So I have had a few people ask me if I am the sole chef in our house since it is I who posts meals from time to time on this blog. The answer is NO!!! My wife is actually a really good cook (far better than I) and between the two of us we have a good mix of dinners that grace our table.
Now, for those of you who know my wife Elizabeth, you are aware of the fact that she suffers from Celiac disease. Celiac is a stomach intolerance to gluten, which means that our meals (if they include her) must be free of any and all traces of wheat, barley and rye. In short, Elizabeth is unable to eat any breads, most cereals or anything containing modified food starch. Basically anything that tastes good, she gets the shaft.
To compensate, we usually use gluten free recipes in which we substitute rice flour (or something similar) for wheat flour. And if I am being 100% honest, gluten free food can suck depending on the recipe. Usually the breads, doughs, etc. taste more like chalk than anything resembling wheat. Let's face it, wheat is awesome! Using anything as a substitute just doesn't taste the same. Having said that, I am proud to introduce you all to an AWESOME pizza recipe that Elizabeth makes on a weekly basis at our house. It has become so popular that we have installed a weekly tradition that we call, "Pizza Madness!":
Above is her signature barbecue chicken pizza that is, in all honesty, my all-time favorite pizza EVER! Yeah, it's that good. The recipe will be forthcoming. I plan on adding my own twist to "pizza madness" sometime this week!
The following is an email (forward) I received from a friend that has been quite popular over the years. I am sure that you all have seen similar forwards, which try to depict our nation's founding in a 21st century religious/patriotic tone. I chose to post it here to illustrate just how prevalent the "Christian Nation" argument really is. We're not simply arguing semantics here, but issues that many American Christians take very seriously.
A very interesting piece of history. Please take a minute and read on. Do you know what it means?
LAUS DEO
One detail that is never mentioned is that in Washington , D.C. . there can never be a building of greater height than the Washington Monument .
With all the uproar about removing the ten commandments, etc., this is worth a moment or two of your time. I was not aware of this amazing historical information.
On the aluminum cap, atop the Washington Monument in Washington , D.C. , are displayed two words: Laus Deo.
No one can see these words. In fact, most visitors to the monument are totally unaware they are even there and for that matter, probably couldn't care less.
Once you know Laus Deo's history , you will want to share this with everyone you know. These words have been there for many years; they are 555 feet, 5.125 inches high, perched atop the monument, facing skyward to the Father of our nation, overlooking the 69 square miles which comprise the District of Columbia , capital of the United States of America
Laus Deo! Two seemingly insignificant, unnoticed words. Out of sight and, one might think, out of mind, but very meaningfully placed at the highest point ov er what is the most powerful city in the most successful nation in the world.
So, what do those two words, in Latin, composed of just four syllables and only seven letters, possibly mean? Very simply, they say ' Praise be to God!'
Though construction of this giant obelisk began in 1848, when James Polk was President of the United States , it was not until 1888 that the monument was inaugurated and opened to the public. It took twenty-five years to finally cap the memorial with a tribute to the Father of our nation, Laus Deo 'Praise be to God!'
From atop this magnificent granite and marble structure, visitors may take in the beautiful panoramic view of the city with its division into four major segments. From that vantage point, one can also easily see the original plan of the designer, Pierre Charles l'Enfant ..a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape, with the White House to the north. The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west.
A cross you ask? Why a cross? What about separation of church and state? Yes, a cross; separation of church and state was not, is not, in the Constitution. So, read on. How interesting and, no doubt, intended to carry a profound meaning for those who bother to notice.
Praise be to God! Within the monument itself are 898 steps and 50 landings. As one climbs the steps and pauses at the landings the memorial stones share a message.
On the 12th Landing is a prayer offered by the City of Baltimore ; on the 20th is a memorial presented by some Chinese Christians; on the 24th a presentation made by Sunday School children from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6. Praise be to God!
When the cornerstone of the Washington Monument was laid on July 4th, 1848 deposited within it were many items including the Holy Bible presented by the Bible Society. Praise be to God! Such was the discipline, the moral direction, and the spiritual mood given by the founder and first President of our unique democracy 'One Nation, Under God.'
I am awed by Washington 's prayer for America. Have you ever read it? Well, now is your unique opportunity, so read on!
Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Laus Deo!
When one stops to observe the inscriptions found in public places all over our nation's capitol, he or she will easily find the signature of God, as it is unmistakably inscribed everywhere you look. You may forget the width and height of 'Laus Deo ', its location, or the architects but no one who reads this will be able to forget its meaning, or these words: 'Unless the Lord builds the house its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain.' (Psalm 127: 1)
Now, it is always nice to see the "Washington prayer journal" turn up from time to time. It never ceases to amaze me just how many people still believe in its authenticity. What did surprise me, however, was that snopes.com, which is known for debunking email myths, etc. actually asserts this email's authenticity. Let's be clear here: the George Washington prayer journal is a FRAUD! It was fabricated in the mid 1800s by zealots who wanted to portray Washington as a devout Evangelical style of Christian. I don't know how to be any more clear on this matter...it is an OUTRIGHT FRAUD!!! People need to quit quoting from it.
The other point I enjoy is the author's apparent insistence that the inscriptions on the monument were done because it is what the founders would have wanted. We should keep in mind that the Washington Monument was finished almost 100 years after the man's death. As a result, any inscriptions should be taken with a grain of salt. They are more representative of the 19th century's surge in religious fundamentalism than they are of Washington's actual beliefs. In fact, Washington never made such declarations, or anything similar to them, during his life. As Jefferson once stated with regards to Washington's faith:
Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn [Christian] religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he [Washington] never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion.
I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.
To insist that Washington was a devout believer in any brand of Christianity is historically irresponsible. Simply put, the evidence doesn't exist. This "Laus Deo" nonsense is just another typical example of pop-culture's attempt to distort the truth in order to advance an agenda that was never embraced by the founders.
For a thorough overview of Washington's true religious beliefs, I invite you to check out this post that I did a while back entitled, "The Religious Paradox of George Washington." Enjoy!
Ahhh...the crazy, convoluted and downright bizarre world that is American politics! These days I am beginning to feel more and more that George Washington's prophetic message regarding political parties is coming true:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Yes, patriotism, nationalism and even God's "will" are now wrapped up in a political party's stupid partisan doctrine!
And as is common with these political parties, both sides are engaged in a continual tug-o-war over the legacy of our founding fathers. After all, if they can prove that the founders were on their side, everything else is colored bubbles. As a result, you see Democrats and Republicans try to articulate how the founders favored their brand of partisan despotism. Both sides grab a handful of quotes, often out of context, which they feel is adequate support for whatever cause they have taken up.
But most of the time they are just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
Take, for instance, the healthcare debate. If you have even listened to 5 minutes of talk radio, you probably have heard pundits ranting and raving about how "unconstitutional" and "immoral" Obama's plan is. And certainly our founding fathers would be appalled at the President for creating such a massive program...right?
Well, certainly some founders would be upset. Thomas Jefferson, the quintessential small government/low taxes guy, would probably make Obama his new project of disdain and ridicule that only Jefferson could deliver. Other founders, however, might not feel the same.
In 1798, for example, Congress passed a law "for the relief of sick and disabled seamen." Under this law, tax funds were used to establish several hospitals where sick and injured seamen were able to receive government-funded healthcare. Eventually this program grew to include other groups of American workers, most notably members of the Merchant Marines. For many of our founders (most notably J. Adams, A. Hamilton and even G. Washington) the health of America's workforce was of paramount importance and was, at least in some form, even a responsibility of the federal government to safeguard. Historian Gautham Rao further explains why this issue was of importance to the founding generation:
That the federal government created this health care system for merchant mariners in the early American republic will surprise many. This is due in no small measure to the tenor of political debate about health care in American society. Advocates of government structured, universal health care plans claim that the times are too fast and costs too high to return to the old days of "pay-as-you-go" care. Deregulationists counter that only by removing the stamp of government from health care can society relive the great success of decades and centuries past. Both sides presuppose that government regulation and provision of health care is a new development. But the story of the marine hospitals in the early American republic suggests that the United States has a long history of using institutions to manage public health. Through the marine hospitals, the federal government used health care to regulate a crucial labor force in an age of maritime commerce. Treating sick and disabled merchant mariners helped stabilize the maritime labor force. More broadly, through the marine hospitals, we witness the actual points of interaction between government, community, and individuals. A glimpse within hospital walls reveals the rich, diverse personal experiences of working in, or being treated in, an early federal marine hospital. To be sure the marine hospitals were effective instruments of politics and policy. But within the marine hospitals, medical practice and administration was far more than an abstract tool of political economy. Rather, the stories of sickness, injury, admission, treatment, resistance, and regulation that characterized life within the marine hospitals reveal how the federal government shaped the social, economic, and political order of the early republic to a degree scholars have only just now begun to appreciate.
In fairness, it's important to note that while some of the founders did support at least a small type of national healthcare, this doesn't necessarily mean they would agree with something on the scope of Obama's plan. Perhaps they would, perhaps not. One could easily see somebody like Hamilton or Adams, who advocated for a strong national government, possibly being in favor, while men like Jefferson and Madison would most likely be beside themselves with anger over such a plan. In the end we'll never really know. I suppose that ascertaining the founders' position on national healthcare would be akin to uncovering their opinion on atomic energy. Different times have different problems.
And it is for this reason that appealing to the founders isn't always the best idea. Or as Jefferson put it, "The earth belongs to the living, not the dead."
The First World War. By John Keegan. (New York: Vintage Books, 1998. Pp. 427).
"The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict." This opening sentence to John Keegan’s bookThe First World War serves as the prevailing thesis for the duration of his book. By suggesting that the First World War could have been avoided, Keegan invites the reader to join him in an in-depth look into the origins, causes, and consequences of Europe’s "Great War." In this work, Keegan rejects the notion that the First World War was an inevitable conflict between rival superpowers, but insists that the growing trends of nationalism, combined with the massive military/industrial buildup of the various European nations, brought already existing tensions to a frenzied crescendo. As a result, cooler heads were unable to prevail over the supercharged militaristic intentions of the differing European powers.
Though primarily written as a military history, Keegan provides a good amount of scholarly insight into the origins of the First World War. Keegan’s prose effectively sheds light on the true nature of the First World War, which he claims is often overshadowed by the subsequent Second World War. Keegan insists that both world wars can and should be understood jointly, as opposed to the traditional view of separate world conflicts:
The derelict fortifications of the Atlantic wall...the decaying hutments of Auschwitz...A child’s shoe in the Polish dust...are as much relics of the First as of the Second World War.
Though separated by roughly two decades, it was the First World War that sharpened the resolve and fury of the Second World War. Or as Keegan put it, "The First World War inaugurated the manufacture of mass death that the Second brought to a pitiless consummation."
The initial chapters of Keegan’s book focus on the origins of the First World War. Keegan points out the fact that early twentieth-century Europe actually saw itself as a relatively peaceful and civilized society. International dependence in the economic, religious, and political arenas created an imaginary sense of stability between the various European powers. These illusionary factors, however, were unable to prevent the turbulent tide of nationalistic and militaristic development, which propelled Europe to the avant-garde of warfare. Once one nation started down the path of military development, its rival powers soon followed. Such an atmosphere of militancy made any effort to keep the peace progressively more difficult. As Keegan points out:
The tragedy of the diplomatic crisis that preceded the outbreak of fighting...is that events successively and progressively overwhelmed the capacity of statesmen and diplomats to control and contain them.
In essence, diplomacy was held at bay by the aggressive agendas of militarism.
Along with presenting the origins of the conflict, Keegan effectively demonstrates the impact that the First World War had on shaping European identity. Throughout the text, Keegan strives to depict the “Great War” as one of the preeminent international events that propelled the world into modernity. According to Keegan, the development of nationalism and military might essentially pushed aside the rational ideology left over from the Enlightenment. As a result, an injection of nationalistic fervor infected Europe’s populace, creating an atmosphere of patriotic loyalty. Keegan alludes to this fact when he writes of how each nation’s citizenry rallied behind the war:
Crowds thronged the streets, shouting, cheering and singing patriotic songs. In St. Petersburg...the entire crowd at once knelt and sang the Russian national anthem. In Germany, the flag was carried higher than the cross.
Keegan’s description of the war itself gives the reader a full view of its dramatic impact. Since virtually every European nation believed that the conflict was to be short, the general public was utterly shocked to its core once reality set in. The sheer terror of seeing so many soldiers killed or maimed caused soldiers to desert and citizens to reassess where their loyalties stood. As Keegan points out:
Civilian discontent fed military discontent, just as the soldiers’ anxieties for their families were reinforced by the worries of wives and parents for husbands and sons at the front...nationalism and popular patriotism took its appropriate back seat to basic human needs and desires.
The war’s violent impact brought the once fevered nationalistic chants to a dull roar. As Keegan suggests, the war’s lengthy duration, combined with its bloody outcome, left the masses in a virtual daze. Gone were the days when massive crowds gathered in public squares to thank god for their nationalistic superiority. Instead, families and friends came together to bury their dead and pray for an end to the violence. One's nationality barely mattered anymore.
Keegan’s work takes a bold stand against the traditional historiography of the First World War. Instead of seeing the war through the traditional lenses of military greatness and national pride, Keegan seeks a different rout of understanding. As he states in the book’s final pages:
Why did a prosperous continent, at the height of its success as a source and agent of global wealth and power...choose to risk all it had won for itself and all it offered to the world in the lottery of a vicious and local internecine conflict?
It is likely that the various European powers that participated in the conflict would respond by invoking their nationalistic and militaristic duties to protect and defend their respective homelands as a justifiable reason for declaring war. Keegan, however, would likely respond by using the same words that he chose to begin this book: “The First World War was a tragic and unnecessary conflict.” Or as George Bernard Shaw put it:
Patriotism is your conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it.
Well, I'm back with another "Glenn Beck Check" sooner than I thought I'd be. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of politics. Contrary to what you may think, I don't really care about too many issues. Don't get me wrong, I have a select few that I get passionate about, but for me most of politics is a live and let live prospect. I don't really have an opinion on health care, global warming, or all the other hot-button issues of today.
But let me tell you what DOES get my blood boiling. For whatever reason (probably because I spent several years in school on this topic and have made it my #1 hobby in life) I HATE IT when people misrepresent history to fit their own biased agenda, and it is exclusively for that reason that the Glenn Beck Check is back so soon after my last installment. Now in fairness, Beck is far from the first person to twist basic historical facts to fit his agenda. The "hijacking" of history (particularly that of our Founding Fathers) is as old as the United States itself. However, Beck has such a large platform and has so many people convinced that he is the true "guardian" of America's "true heritage" that so many of his followers accept his nonsense at the expense of tossing actual historians to the curb (and who is calling who dumb?).
Which leads me to Glenn Beck's show from last night. Did you catch it? Or were you too busy doing something else...like clipping your toenails or stabbing yourself in the throat with hot needles? Well, fortunately I am here to get you caught up. On last night's "stellar" program, Glenn Beck assembled a panel of "experts" (Beck called them "the best minds available") to debate a number of issues. And it just so happens that one of those "experts" was none other than DAVID BARTON! In case you are unfamiliar with who Barton is, he's an Evangelical activist who passes himself off as an expert historian of the American Revolution. The man has made millions off of fabricating, misrepresenting and misinterpreting history, all in an effort to portray the Founding Fathers as hard-core Evangelicals themselves (and his fans eat that crap up). He's the most outspoken advocate of the "Christian Nation" thesis that gets tossed around these days by religious conservatives. His "books" and other "scholarly" material have been debunked on so many occasions that you almost feel sorry for the guy. Simply put, his blatantly transparent agenda and personal history of horrific research has left Barton with zero credibility to speak of.
But apparently Beck forgot that memo because here he is on last night's show. Just a note, only pay attention to the first 2 minutes. That's all I am interested in:
So what feelings do you get when you hear about Congress "printing a Bible" and Thomas Jefferson speaking of "our Lord, Christ?" Probably pride, patriotism, solemnity, reverence, etc., right? Well, we all like having those moments, especially when we are talking about our God and our country (and for the record I am all for that). But here's thing, there's the tinsy-winsy problem that NONE OF IT IS TRUE!!! Wha-wha-wha-WHAT!!! Brad, are you suggesting that Glenn Beck, Mr. Thomas Paine reincarnated himself, would dare to lie on his show??? NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Besides, what's the big deal? It's just a bible that we're talking about here.
Slow down, cowboy! Let's take this one step at a time. First, let's dissect these two blatant lies one at a time. Up first, the "American Revolution Bible."
Congress' "Bible"
In the clip above, David Barton WOWS Glenn Beck (and we all know how hard that is to do) with his old and torn copy of what he calls, "the American Bible." He goes on to mention that it was congress itself that authorized and printed these bibles, which were then distributed to the American citizenry, with specific emphasis in the nation's schools. Well, to be perfectly frank, Barton jumped off the boat and miss the ocean on this one, and Beck ate it up hook, line and sinker.
Here's the truth about this Bible. A Philadelphia printer by the name of Robert Aitken petitioned Congress for permission to print the Bible here in America. His hope was that he would be able to gain congressional sanctioning for his bible, especially since American printing was basically in the toilet at this time and getting books from Britain was impossible...because of that pesky Revolutionary War. Well, Aitken continued to hound Congress with a countless number of petitions asking for approval and congressional sanctioning for his bible. He never got it. What he did get, however, was a congressional endorsement of his printing. Again, American printing sucked at this time and Congress needed to get it moving. Aitken's ability to mass produce a book as large as the Bible demonstrated that American industry and independence was becoming a reality. As a result, Congress was happy to promote Aitken's printing...but NOT his Bible. And again, Congress didn't print the book, Aitken did, using his own time, resources and money. Congress never gave him a thing...except perhaps a pat on the back for his ingenuity in printing.
So how does Barton come to his conclusions? Well, the first thing he does is mess up his dates. On a number of occasions (not present in the video above) Barton tries to argue that Congress began printing these bibles in 1782, immediately following the victory of Yorktown. The problem, however, is that Aitken had already begun printing as early as 1779, a full three years BEFORE victory at Yorktown. In addition, Barton's claims that Congress "recommended" the Bible is simply Aiken's overzealous and presumptuous move to give his Bible more credit than it deserved. Congress NEVER approved of it. Now, Barton claims that there are "congressional records" which show that the Bible was approved, specifically to be "A neat addition to the Holy Scriptures for use in our schools." The only problem (and he conveniently omits this part) is that these "records" are Aitken's letters to Congress! In other words, Barton's research is so bad that he actually considers Aitken's petitions as "Congressional documents." This would be like you or I petitioning Congress for a new car by stating that it would be "a neat addition to my front driveway", having Congress refuse the petition, and then using that same letter we sent as proof that Congress was for it! Barton is king of this kind of research because he knows his audience will never bother to check his sources.
Ok, that's sort of the ultra-condensed rebuttal of Barton and Beck's stupid "American Bible" nonsense. Here is a much more thorough overview by a lady named Chris Rodda, author of the book, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate View of America History. Ms. Rodda has spent a great deal of time in debunking Barton and this video will eliminate any doubt that might exist as to whether or not Beck and Barton know what they are talking about:
If that were the only lie it would be bad enough. After all, people love to eat up stuff like "Congress printed a Bible" and other crap like that. Well, sadly, Beck and Barton sunk to an even lower level. They actually attempted to make Thomas Jefferson (my favorite founder) look like a Christian. Now, for those of you who know anything about Jefferson's religion you know how insanely silly this is. It's so stupid that it defies reason. Insinuating that Jefferson was a Christian is like saying that Beck is smart. In the video, Beck flashes around a letter from Jefferson which concludes with the phrase, "In the year of our Lord, Christ." That's it. Nothing more. And from that singular line they insinuate that Jefferson was not the unbeliever we think, since he added "Christ."
Well, here's the thing. As is the case with all presidents, rarely if ever do they actually write the documents they are signing. They simply have somebody else (like a secretary) write if for them. Jefferson didn't write this letter, he just signed it. In addition, concluding documents in the 18th century with "In the Year of our Lord" was extremely common. You can find thousands upon thousands of examples of such a formality from renowned atheists of the day. Ending a letter like this was standard operating procedure, but apparently Beck and Barton have such poor context when it comes to their history that they missed this obvious fact. Furthermore, this would be like insinuating that all of us today worship the god Thor because we sometimes label our letters with the date "Thursday." After all, Thursday is named after Thor, just like Monday is named for the Norse goddess Mani. But who among us would be stupid enough to suggest that somebody worshiped Thor because they mention Thursday in a letter? Well, this is basically what Barton and Beck are doing.
But just so people are clear on Jefferson's faith, here are a few quotes that are far more concrete than some stupid, random letter that Jefferson only signed:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
"I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians."
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
And why does all of this matter? It's simple really. Anyone who needs to embellish the past to make their case seem more credible is a fool. In addition, and perhaps even more important, this "Christian Nation" movement to characterize our founders as something they are not reeks of theocracy. The desire to strip away the separation between church and state would be like wanting to strip away the founders themselves. Yes, this simple two-minute segment is indicative of much more, and Glenn Beck of all people should know that. Heck, he's the loudest voice out there crying about "history revisionists" not telling us "our true history."
Congrats, Mr. Beck. It looks like you have officially become the "progressive" of history revision, along with your new buddy, David Barton!
Once again, happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone! On this day, the good deeds of Ireland's favorite missionary (and slave) are hailed by one and all (except for some Protestants) by wearing green, clipping on a shamrock lapel pin, and drinking Guinness Beer. And while most know the general story surrounding dear St. Patrick, few these days are aware of the origins of many of its popular symbols.
The Shamrock
As is the case with most other popular holidays (click here and here), many of the symbols of St. Patrick's Day are heavily rooted in pagan origins. And of course the most popular St. Patrick's Day symbol is the shamrock. Often associated with Christian symbolism (many suggest that St. Patrick himself used the three leaves of the shamrock to explain the Trinity) the special nature of the shamrock is actually much older. In Celtic lore, the number three is a significant and holy number. Instead of representing the three parts of the Christian Trinity, the shamrock held pagan significance for its representation of sky, earth and underworld. In addition, it's important to point out that Celtic symbolism was highly dependent on number sequences. Also, the pagan goddess Brigit, whose sacred number is often either 3 or 9, had special significance when it came to the shamrock. Celtic beliefs were also deeply dependent on magic enchantments and lucky charms. And since the shamrock was easy for both the rich and the poor to obtain, it became a popular "lucky charm" to carry around (incidentally, this helps to explain why a 4-leaf clover is/was seen as popular. It was a rare gem that represented even greater luck).
The Leprechaun
And of course, what would St. Patrick's Day be without Leprechauns! Originally (at least according to Celtic lore) leprechauns were sometimes considered to be sea creatures that would grant three wishes (there's that #3 again) to anyone who could catch them. Later, however, the leprechaun evolved into a mischievous, miniature fairy who made shoes, protected pots of gold and, interestingly enough, wore RED!
Contrary to popular belief, the shamrock is not the official symbol of Ireland. The harp has that all-important distinction. In Medieval Ireland, the harp took on special significance, since it was believed that its music could commune with the gods. As a result, harp players were usually from the nobility and carried tremendous importance in Irish society. In addition, since the harp's music was considered the language of the gods, many harp players had their eyes removed, since it was believed that looking upon god was unacceptable.
So the next time you take a look at one of these "lucky charms" remember that you are in good company. They go back a long way indeed and carry powerful "magic." No wonder the Irish always get mad about "people after me lucky charms!"
And why all the green? Check out this post for that answer.
Yes, another lovely holiday of drinking, shamrocks, leprechauns and pots of gold is upon us! And while it's fun to enjoy the wonderful symbols of the day while adorning one's self in their favorite shade of green, let us not forget that St. Patrick's Day has a unique history that might surprise some.
The origins of Boston’s Irish community stretch back to the early 18th century when considerable numbers of Ulster Presbyterians came to New England in search of economic opportunity and the religious and political freedom which the Penal Laws denied to Dissenters and Roman Catholics alike. Merchants and artisans of Ulster stock founded the Charitable Irish Society in 1737 with the express purpose of assisting fellow Irish immigrants in the traumatic process of settling in a strange new city and country.
Interestingly enough, these Irish immigrants from Ulster were NOT Catholic but Protestant. Their Presbyterian beliefs had also incorporated the St. Patrick's Day holiday as more of an expression of cultural heritage rather than a recognition of Catholic tradition.
Approximately three decades later, New York City became host to the first ever official parade commemorating the celebration of St. Patrick's Day in America. On that day, Irish soldiers, serving in the British military, marched proudly through the streets of New York, while eager crowds gathered to praise their bravery during the Seven Years' War (French & Indian War) and to recognize their Irish heritage.
What? Where did the green go, you ask? How unpatriotic of me you say! Well, the answer is actually based in the history of this day. It was during the early part of the 17th century that the celebration of St. Patrick's Day became an officially recognized feast of Ireland. During those first centuries, St. Patrick was regularly recognized with the customary blue, since blue was regularly associated with the ancient colors of Ireland. It wasn't until many years later that the "wearing of the green," meaning to wear a shamrock on one's clothing, made its appearance, thus forever changing the "official" color of St. Patrick's Day.
And perhaps we should change the blue to orange, since many Protestants actually chose to wear orange on this day as a symbol of defiance. And while this tradition is still continued by some Protestants to this day, it is interesting to note that many attribute the wearing of orange to William of Orange (William III), who defeated the Catholic King James II to take over the throne of England. Perhaps those who credit William III should remember that the "Orange" in William's nickname has nothing to do with the color, but the French province in southern France. In fact, the orange color in Ireland's flag is actually used to recognize Ireland's Protestant minority.
So should we start pinching those not wearing blue...or orange???
A rare video of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow taken moments after their fatal encounter with law enforcement. Taken May 23, 1934:
Lacking modern apprehension techniques, and considering the fact that Barrow had already killed nine law enforcement officers in a two-year period, it is understandable why so much force was used.
It's been a while since I posted anything in this series of propaganda/racist cartoons. Just haven't bothered to look around I guess. Anyway, here's one from 1932 entitled, "Uncle Tom and Little Eva" that is a pretty obvious demonstration of the racial stereotypes of that era:
