Monthly Archives: January 2021

BURLINGTON, Vt.

At This Place in History were in Burlington with Executive Director of the Vermont Historical Society Steve Perkins.

Were going to talk about the building thats over our shoulder, here. It was the law office of Warren Austin, a very famous senator from Vermont. And, there are a lot of other really cool things that he did. Amanda Gustin, the Public Programs Manager from the Vermont Historical Society is waiting for us over on the lawn of the Fletcher Free Library, explained Perkins.

Warren Austin was born in 1877 in Highgate Springs and he graduated from the University of Vermont in 1899. After that, he read law with his father, which was a common way to learn law back then instead of going to law school, began Gustin.

He established his own law practice in 1917 in Burlington. And then in 1925, he moved to the building we see behind us, just down the street. His previous offices were right on Church Street, but he moved to this building with his law office on the second floor of 215 College Street in 1925.

In 1931, the senator who was from Vermont, Frank Greene, passed away and there was a special election for senator. He ran as a republican, as every national politician from Vermont was at that time period, and he won that special election in 1931. Then, he ran again when the term came up in 1934 against one of the closest democratic challengers to that point in Vermont history. He won his election by 3,500 votes, said Gustin.

Austin had this strong interest in what happens beyond the borders of the United States. He had spent a lot of time in Canada as a young man. He had made that trip to China for business and once he became a senator he traveled a lot. He traveled all over Europe, the Middle East, to China, the Philippines and to South America in the 1930s. He had a strong interest in foreign policy as a senator. Hes elected in 1931. He ends his last term as senator in 1946. He steps down to take his next job.

His next job is the reason hes famous today. He accomplished a lot as a senator. He represented Vermont quite well. But, what we really know him as and what hes famous for today is that he was the first official United States Ambassador to the United Nations, appointed by Harry Truman.

He had to wait to finish his term as senator because the position was created while he was a senator. He actually worked on the committee that developed some of the rules for the United Nations and argued strongly that the United States should enter the United Nations, said Gustin.

And so he was appointed the first United States Ambassador to the United Nations in January of 1947. Just some of the highlights [during his tenure] are the creation of Israel, the Berlin Air Lift, the implementation of the Marshall Plan, in Europe, the beginning of the Korean War and the beginning of the Cold War. So, it was a really important time to be in the United Nations and to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Later in his life, actually in his farewell address, he said that once upon a time he was asked if he ever tires of all this talk. Does he ever get tired of all this constant talking and talking and talking? And he said that it is better for aging diplomats to be bored than for young men to die. He believed so strongly in the cause of peace and the cause of diplomacy and of working together between nations to avert war. He credited Vermont with inspiring him to pursue this path with his life, concluded Gustin.

Voice of Warren Austin: As a senator from the State of Vermont, I know that the people I represent, like the people of all of the United States, feel that in each days newspaper headlines they are reading the obituary of the Nazi regime. One hears the talk of the kind of peace we want. It is a peace that will encompass all nations large and small; all nations who wish to work together to bring about security on an international scale.

At This Place in History!

For more from our This Place in History series, click here or click here.

To view a map of Vermonts roadside historic site markers, click here.

See more here:

This Place in History: Warren Austin - Local 22/44 News

At the beginning of Southern Charm Season 7, Leva Bonaparte told me (more than once) that shes not for everyone. Its in her Instagram bio, its a fact shes abundantly aware of, and its a way of life. Shes likely never felt that way more than now that shes just one episode away from the end of this season of the Bravo series.

Viewers have been divided on her addition to the show. I, clearly, am not. I am 100% in support of her presence and every step shes taken along the way. Ok maybe the bathing suit coverup she was wearing in the latest episode wasnt my favorite look of hers this season, as she is usually impeccably dressed. But hello, this was a pool day, and other than that, Leva has been not only a fun new friend in this group, shes been entirely essential.

Heres why: Without Leva, the only, and I mean the only drama we wouldve been watching was that of Austen and Madison. Did you really need another season of this show centered around two people who clearly will not work out bickering at each other? I, for one, did not. If they have finally seen the light and know well enough to stay away from each other then Im glad we lived through this for hopefully the last time. Other than that, their drama is old, boring, toxic, and super unnecessary.

Southern Charm had to address two major topics this year: the pandemic, which they did and did well! by showing that several cast members actually contracted coronavirus last spring; and more importantly, the Black Lives Matter movement, which they did by having Leva authentically show her support for the cause. Charlestons long history of slavery and racial discord, and the confrontation of those topics, is one that cannot be understated. Through the lens of this show, that meant addressing the unfortunate yet impeccably timed incident where Kathryn Dennis sent the monkey emoji as well as several other offensive DMs to a black radio host.

Levas main crusade throughout the course of the season has not been to cancel Kathryn. I truly dont believe anyone wants to do that, as most of this group loves and cares for her as a friend. Leva has been tasked both as a personal friend and (by producers) as a cast member with trying to help Kathryn see where she went wrong and how she can remedy the situation. From what weve seen so far, she has been relatively unsuccessful.

On one hand, it appears Kathryn is learning that what she said was wrong, and why. I have tried my best to believe that Kathryn is not an intentionally racist person instead, I fully believe she is a product of her environment. Her ancestors were slaveowners. That is a historical fact. Some of that messaging has likely trickled down through the generations. But that doesnt have to be the end all be all for Kathryn, and thats what Leva has set out to emphasize. Its natural Kathryns reaction would be to retreat and get defensive, especially when she feels outnumbered. But I believe the majority of those women want the best from her and want to show, through this incident, that you can learn from your mistakes and use this moment to really open your eyes; to take in whats happening around you, and say I messed up, and I am committing to being a fully nonracist person moving forward. Kathryn has done about 1.5 of those things the last thing Leva is encouraging (not demanding) is that she apologize in person to her friends and move along with a commitment to being more aware in the future. Truly, instead of pointing fingers and canceling her, Leva is giving Kathryn the opportunity to be a role model though Kathryn seems awfully reluctant to take it.

So now, if you are publicly sharing your distaste for Leva (check the #SouthernCharm hashtag on Twitter for ample evidence of this), I need you to take a really deep breath and ask yourself why. Does any part of that have to do with the fact that she herself is a nonwhite woman, who is also married to a Black man? Or is it simply the fact that she is asking not just her friends, but all of us, to confront our thoughts, views, and understanding of racism in this country? Because guess what? Doing that is not fun! Its not cute! It doesnt make for sexy, salacious reality TV that we turn to when we want to turn our minds and the latest news off. Its very hard to do. But that is the whole entire point of the BLM movement. And if this show declined to address that, wow would it be a glaring omission, one that would be doing a whole lot more damage than simply asking your friends to recognize racism. The whole point of this storyline, of this point in time, is that WE MUST BE DOING THIS WORK.

Throughout the entire season Leva has done nothing but consistently speak the hard-to-confront truth. She is on the right side of history. Her scene with Shep in the kitchen of that gorgeous house is the perfect example. Shep is many of us: just wanting to have a good time and believe the best of people. But Leva took a very measured approach with him, explaining why this is actually no longer acceptable. As friends, we have to confront those we care about when they arent seeing things clearly. Just as youd tell a friend that they have some spinach in their teeth, we have to tell them when they also have some racist tendencies in their mouth. Some might not love the fact that Leva talks a lot, and well ignore those misogynistic undertones and simply acknowledge, thats because theres a lot to say.

There are few people that wouldve been as well equipped to be presented as the bad guy of the group as Leva is. Are you mad because she told Austen to shut the fuck up, when in all honesty, he did not know what he was saying? Because were watching with our own eyes as the guys realize, oh wow, we really have buried our heads in the sand over this one. Leva was right: its white privilege at its finest. And I believe her calm explanation of that has likely opened up their eyes enough for the guys to also admit shes right. Watch that scene on the boat again: Leva wasnt being a mean girl to Kathryn. She was offering her advice even when she doesnt owe that to her in the first place.

I know, its a bummer when a reality show is addressing real things. Id love to go back to the days when we were simply watching Kathryn twirl around in fancy dresses. But theres a lot of work to do before we get there, and Leva has done a damn good job of trying to explain that. Sure, watching a statue come down might not be everyones idea of a fun Thursday night viewing, but its awfully telling that no one else from this cast showed up to that historic moment. Maybe someone shouldve brought a keg of Trop Hop and itd be a different story. And I know, watching a group of women at brunch discussing how to address their friends unfortunate incident is just not as much fun if that incident doesnt involve some sex or partying. But guess what, this incident has much longer-lasting implications than a drunken hookup.

Its beyond important that Leva has brought a new diverse group into this show via her pals, especially welcome addition Venita Aspen. Shes opened up viewers to new cultures other than Rich White Dudes and some people are just now learning that there even are other cultures than Rich White Dudes. And there are! The show has to evolve, and without her, it only wouldve taken steps backward. While the message isnt fun or sexy, Leva deserves a lot of credit for her delivery. Shes been factual and concise and for the most part, actually very measured in her approach when others wouldve and couldve been a whole lot wilder and louder with the likely passion and frustration Leva is feeling. Southern Charm deserves props for handling the BLM content as well as they have; they did it without making it an afterschool special but by highlighting how our own friend groups might react: ignoring it, having difficult conversations, leaning into it, and trying to help our own friends through it. At the core of it, theres not actually much to dislike about Leva: shes smart, shes a successful businesswoman, again, that fashion is on point, and most of all, she seems to really care about other people. If you are still stuck on disliking her, really and truly examine within yourself why that is, because the rest of us are moving along and dont advise you to stay stuck in the past with your unnecessarily hateful feelings.

Southern Charm airs Thursday at 9 pm ET/PT on Bravo.

Watch Southern Charm on Bravo

The rest is here:

'Southern Charm': Leva Bonaparte Is on The Right Side Of History. Are You? - Decider

Lionel Gossman, the M. Taylor Pyne Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures, Emeritus, died at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania-Penn Medicine on Jan. 11. He was 91.

Photo by William Paulson, 1981 graduate alumnus

Gossman joined Princetons faculty in 1976 and transferred to emeritus status in 1999.His research and teaching focused on French literature of the 17th and 18th centuries; literature, literary criticism and history as social and cultural institutions; and the writing of history. He served as director of graduate studies from 1977-83 of what was then called the Department of Romance Languages and Literatures and was department chair from 1991-96.

During his 23 years at Princeton, Lionel Gossman was a pillar of the Department of Romance Languages and Literatures a great scholar of European intellectual history as well as an excellent teacher and adviser and a wonderful colleague, said Thomas Trezise, professor of French and Italian and department chair. He was also an exemplary citizen of the University at large, and could be seen on campus throughout his retirement years, when he pursued his research with undiminished vigor. He was a man of exceptional integrity and kindness, whose passing leaves the extensive community of his friends and admirers deeply bereft.

I loved and admired Lionel Gossman, said Victor Brombert, the Henry Putnam University Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures and Comparative Literature, Emeritus, whose friendship with his former colleague lasted nearly half a century. I never ceased to marvel at his intellectual enthusiasm and curiosity. He was constantly discovering new books and new fields. It is very hard for me to use the past tense in speaking about Lionel.

Lionel Gossman was one of the great humanists and scholar-teachers of his generation, said Franois Rigolot, the Meredith Howland Professor of French Literature, Emeritus. A veritable man of the Renaissance, and a teacher of great versatility, he was beloved by both graduate and undergraduate students. He brought his love of books and ideas into classes and, just as engagingly, into conversations over lunch downstairs at Prospect (where he was long a regular) or in the corridors of East Pyne and Firestone.

His subtlety and openness of mind, his brilliance and easy laughter, his fairness and innate decency created an atmosphere of collegiality that made our department an inspiring place to work, said Suzanne Nash, professor of French and Italian, emeritus. In his scholarly work, he chose subjects whose achievements had been forgotten or neglected, digging into the archives to bring them out of obscurity into a clarifying light, allowing the facts of their time or place to compose the narrative of a significant life In fact, he often chose subjects whose views were antithetical to his own. His car had a bumper sticker on it that says Facts Matter.

Nashs friendship with Gossman continued after his retirement with a bi-monthly lunch. Lionel was always a delight to be with, never jaded or blas, happiest when he could work in the library, every day, on a new project of discovery. He did not waste a minute of his life, and he saved so much that could have been lost. We will miss his beautiful, deep, Scot inflected voice, she said.

Born in Glasgow, Scotland, on May 31, 1929, Gossman earned his masters in French and German at the University of Glasgow in 1951, and a diplme d'tudes suprieures at the University of Paris in 1952. After serving in the Royal Navy for two years, he earned his D.Phil. at Oxford in 1957. He taught at the University of Lille and at Glasgow, then came to the United States in 1958 and joined the faculty at Johns Hopkins University.

In 1976, at the urging of his friend, the medievalist Karl Uitti, the John Woodhull Professor of Modern Languages and a professor of French and Italian at Princeton (who died in 2003), Gossman joined the Princeton faculty. In 1990, he received the Howard T. Behrman Award, Princetons highest award for distinguished achievement in the humanities.

During his long tenure at Princeton, he served as mentor and adviser to generations of undergraduate and graduate students, remaining in close touch with many throughout their careers.

In his seminars, Lionel Gossman talked about Diderot and Rousseau, but also taught us how to think and showed us how to teach, said William Paulson, a 1981 graduate alumnus and the E. L. Walter Collegiate Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at the University of Michigan.

To listen to Lionel, and to converse with him, was to receive a powerful lesson in what a deeply learned and lucid mind can accomplish when it is also fully present in the here-and-now of the everyday world, Paulson continued. He could talk without condescension to practically anyone, and this trait, too, helped make him a clearer and more capacious thinker and scholar, as well as a generous and loyal friend.

Martin Ruehl, a 2010 graduate alumnus in history, said Gossman, despite being in a different academic department, quickly took me under his wings and became my unofficial Doktorvater [Ph.D. adviser]. He had a wondrous capacity to take an interest and to see what was best in the work of other people. I vividly recall our animated discussions on the C-Floor of Firestone Library.

Ruehl was at Princeton from 1995 to 2000, but didnt complete his dissertation until 2010. After I left Princeton, [Lionel] stayed in touch with me, continued to read my work, gave me advice professional and personal, and steadfastly supported my career, said Ruehl, now a tenured professor of German history and thought at the University of Cambridge. I will never forget what he did for me and what we shared. All mein Gedanken, die ich hab, die sind bei Dir [All of my thoughts that I have are with you].

Lisa Gasbarrone, a 1984 graduate alumna, wrote her dissertation on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and botany a journey that began her first semester at Princeton, in Gossmans author seminar on Rousseau, which led directly to her interest in the Enlightenment and naturalhistory.

Princeton is a heady place, and Lionels example kept me grounded, said Gasbarrone, a professor of French at Franklin & Marshall College. I recall discussing an early draft of a dissertation chapter with him and feeling overwhelmed by the work. You know so much, I said. And his reply was so characteristically generous: Think of how much longer Ive been reading. So, he was teaching, even in those moments. In my own teaching, writing and professional relationships, I have treasured those lessons, and I keep them with me.

Named an Officier des Palmes Acadmiques in 1991, Gossman was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1996. He served on the editorial boards of the Johns Hopkins University Press, the Princeton University Press, and several scholarly journals, including Clio, Comparative Literature, Eighteenth Century Studies and French Forum. He published widely in journals. He also served as a consultant to the Ford Foundation on doctoral programs for Black students and to the Social Sciences Research Council.

He is the author of, among other works, Men and Masks: A Study of Molire, Medievalism and the Ideologies of the Enlightenment: The World and Work of La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, French Society and Culture: An Introduction to Eighteenth Century France, Augustin Thierry and Liberal Historiography,The Empire Unpossess'd: An Essay on Gibbon's Decline and Fall,Orpheus Philologus: Bachofen versus Mommsen on the Study of Antiquity,Toward a Rational Historiography,Between History and Literature,Geneva-Zurich-Basel: History, Culture and National Identity (with N. Bouvier et al.), and Basel in the Age of Burckhardt, which was awarded the American Historical Associations George L. Mosse prize.

After his retirement, Gossman continued to publish. He wrote on various aspects of 19th-century German art and cultural politics, pursued translation projects and maintained his interest in historiography, publishing Figuring History, a study of the illustration of history books, in 2011; The Passion of Max von Oppenheim: Archaeology and Intrigue in the Middle East from Wilhelm II to Hitler in 2013; and Thomas Annan of Glasgow: Pioneer of the Documentary Photograph in 2015.

Especially after his retirement, he liked to publish on Openbookpublishers.com, VictorianWeb.org and other online platforms, which made his work free and available to everyone and provided him with readership around the world. His last article, Scottish Publishers and English Literature: Some Smaller Publishers, was published on VictorianWeb.org in Dec. 2020.

Donations may be made to a charity of choice or the American Friends of Glasgow University.

Gossman is predeceased by his younger sister, Janice Gossman Brason. He is survived by his wife Eva, who worked at the University starting in 1977 as the director of the board of advisers, responsible for first-year and sophomore academic advising, and then as associate dean of the college from 1987 to 1997. A Holocaust survivor, she recounted her experiences as a young girl hidden from the Nazis by a Slovak woman in the book Good Beyond Evil: Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times. The Dean Eva Gossman Seminar in Human Values was established in her name in 2004, and has been offered as a Freshman Seminar every year since.

Gossman is also survived by a daughter, Janice Gossman, her husband, Michael Coppola, and his son, Nicholas; two nieces and three nephews and their families; as well as many cousins in Glasgow, London and Zurich.

View or share comments on a blog intended to honor Gossmans life and legacy.

Original post:

Lionel Gossman, specialist in French literature and history and 'one of the great humanists and scholar-teachers of his generation,' dies at 91 -...

The Philadelphia Phillies have plenty to like about their newest bullpen addition, six-year veteran right-hander Archie Bradley.But, the Oklahoma natives arm is not the only thing he is known for throughout Major League Baseball. He has made postseason history for not what he did on the mound, but at the plate.

Back in 2017, Bradley was pitching in his third season with the Arizona Diamondbacks. He finished the regular season strong and was in the top-20 in Most Valuable Player Award voting, going 3-3 with a 1.73 ERA, 1.041 WHIP, and 79-21 strikeouts-to-walks ratio spanning 63 appearances, 13 games finished, and 73 innings.

To no surprise, the Diamondbacks called on him in the Wild Card game opposite the Colorado Rockies. Bradley was called into the game when there was two outs during the top of the seventh inning, with the home Diamondbacks ahead, 6-5. He got DJ LeMahieu to ground out on one pitch.

With just two innings left in the winner-take-all game, the Diamondbacks were not ready to take Bradley out just yet, even knowing he could get a plate appearance the following half-inning. Facing All-Star right-hander Pat Neshek, who the Phillies traded to the Rockies a few months prior for three minor-leaguers, including J.D. Hammer, the D-backs offense ultimately got runners on first and second with two outs. Still, they left Bradley in to hit and he did not disappoint.

Working a 2-2 count, Bradley hit a line-drive triple opposite Neshek to center field, scoring both runners on base to give Arizona an 8-5 lead. According to MLBs Sarah Langs, he isthe only pitcher in postseason history to hit a triple in a game he did not start.

The Diamondbacks would go on to win 11-8, and they needed every one of the two RBI that Bradley delivered at the plate.

The Rockies rallied back against him the next half-inning, with Nolan Arenado and Trevor Story hitting back-to-back solo home runs to make the score 8-7 in favor of Arizona. Bradley got out of trouble in the frame by getting catcher Jonathan Lucroy, who the Phillies signed to a minor-league deal in 2020, to line out.

Bradley did not have a postseason plate appearance in the NLDS against the Dodgers, although he did throw 4 2/3 innings allowing three hits, one unearned run, and three walks while striking out five of his 21 batters faced.

Neshek is not the most popular Phillies reliever ever, so there is no surprise that those on social media were quick to appreciate both the Bradley signing overall, as well as this postseason plate appearance.

More here:

New Phillies reliever made postseason history vs. Pat Neshek - That Balls Outta Here

The mob that gathered in Washington, DC, last Wednesday, culminating in the storming of the US Capitol and the deaths of at least five people, was initially dismissed by some as a bunch of deadbeat dads, YouPorn enthusiasts, slow students, and MMA fans.

It might be tempting to think of the Capitol rioters as fringe elements, rejects and losers already on the margins of society. But that was far from the case. In attendance that day, it now appears, were several off-duty police officers. There was the CEO of a Chicago-area tech company, the son of a Brooklyn judge, and more than a dozen state lawmakers. And, of course, the mob was encouraged ahead of the riot by members of Congress and President Trump himself.

It all goes back to a larger truth about white supremacist movements in America: They havent been composed, as some claim, of poor white people disenfranchised by society. Instead, theyve often included supposed pillars of the community professionals, businesspeople, and especially law enforcement officials.

Indeed, all these were represented in one of the best-known white supremacist groups in American history, the Ku Klux Klan. Linda Gordon, a history professor at New York University and the author of The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition, has studied the makeup of the group, especially during the 1920s when its activities became much more overt and open. And, she told Vox, the Klan, which at one point required the payment of significant entry fees, was not an organization of poor people.

Its members were not economically disadvantaged by the wave of immigration they opposed. Nor were they, as some opponents then and now claimed, particularly uneducated or simply stupid. Rather, the roots of white supremacy, then and now, are more complex, and to understand them, we have to look at where groups like the Klan and the Capitol rioters get their information and why they believe what they believe. And stopping such groups will take more than insulting their intelligence.

I spoke with Gordon, in a conversation that has been edited for length and clarity, about the Klan of the 1920s, its focus on immigrants and conspiracy theories, and what this history can tell us about where we go as a country in the wake of the Capitol riot. Because, as Gordon puts it, its not going to stop with this.

Can you give us a brief capsule history of the Ku Klux Klan?

The simplest way to think about this is to understand that there were four iterations of the Klan.

The first emerged in the South, immediately after the Civil War. It was a terrorist group, in the literal sense of that term. Their main activity was violence against African Americans. They, over time, lynched more than 4,000 Black people, and they had one simple purpose: to maintain white supremacy and to prevent Black people from being able to enjoy any of the rights of a citizen.

The second Klan, which is the one that I wrote about, was really quite a different beast. It arose around 1920. And it was a mass movement of somewhere between 3 [million] and 6 million people. Unlike the first Klan, it was not at all secret about who was a member. It advertised openly in newspapers, and operated many events.

It was also different because it had 1.5 million women members. And it was largely in the North. And because it was in the North, and because at that time there were actually very few African Americans living in the North, the second Klan leaders came to understand that they would have very little traction by focusing specifically on Black Americans. Instead, they were very, very much reacting to large-scale immigration, and with tremendous animosity toward Catholics and Jews.

The core of the second Klan were white evangelical Protestants. This was a time of massive immigration coming into the United States starting in about 1880. Very few immigrants in that period were Protestants. They were Catholics from Southern Europe, or Jews from Eastern Europe.

The second Klan was predominantly nonviolent. There was some vigilantism, but it was an organization that figured out that it could get further by using legal electoral operations. They had a very effective lobbying operation they published over 150 print publications, they owned two radio stations.

We are talking about an organization with a great deal of power in part because they charged their members relatively high dues. You had to pay a $10 initiation fee, which these days would probably be about $125 in value. This is not an organization of poor people. It was an organization of middle-class and lower-middle-class people.

One thing it did have in common with white supremacist groups today is that probably the single largest occupational group in the Klan were police, or other officers of law and order, like sheriffs deputies.

For various reasons, the second Klan declined radically by the end of the 1920s. And many of its members in the 1930s went into the American Nazi groups, which were far more numerous than many people know.

The third Klan was in response to the civil rights movement. It began in the 50s and 60s and didnt use the Klans name so much. But they organized what were called White Citizens Councils, and their main drive was to oppose school integration. And they were, to some extent, violent. They bombed people. Theyre very famous for having blown up a church and killing four little girls.

And now we come to the fourth, which is today. Today, the Ku Klux Klan is just one small group among many, many different white supremacist groups. There is no overarching larger organization. Many of these groups are completely independent. Whats different, though, is that we live in the era in which social media allows many disparate groups to communicate and make common plans like their plans to invade the Capitol. In other words, they just have a very different communication structure. And that communication structure means that it really isnt necessary for them to have one single large organization.

Are there still official, active Klan chapters? Does the Ku Klux Klan exist in name today?

Yes, it does.

Overall, there are many, many of these small white supremacist groups, and they are not all exactly identical in their ideology. One of the things that has happened is that the Trump administration and the Trump personality have kind of unified them. They now have a leader, or if not literally a leader, then certainly their spokesperson and enabler. And that is different from anything that ever happened before. The massive Ku Klux Klan of the 20s never had someone at the very top of the government who was enabling them.

What was the catalyst for the second Klan forming?

There were several sort of catalysts. One was, of course, this massive immigration. In all this kind of far-right stuff in every case, and thats true today they operate by making people afraid. In the 1920s, they believed this country, destined to be a white Protestant country, was in danger of being taken over by people who were not white Protestants and who were in their view very, very evil people. Fear is central.

The second big force was World War I because World War I, like all wars do, had ratcheted up a kind of super-patriotism. And after the war, there was this real legal repression of dissent, in which lots of people who had opposed the war, and other people who were just considered disloyal because they were foreign-born, were actually deported. During that period, you had government not necessarily publicly attacking Catholics and Jews, but certainly raising the level of fear by suggesting that there were these people infiltrating the United States who were not really patriotic or loyal Americans.

And then theres the influence of the film The Birth of a Nation, which appeared in 1915. It was a film which showed very, very ugly stuff Black people presented as these awful savages who are intent on seizing and raping white women. The general tone of it was, again, about increasing fear.

One other thing thats very much in common between the 20s Klan and whats going on today is conspiracy theories. Take one example: Members of the second Klan spread the theory that the reason so many Catholics were coming into the United States was not because they were poor and looking for a better life, but because the pope ordered them to come. And once they came, they were supposed to go underground, awaiting the time when the pope would give the order for a coup that would take over the American government and establish the United Catholic States of America.

Thats based on religion, but Im sure you can see the similarities to these white nationalists who seem to have this capacity to believe completely bizarre theories without any evidence, like Hillary Clinton is operating a massive child sex abuse ring.

Why were people in the era of the second Klan so willing to believe these kinds of conspiracy theories? And what does that tell us about the rise of this kind of theory now?

I can only give you some simple, partial answers. One is, it depends on who you hear the theories from. In the case of the second Klan, a very large role was played by ministers. The Klan claimed to have 40,000 ministers. And they were not just members, they were people who, through their sermons, urged people to join the Ku Klux Klan to protect white Protestant domination of the United States. And in general, I do think that people tend to believe things depending on who they hear them from.

There was also a tendency to be hostile to science. Science seemed to them to be part of this conspiracy to take America away from the people who really belong to it. And I think that lies behind the fact that todays far right is often also people who dont want to wear masks. They just do not want to believe the science. And that was true in the 20s. In the 20s, the big issue was evolution. The Klan went all out in its battle against evolutionary theory and teaching evolution in schools.

Why was the Klan so worried about evolution?

Well, its ungodly, right? These are fundamentalist Christians. But I also think behind that lay this kind of anti-elitism in which they just see these scientists as sort of intellectual snobs who dont respect ordinary people. And theres a lot of language that is similar today about who are the real American patriots. The Klan use this language that is almost identical to some of what you see today about people who are 100 percent American, true American. And they believe that they represent the true essence of what is good about the United States.

You mentioned that the second Klan in particular was mostly middle and upper working class. Do we see class parallels today, when it comes to the Capitol rioters and white supremacist groups more generally?

Im not on top of the demography of the current white supremacists, but I will say two things that are not true. And that is that people in the 1920s, as well as people now, who dont like what the white supremacists are doing, very frequently want to think of them as stupid, uneducated, very crude. In other words, really insulting their intelligence. Thats what people were saying all the time about the second Klan.

And we now know that they were wrong. The members of the 1920s Klan were as educated as average Americans. They included not only many white-collar people but even professionals, middle-class businessmen.

So one thing is its wrong. But the other thing is that kind of talk that this was just a bunch of stupid, uneducated oafs that just merely confirmed their view that the people who were the elites had nothing but disdain for the people who were the real salt of the earth in America.

I experience that today. Theres a lot of attacks, for example, on Trump, as if he was stupid. I have no idea if hes stupid or not, but Im not sure that stupidity is the problem. Theres obviously many other forces, like the tremendous desire for power.

But I do suspect very strongly that if we ever got a real systematic tallying of who were members of these white supremacist groups, we would probably be surprised to find that they are just as well-educated as the average American.

Im glad you brought up this perception that people either in the Klan or at the Capitol riot were dumb, or that they were uneducated. Ive also kind of seen a perception that they must be very poor, or classist language used to describe them. Im curious where these kinds of perceptions come from, either now or in the 1920s. Why is there this wrong assumption that people involved in white supremacist movements are stupid or uneducated or low-class in some way?

I do think theres a certain amount of snobbery among the more highly educated, centrist or liberal populations of America.

But I do think that one of the things that is behind this when you look at what just happened, what we see is people who are almost hysterical with rage and willing to do things even at risk to themselves and others. A lot of people would say, well, that rage comes through the fact that they are suffering economically. Theyre losing jobs to people who are more elite. But for the 1920s Klan, that was not the case.

There was no indication that the people drawn to the Klan were people who were losing economic status. One of the bizarre things is that the Klan, with its attacks on Catholics and Jews, was strongest in places in which there were hardly any Catholics or Jews. And furthermore, there was no evidence that these guys in the Klan were economically suffering. So theres no simple relationship between what theyre saying and the idea that they have some real suffering and real grievances.

So what did draw people to the 1920s Klan?

You almost need a kind of psychological understanding. I think people in the Klan, and people in these groups today, just like people in the Nazi movement, they really get something from their involvement in these groups. They get a sense of community, they get a sense of affirmation.

Obviously, its making millions of Americans now look again at the question of, what is fascism? And how it is that very, very huge populations can be organized into this kind of hysteria, about people who are stealing the nation from its true destiny. I think that is what you hear a lot in white nationalist groups, that someone is stealing the country, stealing the election, taking it away from the people it rightfully belongs to. And evidence is simply not relevant. The Klan went all out on this notion of the threat to white Protestant domination at a time when white Protestants completely dominated the economy, the government, the culture. So its not actually accurate perceptions of real changes.

My last question is: What can the history of the Klan and the history of the second Klan in particular tell us about the Capitol riots, the white supremacist movements that are ongoing today, and where we go from here as a country?

Ill offer something very opinionated about this, that not everybody would agree with. But when you look at one of the differences between, say, right-wing groups and liberal groups, a lot of liberal groups are really committed to proceeding in ways that are objective, that are looking at both sides of an issue. And the right wing has no particular interest in that.

And so you have a huge imbalance there. I think its good to try to see both sides. But on the other hand, I think we may be reaching a point where people who want to stop this white supremacy, we cannot rely on simply the law to find them and try them and convict them. People really need to become louder and more active in defending values of democracy and freedom and civil liberties and anti-racism. Whether they do that by just the way they talk or whether they have demonstrations in the streets nonviolent demonstrations I hope that what just happened may be ultimately a force thats going to bring people together and understand the importance of making very, very public stands for what are American values of the kind that we support.

Because one of the things I do know is its not going to stop with this. Its going to continue, and its going to continue for quite a while, and getting rid of Trump is certainly not going to end it.

Support Vox's explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that empowers you through understanding. Voxs work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts to all who need them. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today, from as little as $3.

See more here:

The Ku Klux Klans history is a warning about the Capitol riot - Vox.com

Adding a superstar to a talented team that already has a couple of elite players doesnt always lead to success, let alone a championship just ask the 2019 Patriots, who added Antonio Brown to play with Tom Brady and Julian Edelman.

But, by adding James Harden to their dynamic duo of Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving, the Brooklyn Nets, on paper at least, may have put together the most-talented trio of players in the NBA this season.

In fact again, only on paper as Harden, Durant and Irving have yet to take the floor together (and perhaps never will) the Nets may actually have put together the best Big Three in the history of a league that birthed the phrase thanks to the 1980s trio of Robert Parish, Kevin McHale and Larry Bird on the Boston Celtics.

Below, well show you where Brooklyns star threesome stacks up against some of the other all-time trios that have suited up in the NBA using a formula developed specifically for this exercise.

Combined All-Star Selections: 20Combined All-NBA Selections: 20Combined MVP Awards: 0Combined Championships: 9Overall Score: 49

Combined All-Star Selections: 21Combined All-NBA Selections: 17Combined MVP Awards: 3Combined Championships: 8Overall Score: 49

Combined All-Star Selections: 24Combined All-NBA Selections: 22Combined MVP Awards: 2Combined Championships: 3Overall Score: 51

Combined All-Star Selections: 28Combined All-NBA Selections: 24Combined MVP Awards: 3Combined Championships: 10Overall Score: 65

Combined All-Star Selections: 35Combined All-NBA Selections: 30Combined MVP Awards: 1Combined Championships: 4Overall Score: 70

Combined All-Star Selections: 23Combined All-NBA Selections: 39Combined MVP Awards: 2Combined Championships: 13Overall Score: 77

Combined All-Star Selections: 40Combined All-NBA Selections: 37Combined MVP Awards: 4Combined Championships: 9Overall Score: 90

Combined All-Star Selections: 23Combined All-NBA Selections: 48Combined MVP Awards: 5Combined Championships: 17Overall Score: 93

Combined All-Star Selections: 33Combined All-NBA Selections: 47Combined MVP Awards: 2Combined Championships: 16Overall Score: 98

Combined All-Star Selections: 38Combined All-NBA Selections: 38Combined MVP Awards: 9Combined Championships: 14Overall Score: 99

As the overall scores bear out, having a player who is a cut above the rest like Jordan, James or Duncan has a clear impact on how high a trio of players nets out. And having a pair of those players as is the case with both Lakers teams (Johnson and Abdul-Jabar and Bryant and ONeal) pushes the score into another stratosphere.

Also, since the All-NBA score takes into account All-Rookie and All-Defensive team, players who excelled early in their career or were elite defensively also boost their trios overall score substantially.

As it pertains to the Nets and Warriors, it should be noted their respective scores will increase over time as Harden, Curry, Durant, Thompson and Irving are not done playing and possibly winning championships. They wont catch the Lakers, but those Celtics teams, including the Big Three that started it all, are probably in range.

Subscribe herefor our free daily newsletter.

Read this article:

How Does the Nets' Big Three Compare to Other Big Threes in NBA History? - InsideHook