How much was Latin America involved in the World Wars?

Anecdote about the European blockade of Venezuela, in the early twentieth century

In 1902, three European nations imposed a naval blockade on the Caribbean-and-Atlantic coastline of Venezuela. The three European nations were Great Britain, Germany, and Italy. All of these European countries would later be fighting both of the others at least once during the future world wars. But, at this time, these three European countries were united – due to some foreign debts that the Venezuelans were then refusing to pay. The Venezuelan president, Cipriano Castro, assumed that the United States would then invoke the Monroe Doctrine on Venezuela’s behalf. But the American president (which was Theodore Roosevelt) saw this doctrine as applying “only to European seizure of territory, rather than intervention per se” – as Wikipedia’s page on the crisis puts it. Thus, the blockade instead went unopposed, and managed to disable the navy of Venezuela. A compromise was eventually worked out in 1903, with the European blockade being maintained in Venezuelan waters throughout the negotiations. But it was one of a number of precursors to the Latin American involvement in the World Wars. Despite the American Monroe Doctrine, there had been much European colonization in the Americas during the nineteenth century. But the Venezuelan Crisis of the early twentieth century reminded Latin Americans of how connected with Europe they still were. And naval affairs in South America would soon lead to a naval arms race.

Blockade of Venezuelan ports, 1902

A review of Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” (PBS)

Long before I watched this film, I watched another PBS documentary about Benjamin Franklin. This earlier film was by Muffie Meyer, who has made a few documentaries for PBS. These included “Alexander Hamilton,” “Dolley Madison,” and “Liberty! The American Revolution.” The Muffie Meyer film is an excellent film in its own right, which is some three hours long. This Ken Burns film is even longer: some four hours long. But I had low expectations going into this Ken Burns film. That is, Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson” was practically a hatchet job on Mr. Jefferson. Specifically, among other things, it had great emphasis on the hypocrisy of Jefferson’s slaveholding. I actually agree with a number of their criticisms of Jefferson, but still found their take on him to be excessively negative. Thus, I was expecting to get the same kind of treatment in this later film about Benjamin Franklin. And, at first, it seemed like this film would be in the same vein as Ken Burns’ “Thomas Jefferson.” But, surprisingly, I ended up liking “Benjamin Franklin” a lot. I may like Ken Burns’ “Benjamin Franklin” even better than Muffie Meyer’s “Benjamin Franklin.”

A review of Ken Burns’ “Muhammad Ali” (PBS)

He was born Cassius Clay, but joined the Nation of Islam and then changed his name

He was one of the greatest athletes of the twentieth century. He was born “Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr.,” but would later consider that to be his “slave name.” The name had been given to him by his parents, both of whom were African Americans. But the world would instead remember him by another name: “Muhammad Ali,” an Arabic name meaning “blessed of God.” This second name came partially from the seventh-century founder of Islam – that is, after the Prophet Muhammad. But, much closer to home, he had joined the “Nation of Islam” in the United States. This was a Black Muslim group, known for its radical politics. He would be good friends with Malcolm X, but would later abandon his friendship with Malcolm, when Malcolm X later broke with the Nation of Islam. Malcolm disapproved of the more “personal” conduct of Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the American “Nation of Islam.” That is, Elijah Muhammad had impregnated seven of his secretaries. Angry members of the Nation of Islam later murdered Malcolm X as revenge in 1965. Only later in his life would Muhammad Ali express some regret over his earlier break with the controversial Malcolm X.

Cassius Clay and his trainer, 1960

Millard Fillmore: A moderate on slavery who pleased no one

In July 1850, President Zachary Taylor mysteriously died while still in office. Most seem to believe that his stomach disease was from natural causes, but there has long been a theory that it came from arsenic poisoning instead. This actually led to Mr. Taylor’s long-dead body being exhumed in 1991, nearly a century and a half after his death. The medical examiner failed to find any evidence of arsenic poisoning. Thus, most seem to believe that his stomach disease was indeed from natural causes, and that Millard Fillmore had no involvement in his death. There were open sewers in Washington, D.C. at that time, which caused an epidemic in the city. Nine of Mr. Taylor’s Cabinet officials were sick with the same disease as President Taylor. Thus, most believe that the poor sanitation led to Taylor’s food and drink being contaminated. As vice president, Millard Fillmore succeeded Zachary Taylor upon his death. And, fortunately for Mr. Fillmore, relatively few Americans suspected him of any involvement in his predecessor’s death. But Millard Fillmore would fail to be elected president in his own right, and only served for two-and-a-half years. Specifically, Fillmore finished out the term that he had inherited from Zachary Taylor. Fillmore would destroy the Whig political party, by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

Millard Fillmore

Andrew Johnson: The man who botched Reconstruction

An anecdote about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth …

On April 14th, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Lincoln was at the height of his glory, having just won the American Civil War. Lincoln had just begun his second term a month earlier. But John Wilkes Booth had robbed Lincoln of the opportunity to finish out his second term. As a Confederate sympathizer, Booth hated Lincoln’s support for African American civil rights, and thus shot the President of the United States at Ford’s Theatre. Booth had also wanted to kill the vice president, a relative unknown named Andrew Johnson. Booth then believed that the vice president would be at Kirkwood House while he (Booth) was surreptitiously shooting the president at Ford’s Theatre. Thus, Booth had assigned George Atzerodt to kill Johnson at Kirkwood House. As Wikipedia puts it, “Atzerodt was to go to Johnson's room at 10:15 pm and shoot him.[footnote]  On April 14, Atzerodt rented the room directly above Johnson's; the next day, he arrived there at the appointed time and, carrying a gun and knife, went to the bar downstairs, where he asked the bartender about Johnson's character and behavior. He eventually became drunk and wandered off through the streets, tossing his knife away at some point. He made his way to the Pennsylvania House Hotel by 2 am, where he obtained a room and went to sleep.[footnotes]” (Source: Their page on the “Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”)

George Atzerodt, the man whom John Wilkes Booth had tasked with killing Andrew Johnson

A review of PBS’s “From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians”

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

– “The Gospel According to St. John,” Chapter 6, Verse 35 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

The first episode covers the early life of Jesus, acknowledging that he was a real person

I had fairly low expectations going into this film. This film was made by PBS Frontline, a journalistic arm of PBS. Since Will Lyman is the exclusive narrator for PBS Frontline, he was the one chosen to narrate this film. But there actually isn’t much narration, good or bad, to speak of in this film. It’s mostly a discussion among scholars, with the narration used for little more than transitions from one interview clip to the next. They also cut to footage from the Holy Land – which is beautifully photographed here, incidentally. The scholars interviewed here are nice enough people, and manage to avoid being confrontational in their comments. Some of the scholars are Jews or Christians, but most of them are a little skeptical about Christianity – and, in many cases, about “religion” more generally. They paint the Gospel accounts as being a little “contradictory,” relying on some fairly careless readings of the text to do so. They also read too much into certain information, like how Jesus asked to be baptized by John the Baptist. In this example, they interpret this to mean that Jesus was a “follower” of John, and considered the Baptist to be “superior” to Himself. I’m not sure how they managed to read these things into the text, but so goes the argument. It seems to be rather slipshod scholarship, actually, which is unsupported by the text. I’m all right with getting these people on the record, and hearing from them in this film. And, in fairness, some of their arguments are mainstream – although some of them are a little more “creative.” But these people come across as a little too confident in their conclusions. Furthermore, they seem to imply that their opinions are backed by “scholarly consensus,” when this film is actually relying on just a handful of scholars, and giving them great weight.

A review of “Protestant Christianity” (audiobook)

In 1517, Martin Luther wrote the “Ninety-Five Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. Luther may or may not have pinned this document onto the door of All Saints’ Church. Regardless, this is often dated as the beginning of the “Protestant Reformation.” You could argue that there were other proto-Protestant groups before that. However, this audiobook basically begins in the sixteenth century. That is, it begins at the traditional date of the Protestant Reformation in 1517. It then gives a brief overview of some of the major branches of Protestant Christianity. Incidentally, the name “Protestant” comes from past protests against the Catholic Church. Today, relations between Catholics and Protestants tend to be somewhat better than they were in previous centuries. That is, they no longer tend to be violent.