Although likely becoming prosaic, the phrases "walk the walk" and "talk the talk" remain effective shorthand. Their meaning is seen in the story of BiAlthough likely becoming prosaic, the phrases "walk the walk" and "talk the talk" remain effective shorthand. Their meaning is seen in the story of Bill Ayers. A founder of the radical Weathermen, Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn spent 10 years underground as a result of their actions against the Viet Nam War. After their emergence Ayers maintained his political beliefs, earned masters and doctorate degrees in education, and became a Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- and a lightning rod in the 2008 presidential campaign.
The title of his new book, Public Enemy: Confessions of an American Dissident, is based on his portrayal in the media and blogosphere in 2008. During a debate with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama was asked about his association with Ayers, who was described as someone who "never apologized" for bombings at New York City Police Department headquarters, the United States Capitol building and the Pentagon in the early 1970s. Ayers' connection with Obama consisted of hosting a fundraiser for him when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1995, serving on some nonprofit boards together and living in the same neighborhood in Chicago. For the most part, though, he was portrayed as an "unrepentant domestic terrorist."
Ayers examined his time with Students for a Democratic Society, the Weathermen and life underground in Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War Activist -- released on September 11, 2001. Public Enemy traces his life after that, with particular focus on becoming "a punching bag" in the 2008 presidential campaign. Becoming the captive of a political whirlwind led to cancellation of speeches and appearances, people chanting "Kill him!" when Sarah Palin mentioned him at a campaign rally, inaccuracies about him and his past, and significant hate email and mail and threats. For example, Ayers received a letter from "Sniper," saying, "Watch your back! Your time is coming!" The letter, postmarked in California, included a recent picture of his front door.
The charges leveled against him during the campaign included killing people in Weatherman bombings and shooting and killing a police officer. Yet, Ayers points out, "[n]ot only did I never kill or injure anyone, but in the six years of its existence the Weather Underground never killed or injured anyone either." He contends the Weather Underground's "notoriety, then and now, outstripped our activity on every count." Ayers, in fact, was never prosecuted on any charges for his role in or actions with the Weathermen. (Dohrn did plead guilty to and was placed on probation for aggravated battery and jumping bail.)
This statement is one example of what some may see as spin in Public Enemy's version of various events and history. For example, while not intended, three members of the Weathermen died when a bomb being constructed in a New York City townhouse exploded in 1970. And the six-year timeframe allows Ayers to exclude the 1981 Brinks robbery involving several Weather Underground members in which two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed. In fairness, though, that occurred the year after Ayers and Dohrn turned themselves in and several years after the Weather Underground splintered and essentially ceased to exist.
There is one thing on which Ayers is crystal clear. He is, in fact, unrepentant and remains committed to the ideals that motivated his activism in the first place. Despite repeated demands made by the media and others during the presidential campaign, Ayers refuses to apologize for things he never did and stands behind his beliefs.
I was happy to discuss anything and I was able to openly regret lots of things in a range of settings, but somehow stubbornly unwilling to say a single line: I'm sorry I engaged in extreme tactics to oppose the [Viet Nam] war; I'm sorry I destroyed war materials and government property.
I'm not sorry about that, and I can't say with any conviction that I am. Opposing the US invasion of Viet Nam with every fiber of my being was simply not one of my regrets.
Likewise, he makes clear that he and Dohrn remain "open and outspoken radicals" with "a strong reserve of romance and idealism" aimed at "a freer and more peaceful future." Public Enemy does, though, recognize that dogmatism, orthodoxy and inflexibility perhaps doomed the New Left of the Sixties and Seventies. "My own strict system of received wisdom and right beliefs was as controlling and totalizing as any other fundamentalism -- religious, political, or cultural," he writes. "It left me along with several close comrades isolated in a well-lit prison of our own construction with a blinding light bulb hanging from the ceiling by a single strand of wire."
That light came back on in the 2008 presidential election, making Ayers a poster boy for so-called domestic terrorism and a not-so-subtle contention that Obama was a radical. Even if his methods changed with age, Ayers' insistence on both talking the talk and walking the walk of his political beliefs helped elevate him to the status of a public enemy. Public Enemy is his way of detailing the cost of the divisive factions in American politics and telling people that he remains unbowed and unrepentant.
History, even American history, doesn't seem to be one of our strong suits. One recent assessment showed that 20 percent of fourth graders, 17 percentHistory, even American history, doesn't seem to be one of our strong suits. One recent assessment showed that 20 percent of fourth graders, 17 percent of eighth graders and only 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrated proficiency in U.S. history. And that's history that actually matters to us. As anything outside that is likely viewed as irrelevant, our grasp of European history must be appalling. Even then, our focus has been on Western Europe and, at best, Eastern Europe is little more than an afterthought, if that.
Eastern Europe is a concept invented ... by the West, and it has always carried the connotation of a backward, underdeveloped, superstitious, and remote region isolated from the modern ideas and lifestyles of Western Europe. To be Eastern European implies that one is poor, undereducated, and provincial, and prone to occasional irrational fits of horrendous violence inspired by ethnic or religious fanaticism.
Yet Jankowski makes a strong case that a great deal of what makes up Western Europe today, from people to technologies to languages, probably came through Eastern Europe first. That is mostly a matter of geography. Jankowski views Eastern Europe as not only always surrounded by competing civilizations -- Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa -- but serving as a land connection between and among them. It was also a front line between Christianity and Islam, meaning it was a battleground on which "countless crusades and jihads were waged." (In fact, there are an estimated 35 million Muslims in Eastern Europe today.)
After an "Introductory FAQ," the book consists of two sections. The first looks at the development of languages in the region, its geography and the spread of religions. The second, and by far the longest, traces the history of the region from roughly 500 CE through the fall of Communism and its effects. It also contains a lengthy reference section full of statistics about Eastern Europe, as well as 42 pages of endnotes and a 19-page bibliography. In addition to its dozens of maps and photographs, Eastern Europe! the book includes numerous sidebars titled "Useless Trivia." Although Jankowski suggests these contain "interesting but utterly useless historical, cultural or other completely senseless facts," he does himself a disservice. They often provide glimpses of events and people and their resonance into today.
In tracing the history of Eastern Europe, the beginning of each chapter contains not only a timeline of events in Eastern Europe but also a separate timeline for Western Europe. This allows the reader to compare the various developments in each and the interplay between them. In fact, Western Europe's impact on Eastern Europe is also unmistakable. For example, the unification of regions and peoples into nations such as Italy and Germany gave rise to similar hopes in Eastern Europe. And although we think of World War II in terms of the U.S. and Western European countries, "every Eastern European country lost the war, regardless of which side they chose or what their leaders did. This war haunts Eastern Europe as no other historical event does."
In broad strokes, the history of Eastern Europe is the story of the rise and fall of and wars among various clans, kingdoms and the occasional empire. It often to consist largely of seemingly never-ending warfare among various entities that continually affect the balance of power and boundaries. Granted, the same observation might also be made about Western Europe. Jankowski tends to try to trace this in terms of particular kingdoms, ethnicity or nations. His chapter subtitles frequently serve as pithy summaries of what follows. For example, "Albania as Accident," "Austria-Hungary as a Bug on the Windshield," or "Montenegro is Pushed Off the Cliff." Yet this separate lines also cause some problems. Because a particular event or war often affects several countries, it may be discussed in several subsections and readers may not grasp the entire picture.
Despite covering such a large amount of information and territory, Eastern Europe! remains highly readable and user friendly. It is not merely a recitation of dates and events but a plain language look at the whos and whys of its history. In fact, the book would be an excellent introductory guide for anyone planning to visit an area of Eastern Europe. It allows the reader to trace the country's history and get a sense of its influences. That is important because, as Jankowski points out (and explains), the past remains alive in Eastern Europe. "For the average American, the American Revolution of 1775-83 was thousands of years ago," he writes, "but for the average Eastern European, the 1389 battle of Kosovo Polje or the 1410 battle of Grunwald haven't quite ended yet." The book reinforces how often even modern conflicts among various ethnic groups, whether in Slovenia, Croatia or Bosnia, can only be understood by knowing the history of the region. Jankowski shows us this as he traces the changes in and development of the country from clans to a feudal system to "nations" to Soviet domination and after.
It is hard to imagine that a conversational, one volume work could not only introduce readers to Eastern European history but do a lot towards helping the reader understand it. In that respect, Eastern Europe! is both a success and an impressive achievement.
Some estimate books about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy number in the thousands. And with the 50th anniversary of the assassination cSome estimate books about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy number in the thousands. And with the 50th anniversary of the assassination coming next month, there's been a growing stream of them this year about the assassination and Kennedy's presidency and its legacy. Amidst the avalanche, political commentator Jeff Greenfield contemplates where we would be if Kennedy had not been killed. He does so through the alternative history trope in If Kennedy Lived: The First and Second Terms of President John F. Kennedy: An Alternate History.
As Greenfield points out in both the preface and afterword to If Kennedy Lived, he believes alternative history needs to be founded on plausibility. Thus, everything prior to November 22, 1963, that plays a role in the book actually happened and Greenfield's conjectures are predicated on historical documents of the times and thoughts of the actual people. Greenfield seeks to explore only what realistically might have happened, not with inventions like the time traveler who tries to prevent Kennedy's assassination in Stephen King's bestselling 11/22/63. Yet while a degree of plausibility is essential to believable alternative history, If Kennedy Lived also reveals the limitations of strict adherence to this approach.
Greenfield explores a number of key issues that might have been affected by Kennedy's death, such as whether he would have kept U.S. forces in Vietnam or the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He even considers the possibility and ramifications of Kennedy's philandering becoming public. Yet even the latter has a wonkish feel. The book tends to examine what might have happened more through policy debates than in terms of social ramifications. This doesn't mean Greenfield totally ignores social impact. For example, he contemplates how different decisions about Vietnam might have affected the nature and focus of the protest movements of the 1960s. It's just that there seems to be more discussion about policy and political implications of that change.
Greenfield both displays and uses a bit of irony when it comes to actual history. He points out that although Kennedy was pushing for tax cuts in 1963, the Republicans strenuously opposed the idea (although Congress approved cuts in 1964). The irony extends to noted individuals. For example, when the treasurer of a company founded by Jerry Rubin embezzles the money, Greenfield has Rubin saying, "I never should have trusted an accountant under thirty." And in this timeline Richard Nixon does not tell David Frost in 1977 that "when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Instead, this Nixon complains about the Kennedy Administration's use of the IRS, saying, "Just because a president does it does not mean it's legal."
Certainly, given what those individuals actually said, it is plausible they might have said what Greenfield suggests. And perhaps it is because of this insistence on plausibility that the book concludes on the eve of the 1968 election, the end of the second term Kennedy wins in it. Thus, Greenfield does not extrapolate from the alternative scenarios he posits to look look at even longer term consequences.
Although unquestionably well researched and written, If Kennedy Lived has a bit too much of an "inside politics" feel.