Mexico, Comanche Bands, and the Culture of Texas

Among my summer reads, I'm especially enjoying S. C. Gwynne's new book, Empire of the Summer Moon. As readers have learned to expect, it's the subtitle that tells you what this one is about: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History.

It's like David McCullough wrote a book about the Comanches. It's that good.

But the book isn't just about Quanah Parker and his father's tribe. It also relates a good bit about other Indian tribes, the Spanish in the American Southwest, and the early days of Texas. The following passage is a good sample and relates something that I think is very important about the history and culture of the Lone Star State:

Texas was never supposed to be its own sovereign country. After their victory at San Jacinto the vast majority of Texans believed that their territory would be immediately annexed by the United States. There were a few would-be empire builders like Mirabeau Lamar and James Parker (who volunteered to fulfill Lamar's grandiose vision by conquering New Mexico) who had other ideas. But mostly everyone else wanted statehood. They were soon disappointed. There were two main reasons it did not happen. First, Mexico had never recognized the Independence of its renegade northern province. If the United States added Texas it risked war with Mexico, something that, in 1836, it was not prepared to do. Nor could it easily admit a slave territory.

Texas was thus left alone, broke and militarily punchless, for ten years to confront two implacable enemies: Mexico on the south, and the Comanche nation on the west and north. The fledgling country would never know peace. Mexican incursions persisted; the city of San Antonio was captured twice by large Mexican armies in 1842. Raids were constant, as was the the predation of itinerant bandits from across the border. And Texas's western frontier was the scene of continuous attacks by Comanches. It is interesting to note Texas's peculiar position here: Neither of these enemies would have accepted peace on the terms the new republic would have offered them. Even more remarkably, neither would accept surrender. The Mexican army consistently gave no quarter, most famously at the Alamo. All Texan combatants were summarily shot. The Nermernuh, [i.e., Comanches] meanwhile, did not even have a word for surrender. In plains warfare there was never any such thing; it was always a fight to the death. In this sense, the Texans did not have the usual range of diplomatic options. They had to fight. (p. 131, emphasis is original).

One of many priceless passages.

Glasite Beginnings: Scottish National Religion in the Early Eighteenth Century

This post picks up the topic of my previous entry on Robert Sandeman (1718-1771). Eventually, the student of Sandeman has to go back to his mentor and father-in-law, the Scottish minister John Glas (portrait above). And to understand Glas and the movement he inspired, we have to establish the setting, the religious and political climate of Scotland in the early 1700s.

For many decades, religion in Scotland was dominated by the idea of a national church. For example, the Scots Confession of 1560, written under the guidance of John Knox, clearly united church and state. Chapter 24 takes up "The Civil Magistrate":

Moreover, we state that the preservation and purification of religion is particularly the duty of kings, princes, rulers and magistrates. They are not only appointed for civil government but also to maintain true religion and to suppress all idolatry and superstition. (The Scots Confession 1560, ed. G. D. Henderson, trans. into modern English by James Bulloch, [Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960], 78).

More-elaborate wording is found the Westminster Confession of Faith, which also provides for a national church. Drawn up and introduced during the 1640s, it became the official statement of the Church of Scotland in 1689. As late as 1910, all ministers of the Church were required to subscribe to it. Regarding the civil magistrate the Confession states the following:

It is his duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented and reformed, and all ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatever is transacted within be according to the mind of God. (Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, 4th ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 308).

Similar language is found in the Solemn League and Covenant. For a time this document united the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, declaring them to be of one reformed religion. In 1644, in exchange for military assistance from Scotland, the statement was imposed on all Englishmen over the age of eighteen. Article 3 pledges to maintain the king's authority in the preservation and defence of the true religion. (Documents of the Christian Church, 317).

To the Scottish mind, then, a national church governed under a system of presbyteries and synods was natural. And due to the political history of the Church of Scotland, its national covenant was not so much about religious conviction as it was about patriotic zeal, especially opposition to the old enemy, England.

It was into this world that John Glas was born in Auchtermuchty, Scotland, on September 21, 1695. His family line included many clergymen, beginning with his great-grandfather, William Glas, a favorite of Scotland's King James VI, who would eventually ascend to the throne of England and oversee the translation of the Bible that bears his name.

A devout young man, Glas pursued his preparation for Christian ministry with remarkable zeal. The University of Saint Andrews awarded him the Master of Arts degree when he was still only seventeen years old. Glas later continued his studies at the University of Edinburgh. Although he doubted his own ability and readiness--"My uneasiness in all respects was evident to me" he later wrote--he finally agreed to go through with the exams administered by the Presbytery of Dunkeld. He passed the exams and received his probationary license on May 20, 1718.

The next year, Glas was called to become the next pastor of the small church at Tealing in the Presbytery of Dundee (John Howard Smith, The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion [Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2008], 17-18). As a young preacher, Glas was in full sympathy with the long-established Church of Scotland. During those early years, he considered the Church's presbyterian polity the most scriptural and, therefore, the best form of church government. He completely rejected the episcopal form, referring to it as prelacy, and gave little thought to independency, congregational autonomy, which he regarded as mere confusion and the mother of all the sectaries (Smith, The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion, 187, n. 12).

But he was compelled to reconsider the question when he began a course of evening lectures based on the Shorter Catechism. Question 26 asked, How doth Christ execute the office of king? Glas concluded that, ironically, Christ did not rule as king of the Church of Scotland. Instead, heads of state, often uninterested in matters of the spirit, and heavy-handed members of synods controlled everything.

In time, Glas came to understand the kingdom of Christ as essentially spiritual. He, therefore, rejected the notion of a national church and began to favor the idea of the independent congregation made up of followers of Christ, instead of all the citizens who just happened to live in a certain parish. In the words of Smith,

Stemming from a belief in the essential spirituality of the church, he came to the conclusion that such an institution must be composed of true believers who possessed a real experience of saving grace, who, in compliance with the will of Christ, felt an inevitable compulsion to separate themselves from the world. (The Perfect Rule of the Christian Religion, 21).

As Harry Escott put it, Glas concluded that National Christianity is not New Testament Christianity (The History of Scottish Congregationalism, [Glasgow: Congregational Union of Scotland, 1960], 17).

A radical commitment to the spiritual and, therefore, independent character of the congregation of Christ's people--the separation of church and state, announced by the church--became a hallmark of the group that would come to be called Glasites, and, later, outside of Scotland, Sandemanians.

But this wasn't the only idea that Robert Sandeman inherited from his mentor. More about John Glas another time.

Like a Giant among Dwarfs: Robert Sandeman

On April 17, 1771, Ezra Stiles, then pastor of the Second Congregational Church of Newport, Rhode Island, wrote in his diary about something he had recently seen in the newspapers:

that lately died at Danbury in Connecticutt [sic] Mr Robert Sandeman Founder of the Sect of Sandemanians. He came from Scotland into New Engld Autumn 1764. then about aet. 47. as he then told me.

Stiles (portrait below) would go on to serve as President of Yale College from 1778 until his death in 1795. An influential church leader during his day, he met Sandeman when the Scotsman first arrived in America, landing at Boston in 1764. Even before that time, Stiles and several of his fellow Congregationalist pastors had taken a wary interest in Sandeman and the independent Christian group of which he was the leading light.

It's hardly a stretch to say that Stiles, like many other great men, was interested in just about everything. The same was true of his friend Benjamin Franklin. But not everything captured Stiles' attention as did the life and times and demise of Sandeman. From the diary entry for August 5, 1772:

In the Boston print [i.e., newspaper] of 3d Inst. it is said.

"A Monument has been cut in this Town by Mr. Henry Christian Geyer, Stone cutter at the South End, to be sent to Connecticutt: it is executed on the composit Order with twisted Pillars, and the other proper Ornaments, having a Cherub's Head on Wings, and the following Label from his Mouth Rev. xiv 6, 7. --On the Tomb-stone is this Inscription.

Here lies

Until the Resurrection

The Body of

ROBERT SANDEMAN

A Native of Perth, North Britain,
who in the face of continual Opposition
From all Sorts of Men
Long and boldly contended
For the ancient Faith:
That the bare work of JESUS CHRIST,
without a Deed, or Thought, on the part of Man,
Is sufficient to present
The chief of Sinners
Spotless before God:
To declare this blessed Truth

As testified in the holy Scriptures

He left his Country--he left his Friends,

And after much patient Suffering

Finished his Labors

At DANBURY

2d April 1771,

aged 53 years.

Deigned Christ come so nigh to us

As not to count it shame

To call us Brethren--shall we blush

At aught that bears his Name.

Nay let us boast in his Reproach

And glory in his Cross,

When he appears, one smile from him

Shall far o'erpay our Loss."

The April 3, 1826 issue of The Christian Baptist includes an exchange between a semi-anonymous writer and the editor, Alexander Campbell. The initial letter, says Campbell, was written by one of the most worthy bishops in Virginia; whose standing in the learned world obtained for him the honorary degree of D. D. and whose piety and intelligence refused the title as a badge of popery. That, along with the signature R. B. S., leads to the conclusion that the letter's author was none other than Robert B. Semple, a great leader among the Baptists in Virginia at the time.

In his letter, Semple offers a number of compliments to Campbell as a preacher and writer. He also lists a few thoughtful and well-worded criticisms. Campbell then responds to Semple's letter. Among the points that Campbell takes up is the assertion that he is basically a Haldanian or Sandemanian, i.e. that he is a follower of the brothers Robert and James Haldane; or yet another church reformer from Scotland, Robert Sandeman. In his reply, Campbell acknowledges that he has learned from an array of writers, including the likes of the Haldanes and Sandeman, Luther and Calvin and Wesley. But, he adds, I do not believe that any one of them had clear and consistent views of the Christian religion as a whole.

Then, Campbell says more about Sandeman. He explains that many years before he had taken up a special project. He explored the question of rational versus experiential conversion: When a person initially comes to Christ, which is prior, the mind or the heart? Campbell admits that at the beginning of his studies, he was prejudiced against Robert Sandeman, the champion of rational religion. Instead, he had favored James Hervey, whose popular book Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio breathes the warm spirit of the revivalism of his day. Campbell mentions that, with the Bible nearby, he studied many authors, including Hervey, Marshall, Bellamy, Glass, and Cudworth. But as he went along, he discovered Sandeman to be like a giant among dwarfs . . . like Sampson with the gates and posts of Gaza on his shoulders (228).

So who was Robert Sandeman? And why did he so impress the likes of Stiles and Campbell? More to come in future posts.

Back in CT

Abigail was one of the readers during "Children's Sunday" this week at the Rocky Hill Congregational Church. She did a great job.


Benjamin was one of the seniors recognized that morning.

On Monday, Chloe and I had lunch at Bangkok Gardens in New Haven. Aubrey and Ben don't like exotic Asian food (!), and went for pizza slices instead.

Later that afternoon, I took Ben to see the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library. It houses, among other things, Yale's copy of the Gutenburg Bible, printed in 1455. The book in the background isn't a reflection. It's the other of the two volumes.

D-Day Plus 66 Years

Sunday night after church, on the 66th anniversary of D-Day, I had my picture taken with one of my heroes, Roy Kiser.

Born and raised in the Texas Panhandle, Roy grew up at McLean and finished high school at Groom in 1938. He married in June of 1941. In December of that year, when he and his wife heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor, he knew that his life would soon change. He was drafted into the U.S. Army in September 1943 and immediately went to Camp Fannin, Texas, for seventeen weeks of basic training.

By the Spring of 1944, we was on a ship leaving New York Harbor, zig-zagging to avoid the fire of German submarines just off the U.S. coast. After a 22-day trip across the Atlantic, his group of infantry replacements camped on a high hill in England, taking what he called "a lot of physical training." Later, when he was double-timing behind a tank, he was thankful that his drill sergeants were so hard on the soldiers.

On the afternoon of June 6, 1944, he was a part of a group that landed on Utah Beach, Normandy, France, taking fire. Just a few days after the landing, he was promoted from private to sergeant because of his de facto leadership of an outfit that was moving across the French countryside, one hedgerow after another. A few weeks after D-Day, a huge artillery shell nearly ended his life. After the blast, he walked back to the medic's tent, with blood streaming from his ears and nose, and passed out. Days later, he woke up in a hospital back in England, where he was awarded the Purple Heart.

Years later, when he was working in the meat-packing business in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Roy became one of the elders of the Garnett Road Church of Christ. He says that of all the things he's ever done, he's proudest of the annual Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop, conducted by the Garnett Road Church. He and his fellow elders constantly received letters reporting baptisms, mission efforts, and new congregations that could be traced back to the Workshop.

Some New Testament Resources

Over the last few days, I've taken a closer look at some Internet resources that I can use either for myself, or for the students who are a part of my New Testament course. Here are four:

1. A new scholarly journal called Early Christianity has published all of the content of its first issue online. Volume 1, Number 1 includes "An Editorial Manifesto" and a series of articles that deal with "New Directions in Pauline Theology," as well as some book reviews. Looks interesting. I'm wondering, though, if they'll provide free access to every subsequent issue. I'm thinking they won't.

2. New Testament scholar and Duke University professor Mark Goodacre has a site for his podcasts. I've listened to two or three of them so far.

3. As many have already discovered, Goodacre also hosts a much larger site called New Testament Gateway, an "award winning web directory." It's huge and first-rate.

4. Sometime back, Open Yale Courses posted the videos and transcripts of Dale Martin's lectures in an undergraduate class called "Introduction to New Testament History and and Literature." Ever wondered what it would be like to sit in on an Ivy League N.T. course? This is it.

Money for a Ceiling-Mounted Projector! Now What?

Amarillo Bible Chair recently received a generous grant from a local, private foundation that contributes to educational efforts like ours.

In my request letter, I said that it would be so nice if we could move our classroom projector from a floor stand to the ceiling, and just have it out of the way. They agreed. So now we have the money to make this improvement; and I have the summer to get it done. Only problem is, I have no idea of where to start.

A few of the particulars and some of my questions:

1. We have enough money, I think, to purchase a new projector as well as pay for the mounting hardware and installation, etc. If we go ahead and get a new projector, I'm not sure what we should do with the old one.

2. Also, I'm not sure of what brand and type of projector we need. Our classroom measures approximately 30 x 24 feet. It seats no more than about 30 students. So a projection with a diagonal measurement of about 50 inches is just right.

3. Here in Amarillo, I'm not sure who'd be best for the mechanical and electrical installation.

Any recommendations?

Complete in Christ: Introducting Colossians with Questions and Answers

1. Who wrote Colossians?

In the very first verse the author calls himself Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus (NIV). This is the former Saul, who was called into Christ's service on the road to Damascus (Acts 9: 1-19)

2. If Paul was the author, who was he writing to?

According to chapter 1, verse 2, Paul wrote to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ at Colossae.

3. Colossae. Where was that?

It was in the Roman province of Asia, a region about the size of the State of Arkansas and located at the western end of modern-day Turkey. The site of ancient Colossae is now uninhabited. Prior to New Testament times, it was a major city. But by the time Paul wrote to the Christians there, Colossae had been in decline for many years, and would have been regarded as "off the beaten path." Not exactly colossal. Here's what the site of ancient Colossae looks like today:

4. Most of the time, Paul wrote to churches that he himself had planted. Is that true of Colossians?

No. In 2:1, Paul clearly states that the Colossians had never seen him. And according to 1:6-7, the Christians at Colossae had learned the gospel from Epaphras.

5. So who was Epaphras?

From what we can gather, he was from Colossae (4:12), and had planted the church there. It's safe to assume that he had learned the message about Christ during that time recorded in Acts 19:9-10, when Paul taught every day in the hall of Tyrannus for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

6. If Paul had never been to Colossae, what caused him to write to the church there?

The best explanation is that Epaphras, knowing first-hand the trouble in the church, traveled to Rome where Paul was under house arrest (4:3, 18). Epaphras went there knowing that he could ask for Paul's advice and help. In response to his appeal, Paul wrote the letter we call Colossians.

7. What were the issues in the Colossian church?

Apparently, the congregation had come under the influenced of some impressive but misguided teachers. According to 2:4, these people were capable of deceiving others. In the words of 2:8, they threatened to take the minds of others captive by philosophy and empty deceit.

8. What was this "philosophy and empty deceit"?

Once again, the letter itself, especially chapter 2, is our best source for answering the question. Apparently, the false teaching at Colossae involved a mixture of Jewish and pagan beliefs and rituals. These included the following:

• Abstaining from certain foods and drinks, and observing special days (2:16)
• Worshipping angels, who may have been seen as mediators between God and humanity (2:18)
• Observing general rules that emphasized denial: "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" (2:20-21)
• Harsh treatment of the body (2:23)

9. Why were these beliefs and practices opposed in the letter?

For a variety of reasons. First, in some cases, the doctrine of the misguided teachers was outright error. An obvious example is the worship of angels mentioned in 2:18.

Second, some of these observances may have been right in and of themselves. But in the case of the Colossians, they were kept for the wrong reasons. As Paul explains in Romans 14:1-6, an individual Christian is free to regard one day more sacred than another, so long as he is convinced in his own mind, and so long as he doesn't make what he values an ethic for the entire church.. On the other hand, if a Christian feels compelled to observe certain days in order to remain in God's grace, that Christian is headed in the wrong spiritual direction (Galatians 4:8-11).

Third, and most serious of all, the effect of such teaching was to give place to the elemental spirits of the universe and to downplay the importance of Christ.

10. "Elemental spirits"? What does Paul mean by that?

In his book, Backgrounds of Earliest Christianity, Everett Ferguson helps us to understand what people in the first century assumed about them. As Ferguson explains, long before the time of Christ, many Greeks came to believe that the heavenly bodies were gods. To this day, the planets in our solar system bear the names of pagan gods. The spheres of the universe were under the control of these gods, whose power was unlimited. Of course, the religious thinking and practices of the day were heavily influenced by this view. Much of what people did was designed to protect themselves and to win the favor of the elemental spirits. Evidently, the misguided teachers at Colossae had mixed this view of the world with the Christian view.

11. So what did Paul say in order to correct and warn the Colossians?

Plenty. The first goal was to re-establish the majesty and pre-eminence of Christ in the minds of the Colossians. The word all shows up 24 times in this short letter. In most instances all refers to Christ in some way. Notice, for example, the use of that word in a passage that intensely focuses on the supremacy of Christ, Colossians 1:15-20. According to these verses, Christ is:

• the image of the invisible God and the first- born of all creation (1:15).
• the creator of all things (1:16).
• before all things, and the sustainer of all things (1:17).
• the head of the church, and the first-born from the dead (1:18).
• the dwelling place of all the fullness of God (1:19).
• the one who reconciles all things to God the Father (1:20).

This was the Jesus of whom the Colossians had first heard. This was the Jesus whom they had first received. And they were to live in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as they had been taught (2:6-7). To put it another way, living for Jesus Christ meant not only the right understanding of him, but also right kind of life. This is the subject of the very practical section in 3:1-4:6.

12. What kinds of behavior does Paul emphasize there?

He seems to be writing to a group made up mostly of former pagans. Having referred to a sinful lifestyle, he goes on to say, You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived (3:7). But now, as God's chosen people, the Colossians are to put off the old ways of sin, and put on the new way of righteousness in Christ. They should give special attention, says Paul, to the way they relate to other people and to what they say.

History at Present: Three Major Debates

My last post was about the very beginning of the book by John Tosh, Historians on History (2nd ed., 2009). There I describe what he calls "the fourfold rationale for the study of history" (p. 9). In addition to those, Tosh also describes and provides examples of three major debates that have emerged within the ranks of historians over the last thirty years. These, as I see them, are as follows:

1. History About and/or By Subordinates.

As Tosh explains, "One of the most marked features of Western society since the 1960s has been the success of excluded social groups in securing access to the instruments of cultural power." One aspect of that shift has been that "'invisible' groups, like women and blacks and sexual minorities, have recognized that their own political prospects depend on contesting the national consensus and acquiring a dignified--or 'usable'--past of their own" (9). This change has generated mixed feelings among historians. Conservatives have mostly rejected this development, while other historians have been more welcoming.

2. History: Is It One of the Humanities, or Social Sciences?

As Tosh words the question, "Is history of value primarily as a source of cultural and personal enrichment, or does it hold the key to understanding society and planning social change?" The former option, which is the traditional one, would conclude that history is, therefore, among the humanities. The latter option, generated in large part by "the upsurge of student radicalism and the call for 'relevance'," would conclude that history should be placed alongside sociology and economics as one of the social sciences (11). One of the buzzwords associated with seeing history as a social science is the term "structure." Like sociologists, it is said, historians can and should identify patterns that can be used as interpretive models. Many historians have suspected, however, that following this path would permit the social sciences to impose their explanatory frameworks on virtually all historical research and that history would, in turn, lose its autonomy.

3. History Since the Rise of Postmodernism

Perhaps more than anything else, the work and influence of the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault has led many academics to think of discourse as something that is controlling and repressive. The proper starting point is a place of suspicion. And we're right to mistrust and question traditional historicism. This application of postmodern thinking has led to at least two consequences in the field of history: (A) Historians feel free to apply the literary method called "deconstruction" which asserts that no text can have a single, fixed and coherent meaning. (B) Postmodern thinking has undermined the historian's confidence in the possibility of reconstructing human agency and the events from the past. This has led to "sometimes wholly novel readings" of history. It has also led to the assumption "that provisional interpretations of representations are all that can legitimately be attempted" (13). Not even oral history, the living voice, is exempt from the critique of Postmodernism. What is remembered, and how is it reported? What, on the other hand, is suppressed? These sorts of questions point up the imperfections of individual or even shared memories.

According to Tosh, these three are the big, live issues with which history is wrestling today.

John Tosh on the History of History

One of my current reads is Historians on History: Readings Edited and Introduced, by John Tosh, 2nd Edition (Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2009).

As the titles indicates, this book is an anthology. Tosh lets us listen to various historians as they "reflect in public on the nature of their craft" (p. 1). The "Introduction" provides an overview of the entire book. Tosh begins by discussing "four longstanding and influential aspirations of historians." To get a handle on them, I've given these four aspirations the following titles:

1. History for its Own Sake

Some historians simply want "to discover what happened in the past and what it was like to live in the past" (2). History is interesting. So why not pursue it for its own sake? The author explains that a rigorous, single-minded application of this approach is what has come to be known as "historicism." This method prizes above all the mastery of primary texts, the relevant documents. Secondarily, historicism relies on the ability of the interpreter's "powers of imagination." The historicist sees himself "stepping into the shoes of people in the past." However, this second aspect of what a historicist does often gets downplayed. Otherwise, we're more likely to wind up with eccentric, idiosyncratic presentations. Again, for writers in this tradition, "knowledge of the past is an end in itself, and they have a lofty indifference to the claims of social utility." They see the value of their work in its ability to provide "a storehouse of accumulated human experience for our contemplation and delight" (3).

2. History as a Map of Time

Next are those for whom history is a way of "uncovering the shape of human destiny." Christian writers of the Middle Ages, for example, believed that human history "was a passage from Creation to the Last Judgment" and that a knowledge of history would "inevitably bear witness to this grand theme" (4). (One of the old approaches to the Book of Revelation was to see it as a description of world history from beginning to end). In modern times this progressivist view of history is best exemplified by the thought of Karl Marx. He divided "all history into the successive phases of ancient, feudal, capitalist and socialist, each more 'progressive' than the last" (5). As we now know, the 20th century saw plenty of giant steps backward. Two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Holocaust, and the Cold War weren't exactly hopeful. Together, events like these effectively brought discredit to the progressivist view. Nonetheless, no one since Marx has offered such a comprehensive and persuasive set of answers to the questions with which he was grappling.

3. History as a Political Tool

Then there are historians who subordinate "historical writing to immediate political objectives." In this case, writing history is useful for nation building, or for giving a group of down-trodden people a new sense of self-respect. Remarking on this tendency, Tosh offers an acknowledgement: "No society can sustain an identity or a common sense of purpose without 'social memory' -- that is, an agreed picture of a shared past, which in most cases will be positive, if not inspiring" (6). But, he adds, this sort of story telling almost always wants to go too far, leading to things like American exceptionalism, or to new African nation-states whose historians exaggerate the glories of Africa's past (7).

4. History as Prophecy

Finally, there is the claim "that history offers insights and lessons which arise from the historical record itself, and which historians alone are qualified to teach" (7). According to this outlook, historians are among the most important academics because, after all, they alone can decipher where the world is going based on what has happened in the past. But this approach, which promises something more like prophecy than perspective, begins with a misguided assumption: it assumes that the world and human life and society are more less static. This is the stated rationale for why we can supposedly judge the immediate future based on a knowledge of the past. But it's hardly ever as simple as that. As Tosh remarks, "the future is always open and we need to cultivate a readiness for all contingencies" (8).

Thinking about these four reasons for studying and writing history, it's easy to see why the first one, historicism, has been so attractive in modern times. It's the only one that is not overtly an aspect of power. It makes me wonder, though, if historicism might be some sort of Trojan Horse. "Innocent" history? On the other hand, do historians and the rest of us really want for history to be so innocuous (read: useless)?

So then what are the proper or legitimate reasons for someone writing history? What does this discipline uniquely give us? I wonder. Whaddaya think?

FTD, You and UPS Ain't Smellin' So Good

Unbelievable! On Wednesday of last week I ordered Mother's Day flowers for my wife. The order was confirmed by email. A nice arrangement was to be delivered by UPS on Friday.

Thursday night I went to Oklahoma to spend a few days with my folks. Michele was at home with her girls. When I called Friday evening, she didn't say anything about the flowers (which is what she would always mention first, right?). So I started asking questions. No, she hadn't gotten any surprises that day. No flowers had been delivered.

Of course, FTD's customer service was swamped that night. It was Mother's Day weekend. I was tired and didn't stay on the line long enough to get through.

On Saturday, I reached someone who said that, no, FTD had not received an order from me. When I insisted that they had (but that I didn't have my confirmation with me because I was away from home), the person on the other end of the line changed her tune and said that because of high volume the delivery had been delayed until Saturday. Later that night I talked with Michele. Still no flowers. . . .

On Sunday, I had no luck getting through to FTD customer service. Monday morning my week got busy. Finals, figuring and reporting semester grades, etc.

Finally, I got through today. Spoke with someone I could barely understand. After a long wait, I got a scripted "apology" and a promise that my money would be refunded within "five to seven business days." That's it.

Very frustrating. You've been warned.

Rock-n-Rumble in Altus U.S.A.

The weather was mild in Southwest Oklahoma today, just right for the annual Rock-n-Rumble Car Show in Altus. As my dad and I were looking around at all the custom cars, we met up with Kae Myers. He and his wife, Margaret, are parents to Allan and Neil Myers, two guys I knew well growing up. The photo is of Kae and me and his 1933 Willys custom street rod. Under the hood is a small block Chevy engine with dual 4-barrel carburetors and a supercharger on top. The photo doesn't do the car justice. It's something else. After the show, the cars did a cruise up and down Main Street. Kae invited me to go on the first run with him. What a blast.