Now here’s a guy whose work seems worth looking into: historian Thaddeus Russell. I hope American heretics here will excuse Heretic TOC for only now catching up with the daringly iconoclastic Russell, but such is the smothering ubiquity of the dominant narrative he may have passed largely unnoticed even in his own country. A couple of items made it under the radar and into the media though: in 2009 a Daily Beast piece on film director Roman Polanski’s “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a girl of 13, called How young is too young?, and in the following year a Huffington Post article, Why I Got Fired From Teaching American History.
The titles alone suggest fireworks, and when he tells us he was “raised by pot-smoking, nudist, socialist revolutionaries as an egghead white boy in black neighbourhoods” we just know we are in for an exciting ride. Dubbed “Bad Thad” by his students at elite Barnard College, Russell showed them:
… that during the American Revolution drunkards, laggards, prostitutes, and pirates pioneered many of the freedoms and pleasures we now cherish – including non-marital sex, interracial socializing, dancing, shopping, divorce, and the weekend – and that the Founding Fathers, in the name of democracy, opposed them. I argued not only that many white Americans envied slaves but also that they did so for good reason, since slave culture offered many liberating alternatives to the highly repressive, work-obsessed, anti-sex culture of the early United States. I demonstrated that prostitutes, not feminists, won virtually all the freedoms that were denied to women but are now taken for granted. By tracing the path of immigrants from arrival as “primitives” to assimilation as “civilized” citizens, I explained that white people lost their rhythm by becoming good Americans. I presented evidence that without organized crime, we might not have jazz, Hollywood, Las Vegas, legal alcohol, birth control, or gay rights, since only gangsters were willing to support those projects when respectable America shunned them….I wanted to show that the more that “bad” people existed, resisted, and won, the greater was what I called “the margin of freedom” for all of us.
And how about this for ringing bells of recognition:
My students were most troubled by the evidence that the “good” enemies of “bad” freedoms were not just traditional icons like presidents and business leaders, but that many of the most revered abolitionists, progressives, and leaders of the feminist, labor, civil rights, and gay rights movements worked to suppress the cultures of working-class women, immigrants, African Americans, and the flamboyant gays who brought homosexuality out of the closet.
The suppressive activities of “good” feminist and gay leaders, especially, have stretched, as we know all too well, somewhat beyond the list of cultures listed here!
Barnard College, as we will gather from the article’s title, would ultimately feel Russell was too hot to handle. He was fired. Barnard’s loss is our gain, though, as he has since written a book, A Renegade History of the United States: How Drunks, Delinquents and Other Outcasts Made America (Simon & Schuster, 2010).
Now, this is all very colourful, rollicking stuff, and Heretic TOC is sure he will enjoy reading it. But can it be enjoyed with a good conscience? After all, one man’s freedom may be another’s enslavement – literally so in the days when white Americans were free to own black slaves. In the Introduction to his book, though, which is as far as I have got at the moment, Russell makes it clear that although he might be fascinatingly “bad” he is not plain evil:
This book does not advocate a renegade revolution. Were the heroes of this book to take control of society, it would be a living hell. No one would be safe on the streets, chaos would reign, and garbage would never be collected. The social guardians are enemies of freedom, but there is no claim here that they are morally wrong. They chose to take the role they believed was best for them, a decision I would like to treat as autonomous of moral claims. More importantly, they provide essential functions that nearly all of us value: safety, security, and clean streets. The argument here is not that “bad” people should replace the disciplinarians but that in American history the struggles between the two have determined the breadth of personal liberty. I make no claims for other parts of the world, where at times renegades have overwhelmed the guardians of order, but in this country the more “bad” people existed, resisted, and won, the more freedom was expanded…
So, we have an element of subtlety and sobriety along with the more free-wheeling themes. That’s intelligent, that’s cool. I can’t wait to see in more detail where Russell is going with all this, and I look forward to telling you all about it – but by all means beat me to the draw if you can, all you crazy, gun-toting, freedom-loving, Wild West cowboys out there!
Some well known non-victim Adulto-Pedo additions to existing links, in G K/Q H-TOC’s & not-bad-Thad’s pieces here.
1957: Myra Brown 12, Jerry Lee Lewis 22. Ex-Adulto non-victim Myra Lewis-Williams, interview 1998, “ It’s Always A Witchunt ! ”
http://jerry9.tripod.com/Myra.htm
1959: Priscilla Beaulieu 14, Elvis Presley, 25. Ex-Adulto non-victim Priscilla Presley, UK TV, interview 2010, ” I wasn’t 16, I was 14 ! ”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjakDTNOztE
1996: Villi Fualaau 13, Mary Kay Letorneau 34. Happily married for 8 yrs yet still Anglo-branded ‘Abuser & Victim’, interview, 2010.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2010/08/13_years_later_mary_k_letourneau_and_vili_fualaau_open_up_to_william_shatner.html
Many (‘mistakenly’, our bracket) believe that Vili continues to be a victim of Mary Kay. Ken Schram of KOMO TV, Seattle wrote, “Not content with erasing Vili’s childhood, the ever-twisted Mary Kay is intent on making sure his adult life is ruined forever.”
There are now numerous hot-for-teacher cases. E.G. ‘Pamela Rogers Turner’, ‘Debra Lafave’.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-x4bybK7yJnM/hot_teacher_busted_for_having_sex_w_students/
We wonder why, devious, manipulative, self-justifying, in denial, so called ‘adult’ Anglo-Fascists always exploiting humanity; somehow still believe they do no wrong.
(Thanks G K/Q H-TOC, we lurve learning from errors, 20+ yrs adrift. Just 217 more words unlike some, and sans links, unlike some.)
And still confused Anglos can’t resist Hamlet. Recently psychoanalysts have examined Hamlet’s unconscious desires, and feminist critics have re-evaluated and rehabilitated the often maligned characters of Ophelia and Gertrude. In Nov 2012, Ryan M. North b. Ottawa, Canada, Oct 20 1980, a writer, computer programmer, T-Shirt designer, songwriter, creator & author of ‘Dinosuar’ web-comics, launched a project to fund a ‘Chose Your Own Adventure’ web-novel entitled ‘To Be Or Not To Be: That Is The Adventure’. A retelling of Hamlet allowing readers to take the role of characters and make their own choices throughout the story.
With likely genesis in the late 1590s, draft 1 of Hamlet, the ‘First Quarto’ is a short and generally inferior early text. The intended publication is entered in the Stationers’ Register in 1602, with Q1 in summer or autumn 1603. Two other early printed texts are the 2nd quarto, Q2, 1604 and Folio, F, 1623. Other quartos from 1604 thru1623 are, in their substantive features, derived from Q2, which, with the folio are more than 1600 lines longer than Q1. All unknown until 1823 when the first of only two known copies was discovered by Sir Henry Bunbury.
Well, I live and learn!
Never better stated than in 1623 by the great Anglo bard (if indeed ’twas a lone scribe from the Bullshit-Breed) “to be or not to be”. [T.O’C. adds pedantically: 1623?? The Bard wasn’t saying a lot at that time, on account of having been dead since 1616. The First Folio of his plays was published in 1623, though.]
The seemingly eternal so called ‘Anglo Puritan’ dilemma. For their still deeply divided and always divisive, bi-polar, schizoid, culture/anti-culture of simplistically created (for their kept-simple flock of Sheeple) easily accessed folksy, ‘Goodies & Baddies’.
Two recent mainstream works might also highlight how ‘disturbed deep denial’ always accompanies their split-psyche double whammy ‘Divide & Rule’ . Never better heard than in the not-so-quiet Western Front trenches of foul stench and mass deaths – for what ? “We are their mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bullshit !”
1. “What the Victorians Did for Us”, 2001 BBC TV docu-tainment examined the impact of the Victorian era on modern society. Concentrating primarily on the scientific and social advances of the era, which bore the Industrial Revolution and set the standards for so called ‘polite society’ today. Our counterblast would be, “What the Victorians Did TO Us”.
2. On the Anglo religiosos ‘work ethic will save us’ (unstated ‘from Anglo mock-Puritan criminals’) check “The Puritan Gift” (I. B. Tauris, 2009) by Ken & Will Hopper. Our counter is, “The Puritan Curse, exploiting humanity thru the ages”.
[T.O.’C.: Right, that’s enough for now, at 208 words excluding my comment. Further 200 deleted, including visual links. Please see About page for policy.]
Rereading Jim (he said to me, “Call me Jim.”) Kincaid’s ‘Child-Loving: The Erotic Child and Victorian Culture’, in which he is clear and I agree that the Victorians didn’t only invent the child they invented the body.
Gack!
Have accordingly ordered in Eve Sedgewick’s ‘Epistemology of the Closet’ . . .
. . . um, yes, while I think of it, ‘The Pearl’ is now available in ebook, every edition . . . now there’s some fun!
Having some familiarity with the politics of History faculties in the UK, I wonder how he would be received in a British university. With quizzical scepticism, I suspect – or perhaps that’s just my reaction. Historians who propose sweeping ‘meta-narratives’ of any sort these days are liable to be greeted with raised eyebrows and some tough questioning in the Common Room. Professor Russell might want to be an iconoclast, but proposing a dialectical struggle between ‘individual’ and ‘community’ – or even ‘civilisation’ and ‘discontents’ – seems rather banal, not to say a bit old-fashioned (wot, no deconstruction of the binary-pair?). Books about rakes and ruffians, whores and sodomites, in British historiography anyway, are pretty much ten-a-penny these days. You can barely move in 18th-century studies (not my field!) for serious tomes about the Georgian Underworld and the Reformation of Manners. Elizabethan Studies is even worse. Perhaps American history faculties are much more conservative – I don’t know. Perhaps British students are less enraptured by the whole idea of ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ than their American peers. Maybe our sympathies are a little bit more with the disciplinarians. But at least ‘Bad Thad’ is honest enough to admit that his curtailed academic career might have as much to do with his personality and temperament as with his ideas. Academic faculties are delicate structures of patronage and fealty. You can swear in lectures and slaughter sacred cows as much as you like, but if you fail to tow the departmental line or pay homage to your feudal lords, you can be out on your ear.
Good comment. So, we are ‘out on our ear’, still writing and publishing as prolifically, or more so given the Internet and entirely new publishibg options, except without the tenured stipend which is all the “feudal lords” can hope to underwrite anyway.
It’s a question of sacrificing personal, scholarly and research integrity for their pittance, isn’t it?
I guess that may be more attractive given few options offered to your English working class wanting a seat in said common room, but when they attempt to fly their “feudal lordships” way out here to the other side of the planet; try to parachute them onto the frontier, into the jungle, expecting the natives to just turn around and kiss their fat hairy arse, just because they are Poms, have a plum in their mouth, I mean, the situation becomes more than somewhat absurdly tragi-comic.
Which is right about where we are with all this right now.
Having written a LOT of colonial frontier history I am more than somewhat inclined to agree with good Thaddeus, except for the fact that my view of the reality is rather more normative than deviant, arising genealogically in the spillout from Europe rather than the frontier itself.
By that I mean, “drunkards, laggards, prostitutes and pirates” were and in many places still are the norm (these days it’s “bikies”, “coons”, “paedos” and what have you), with persistent government efforts across incredibly great distances to render such targets “renegade” and “outlaw” as part of nothing more than ongoing effort at state control; the rhetoric and vocabulary straight from Hollywood for the most part.
All of my academic work over 30 years now, in anthropology and English literature and more recently in criminal justice, has been in response to such bureaucratic encroachment upon our liberties. Invocation of the ‘paedophile’ is merely another in a long series of monsters, manufactured then set in place at the liminal edge of public vision, there to scare the crap out of children of all ages.
As this more recent paedo fright passes, some of us are already sitting back wondering what’s next. What on earth are they going to dream up next, to batter and berate us with?
Enough for now.
A very perceptive contribution, Gil. I’ve wondered who is going to be battered next! Perhaps we should make a point of coming to the aid of those people!