jagellion dynasty.

By 1410, the new union was able to ultimately defeat the Teutonic Knights, and by the end of the century, the dynasty's influence grew to cover Bohemia and Hungary as well as Poland and Lithuania. In 1526, however, at the Battle of Mohacs (southern Hungary), the Ottoman Empire defeated the Jagiellion army, and its king, Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia. As a result, the Austrians, under the Habsburg dynasty, were able to take control of Bohemia and Hungary. The Ottomans, in claiming much of Hungary after the defeat were now recognized as a powerful enemy by much of Europe.

The Polish-Lithuanian Union became one of the largest states in Europe. As a result of a peace agreement in 1533, the Ottoman threat had been diminished. At the same time, the population of Western Europe was increasing. This allowed the Polish-Lithuanian Union to increase its wealth as the largest supplier of grain to Europe. Although much of western Europe had begun efforts to urbanize and further incorporate capitalism, the Union was able to preserve an agrarian and rural society and economic structure.

Although much of Poland was Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic church persecuted a number of Protestant sects. However, the Jagiellion dynasty was known for its high level of religious tolerance. By 1552, the Polish congress (Sejm) halted execution of sentences for heresy. Much of the tolerance was thought to be practical - the Union governed people with a wide variety of ethnicities and religions. It is thought that just after the mid-sixteenth century, Poland contained the largest concentration of Jews in the world.

The final king of the Jagellion dynasty, Sigismund II Augustus, was childless despite three marriages. Up to this time, Poland and Lithuania were joined by a personal union. In 1569 in Lublin, Poland, this structure changed dramatically. On July 1, 1569, the treaty of Lublin created a real union of Poland and Lithuania, and a single state called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This new state was to be ruled by an elected monarch acting under the authority of the Polish King and Grand Duke of Lithuania, in addition to being governed by a common Senate and parliament (Sejm).

Before the end of the 16th century, the Commonwealth was at war with Russia, capturing Russian territory in the Baltics, and ultimately defeating the Russians by 1582. The Polish-Swedish personal union was able to assert control over the Baltic Sea, however rebellion in Sweden touched off a century of warfare between Sweden and the Commonwealth. At the start of the 17th century, the Commonwealth reached its greatest territorial extent, including Smolensk (Russia) and other territories. By 1629, however, the Commonwealth gave much of Livonia (Baltic region) back to the Swedes.

Just before the second half of the 17th century, Polish repression of its Ukrainian holdings touched off a firestorm of rebellion. Local peasantry and Cossacks (militaristic communities of eastern Europe and southern Russia) rebelled under the leadership of a wealthy Ukrainian landowner, Hetman Bogdan Chmielnicki. In 1648, the Polish king Ladislas IV, had died, succeeded by John II Casimir (1609–72), who wisely sought peace with the rebels. Unfortunately, this backfired when Polish nobility revolted against their king in disagreement, weakening Poland enough to suffer invasions by the Ukrainians. The conflict was further exacerbated when Chmielnicki sought to put his son on the Moldavian throne, much to the consternation of the Poles. Chmielnicki and his soldiers were determined to gain independence from Poland, and were thus forced to ally with Russia. In 1654, a Russo-Cossack treaty was concluded, whereby the Ukrainians accept Russian rule over Polish sovereignty, and led to later conflict between the Poles and the Russians.

Because Poland was preoccupied with Ukrainian tensions, Charles X of Sweden was able to overtake much of the Commonwealth in 1654. The Commonwealth sought to recover by giving Prussia its sovereignty in exchange for breaking its alliance with Sweden. The brutal attacks by the Swedes and the unsuccessful siege of a monastery in southern Poland raised revolts against Charles, although many Polish nobles had aligned with him. By 1657, the Swedes had been driven out of Commonwealth territory. Eastern Ukraine was gained by Russia in a peace treaty with the Commonwealth in 1667, causing then king Jan II Kazimierz to rescind the throne in 1668. Although the Commonwealth helped in defeating the Ottoman Empire at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, events of the 17th century severely weakened Poland. It had become a devastated land - half its population had been killed, the economic base had been nearly eliminated by war, and religious fervor replaced religious tolerance.

Because of both the constitutional structure of the Sejm, and its weakened state, 18th century Poland was victimized by its neighbors. Initially, Augustus II (King 1697–1706, 1709–1733) was supported by France in his bid for the throne. He involved the Commonwealth in the Great Northern War in alliance with other nations against Sweden. Because Sweden invaded Poland in 1704, though, Poland sought Russia's assistance, opening the door to further Russian involvement in Commonwealth affairs. By 1734, August III had risen to power over the Commonwealth. He simultaneously inherited Saxony and was elected king with Russian and Austrian support. He spent only 3 years of his reign in Poland, much more interested in growing his power in Saxony. Because of his absentee leadership and general disinterest in ruling the Commonwealth, neighboring Prussia, Austria and Russia positioned themselves to carve up the weakened region.

During the last portion of the 18th century, Commonwealth King Stanisław August Poniatowski, allowed himself to be influenced by Russian tsars as a result of his affection for Russian Empress Catherine the Great. As a result of a 1730 agreement called the "Alliance of the Three Black Eagles", Prussia, Austria and Russia each bound themselves and each other to maintain the laws of the Commonwealth. Later, Catherine the Great forced Poland to adopt a new constitution, undermining the reforms made by King Stanislaw a few years earlier. Poland was ripe for further intervention.

After the Russians defeated the Ottomans, Austrian (via the Habsburg dynasty) interests in southeastern Europe were threatened. Austria thought war against Russia would be the only way to ameliorate the problem. France, friendly with Russia and Austria, recommended territorial change to satisfy both - as a result Prussia got Polish Ermland (northern Poland) and parts of the Polish fief, Duchy of Courland (part of Latvia) and Semigallia (part of Latvia) - already under Baltic German control. Because Prussia controlled Commonwealth access to the sea, it levied high duties which further weakened the Commonwealth. Austria received Zator, Auschwitz and Galicia (less Krakow) while Russia received northeastern lands - commonwealth territories east of the line formed roughly by the Dvina, Drut, and Dnieper rivers. On September 18, 1773, Polish representatives agreed to cede the territories previously claimed by its neighbors.

In efforts to resist the partitioning of its nation, Poles sought but were unable to obtain British and French support. As a result, Poland was forced to enter into an agreement with its enemy Prussia in 1790. From the resulting Polish Constitution of 1791, a Polish middle class was formed, threatening Russian ideology, especially as a result of the French Revolution. In early 1793, Prussia and Russia obtained more land during the Second Partitioning of Poland.

Sensing dissatisfaction among Poles at having surrendered about 30% of its land to its enemies, Tadeusz Kościuszko, a Polish military leader, led a revolt against Russia and Prussia in Poland and Lithuania in 1794. As a result, Poland's neighbors sought to eliminate any evidence of an independent Polish state. In October 1795, Polish, Prussian and Russian representatives signed a treaty, dividing the remaining territories of the Commonwealth between their three countries.

To be continued...





June 03, 2009

Bullets Fly on 125th Street: A Cop Dies from a Cops Bullet

By Matthew Storey

On Thursday night, in East Harlem, 25 year old NYPD officer, Omar Edwards, was shot dead by an NYPD officer named Andrew Dunton. Officer Dunton had been part of an anti-crime patrol, who had come upon Officer Edwards, off-duty and out of uniform, with his gun drawn while chasing a man who had broken into his car. Reports from the scene state that Edwards stopped when Officers told him to drop the gun and turned around slowly, when he was plugged by Dunton's gun, six shots fired from a distance of 15 feet. NYPD regulations require Off-duty officers to identify themselves as NYPD and there is no indication that Officer Edwards did so, nor any independent witness who can testify that he did not.

Officer Dunton is a 4 year veteran, who lives in a small hamlet in Suffolk County, where he grew up. He attended Siena College in Upstate New York. Suffolk County is 85% White, 7% Black, 11% Hispanic and entirely suburban and rural. Siena College lists its student body demographic as being 15% Minority; the surrounding community of Loudonville, New York has less than 10% minorities. Suffolk and Loudonville are both separated geographically from direct access to urban populations.

Officer Edwards was newly married, to the mother of his 1 1/2 year old and 7 month old. He was a 2 year veteran who grew up in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Brownsville is 85% Black, 14% Hispanic, 4% White and entirely urban. Brownsville is a neighborhood within Brooklyn, a borough of 2.5 million people in NYC, a city of 8.5 million people, all reachable on foot or via public transportation.

East Harlem, also known as 'Spanish' Harlem, was a predominantly Italian neighborhood until the 1950's, when huge influxes of Puerto Rican immigrants settled in the community and it became known by its new name. In the last 15 years, the neighborhood has seen broad development and a greater demographic diversification has blurred the lines between the Upper East Side neighborhood to its South in Manhattan and Central Harlem to its West. Current demographics indicate East Harlem is 42% Black, 31% White and 23% Hispanic, but it is safe to assume the Hispanic population is significantly larger given the huge numbers of uncounted immigrants (also true, to a lesser extent in Suffolk and Brownsville)

In Harlem, in 2009, Hispanics, Blacks, White are more likely to live side by side than at any other time in the community's history, and white collar workers, students, blue collar workers and artists live more harmoniously than they ever have. The economy works in East Harlem, Public Housing works in East Harlem, the streets are safer than they once were and much of the credit belongs to the NYPD, who have effectively worked to foster better relations with all the constituents in the community and to weed out the violent crime that terrorized earlier generations 'Up East'.

At this point, and I expect at no point, has any evidence been revealed that makes any suggestion that Office Dunton, who is a white man from a suburban community, has ever demonstrated that he is a racist. From the first account of this incident, and early reports about both men's service records, this appears to be a case of two good young cops who came upon one another during a crisis, and tragedy resulted.

We can look at the demographics of the places that formed these men's understanding of the streets and shape conjecture, but no genuine understanding of this particular INCIDENT is suggested here or required for the scope of this discussion. All that we KNOW is that a good man is dead and a good man shot him.

For several decades, New Yorkers have debated the imposition of a 'Residency Requirement' that would require NYC employees, and specifically, NYPD, to live in the 5 Boroughs of the City. This is problematic in the sense that Americans have the right to live anywhere they wish, and the Patrolmen's Benefit Association (PBA) have argued against the provision, noting the high cost of living in many parts of the city and the difficult social conditions that exist in more affordable areas - places like Brownsville, or to a lesser extent, East Harlem.

Officer Edwards, who has been described by Brownsville neighbors as a 'Mama's Boy', was a hulking physical specimen who was a star on the NYPD Football Team and wanted to be a cop since he was a boy. Growing up in Brownsville, he would have found the East Harlem community to be easily interpreted and relatively safe. It is also possible that he grew up seeing White police in conflict with young Blacks in Brownsville and internalized a sense of vulnerability to such encounters.

Officer Dunton, a quiet, well regarded student, officer and neighbor. Growing up in Suffolk, attending school in Loudonville and living in Suffolk, it is entirely possible that the street scenes he encountered and the community he served in East Harlem, were unfamiliar to his experiences and that he may have internalized a sense of menace from young blacks, who account for a disproportionate percentage of arrests and convictions in Harlem.

It isn't much of a leap to imagine a furious Officer Edwards, interrupted from a legitimate chase of a suspect he'd caught red-handed stealing from his OWN car - failing to follow procedure and not understanding the gravity of doing so. It is certainly no stretch to imagine an adrenaline fueled Officer Dunton, encountering a huge, powerful, suspect with a drawn weapon, failing to exercise appropriate restraint when Officer Edwards turned towards him. A cool, rationale response is not to fire until one HAS to, emptying six rounds at short range indicates fear, panic and a perception of threat.

For Officer Dunton, regardless of intent or character, the preponderance of evidence (60% of Crimes in NYC are committed by Black men under 40 years of age) and the weight of personal experience resulted in a snap decision that left a cop dead. Had he been exposed to more life on the streets, he very well may have come to a different conclusion about Officer Edwards. We'll never know.

What we do know is that a Large Black man with a gun is a person who is threatening and an understandable fear requires no suspension of disbelief.

Understandable then, that Edwards, of Brownsville, was less than enthusiastic about being detained and that Dunton, of Suffolk, made a snap decision based upon profiling and circumstances.

Understandable, but unacceptable.

The NYPD is not a Social club or a Political party, it is a Law Enforcement organization that sends armed officers into every community to protect the public. Those officers cannot be left to their backgrounds, emotions and biases, when they confront the infinite variety of possibilities in a modern urban environment. They have to rely on TRAINING, and preparation. They have to KNOW what they will do in a situation, no matter how laced with peril it may be - they are Cops - it IS going to happen.

In an ideal circumstance, every neighborhood would be patrolled by officers who grew up on those streets, who could read the vibe with a heightened understanding. Residency requirements make a lot of sense, but they cannot be installed, because of the individual rights of officers. Individual rights make things more complex, but also make things FAIR and in this instance, fairness dictates that the Officers rights and the communities rights must be balanced.

Nobody should bury a 25 year old like Omar Edwards, a hero with a lifetime of service and joy with his family in front of him.

Make his loss mean something.

There are young officers from Suburban communities, who ride in fear every day through Urban neighborhoods they can scarcely be expected to relate to or understand, any more than many of us Urban dwellers would relate to life on Long Island's Eastern end. There are young officers from Urban areas, who have incorporated a sense of mistrust for the very badge they wear, putting themselves and their partners at risk in a dangerous situation. Officers need to rely LESS on probability and 'profiling' and more on interpreting the individual circumstances of a scene - the only way these sorts of tragedies can be avoided is to relentlessly drill and train, drill and train. That suspect may be a Cop. That Cop may be a suspect. Anything can happen out there, and probably will.

Officer Edwards should have laid his weapon down and shouted 'I'm NYPD!'.

Officer Dunton should have positioned himself so that the turning suspect would not threaten him, should have been prepared to shoot in the leg, IF needed, after the maximum amount of precaution and discretion had been observed.

Instead Edwards is dead, shot in the back.

Prepare them. No cop should die at the hands of a cop.







June 01, 2009

Would Jesus "Do" Waterboarding?

By Kelly Scaletta

Two of the biggest things in the news at the moment offer an intriguing perspective on the Republican Party. First as Obama has nominated for his first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor the debate heats up over whether she is going to "legislate from the bench" we all know the real debate is whether she is going to be judging based on a particular segments religious beliefs and that it has nothing to do with legislating or the constitution. Second there’s been a great deal of conversation about the subject of waterboarding lately and whether or not that constitutes "torture, a practice advocated by the same folks who oppose, or will oppose the nomination of Sotomayor based on their religious beliefs.." It surprises this blogger that no one points out the inherent conflict in these two positions. On the one hand they trumpet their opposition to things like abortion and gay marriage based on their biblical beliefs; on the other they ignore other biblical charges such as "love your enemies" as the advocate for torturing their enemies instead. One has to wonder, as they put on their WWJD bracelets if they’ve ever asked themselves the fundamental question, "Would Jesus "do" waterboarding? "

Normally on my blog I like to gather the facts and just present an argument, here though the discussion is not so much about facts, as it is an observation. The facts themselves are relatively self evident so I won’t spend a lot of time establishing them, I’ll just state them. The Christian right is set on seeing their values established on the entire nation, and perhaps even the entire world. Have you ever noticed though that the things they are always pushing tend to have more to do with regulating other people’s conduct more than their own? They want to make sure that other people follow their principles. Whether its abortion, abstinence only education, outlawing gay marriage or civil unions, or what kind of books we’re allowed to have in public libraries, they seem far more concerned with what other people do wrong than what they do or advocate doing that is wrong.



Now I want it to be understood, I agree with them morally on most of these issues, but I disagree that my private beliefs are somehow of enough more importance than anyone else’s that it means that they should be legislated. I am a Christian, and a very sincere one at that. I find it interesting when people have questioned the validity of my faith based on my disagreement with them on the political front, as it demonstrates to me that in doing so how much the conflation damages the perception of what the Christian faith actually is. It’s a faith which is established not on the premise that we need to impose our morals on others, but rather that we, having sin, are in need of salvation. I bring this up because it begs the question, why would people whose entire belief structure is based on the notion that they can’t keep a certain moral code want to legislate it on those who don’t even have the same belief structure. It’s hypocrisy of the highest order!

Then there’s a second hypocrisy, which is the hypocrisy of the non-biblical things they advocate for. First there’s the matter of taxes. Jesus was literally asked the question, "Should we pay our taxes." He wisely replied, "Do you have a coin?" When shown a coin, he asked again, "Whose picture is on the coin?" The answer was, "Caesar’s." Jesus then said, "Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s." In other words, if you’re going to use the money (and all the other things that the government provides) then pay the taxes that make that happen. The anti-tax position of the Republican Party is anti-biblical. How their tax money is spent is similarly umbilical. The Biblical charge to "remember the poor (Gal. 2:9) is unambiguous yet the Republican Party seems to do a better job of remembering to blame the poor for being poor. There are a host of biblical charges which suggest that at least 1/7 the of a property owner’s income was to go to the poor in fact. There was for instance, a Sabbath year every seven years . During those years the farmer was supposed to let that land and whatever grew from it was to be left for the poor, the stranger and the animals. On top of that when harvesting his crops anything that fell to the ground was to be left for the poor. Putting these two things together God intended that more than 1/7th of our wealth be set aside strictly for the care of the poor. The hypocrisy is seen again.



Their position on gun control and the corresponding argument is also umbilical. Jesus said, "If someone asks for you cloak, give him your tunic also." Then two sentences later he said, "It has been said you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you , love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." One has to assume that Jesus’ reaction to having someone rob him would not be to pull out a gun and put a cap in the offender’s head, but rather it would be to ask, "Is there anything else I can get for you." One also has to inquire as to what His position might be on waterboarding with the above passage in mind. Would Jesus hold down a person suspected of terrorism and pour water down his throat making him fear for his life? Again the hypocrisy is evident. .

Nowhere does the New Testament ever advocate a Christian government but it does demonstrate that the life of a Christian is a result of Christ’s inward governing. If one accepts Biblical theology then one has to recognize that without Christ the Christian life is impossible, yet the Republican Party would like to legislate their version of Christian living. It begs the question, why then are the Christian right so set on imposing these laws. Right wing theology is not about being "Christian" it’s about being selfish, even to the point of making it illegal to offend them. One of my personal favorite passages in the Bible is from Philippians where Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which is also in Christ who…humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, and that the death of the cross." The mind of the Christian then is to be selfless, not selfish. It is humility, not pride. That’s not to say that the Christian way is to surrender his own moral character or beliefs; rather it is to say that there are things more important and more relevant to being a Christian than forcing moral beliefs down other people’s throats.

When one considers the Republican perspective on virtually anything a pattern starts to emerge. Whenever it concerns someone else being inconvenienced or imposed upon the Republican view is very pro government. Whenever it comes to themselves being inconvenienced or imposed upon then it suddenly comes anti government. At one point Jesus asked, "Hypocrites! Why do you point to the splinter in your brother’s eye when you have a plank in your own?" The Republican platform is full enough of unbiblical and unrighteous views, yet the Christian right is selective in failing to notice those things. They need to start working on their own set of flaws before they start worrying about everyone else’s if they’re really worried about "What Jesus would do."



Kelly Scaletta