History

Scholastic Was Right To Ask A Children’s Book Author To Edit Her Anti-American Introduction, But Nobody Will Admit It

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Maggie Tokuda-Hall was indignant when Scholastic, a publishing giant that distributes books and resources to 90% of the nation’s schools, offered, to license her book, “Love in the Library,” but only on the condition that she edit her author’s note as indicated above. She went public with her accusations that this was an example of unconscionable capitulation to right-wing efforts to “censor” books in school libraries, and now Scholastic is groveling for forgiveness after ” an outcry among children’s book authors,” while several authors and educators consulted by Scholastic condemned the company’s actions, and demanded an overhaul of the editorial process.

Of course, this is an issue being engaged with by only one side of the political divide, whose analysis is wildly skewed by fealty to political correctness and the anti-American movement in public education, fueled in part by children’s book authors (see above) and industry consultants (see above). The New York Times’ “news report” on the matter is, predictably, completely biased, framing what should be an issue stuffed with legitimate arguments on both sides to one where the rights and wrongs of the episode have already been settled by the demands of Leftist orthodoxy. The headline, as is often the case in the Times, frames the story dishonestly: “Asked to Delete References to Racism From Her Book, an Author Refused.”

The author, a Japanese-America, quickly plays her own race-card, telling the Times, “We all see what’s happening with this rising culture of book bans. If we all know that the largest children’s publisher in the country, the one with the most access to schools, is capitulating behind closed doors and asking authors to change their works to accommodate those kinds of demands, there’s no way you as a marginalized author can find an audience.”

Sure there is. Write children’s books that don’t seek to indoctrinate kids and that don’t try to reduce complex historical events to simplistic and misleading narratives.

Continue reading →

Psst! When You’re This Estranged From Human, Societal And Cultural Norms And Standards, No Advice Columnist Can Save You

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The New York Times “Ethicist” got a jaw-dropping inquiry this week:

Nearly a year ago, I began dating two friends — I’ll call them Rachel and Dave — who were already themselves in a relationship. We all had no experience with polyamory. The throuple ended fairly quickly, with no one being at fault; the other two continued to date but broke up not too long afterward. Since then, Rachel and Dave have dated on and off, Rachel and I were casually together and Dave and I have been close friends who sleep together occasionally. There have also been relationships with others outside this group. At times, we have all behaved badly, sleeping together behind the other’s back, knowing the knowledge would hurt the other. Strong emotions, love and pain have arisen on all sides.

Throughout the past year, as multiple complex situations arose, we have all wished for a model of behavior. Monogamy-centered media suggests that one should avoid dating a friend’s ex-partner. Is this correct? And if so, can this concept be universalized? Do Rachel and Dave get “priority,” in that they should be together and I should not pursue either, because they dated first? What do we owe to our romantic partners and friends when the situations are complex?

His advice doesn’t interest me; you can read it here if it interests you. My focus is on the inquirer, predictably signed in as “Name Withheld.”

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “If Cleopatra Was Black, Maybe I Am Too!”

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Once again I am confronted with the phenomenon of a Comment of the Day that is better written than the Ethics Alarms post at issue. This happens a lot (Curmie, today’s author, is a repeat offender). I am torn about it, actually: the comments here contribute greatly to the value of the blog, and my original concept was to create a colloquy of articulate readers interested in ethics who also bring different backgrounds and perspectives to the issues. The high quality of commentary obviously validates that mission; it’s only my fragile ego that suffers. Curmie, like several others who participate regularly here, is an experienced blogger himself. He’s also a better proof-reader than I am (though I found one typo this time, making my day).

But I digress. The topic of Curmie’s Comment of the Day is the controversy over Netflix suggesting that Cleopatra was black in a new series, a matter Ethics Alarms raised in the post, “If Cleopatra Was Black, Maybe I Am Too!”

From here on, it’s all Curmie; I’m just going to sit by quietly feeling inadequate…

***

There are several differences, I think, between this story and the brouhaha over the black Anne Boleyn a couple of years ago.

First is a fundamental difference in the way the casting of a major role was presented. The BBC would have us believe that race doesn’t matter in the casting of the title character in the “Anne Boleyn” mini-series so long as it’s “surprising.” (As you noted, Jack, a block of cheese would also have been surprising in the role.) The forthcoming Netflix series is at least honest that being black (or mixed race and appearing black, in this case) was a prerequisite for an actress being considered for the role of Cleopatra, who almost certainly was, shall we say, significantly lighter-complected.

This is apparent in the nonsensical utterances in the promotional video, in which anonymous voices are treated as authorities. If they had a legitimate historian who supported the cause, that person would be identified as such. That omission is more than a little telling.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Trouble With ‘Do Something!’ Part II”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Saturday is a ghost town on Ethics Alarms these days; I’ve decided to stop obsessing about it, and blog traffic generally, other than with occasional rueful observations like this one. Despite the lack of quantity, Saturday often produces a disproportionate level of high quality commentary and Comments of the Day, such as JutGory‘s observations on the “Do something!” conundrum. I was particularly charmed by his preface, which represented a microcosm of the eternal “Do something” vs “Do nothing” conflict:

“Been going back and forth all day (appropriately, perhaps) about whether I should comment or not). Eventually, the inclination to comment won out, because I think it will do some good. However, my hesitation is based upon the effort it would take to frame a fully organized and coherent response. So, having abandoned that as a goal, there is no reason not to comment.”

Here is JutGory’s Comment of the Day on the post, “The Trouble With “Do Something!” Part II: Applying The Scale.”

***

First off, a few first principles when it comes to action and inaction:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” –Edmund Burke (attribution may be disputed)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for evil men to do nothing.” -JutGory

“All human action is aimed toward some good.” –Aristotle (heavily paraphrased opening lines from the “Nicomachean Ethics”)

“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” –Pascal

The inclination to “do something” is natural because we all view our actions as good and we don’t want to stand by while evil people are causing trouble.

The problem with this mindset is that good people and evil people are often equally stupid.

The people who killed Emmett Till thought they were carrying out some good and they did not want to be one of those good people who did nothing.

Nazis too.

Freedom Riders.

Tea Party Members.

Along with the laundry list of protesters, strikers, and saboteurs.

Continue reading →

The Trouble With “Do Something!” Part II: Applying The Scale

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

As is often the case, baseball led me to an epiphany regarding the recent “Do something!” mania. Bill James, in the 2023 Bill James Baseball Handbook, was discussing the how the tactic of the intentional walk—when a manager orders that an opposing batter be avoided and placed on first base on the theory that the lesser risk is facing the batter after him, even though placing another potential run on base tempts fate—has become increasingly rare, when once it was very common. James writes that this was a bad gamble all along (except in rare situations, like when a team’s best hitter has its worst hitter batting behind him) but was popular because managers and coaches in all sports overuse strategies that “give them control over the flow of action.”

“It’s human nature,” observes James. “It happens in all offices, all businesses. Managers over-manage because letting events take their course feels risky.”

Of course! Upon reflection that seems self-evident, but because I am slow, apparently, I never quite framed it that way in my mind before. Leaders think like managers, and the populations they lead identify assertive action with strong leadership and letting matters take their course with weakness. In truth, deciding that the best course is to do nothing is just as much a proactive decision as “doing something,” and often a more courageous one. But there it is again: human nature. The applicable Ethics Alarms motto is “Human nature is the ultimate pre-unethical condition.”

Continue reading →

And While We’re On The Subject Of Historical Airbrushing, THIS…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Minnesota, which has a lot of explaining to do after inflicting the George Floyd Freakout and The Great Stupid on the nation that have collectively killed thousands, devastated major cities, exacerbated racial tensions and divided public opinion almost to the breaking point, is apparently now trying to recast the whole mess as an act of God, or something.

Of course, if this is the plan, the news media will lead the way. In the above tweet, KARE , the Minneapolis NBC affiliate serving the Twin Cities area refers to the 2020 George Floyd riots that destroyed businesses and devastated large sections of Minneapolis as “the 2020 fires.”

David Strom had a trenchant observation regarding such “journalism” yesterday, noting that,

Continue reading →

Welcome To “Bad Research Theater”!

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Yes, it’s Alistair Cookie, here for another episode—two, in fact!—of that long-running exhibition loved by the confirmation bias-infected and the unscrupulous alike, “Bad Research Theater”!

Episode I : “The Steam Engines of Galapagos“

The eye-opening scholarly paper “The end of the line: competitive exclusion and the extinction of historical entities” has been published the journal, “Royal Society Open Science.” Bruce Lieberman, professor of ecology & evolutionary biology and senior curator of invertebrate paleontology at the KU Biodiversity Institute & Natural History Museum, uses the history of railroad steam engines history to argue against the merits of “competitive exclusion,” the respected paleontology evolution principle that species can drive other species to extinction through competition.

Working with former KU postdoctoral researcher Luke Strotz, now of Northwest University in Xi’an, China, Lieberman found that the fossil record lacks the detailed data verifying competitive exclusion found in the history of steam engines. Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced!

Many years ago, as a boy trying to bring in distant baseball broadcasts at night on my transister radio, I stumbled across a rural evangelist who was ranting about the godlessness of evolution. “Evolution says that if you put a six cylinder engine in your garage and let it sit there for a million years or so, when you come back and check on it, it will have become an eight cylinder engine!” he said, chuckling heartily. I thought that was the dumbest thing I had heard to that point in my life, and it still is in the top five. Little did I suspect that his idea of comparing mechanical objects with live organisms would be adopted decades later by actual scientists.

Episode II : Anything to Throw Them Off the Track

Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Michelangelo Porn

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Oh, let’s start out this rainy weekend (here in Northern Virginia, at least) with an ethics quiz on a theme that will be recurring on Ethics Alarms today if all goes as planned (which it seldom does).

Tallahassee (Florida) Classical School principal Hope Carrasquilla was given a choice between being fired or resigning following complaints by parents over a recent art lesson in the charter school that included Michelangelo’s famous “David” statue and his Sistine Chapel “Creation of Adam” fresco painting.

After all, pee-pees were involved.

The stated mission of the Tallahassee Classical School is “training the minds and improving the hearts of young people through a content-rich classical education in the liberal arts and sciences, with instruction in the principles of moral character and civic virtue.” The school also maintains that “reform of American public education, to be successful and good, must be built on a foundation of classical liberal arts learning.” Presumably parents who enrolled their children in the school were aware of this orientation.

Moreover, it is fair to say that “David” is just about as iconic a symbol of the classical arts as one could name, with perhaps the Venus de Milo being the only competition. Yet after three parents complained about their 6th graders being exposed to images of “David” (and the naked Adam in the Sistine Chapel painting), the school’s principal was forced out.

Conservative Hillsdale College provides the curriculum, training, and resources for the school as well as for other public schools through Hillsdale’s K-12 support. This was not an example of parents rising up against an extreme left-wing curriculum. Yet one of the parents famously denounced “David” as “pornography.”

Your Ethics Alarms Fine Arts Ethics Quiz of the Day is….

Is it inappropriate and irresponsible to display “David” in an art course for Sixth Graders?

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “On The Looming Indictment Of Donald Trump”

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Jim Hodgson takes on, in his Comment of the Day, the unpleasant topic of where the current escalating divisiveness may take us. It immediately reminded me of this New York Times fantasy feature from 2021, where several artists—and you know the ideological orientation of artists—were asked to “redesign the American flag.” One artist wrote,

The colors of our flag are intended to stand for unity, valor and justice. The gray, monochrome flag represents America surrendering to its fall from power and loss of the ideals it once stood for….

He produced this design:

No, that’s not a mistake, that’s it. Another flag was this:

Here is Jim Hodgson’s Comment of the Day on the post, “On The Looming Indictment Of Donald Trump”…

***

“What exactly makes us a country?”

From the perspective of our federal overlords, this country is approaching the big government perfection that has been the objective of politicians since Hamilton first moved us toward empire, and Lincoln and the Radical Republicans advanced the federal hegemony against the interests of the states.

State governments have been largely complicit as well. The South, of course, was forced to remain in the Union by force of arms, and only allowed to “return” to the Union (the one they supposedly could not leave) after they wrote new constitutions acceptable to the US government. The increasing centralization of power in Washington brought the states to line up like hogs at the federal money trough. Acceding to the popular election of US senators and not moving to counter the myriad instances of federal overreach decade after decade, has led us, like the proverbial frog in slowly warming water, to the boiling point we now face. The desired outcome is for us to capitulate our freedom for the “security” of a totalitarian socialist state.

Continue reading →

So John Connolly Secretly Undermined U.S. Efforts To Get Iran To Return Its American Hostages In 1980…

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

As we continue to debate what constitutes stealing a Presidency, Ben Barnes, a former close associate of the late John Connolly—Texas Governor, Democrat-turned-Republican, the man wounded during the assassination of President Kennedy and Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan—revealed this week that he believes he took part in a secret mission by Connolly to sabotage Jimmy Carter’s re-election. Barnes says that Connolly went to “one Middle Eastern capital after another” in the summer of 1980, telling regional leaders to get a crucial message to Iran’s leader that the nation should not release the 52 U.S. citizens taken hostage from the American embassy until after the election, which Reagan would win and proceed to give Iran “a better deal.”

The New York Times has the details here in (for a change) straightforward reporting. As we all know, Reagan won, and won handily. Nobody can know if the hostage crisis was the reason for Carter’s defeat; after all, Jimmy was not having a very successful term in any respect. Nor, apparently, does anyone know if Connolly’s alleged message ever was relayed to Iran, or if it was, whether it had any influence on Iran’s actions.

The Times makes a strong case that Barnes is telling the truth, though Barnes has no diaries or memos to corroborate his account. For one thing, there is no reason for him to make the story up. For another, the Times spoke with four living individuals who confirmed that Barnes, who is now 85, shared the story with them years ago. Another part of the account that tends to make his tale credible is that William J. Casey, the chairman of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and later director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was involved. Casey was a shady figure, and his participation in a scheme like this would be in character. Still, there is no evidence besides Barnes’ word.

Ethics Observations:

Continue reading →