Versagi Voice

Contact us     Home Page      Ongoing Discussions

Life

The Greatest Generation?
What justifies calling WWII veterans the "Greatest Generation"?
I am one of those vets, but that question has begun to nag me as visitors to the Historical Society Museum's Pearl Harbor/WWII Commemorative Exhibit engage me in conversation.

Visitors include veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam and their families. Those visitors who make the connection between seeing the same name on my museum volunteer badge and on one of the exhibit labels want to chat. Vets want to compare experiences; their families are pleased to learn some things which hadn't emerged from previous conversations. For the families there is the added satisfaction of seeing their vet become energized talking with a fellow vet among all those displays which themselves are emotionally stirring.

A common characteristic of the couple dozen conversations so far is that there is almost no discussion of the horrors of combat. Between vets who have experienced firefights, the descriptions are sanitized by talk of humorous events or encounters with inexperienced new officers ((90-day Wonders") or "the time I saw General Patton." There is a lot of generalized talk about terrain and weather and intensity of the opposition; about where we ended up in Europe while waiting to be outfitted for transfer to the Pacific. "I ended up in Linz. You had it better landing in Salzburg."

What is missing for listeners to those conversations is that there is no way for them to visualize the same images or to feel the now-subdued emotions those images elicit in the conversing vets.

There is an occasional awkward moment at the museum. One such moment resulted from the reaction of the wife who accompanied her Vietnam veteran-husband to the museum. When he and I began joshing about the old argument of the relative discomfort of warm, buggy jungles and cold European forests, his wife angrily "defended" what she perceives as the much tougher time that he had. I sensed from her a resentment, not shared by her husband, toward the universal approval of Americans about the Second World War.

Not in anger but in disappointment have been the statements of two or three Korean veterans about what they see as "the forgotten war." And there was the good-natured complaint that the exhibits contain nothing about the Coast Guard.

All of which makes me think about this "Greatest Generation" thing. I may try to put some of those thoughts in writing.

Separately, the presentation and contents of the overall exhibit have been highly praised by Clarkston-based Michael Bylen, a board member of the The Official World War II Museum located in New Orleans. He will be following up by reaching out to Bill Barr, whose loan of official and contemporary pictures of Pearl Harbor set in motion the creation of the successful Historical Society effort. Barr served on the U.S.S. Enterprise, which was out-to-sea when the Japanese attacked.

Veterans bring history to life at the World War II exhibit. The museum is open 1 to 4 p.m. Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.  The WWII Exhibit runs through 19 March 2011. -- 04 Jan 2011

Jewish, Israeli, Hebrew?
No wonder the goyim are confused

A story about a proposed new "loyalty oath" in Israel elicited the following clarification from a member of the Jerusalem City Council. The letter appears in The Economist.

Your article on the mixed Jewish-Arab city of Lod in Israel mentioned the proposed "loyalty oath" for new Israeli citizens, which defines Israel as "Jewish and democratic." The oath is more complicated than it might seem. Whereas abroad the adjective "Jewish" generally pertains to religious affiliation, in Israel, it does not: most Israelis are not religious. Here, Jewish is an adjective for the Jewish nationality just as "French" refers to the culture of the French people, or "Estonian" to the culture of Estonia.

The wording is problematic in Hebrew as well, which is one reason why one alternative proposal was to refer to Israel as "the home of the Jewish people," something Lord Balfour proclaimed in 1927.

In any case, the issue is still provoking heated debate in Israel, Fortunately, it now looks unlikely that the proposal will pass, rather ironically, because the Ultra-Orthodox minority in the country -- less that 10% of the population -- objects to the word "democratic."

Good-natured joking aside, hateful bigotry aside, this helps explain why goyim (gentiles) remain uncertain about whether to think of Jews as members of a religion, a race, a nationality, or a transnational culture. In a practical sense, of course, it shouldn't matter in our country whether we think of a person as an "American Jew" (religiously equivalent to an "American Catholic") or a "Jewish American" (equivalent by nationality to an "Italian-American").

The matter becomes clouded politically when Israel becomes part of the discussion. Then "Zionist" enters the dialogue along with Jew, Jewish, Hebrew., and Israeli. Food for thought.

Sort-of-Related to the above --
Black, Negro, African-American, Colored?

As it  happens, The U.S. experiences similar confusion about the politically correct way to refer to our black-skinned citizens.

We have: the United Negro College Fund . . . the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People . . .  the National Association of Black Social Workers -- to which I add the Congressional Black Caucus. Are all those terms, comfortably used by dark-skinned people themselves, made inappropriate by the newest "African-American" ? Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice belittles that term in her just-published book, "Extraordinary, Ordinary People".

Come on, when wasn't the nation polarized?
Everybody loved FDR? No one disliked Ike? Carter was universally admired? There were no Democrats challenging Reagan's every move? There were no women who would have liked to see Clinton emasculated? Never was disrespect, even hatred, expressed against Bush II?

Bring it to the state level and think of Milliken, Williams, Engler, Granholm
Many elected and employed public officials truly regard each other as friends or friendly colleagues, despite deep ideological differences. Attorneys who verbally attack each other in court stop for a drink together out of court.

Personally, don't all of us have friends, family, colleagues with whom we have fundamental political differences? Yet we maintain loving or cordial relationships with them. There may be topics we simply don't discuss with each of them, but political polarization rarely disrupts a relationship.

When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were fierce political opponents, the France-lovers and Britain-lovers were at such odds that they would cross the street to avoid having to exchange even civil greetings. That was polarization. -- Nov 2010

Thoughts re: Immigration
"For as long as people have migrated, their destinations have told us much about the world order. And for the last century that has meant a simple story: a global shift from South to North. Farmers and factory workers have flocked from Latin America seeking jobs and opportunities in the United States. Ambitious youths have risked perilous Mediterranean waters to cross from Africa into Europe. It has been a predictable tale.

"Until now.

"Over the last half-decade, the money that migrants send to their native countries started to tell us something different: The United States is fast losing its monopoly as a prized destination. Meanwhile, surprising countries such as Malaysia and South Africa are becoming the hottest new places to go to work. The long tail of remittances points, as never before, to a new story: the unequivocal rise of the rest". -- Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2010

Imagined/made-up mental disorders
The American Psychiatric Association published its first "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" in 1952. The manual (DSM-I) named 106 specific diagnoses.

By 1994, DSM-IV, 106 had risen to 297.

DSM-V, being prepared for 2013 publication, is expected to introduce a new model in which two or more existing diagnoses may be combined and named differently that either.

Quality of life has measurably improved over the decades. Have we really become more mentally and emotionally troubled or has this particular trade union (sorry, "association") come up with a ploy to increase business? -- 22 Feb 10

19th Century characterizations
Quoting an imaginary friend who "has carefully studied the art of discouragement," 19th century English writer Arthur Helps extracts this passage from that friend's conversation with the man who had invented the wheel:

We seem to have gone on very well for thousands of years without this rolling thing. Your father carried burdens on his back. The king is content to be borne on men's shoulders. The high priest is not too proud to do the same. Indeed, I question whether it is not irreligious to attempt to shift from men's shoulders their natural burdens. Then, as to its succeeding -- for my part I see no chance of that. How can it go up hill?

Then there is this from the same period's William Makepeace Thackeray:

A something had occurred in his life, which had cast a tinge of melancholy over all his existence. He was not unhappy -- to those about him most kind, -- most affectionate, obsequious even to the women of his family, whom he scarce contradicted; but there had been some bankruptcy of his heart, which his spirit never recovered. He submitted to life, rather than enjoyed it, and never was in better spirits than in his last hours when he was going to lay it down.

I encountered these insightful, even delightful, characterizations while resampling my copy of McGuffey's Fifth Eclectic Reader. -- FJV

Are some people born pessimistic?
"Throughout history, many intellectuals have been willing to write their society's obituary long before the game was up," writes nonfiction writer Arthur Herman, in the Spring 2009 issue of Wilson Quarterly.  He adds, " . . . many elites continue to make a fetish of pessimism," before he goes on to cite many historical examples of what he titled "The Pessimistic Persuasion."

Roman intellectuals bemoaning the decline of their civilization "centuries before" the Vandals" sacked Rome. . . . Spain's recovery after its intellectuals had about given up after the defeat of their Armada. . . . The certainty of both Left and Right intellectuals that France and Germany had failed beyond the point of recovery after World War I.

Sticking with only our nation, Herman mentions several time when pessimists seemed right: really bad economic times in1873, then again 1893; the 1929 Depression era; post-Vietnam; stagflation in the 1970s. Going abroad again, we have the 1968 Paul Erlich misfired Population Bomb; 1971' s The Closing Circle by Barry Commoner; the 1972 Club of Rome's Limits of Growth. Somewhere in the piece, Herman mentions an 1893 prediction that planet Earth would be extinct by 2025 -- a prediction with which Al Gore would agree. (See The world is coming to an end -- again.)

For artist- and philosopher-types, the predicted death of the physical world isn't as catastrophic as is the mental universe going to hell. Our own Ralph Waldo Emerson is quoted as lamenting, "Life is no longer a contest of great minds for great ends, but a pot house squabble."

Oh, well.

Why singers hide their face
I asked:
From Ed Sullivan through Como and Crosby and Dinah Shore, soloists sang -- and were heard -- without holding a microphone in front of their face. Is there something about today's technology which makes hand mics necessary, or is there some aesthetic component which escapes some of us?

Brian McCollum, music writer for the Detroit Free Press, replied:
From the technological side, it seems the use of hand-held microphones was a product of electrified backing instrumentation, which overwhelmed even the strongest vocal projection. I suspect rock 'n' roll did its part too, by transforming stage performances into more physically energetic affairs. For a rock singer, a hand-held mic meant mobility.

Interestingly, many artists in recent years have ditched hand-held microphones in favor of headset mics. These are particularly favored by vocalists who play guitar and singers who incorporate dance moves into their sets.
-- Dec 2009

Nature or Nurture: What makes us who we are?
World War II General George Patton was famous for his military successes and notorious for slapping a soldier, as well as for being both praised and damned for his less than diplomatic language.

Such dominant individuals raise the question: Was he born that way or did his early environment form his personality? In the world arena, the equivalent argument has been whether the times make the man or the man shapes the times? Think of every one from Alexander the Great through Charlemagne, Napoleon, and Hitler.

Back to Patton.
While a colonel in the First World War, Patton wrote a long letter to his father, from which the following extracts suggest he was already the guy he was in the Second World War: "I saw one fellow in a shell hole holding his rifle and sitting down. I thought he was hiding and went to cuss him out, he had a bullet over his right eye and was dead. . . . We have all been in one fine fight, and it was not half so exciting as I had hoped. . . . I was the only officer around who had left on his shoulder straps and I had to live up to them.* . . . .This is a very egotistical letter but interesting as it shows that vanity is stronger than fear."

* There were two schools of thought: One mindset was similar to Patton's. Leaders should be obvious leaders. Opposed was the mindset that bars and stars should be covered over on helmets and removed from outerwear, because the enemy would make such men their first targets, and we recognized our own officers without their insignia.

 

 

 
On this page

Why singers hide  thier face with the mike

Are some people born pessimistic?

19th Century characterizations still hit the mark

Making-up mental disorders

Thoughts re immigration

When wasn't the nation polarized?

What to call a Jew, a Black

Other pages

"Merry Christmas" is offensive?

Bias in the Media

Prayer of St. Francis

Legalize Drugs?

Less Government, please

How many youth groups do we need?

Religion and Government