Sunday, September 15, 2019

Monday, September 15, 1919. Things educational.

Bancroft Hall, United States Naval Academy, September 15, 1919.

The Deutschland on exhibition at Yarmouth, England.

Gasoline Alley for September 15, 1919.  Others may have returned to school, but the gang remained on vacation. What's of note here is that Walt is depicted as shaving with a safety razor.  Safety razors were relatively new at the time and still coming into universal use with shavors, competing against straight razors.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: First Baptist Church, Denver Colorado

Churches of the West: First Baptist Church, Denver Colorado:

First Baptist Church, Denver Colorado


This New England style church is located in the Capitol Hill district of Denver. I don't know much about it otherwise, but it is right across the street from the Capitol Building.


Updated photograph from a different angle, as I happened to be going by it at a later date than that, five years ago, when I first photographed it.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

The Best Posts of the Week of September 8, 2019

The Best Posts of the Week of September 8, 2019

Speaking of 4x4s. . .


Movies In History: A River Runs Through It.


Taking a second look at mental well being. A couple of thoughts...disabling the cell phone. Was, Lex Anteinternet: On taking and not taking vacations.


Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye


1st Division Parade, New York City, September 10, 1919.


The Enigma of Western Writers.


The third option in Afghanistan


What are you reading?


To rebuild, or send packing . . .


Friday Farming: "One of the Family"


The 2020 Election, Part 2


The Black 14 & the First Amendment


Hills to Hibachi



Poster Saturday: Back to work. . . back to school. . . back to books.


A Depression era poster promoting books, now that summer was over.

Today In Wyoming's History: September 14, 1919

Today In Wyoming's History: September 14, 1919: 1919  Game Warden Buxton was shot in the course of his duties.


Violence against Wyoming Game Wardens has been incredibly rare and very, very few have lost their lives in the performance of their duties.  Buxton was one of them.  He responded to reports of gunshots near Rock Springs, encountered two  individuals, and after informing them, Joe Omeye, that the hunting season confiscated a rifle from him. The day being a Sunday, Buxton reported to the incident with his wife.

While putting the rifle in his car he was called by Omeye who shot him with a pistol that he'd been carrying concealed.  The shot wounded Buxton who called for his wife to give him his gun.  Omeye then shot at Buxton's wife but missed, and she fled for help.  Help arrived too late and Buxton died on the way to the hospital. 

Omeye was convicted of Murder in the Second Degree and served time in the Wyoming State Penitentiary to twenty years in the penitentiary.

He initially served only four years before being paroled, providing proof that the common perception of serving being light only in modern times is wrong.  He violated his parole, however, and was returned to prison to be released again in 1931.

Omeye's companion, John Kolman, was not arrested and must not have been regarded as implicated in what occurred in any fashion.  An Austrian immigrant, he died in Rock Springs at age 93 in 1968.

Hills to Hibachi

Holscher's Hub: Hills to Hibachi

Hills to Hibachi




Wading

Wading

Wading



Blog Mirror: Denver Public Library: ROOTIN' FOR (WYOMING) COWBOY FOOTBALL

ROOTIN' FOR (WYOMING) COWBOY FOOTBALL

Friday, September 13, 2019

Friday Farming. September 13, 1919. Gum and Global Commerce

Men with barge-loads of bundled blocks of chicle in Belize Harbor.  Scientific American, September 13, 1919.

Odd to think of in context.  Chicle is a constituent of chewing gum. And it grows in the tropics.  Here, in 1919, we see that already there was a global trade in agricultural products.

Of course, there had been for centuries, even millennia. Which makes pondering the cost of things, interesting.

The Black 14 & the First Amendment

Friday Farming: "One of the Family"


An English painting of a highly romanticized farm family.  Would that life would be routinely like this. . .

The vintage military Land Rover pass in review.









Far from home and out of context, a nice British military Land Rover spotted on the street.

Thursday, September 12, 2019

To rebuild, or send packing . . .


that is the question.

This is our 1997 Dodge D1500.  We bought it used six years or seven years ago in anticipation of my son reaching driving age, which he was almost at, at the time.  The first several months we had it, I drove it as a daily driver, then when became old enough to drive, he took over driving it.

It's always been somewhat laggard on the highway but its been more noticeable recently.  And the check engine light has been on.  We determined to replace it, but my son likes standard transmissions (as do I), and finding an old standard that I'd regard as reasonably priced has been difficult.

Indeed, due to changes in how cars are sold, just finding an old truck around here is proving difficult.  Everything on the lots is pretty new, and that's more than we want to spend.  Indeed, that caused me to consider replacing my own Dodge D3500 diesel that has 165,000 miles on it (this D1500 has about 155,000. . . but on a gasoline engine).  Prices for new pickups, however, are really high.  More distressing yet, as I have the same affliction on transmissions, the options are really limited and basically only the new Dodges, which I do like, are an option. . for the current year only.  After this year, the standard transmissions will be a thing of the past.

Anyhow, last Sunday the matter reached a head.  My son has had my wife's SUV at university and we were going to load up his D1500 with some things and take them down.  After picking them up I noticed a rattle.  We took off but about 80 miles out, due to load shifting, I got out and found that the front wheels were very hot to the touch.  And the whole way the truck had been lagging.  I already knew that one cylinder has only 70 lbs of compression when it should have 120.

So we came back.

Turns out that the front brakes are shot and a u-joint is dangerously worn out.

So here's the question, now that this is at critical mass and I must do something, what should I do?  As I can't find a standard transmission truck around I'm seriously considering having a rebuilt engine put in or having the engine rebuilt  Two shops that put rebuilds in discouraged me from doing so on the basis that it has 150,000 miles on it and next thing you know, other things need to be replaced as well.  A third shop that actually rebuilds engines, however, did quote me an attractive price.  As it is, the front end is now being effectively rebuilt as it will have new brakes and good u-joints and I've asked them to look at the steering, which seems a little sloppy to me.

A friend who did this with a Volvo and got 300,000 miles out of it some years ago counsels that his having that engine rebuilt. .. twice, was a mistake.  He spent more doing it than he got out of it. But money is going into it now anyhow.

And so now the decision must be made.

September 12, 1919. Colleges, cities and fields.

Cardinals Gibbons and Mercier at St. Charles College, Catonsville, Md., Sept. 12, 1919

Cardinal Mercier was a Belgian Cardinal and scholar.  Kept under house arrest by the Germans during the war, he was touring the United States at the time in a mission to raise fund to replace the library at the University of Leuven, which had been burned by the Germans during the war.

Winter Haven, Florida

Florida scenes were being photographed on this day as well.

Haines City, Florida

A victory parade was held in Washington D. C., with the President absent as he was touring the nation in support of the Versailles Treaty.  General Pershing again lead the parade on horseback.


I don't know for sure, but I suspect that this may have been the last American victory parade lead by the commanding general of the American troops on horseback.

On an ominous note, Adolph Hitler achieved prominence on this day within the proto Nazi Party when he engaged in an argument at a meeting of the German Nazi Party with a visitor.  Hitler was at the meeting as an intelligence agent for the German Army, who was keeping tabs on radical parties.  By that time, however, he'd become radicalized himself and became upset when a visitor questioned the anti capitalistic theories of the party.  His speech impressed the party members who encouraged him to join which his Army superiors then ordered him to do.

The Gasoline Alley gang was fishing while on their vacation camping expedition.


1919 Motor Convoy

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

The third option in Afghanistan



Over the past few days the United States came surprisingly close to obtaining a "sustainable solution" in Afghanistan.

"Sustainable solution" is the phrase used repeatedly by a former government official who was interviewed on NPR on Sunday, when the news broke that the U.S. had called off a meeting with the Taliban that was scheduled to occur at Camp David and which would likely have resulted in that "Sustainable solution".

"Sustainable solution" means a surrender.  More specifically it means that special type of American surrender which allows the public to wholly ignore that the country surrendered and allows an administration in charge to pretend we didn't surrender.  It is, therefore a duplicitous surrender.

Throughout the weekend shows and on to the week the news was fully of analysis about how there were only two options in Afghanistan.  One is surrendering, which isn't what anyone calls it, and the other is keeping on with our low grade commitment. The US has only 5,000 soldiers in Afghanistan at the moment which frankly isn't much, and it isn't enough.  The Trump Administration, in calling off the talks, noted that the U.S. did so as an American soldier had been killed in the days leading up to the Camp David meeting, which was regarded as inappropriate for a negotiating party, while also noting that during the past few days the NATO commitment to the war had killed 1,000 Taliban combatants, which if true would be the equivalent to 1/5th of our own commitment to the war and would also equal about 1/3d of the total number of casualties we've had in the entire 20 year war.

Which brings us to the third option.

We could, and should, actually go ahead and win the war.

First let's state two obvious facts.  One is that if we pull out now, no matter how we term it, Afghanistan will fall back into a brutal Islamic theocracy run by the Taliban.  The second fact is that we've fought the war very badly.

Okay, the first.

We went into Afghanistan in the first place as the country had fallen into the hands of the Taliban and they hosted Al Qaeda.  The attacks on our country that took place on this day in 2001 were planned and stages from Afghanistan.  Afghanistan hosted the Al Qaeda as the Taliban shared the same Islamist view of the world which holds that all opposed to Islam in any fashion are infidels to be conquered by the sword.  It isn't the only view of the world that Muslims hold but it is well grounded in Islamic tradition and theology.  Many Muslims would dispute the last point, but Islam is a religion that is badly fractured into various groups, not all of which hold the same views on certain tenants, including whether there needs to be a Caliph and whether armed expansion of the religion is a central tenant.  The further a person goes, geographically, from the origin of the faith the less likely is it that its adherents hold those views.  But those views are not far removed from those which developed during Mohammed's lifetime or shortly thereafter and while there hasn't been a unified Islam since Muhammad's death, the feature of a violent expansive Islam isn't new to this era, nor has there ever been an era without it since his death.

But there has also often been a different view in which Muslims on a local level didn't pay much attention to those matters and rather focused on others.  Even early on this was the case.  That drama is playing out in Afghanistan now and has been since the Soviet invasion of the country wrecked it.

We easily shoved aside, but that's all we did, the Taliban when we came in with a badly planned and badly lead intervention following the September 11 attacks.  That allowed the tribal elements that opposed the Taliban to fill the vacuum. But we never wiped out the Taliban, even though we largely did Al Qaeda, and its fought on. And fighting on in a country that's in a state of reversed development that's so extensive that it's development has regressed hundreds of years has not been hard for it.  It now controls huge area of the country, although not as much as some American news outlets have reported.

The Taliban controls 14.5% of the country. The Afghan government controls 56.3% of the country. Both sides in the contest now control more of the country than they did in 2018, when the Afghan government controlled about 30% of the country and the Taliban 7% of the country.

So the rest of the country remains in contest, with the Afghan government actually silently pulling ahead, while the Taliban oddly also gains ground.  Right now, if trends continue, the Afghan government can be foreseen to control at least 60% of the country in the foreseeable future and 70% is unimaginable.  On the other had, seeing the Taliban control 20% or 25% isn't either.

Obvious in this is that the war is in fact developing and the Afghan government is winning.  It isn't winning in a George S. Patton advance to the Rhine fashion, but it's winning.

Guerrilla wars, which is sort of what this is, take a long time to win.  The Communist Vietnamese struggled for 30 years to win completely in Vietnam.  The British fought for 12 years in Malaya before declaring the war won, but the actual low grade struggle that followed went on for another 20 years.  The Philippine Insurrection supposedly went on for three years, but only because the U.S. pretended that the war ended then.  So the current war lasting 20 years isn't exactly surprising and shouldn't be.

But the U.S. has no staying power in guerrilla wars and indeed it doesn't in protracted wars at all.  We never have.  That's why we abandoned the Republic of Vietnam to its fate and allowed it to be defeated in 1975.  And that's why we're ready to do the same with Afghanistan.

This has come about in part because we've believed every since World War Two that we can fight a war in which Clausewitz has no part, but of course, we can't, which is the second factor noted above.  And we very much did that in Afghanistan.  Under the inept oversight of Donald Rumsfeld, we committed an economy of troops to the effort in the belief that our opponents were all rude primitives and we were super technical and could win a primitive war with special means. That was stupid.

Part of the reason, indeed much of the reason, we did that is that we were also taking on the Baathist regime in Iraq and had no need whatsoever to do that. That war was our kind of war, an armored advance on an armored enemy.  But it took up most of our effort.  The war in Afghanistan languished with lessor participation and it, over time, has reduced to one in which we really have only a smallish numerical role.  The U.S. may have 5,000 troops in Afghanistan, but the U.S. Army alone has 20,000 in Germany, where the risk of those troops being engaged in combat is quite low.

Not that 5,000 men, in terms of our current force, is small in some ways.  It isn't comparatively.  We have, for example, half that number in Japan and about three times that number in South Korea, where the risk of their becoming involved in combat isn't unsubstantial.  But it isn't a gigantic commitment in terms of men and its not enough to really do anything other than stiffen the Afghan government's will to fight on, which it has been doing.  If we add in non US NATO troops, which Americans routinely forget, those numbers climb to 17,000.

That allows the Afghani government to struggle on to try to control all of its territory.  It isn't enough to really end the war in a decisive way.  That latter fact allows the Taliban to struggle on as well.

So our only alternative is to hang on for eons or get out, right?

No.

The 14% of the country occupied by the Taliban is readily identifiable.  Commitment of an actual combat division, or better yet two, which would be 15,000 to 30,000 men, in combination with Afghani government forces, in a single hard strike would put that 14% to 0% and would cause a massive blood loss to the Taliban.  If it wasn't enough to convince a group of people who are largely willing to die on the basis that they'll go right to Heaven anyway to quit, it'll convince some, and it'll end the existence of many more in a way that would allow the Afghan government to be a presence back on its own territory.

At that point, the maintenance of the peace could logically become a UN, rather than a NATO effort, something that NATO has a lot of experience with. The blue helmets of UN peace keepers could then be a presence.  The United Nations already deploys over 100,000 troops committed by its members around the globe in just such missions, and not all of them are in kind and gentle lands by any means.  And quite a few of those troops are Muslims from Muslim nations that don't have the conquer for a Caliph mindset.  Having those troops, which include female Muslim soldiers from such places as Bangladesh, serve in the region is likely to be less offensive, and indeed perhaps more shocking, than Americans, long term.

That would give Afghanistan a chance to have a future in which the Islamic nation wasn't a base for extremism. Where women were treated as human beings, could vote, and go to school.  And were the type of Islam that most people claim is the real Islam, and which does reflect the view of most Muslims most places, could be restored to its prior place.

The opposite result is grim.  Most of all for women, but for everyone in general.  A victorious Taliban isn't going to be hosting a Summer of Love any time soon, and the kind of forces that will find refuge there aren't the kind that any nation just like it or sharing its views will be able to live comfortably with.

Private Joseph De Freitas.


Private Joseph De Freitas of Yonkers, New York, 41st Armored Infantry Regiment, 2nd US Armored Division.  France.

Pvt De Freitas is heating food on a portable stove and is wearing the World War Two U.S. camouflage uniform which is rarely seen in photos from the ETO as it was found to confuse American solders with German troops, who more frequently wore camouflage.  Usually when it is seen, it is worn by snipers, but no sniping rifle is depicted in this July 1944 photograph.  De Freitos is carrying binoculars or perhaps a monocular, so he may have had a spotting role of some sort, or perhaps his rifle just isn't in the photograph.  However, he was assigned to an anti tank section, so its probable that his role at the time had something to do with spotting.

De Freitas was Portuguese by birth and had only come to the United States in 1937.  He entered the Army in March, 1941 and served until October, 1945.  He saw action in North Africa, Sicily, France, Holland and Germany, and therefore was an exceptionally experienced soldier.  After the war he married Beatrice Cabral de Mellow in the Church of the Ascension in New York City.  He became a carpenter for the U.S. Postal Service and worked for it until his retirement in 1973.  He died in 2005 at age 89.

The Enigma of Western Writers.

This post is on Western writers.



By which I mean writers from the West who write about the West.  By the "West", I mean the West of the Mississippi United States in general, and the various regions of the West as well. 

I don't mean writers like Annie Proulx, who move into an area, write something that they set in the area, and then are celebrated by reviewers outside of the area who are completely ignorant on the area in the first place.  Or even ones like Sam Western.

Nothing was western about the originator of Western writing, Owen Wister, who was an East Coaster through and through.

I'm not saying, well not saying completely, that a person has to be born in one area to write knowledgeably about it. There are certainly examples to the contrary.  Cormac McCarthy has notably written about the west of Texas and in the Southern Gothic style, but he's from Rhode Island originally.  Owen Wister, who is sometimes credited with inventing the Western novel (and at the time he wrote The Virginian he was writing about the recent past) was very much an Easterner.  His friend Theodore Roosevelt wrote beautifully about the West of his day, but he was a new Yorker.  Frederic Remington, the legendary illustrator and painter, is not only famous for his Western paintings and illustrations, which dramatically capture an era, but he was a writer as well, writing on the same topics that he depicted in his paintings.   Edward Abbey was from Pennsylvania and didn't experience the West until he was 18 years old.  Thomas Berger who wrote the only really great novel about Indians, Little Big Man, lived on the East Coast his entire life.

President Theodore Roosevelt, who was also a prolific reader and writer.

But I am saying that there's something different about writing on a culture that you are part of and about a region you are from.  I'd even go on to say that its really difficult to do that without being born in an area. Some writers can pull that off, but they are few.  So if you were born and raised in New England, or Zimbabwe, two actual examples for recent "Western writers", you can probably credibly pull off novels about the shipping news, or not going to the dogs tonight, but your regional novels aren't going to appear authentic to anyone from the region at all, because they are not.

Indeed, could Go Kill A Mockingbird have been written by anyone but a Southerner?  What about anything that Flannery O'Connor wrote. . . would they have been just as impactful if written by a Vermonter?   Would Doctor Zhivago have been what it was if it was written by a New Yorker?  Could Musashi have been written by anyone other than Ejii Yoshikawa?

I doubt it.

Boris Pasternak, who was born in Imperial Russia in 1890 and who died in the Soviet Union in 1960.  His famous work is the novel about the Russian doctor Zhivago, who would have been born right about the same time and and have experienced many of the same things.  Hardly anybody would maintain that a non Russian, let alone a non Russian who hadn't experienced these things, could have written a novel like Doctor Zhivago.

So I'm talking about writers who have spent their youth, even if not perhaps born here, in the real West.  Writers growing up, like Norman Maclean, in Montana, or writers growing up in Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, New Mexico, and so forth.  And writers, I will credit, from Texas.  Having said all of that, I'd currently exclude writers, for the most part, who may be from any of those regions but whose lives have been spent in the really big cities of the region, like Denver, Dallas or Houston. Big cities are their own thing, and that thing isn't the West.  Modern Denver, and indeed increasingly much of the Front Ranger for hundreds of miles around it, are no more The West than Newark is.  So too with Las Vegas, Phoenix, or any of the giant Texas cities.

Anyhow, some observations.

Western writers, as I've defined them, clearly have a deep, deep, love for the region.  If you read, for example, Norman Maclean's work, he clearly loved Montana.  Indeed, no other writer described the Rocky Mountain West as accurately and deeply as Maclean.  Nobody.

Mari Sandoz clearly loved Nebraska and the plains.  So did Willa Cather.

And what's so notable about that is that they all left the region they loved.

In the film A River Runs Through It and in the novella, Norman Maclean has his brother express the view that he, the brother, will "never leave Montana".  Indeed, Maclean has Paul, his brother, express the view that those who moved from Montana to the West Coast suffered from moral defects, a view a lot of Westerners do in fact have.  But both Paul Maclean and Norman Maclean, in real life, moved to Chicago. At the time that he wrote his works, late in life, Norman Maclean had spent more years in Chicago than in Montana.  He died in Chicago in 1990 at age 87 (his wife, Jessie, had a much shorter life, dying due to respiratory aliments in 1968 at age 63).



Mari Sandoz was born in Nebraska in 1896. She moved to Denver, which at that time remained a Western city, in 1940, at which time she was 44  years old, but then moved to New York City in 1943, where she remained until her death at age 69 in 1966.



Wila Cather, was born in 1873 and her family moved to Nebraska in 1883.  She was steeped in the West from her youth, but she moved to Pittsburgh in 1896, at which time she was an up and coming writer.  She moved to New York in 1905, which is where she remained for the rest of her life.

What's going on here?  It seems that "Western" writers don't achieve success at that unless they've moved to somewhere distinctly non Western.

Maybe some of that has to do with what Garrison Keillor, who is a Western writer (Minnesota and North Dakota are part of the West the way I've defined them) noted about the region in general.  Our number one export is our children.  While we often don't credit it, and we frequently argue about it, the West has both a small population and a good educational system.  We work hard here to educate our youth, but we really don't have anywhere for them to go, as a rule.  That's been noted by outsiders, such as non Westerner, Sam Western (who is in  the non Westerner import class of writer), but they rarely seem to grasp the nature of it.  The West remains the West, where it has, because of natural features which translate into economic ones.  This means that while we really appreciate the need for solid educations, it also means that we educate generation after generation of Westerners who have no place to go with their educations. So they go elsewhere.

That seems to me to be the story for Maclean and Cather.  Norman Maclean obtained a degree in English from Dartmouth in 1924. What use would that have been in the Montana of 1924, or for that matter in the Montana of 2019?  It'd be limited, at best.  He clearly retained his affection for Montana and spoke of himself, from his actual home in Chicago, as a Montanan in his writings.  He married a woman from Montana in 1931, showing the extent to which he retained actual roots there. But he lived and died in Chicago.

The situation for Cather was likely even more pronounced.  An educated woman in the West in the 1890s, her career options were necessarily  highly limited.  Indeed, they were limited in the Western world in general. She never married, something very unusual for her era, and focused on her writing career, but that would fairly obviously be a lot easier to do from New York than from Nebraska.

Sandoz doesn't quite fit this mold, but maybe she provides another example.  Sandoz was a difficult character from her youth on but first found herself published while living in Nebraska, having relocated to Lincoln from the Sand Hills. She's struggled up to that point to establish herself as a writer, but when she did, it was with two novels both of which met with gigantic disapproval in Nebraska.  So she moved to Denver, and then on to New York.

And perhaps Michael Punke gives us another example.  Punke is the author of The Revenant.  Punke was born in Torrington Wyoming.  He's a practicing lawyer, as well as an author (and therefore obviously a much more disciplined person than myself), but he has worked nearly exclusively outside of the West, both inside of and outside of government.

And maybe Punke's example brings home that this phenomenon is widespread with Westerners in general.  At what point you cease to be a Westerner by leaving a region can be debated.  I think it that does happen, and am one of the many who disregard lamentations published in the letters to the editor section of the newspapers that start off with "I read the article about so and so last week, and while I left Wyoming forty years ago. . . .". 

But it's clear that people who were largely raised in a region conceive of themselves, quite often, as remaining part of it their entire lives.  Which I suppose makes sense.  Wendell Berry has lamented that modern American life means that people don't become "of" a place, but maybe they do more than we might imagine (which is another reason that novelist from Zimbabwe or Vermont don't become regional authors by moving here).  Beyond that, however, what we see with writers may be nothing more than what we see with legions of Westerners.

For a long time, at least for rural Westerners, which is a definition that would fit many in the West, growing up and getting an education has meant either narrowing the scope of your education or leaving.  I.e., if you are educated as a lawyer, doctor, veterinarian, school teacher, accountant, or engineer, you can find work here.  But if you have a PhD in English, you probably better be looking elsewhere.

Indeed, even with these other professions, as time marches on, this is becoming more and more true.  In 1990, at the time I graduated from the University of Wyoming's law school, it was already the case that maybe 1/3d of the class was headed to Colorado.  In some recent years over half the class has, as changes in the nature of practice have made that necessary.  Indeed, with the passage of the UBE, there's really no longer a reason for a Wyoming law school at all, and its only a matter of time until the legislature realizes that.

For some this is compounded with the American ethos of money meaning everything.  There are areas of various professions you can find work in the state, to be sure, but it won't pay the same lucrative amount that it might elsewhere.  So people move for the money.  Interestingly, they often find themselves in personal conflict after that, and are often among those writing to the editor with letters such as; "I'm distressed to read that such and so is going in near my beloved home town of Little Big Horn. . . I want it to be just like it was when I left in 1959 and I'm planning to return soon from the hideous dump of Los Angeles where I've been piling up cash since the early 1960s . . ." 

So, maybe it's the nature of the regional economy, and perhaps the national economy at that.  Writers gravitate to where the writers are, and the writers, by and large, are in the big cities.

Not all of them of course, but a lot of them.

Maybe.

Maybe something else is also at work, and perhaps that's most notable in what we noted above about Mari Sandoz. She didn't leave Nebraska for more futile publishing grounds.  She left Nebraska as she was taking a lot of heat after getting published.  Indeed, her second novel was censored in the state.

So maybe its the classic example of a person not really being too welcome on their own home ground in some instances.

In fairness, Sandoz's writing was always very critical of various things, and indeed quite frankly her histories, for which she remains famous, aren't terribly accurate in various ways.  At least her histories haven't born the test of time except, perhaps, for Old Jules, the book her extraordinarily difficult father asked her to write about him after his passing.  But still, maybe the West doesn't welcome its own writers much?

Or maybe it does.  Novelist Jim Harrison, who was from Michigan, which is pretty rural in some locations and the near west to a degree, lived in Arizona and Montana after leaving Michigan.  Garrison Keillor, mentioned above, flirted with New York after already being well known, but returned to Minnesota.  Patrick McManus, the humor writer, lived in the West his entire life.  Current crime writer C. J. Box, whose protagonist is a Wyoming Game Warden, is from Wyoming.  Tim Sandlin, whom I've never read, was born in Oklahoma but lives in Jackson.

Indeed, if Oklahoma is sort of like Texas in some ways, it's worth noting that Texas has had a lot of native authors who have continued to live in Texas, Larry McMurtry notable among them.  McMurtry grew up on a ranch outside of Archer, Texas, a town so far north in Texas its nearly in Oklahoma.

So added to that, maybe these long distance travels aren't as far as they seem. . . in some instances.  In my grandfather's era Chicago was the hub of the western cattle industry and Denver just a very large city on the plains.  Chicago's role in that went away, but the point is that economists and politicians who are baffled by the fact that the West doesn't spawn very many large cities are potentially missing the point that it has. . . its just that everything is more spread out here.  So Chicago, a Midwestern city, may have more of a link to the West of an earlier era than we might suppose.  Denver serves that purpose for much of the Northern Plains now and, I dare say, Calgary does as well at a certain point.

Indeed, those cities filled that roles, or fill them, as they were, or are, centers of industry for regions.  And while we don't like to think of writing as an industry, it's a type of one, so perhaps some relocation makes sense.  Indeed, it might even now, in spite of the electronic age, which seems to be pulling the working population towards the city centers like a black hole draws in light.

Anyhow, something to ponder.

Jenny on the job: Work clothing



Contemporary Americans probably find these two "Jenny on the Job" posters amusing without realizing the irony of the fact that most modern Americans are not only badly dressed as a rule, but also inappropriately dressed for many roles they perform as well.  So, the posters are probably as ironically relevant today as they were in 1943 when they were published.

In 1943 the problem was that women were afflicted with an age old, albeit exaggerated, problem of women's fashion's being weird and therefore often inappropriate for industrial labor.  Having said that, it's important to note that this was partially due to their being a real device between the clothing of poor and middle class women as opposed to wealthier women.  The concept, in other words, that women have not worked is badly off the mark. Women, much like men, have worked as they have had to and where they had to, but work prior to the introduction of domestic machinery was by necessity highly divided between the sexes.

Women's clothing was and is subject to considerations inherent with their gender that men's is not.  When women first entered into industrial labor in strength, during World War One, it presented real challenges as women's clothing, including clothing that had been suitable for the field, wasn't for the factory.  Initially the early fashions to address this were more than a little odd, to the modern eye, but the direction was clear.

We'll not go back into the history of women's clothing, as we've done elsewhere on this blog, throughout the 20th Century, other than to note that, as we noted the other day, it really ceases to be strange to the modern eye in the 1930s.  And it was the clothing of the late 30s that women wore daily when the Second World War broke out.  By and large a lot of it wasn't very suitable to factory conditions.

Trousers had come in after World War One in a somewhat acceptable way for women, but most still wore skirts daily.  Work clothing for industrial labor had been introduced during the Great War, but women didn't stay in those occupations after the war and indeed there was a large element of social pressure for those who wanted to remain employed in them to depart.  Given all of that, when World War Two came about and women resumed employment in factories they were not acclimated to industrial dress.  A campaign was accordingly started to encourage it (factories would be requiring it any).  One of the things addressed by it was the length of women's hair, fwiw, which is shown in these posters via hair nets.  Beyond that, no less of star than Veronica Lake cut her long locks in order to encourage factory employed women to do the same.

Blog Mirror: A Hundred Years Ago; Calories Used Per Hour by Weight and Activity Level

Once again, A Hundred Years Ago gives us a fascinating look at a topic that we don't really expect to come up a century ago, particularly in the form which it does here:

Calories Used Per Hour by Weight and Activity Level


We would guess that a century ago there's be any sort of calorie counting.  As we've noted here before, the caloric requirements of simply getting through a day were quite a bit higher a century ago than they are now.  Likewise, the labor of simply maintaining a household was grossly more extensive than it is currently.

Workplace hazards