Friday Farming: Guest workers in sheep ranching

I haven't been following the story, but apparently the Federal government is about to impose a rule, maybe this week, which would redefine certain things about the "guest workers" which sheep ranchers rely upon. Specifically, it would have the impact of increasing their wages several fold. The industry is opposed to it.

Now, I like sheep and I like sheep ranching, although my direct exposure to it is fairly low.  So this may sound surprising, but I don't really buy off on the industries argument here.

The industry is really opposed to this change as they view it as economically devastating.  I don't buy it.

What I do think is the case is that we've seen a real evolution in sheep ranching since World War Two.  Up until the Second World War, and indeed for some time there after, we saw a lot of immigrant labor in sheep ranching to be sure, but we saw a lot of family labor too.  Almost anyone who had sheep in that period, and well into the 1980s, can tell you about spending plenty of time on sheep trails and in sheep trailers.  My wife, for example, can relate those stories.  Ranches had hired herders if they had enough sheep, but family members also spent a lot of time doing the same thing.  The herders themselves included a lot of Europeans, quite frankly, including Basque and Irish herders.  I can well recall Basque herders from my youth and at one time I sort of naively assumed that all sheep herders were Basque.

An interesting thing about this is that it was sort of commonly assumed that the European herders were born into this line of work, but that was never true.  The Basque in particular tended to have no experience in sheep tending until they got to  the US.  Rather, for cultural reasons it was easy for them to take the sheep herding jobs and  for many years this was a step into sheep ranching.  In later years it wasn't, as acquiring a ranch became too expensive, but it was a step into some other line of work.  The same is true of the Irish tenders, who typically were working for somebody they were related to in the US.

Now, there are no more Basque and Irish sheepherders. Economic conditions have changed in Europe and with that the desire, probably, to move to a foreign country and herd sheep had  gone.  Most of the herders now are foreign, and they're mostly from South America. Some are from Mexico, but I'd guess that right now there are more Peruvian herders than Mexican ones (and it's worth noting that economic conditions in Mexico have so improved over the last 20 years that the same story with Irish and Basque herders is likely playing itself out with Mexican herders).

Anyhow, the story always is that the ranchers rely on these guest workers and implicitly, they have to be paid very low wages in order to make this work out. The extended argument is that Americans won't do this work. 

Well, I doubt much of that is fully accurate. 

For one thing, I've tended to notice in recent years that sheep ranchers leave a lot of sheep untended.  They never would have done that in the past. As I see family members heavily involved in cattle ranching, I wonder what's going on with sheep ranching.  I'm sure that most family members on a sheep ranch don't want to live out their existence in a trailer, but as plenty have and do on cattle trails, I'd bet that they would for a time on sheep ranches too.

And I'm skeptical that no Americans will take these jobs.  Indeed, I've seen the phenomenon of young idealist college grads taking low paying agricultural jobs just to be part of it.  And I've also noted that there are quite a few young, and even old, men who take ag jobs as it suits them, even with the wages in the basement.  So, by paying really really low wages, the effect I think is to actually exclude Americans who would take the jobs if they could.

Of course, that would mean some changes to the industry to be sure, but part of that change might men more, but smaller, bands of sheep, on more family places.  That might very well be how the economics of that would work out.  And that would be okay.

The Big Speech: Aldo Leopold on farming.

There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.

Aldo Leopold

 

Movies In History: Battleground

This movie was filmed in 1949 and released in 1950, making it one of the immediate post World War Two films.  It not only is a good one, it's one of the very best films about World War Two ever made.

The film follows a fictional squad in the 101st Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge.  Character development is excellent.  Minor details about the squad are highly accurate, which is perhaps because the film's director was a veteran of the battle (but not of the 101st).  Very unusual for its time, the characters are in fact somewhat cynical and display some probably typical emotions for any unit, even the 101st, including some degree of cowardliness in one character, and war weariness in many. 

Also unusual for a film of this era, material details are highly accurate. This is surprisingly uncommon for a film of the period, but this film gets them right.  Uniforms and equipment are not only correct, they're correct for an airborne unit of this period.

One of the best World War Two films made, this film stands with later small unit films like Saving Private Ryan or Platoon.  It's one of the few films of this era that doesn't suffer from the Saving Private Ryan effect, however, in that its material details are correct.  Well worth seeing.

The film featured a cast, it might be noted, that was excellent, but not featuring any of the huge stars of the era.  It made a star out of one of the characters, Denise Darcel, for her supporting role, but other actors in the film, like John Hodiak and Van Johnson were known, but not big names like John Wayne or Errol Flynn, for that era.  In some ways, that actually makes the film better, as there are no big names that dominate the ensemble cast.

Postscript

Because this blog has a history focus, and because the purpose of even mentioning movies here is to analyze them from an historical point of view it occurred to me that I missed something in this review that's actually quite significant.  Indeed it occured to me as I'm adding a selection of films here that are well known, but also all ran over the recent Memorial Day holiday.  One of those films was Band of  Brothers.

Now, I'll get around to  Band of Brothers, but one thing that a person might note is that Band of Brothers is a story about a unit within the same division, the Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne.  So it'd be easy to think that as both movies concern the 101st Airborne, both movies are about paratroopers. They aren't.

Battleground's fictional soldiers are part of the 327th Glider Infantry.

The airborne units of the US Army (and the British Army) during World War Two included parachute infantry and glider infantry.  In the case of the glider infantry, their make up was considerably different, which is easily forgotten.  Because almost all attention to airborne units has focused on paratroopers, and in fact it did at the time, it's easy to forget that glider infantry was a huge airborne element.

Paratroopers were all volunteers in that role. Glider infantrymen, however, were not.  Gilder infantrymen were simply regular infantrymen that had been assigned to those units and then trained as glider infantry.  Unlike paratroopers, therefore, the volunteer element was missing.  Indeed, until the end of the war, the extra pay that paratroopers drew was not drawn by glider infantrymen.  Their role was ever bit as dangerous, and indeed it might have been even more dangerous as glider landings in combat were notoriously dangerous and lethal.  As Ambrose recounts in the book,. Band of Brothers, one paratrooper who rode with the glidermen in one operation was horrified by the experience.

An interesting thing, however, is that their effectiveness is revealing about some things.  While paratroopers were regarded as elite as they were all volunteer, and indeed some joined the paratroopers in order to avoid being in units made up mostly of draftees, glider infantry proved to be ever bit as combat effective. So, while they were often conscripts and had no role in their assignment to airborne units, every positive thing you can say about paratroopers you can also say about glider infantry.

Anyhow, as this movie is about men in the 101st Airborne, it'd be easily to believe that it's a movie about elite all volunteer paratroopers.  It isn't.  It's a movie about regular soldiers assigned to the glider infantry, the only movie about them specifically of which I'm aware.

Movies In History: The Best Years of Our Lives

I've just posted a series of movies in this topic, "Movies In History", which has been in part inspired by the fact that we've just gone through the Memorial Day holiday and a few of the movie channels run war pictures during that holiday weekend.  I caught more than usual as I've been fighting a cold, and its been rainy, so I didn't get out much.

This film is one that has occasionally been run on such weekends, and which would be very fitting to be run, but wasn't this time. This movie isn't a war picture, however.  It's an "after the war picture".

The Best Years of Our Lives was released in 1946, which is stunning if we consider that World War Two ended in 1945 and the topic of the film was the sad adjustment to civilian life by veterans, and even the changed post war world.  It's a brilliant picture and is no doubt the best of its type, which is all the more amazing given that the war had just ended and many of the observations in the film should not have been obvious when it was filmed.

The film surrounds the stories of three returning veterans and their families.  One is a young returning bomber pilot, another is a middle aged banker who is just out of the infantry.  The third, portrayed by an actual veteran, was a young sailor who had lost his lower arms in action.  All of them experience difficulties adjusting to civilian life

The film touches on a series of really touchy topics, and does it very well. The pilot, Cpt. Derry (Dana Andrews), is shown to have a failing marriage, with that failure brought about by the fact that he hardly knew his war time bride at the time he married here.  Banker Al Stephenson, a discharged infantry NCO, is shown to have come back a heavy drinker.  And sailor Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) has a difficult time coming back to his fiance and family after his traumatic injury. 

Some of the plot line is nearly shocking, even when currently viewed. That Fred Derry's marriage is in trouble is obvious, but that Al Stephenson's young daughter would determine to break the marriage up is a very much outside of the film norm.  Divorce is treated in this film in a manner that's so unusual there's really no easy comparison and certainly no comfortable comparison to the treatment.  The flow of booze is a bit of a surprise as well.  All of this does in fact depict problems that were common to returning veterans.

In terms of material details, we'd expect this movie to be accurate as it was set in the time in which it was made. So that it does well is no surprise, but what may come as a surprise is how the details come through for 1946.  War planes are already being destroyed for salvage in the film, which is worked into the plot but which is an amazing plot detail for something that was practically news at the time the movie was set.  The small size of the houses (deliberately filmed undersized) would take a current audience by surprise, but is also accurate for the time.

What may be more interesting, in terms of our analysis, is the cultural details.  Here too, the film does really well, only making a few minor errors.  Unlike many films, the movie has it right when it has a banker as an enlisted man, but a former soda stand worker as an officer, as the status of officer and enlisted man was based much less on education than it is now.  The ages are basically correct for the characters as well, except for that of Al Stephenson, portrayed by Fredric March, who 49 was really too old to be a combat NCO.  His wife, played by Myrna Loy, was the best known actor in the film when it was made, is better cast as she would have been about age 41 when the movie was made.

This film is really a bit of an epic, and very well done.  Portraying sensitive topics, then and now, it also does very well in material details and reflects well cultural details from its time.  It shouldn't be omitted from a library of World War Two films, for those who might have one.

Movies In History: Twelve O'clock High

Yet another war movie filmed in 1949, this movie stands with the other mentioned that year as being a classic.  Indeed, this film is the best of its genera, the World War Two flying movie.  Nothing filmed since it has surpassed it.

Twelve O'clock High portrays an early U.S. Army Air Corps bombing wing stationed in the United Kingdom just as those units were first beginning to be used over Europe.  The unit is suffering from poor performance and the commanding officer is relieved from duty when he's judged to be responsible for the condition. The film then portrays the efforts of the new commander, Gen. Frank Savage to get the unit into shape. 

With an excellent story line and very good acting, including  Gregory Peck in one of his best roles, the movie is really well done.  There's surprisingly little flying in it, but the scenes that do portray B-17s in the air are realistic, aided by the fact that a lot of actual combat footage is used, and that the movie was filmed so close to World War Two that B-17s were available to be used.  The movie is excellent in material defects with no obvious mistakes and the sense of the time and era are well done. The movie avoids overdoing either heroism or angst, as later flying movies did, and as the film was close enough to World War Two, it predates any later concern over the nature of strategic bombing, which is a feature of more recently analysis. Simply put, it's the best of the air war movies that are set in the Second World War.

Movies In History: Sands of Iwo Jima

Also made in 1949, like Battleground, this movie is similar in that it follows a single squad, but it pales in comparison with the much better Battleground.

Still, for a film of this period, which was filmed shortly after World War Two, it isn't bad.  Following a single squad of Marines through the island hopping campaign of the Pacific, the movie does a fair job of portraying the Pacific War in some ways, although probably in a much less violent manner than the actual experience.  Using a lot of combat footage, the film is pretty accurate in material details, which as noted in our earlier comments on Battleground, is unusual for the era.

The plot, taking place over a larger expanse of time than Battleground, is quite a bit thinner, but it isn't highly unrealistic either, and the experiences and locals depicted in the film are done well and fairly accurately.

Of course, this is a John Wayne film, but it's a bit unusual as it gives us a glimpse of the broader range that Wayne had than his role typically called for.  Sort of anticipating his later role in The Searchers, he's a bit of an antihero in it, although not to the same extent of that later film, which in my view is his best.

Another film worth watching, and together with Battleground, the two very best films about World War Two which were filmed immediately after the war and which have stood the test of time fairly well.

Summer rules

Recently I saw a bit of a debate on church appropriate clothing, which somehow reminded me of the topic of court appropriate clothing, which I've referenced here quite a few times.  As time goes on, as noted, it lawyer office wear becomes more and more informal, but coat and tie remain the norm for court itself.

But at one time, the coat was dispensed with in the summer.

I don't know what caused me to recall this, but even when I first was practicing law, there were "summer rules" for appearing in chambers. That is, for arguing motions in front of the judge in his chamber.

We don't even argue in chambers anymore.  After 9/11 brought in a new concern for court security, the old habit of arguing in chambers largely ended (although here and there it's still around) and all arguments were moved to courtrooms.  I appreciate the few remaining exceptions, as that seems a better way to handle motions, when the chambers are adequate to allow for that, and they usually are.

At any rate, back some 25  years ago, during the summer, "summer rules" applied.  Shirt and tie only.  Indeed, I later learned that at one time there were written rules for court clothing, and the summer rules were actually written.

I don't know how far they went back, but I suspect they existed because at one time some of those courthouses were pretty hot in the summer.  Only one has been that way in my experience, the district courthouse in Lusk, which at one time lacked air conditioning in the courtroom and chambers.

The Niobrara County Courthouse, the thread on which remains freakishly popular here.  The windows of the chambers are visible in the upper right of the photo.

My guess, and hope, is that air conditioning has since been added.  At that time, however, it didn't have it. And it didn't have heat in the courtroom in winter either.

Now, of course, the temperature of darned near every official building is pretty controlled, and "summer rules" are largely forgotten, although I'll occasionally here them referred to by we old timers. 

The Joy of Field Rations: Bread of the Poilu, Part I

The Joy of Field Rations: Bread of the Poilu, Part I: Bread of the Poilu, Part I: The Bread Ration Poilu   I have returned after a rather protracted absence while experiencing what we use...

Lost Rail: By the Shores of 16 Mile Creek

Lost Rail: By the Shores of 16 Mile Creek: Further east than the Yellowstone and more imposing than the Missouri, the Milwaukee started its journey west along the shores of a vast la...

Blogatopia

Wow, darned near every blog I follow here (visible on the links on the side) has updated in the past couple of days, including two excellent ones that rarely update.

Good to see, but all at once!

The Internet and the Dumbing Down of Culture

The great, partially realized, promise of the Internet has been the global instant access to knowledge by all.

The terrible, fully realized, reality of the Internet has been the instant voice to the mean-spirited dishonest ignorant.  As a result, debate and knowledge, in reality, has become dumber, more simplistic, and often subject to massive error.

This has been pretty obvious to everyone for quite a while, but it's become really obvious lately in watching a couple of debates.

The problem is that the Internet gives equal voice to people of harsh views, who can view them without fear of any sort of negative impact to themselves, and it also gives free rein to those who would simply choose to lie about a topic and their relationship to it.  It also gives a voice to those with free time and low knowledge.  So we see people who are true extremist who spend time shouting down any opposition, or we see people whose views are skewed and limited make representations based on claimed personal experience, or finally we seem somebody shout out opposition with a dimwitted view that would have formerly taken effort to express.

Now there's plenty of intelligent commentary on the net (and I dare say, on this moderated blog, the commentary is excellent, but then it is moderates so that the occasionally really hostile or stupid random post, which always come from somebody who has never posted before, doesn't see the light of day), but to take on the flood of bad commentary takes the dedicated effort of the knowledgeable, who often do not have the time for such efforts.  So, at the end of the day, people who claim to be observational experts on, let's say, the viewpoints of a Russian minority in Kiev might really be chronically unemployed men in their parents basement in Newark.

I'd note that what got me rolling in this particular day, however, is a comment I saw on the Atlantic's photo essay on World War One.  One commenter, which hitting his profile reveals is a frequent commenter, commented to the photo essay "All war is stupid."

Well, that's a stupid comment.

Do reduce warfare to that level of commentary would deserve a dunce hat and a three week silent sitting in the corner.  On the net, however it doesn't.

Well, that comment is stupid.

Eh? There can't be a decline why?

The state statistic's branch has announced that they city's population has hit an all time high of 60,000 souls.

Well, actually I recall it being widely regarded as higher than that in the late 1970s, but apparently that doesn't count for some reason.  Anyhow, according to the state, the population is (back) up to 60,000 due to oil and gas activity.

Perhaps I heard it incorrectly, but when reported on the news the reporter seemed to say that officials had stated that the slow down would not impact the town, as the slow down has happened everywhere in the oil and gas industry.

What?

That would suggest that oil and gas workers are captives to their employment or something, and won't go elsewhere into something else.

Odd logic.

Fame, Turning on Fame, Ignorance, and Double Standards

As anyone who has followed my occasional frustrated comments on television here knows, I was not a fan of the Duggars show, Nineteen Kids and Counting.

Indeed, for reasons that I have a hard time defining, there was something about the Duggars that made me uncomfortable.  A lot of people are going to be saying that now, so that's a little late to be claiming that, but it's true.  I couldn't quite define it then, and I can't quite now, but what I think it is, is that to a certain ill informed audience they defined "Christianity", or perhaps "Conservative  Christianity".  They don't.  And I don't think they claimed to, but rather they were sort of presented that way.

In reality, without delving into it too far, theologically they're a member of a minority offshoot of a certain branch of Protestantism, and from their they're actually part of a patriarchal movement within that minority offshoot, which makes them a minority within a minority.  That was probably obvious to anyone who studies such matters, which means that it's not obvious to most people.  Given that, however, it would be no more fair to even state that the Duggars represented the view of Conservative Protestants than it would be to say the Old Believers represent the views of most Russian Orthodox, or that the members of the SSPX represent the views of most Catholics.  Indeed, those statements, although erroneous, would probably be slightly closer to being true, maybe. And because they hold a minority Protestant view, within a minority Protestant view, their views fall very far from the views of many "mainline" Protestants and certainly quite far from the Catholics and the Orthodox.  Now, the Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc., know that, but because television is so ignorant, it doesn't necessarily know that.  Therefore, when we hear things like "the Duggar's conservative Christian views", we're really hearing something that's way, way, far off the mark.

Indeed, again, I doubt the Duggar's themselves would disagree with that, and in fact they would seem to fit into a demographic that would question the Christianity of at least certain other Christian Faiths.  I don't know that for sure, but I do note that they engage in missionary work in Central American, which at least raises some questions as that's a field already plowed by prior Christian missionaries, although they're all Catholic.  Usually when a group does that, they tend to do it because they don't regard the other Christian group as valid, although here again I'm supposing.  I've known some Protestant missionaries (and Catholic ones) who were true missionaries, and they spent their lives in some really wild parts of the world, indeed, in some areas that were downright dangerous for somebody of their occupation, which seems real missionary work to me.

Anyhow, all that's a long winded way of saying that part of what has made me uncomfortable about the Duggar's is the way that they've come to represent something that maybe they don't.  I'm a pretty conservative Christian (okay, on some things I'm a pretty liberal Christian . . . and on others I'm a pretty neither liberal or conservative Christian), but I don't feel my daughter has to dress in a peasant dress and I'm a pretty big fan of education.

Indeed, on that latter item, one thing that's bothered me for some time is that the girls in this show, which has massive female following, seem so limited in their options.  They seem pretty smart, but they line them up with potential spouses who just don't seem to quite mach their intellect.  Maybe they do, but they don't seem to.  Indeed, that would seem to be the case for whomever Josh is married to as well, but again I could well be wrong.  It all seems sort of odd.

So, anyhow, one thing that's bothered me is the way their identified as something they really aren't.

And by extension, now people who hate them because they re identified that way, are going to be ripping them apart.

Traditional Christians in recent years have come to regard themselves as under the gun.  Well, actually, some branches of Christianity have felt that way for a long time.  And for good reason, they really are.  It's become unsafe in the public sphere to simply hold certain traditional Christian beliefs, or certain beliefs that are consistent with certain Faiths. That's a shame, but its true.  It's also become safe to attack certain religious beliefs as the PC view of the media holds those beliefs to be out of sync with the times.

In truth, Christianity is always out of sync with the times, and if a person reads the Acts of the Apostles, that's clear. The Apostles knew they were out of sync with the times, and the Fathers of the Church were pretty darned plain that they knew that as well.  So that's not new.  What is a bummer, however, is to see some group, here the Duggars, get tarred and feathered by haters because they are seen to represent something they don't, while in turn the rest of us get tarred and feathered because of what the Duggar patriarchy apparently did, which isn't fair to the rest of us by any means.  Ignorance at work.  It's like being a member of one of those rare Middle Eastern religious minorities who get attacked because nobody knows what they actually believe, but they might believe what some other group believes.

Going from that, however, it's also interesting how chicken television and the media really are.  Everything is played so safe.  The Duggars were pulled from the air, which they should have been, but a certain other family which recently had a baby baptized in the Armenian Orthodox Church, a very conservative religions, lives a lifestyle that seems out of sync with that (or not, I'm not sure) and has a family member who is changing genders.   That's being celebrated on television.  Now, in this era, that's in sync with the general liberal view of the media, so the media is not going to take on the very un settled and difficult psychological aspects of that in a way that's controversial. That is, we're not going to hear any press on whether that's wrong in a psychological or metaphysical sense, but maybe we should.  But we won't, as that would be too controversial in the context of the times.

This same logic would apply, even more so, to "Sister Wives", a show that pretty much promotes plural marriage and which appears on the same network as Nineteen Kids".  Here we have a sort of irony that TLC promotes, though the show, the concept that the Duggars are Christian traditionalist, which they really are not, and that the very non traditional view (in the larger societal sense) of the Kody Brown group, should be tolerated.  It's a strangely mixed message, neither of which is very deep in its analysis.

Nor really very interesting, I guess, to the male half of the population.  Both shows really cater towards domestic blandness, which is the basis, oddly, and ironically, of their appeal.  Peculiarly, noting really is going to look at the domestic lives of the millions of other conservative Christian women that are actually part of the culture.  That would just be too normal.

And if we're going to look at really unusual groups, to Americans, maybe we should look at really interesting ones we know aren't part of the larger demographic and obviously are not. Why not, for example, look at Orthodox Jews?  There are a lot of them in the US, but TLC isn't following them around.  Or Moslems (in fairness, there was a show that looked at them, but for a group that has to be unpleasant to be a member of right now, why not look at their lives).  Or, Old Believers.  There are Old Believers in Alaska, why not give them a look?

Finally, stories like this become feeding frenzies in a shark like fashion.  I can't help but recall how, after the very weird Michael Jackson died, the press turned on him.  It seems fame can turn to blistering contempt in an instant.  

That's always been the case.  The people and press elevate people to fame, and then when things go wrong for them, they rip them apart.  Oddly, they create an Idol and then destroy it, and always have.  An odd aspect of human nature.

Speaking for the people. . . and not.

It's interesting to watch debates and commentary on debates of a big national character.

Without going into specifics, I've been watching one that continually claims to represent a major cultural shift in a certain country.  I'm not so sure.  I think it represents a shift, but the claims are so overdone.

But for that matter, many "shifts" are quite temporary in nature.  The Baby Boom generation of the 60s did shift things, but in the long term they turned out to be more conservative than they started out to be, so the shift wasn't quite as dramatic as it was supposed it would be.  That's pretty common.  Lots of things that seem to have been overthrown, in fact, are just temporarily ignored.

The Big Speech: The St. Crispian's Day Speech from Henry V.

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

King:  What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say “To-morrow is Saint Crispian.”
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say “These wounds I had on Crispin's day.”
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court

Courthouses of the West: Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court:

This is the Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court, which also houses various other law related facilities. The court is located in Ft. Washakie, the seat of government for the Wind River Indian Reservation, and serves the Shoshone and Arapahoe tribes on the reservation.

Some Gave All: Highland Cemetary, Casper Wyoming

Some Gave All: Highland Cemetary, Casper Wyoming: This Spanish American War era artillery piece is in a portion of Casper Wyoming's Highland Cemetery that has several features dedica...

I can't help but note how, in this town cemetery, for a town that wasn't founded until 1889, wars of the past have a long reach.  Veteran's tombstone markers note quite a few instances of Civil War service, from the eastern states which these men originally called home, and a few instances of frontier service as well.  And the early introduction of military aircraft, and the late disappearance of the horse also show up.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Corpus Christi, Newcastle Wyoming

Churches of the West: Corpus Christi, Newcastle Wyoming:

Movies In History: The Longest Day

This is Memorial Day weekend, and that means that some movie channels will be running war pictures all weekend long.  I've noticed that this film is getting a real running this year.

This movie is one of my all time favorite films, and it has been since I was a child.  I recall that for many years the movie was played on a Denver television channel on New Years Day, without interruption, sponsored by Lloyd's Furs.  What the movie has to do with New Years I have not a clue, and I doubt that it has anything to do with it at all, but the fact that this was a type of big deal says something about how well respected the film was, and is.

The Longest Day is the movie version of the book by Cornelius Ryan.  The Irish born Ryan was a war correspondent during World War Two and turned towards writing a series of histories of the war thereafter.  He wrote a total of three books on the war, all of which are truly excellent, and all of which are written in the same style which primarily focus on first person recollections by the participants. 

The movie treatment of his 1959 book came out in 1962 and featured a huge star studded cast, which it would almost have to have, given that it is, after all, a series of recollections.  Filmed in black and white so that it had the appearance of a newsreel to some degree, and using a small bit of original footage, the movie excellent portrays the events of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 from both the Allied and the German prospective.  It's a great film.

So nothing to complaint about, right?

Well, sadly no.

As great as this film is, it suffers in one significant manner, particularly post Saving Private Ryan.  Material details are somewhat lacking, mostly in the category of uniforms. 

That may seem like a minor matter, and it is, but this film really blows it in terms of American uniforms.  It's way off.  Part of this was likely because it was being filmed in black and white, and all military uniforms have a drab appearance.  My guess is that another reason was that the sheer size of the caste deterred the filmmakers form having that many period uniforms recreated where they could avoid it.  Indeed, that they knew in part that they were getting them wrong is oddly demonstrated by the uniforms of a few key characters where parts of the uniform details were obviously detailed to try to get a correct appearance. 

Almost all the US soldiers in the film are wearing field uniforms that are correct for when the movie was made, in 1962.  Not for when the film is set, 1944.  In a few odd instances 1962 period jackets have been somewhat reworked to try to look like the paratrooper uniform of that period, but it's pretty obvious that's what's been done.  More oddly still, however, US troops are shown wearing khaki shirts of various patterns under their field jackets, which is completely incorrect.

Not that this should be hugely problematic for most people watching the film.  But for those detail oriented, it is a bit frustrating.  It's still a great film, however.

Taking on ISIL

 

 Bedouin in Palmyra, early 1940s

ISIL has taken Palmyra, a Syrian city with spectacular Roman ruins from the first century.  The global fear is that what time and weather have not done, which is to erase Palmyra from the face of the earth, ISIL, under its extreme interpretation of the tenants of Islam.  So extreme, in fact, that some time ago it issued a disapproval of important Islamic features in Mecca.

No ruin is worth human lives, but there is a bigger question at work here.  And what that is, is this. Should we (the Western World) take on ISIL?

I think we have to.

The reason I think we have to, is that it is taking on us, and what we have to determine is how much ground we're prepared to lose before we can't tolerate losing any more.

I think there's been a very widespread assumption in the West that ISIL is so nutty that it will fail on its own accord. That might be true, long term, and it probably is true, but we have to ask, as part of that, how much damage are we willing to endure in the meantime. And as part of that we have to acknowledge that really nutty ideologies can be hugely attractive, even if nutty. Nazism was both evil and full blown whacky, and I think a lot in the developed world assumed that such an evil, nutty, ideology would fail in such a civilized nation as Germany. It probably would have, but left unchecked that probably would have taken decades. Communism provides another example. Soviet Communism never made any sense at all, but it did manage to make a 70 year run in the Russian Empire, killing millions in the process.

ISIL may look minor in comparison with either of those, but I'm not so sure it really is. It's proven that it actually can exhibit state craft, perhaps at least as effectively as the actual sovereigns in the region in some instances. It's gone from being a radical Islamic militia to an actual army that's not terribly badly equipped, in the regional context. That army seems to be able to hold its own and even defeat the Iraqi army, and to hold its own and occasionally defeat the Syrian army. It's administering a government in the areas that it's captured, and right now it probably controls more ground that the governments in Baghdad and Damascus do. We don't notice it much here, but it's ideology seems to having a real impact in the Islamic regions of the former USSR where there's an ongoing problem of young men being drawn into it and leaving to fight in Iraq and Syria. It's pretty clear that immigrant Islamic populations in Europe have some people who go back and forth into it, and its hardcore Islamic message has proven attractive enough to some in the Western world that there are converts who are drawn into it. In some ways, what we're seeing is sort of analogous to Communism in the 20s and 30s, when it was really attractive to certain groups and during which it seemed to be expanding.

I don't think we can ignore it in the West, therefore, as I think there is a real risk that it'll win in both Iraq and Syria. If it does, it's not going to be content with that and we'll have to deal with an incredibly violent, aggressive, rich, regime that would be hugely problematic to the entire region, and which would sponsor some violence well beyond its borders. The questions is, I guess, what to do.

And as part of that problem, we have to acknowledge that this is a religious war. We don't want it to be, but because our opponents conceive of it that way, it is.

I'm sure I don't have the solution, but what I think we probably have to concede is that this might be a long one. But we probably also have to strangle ISIL in the cradle of Iraq and Syria right now in the hopes that kills it off. The Iraqi army appears completely worthless, and the only fighting force worth its salt seems to be the Kurds. I don't think any Western nation, ourselves included, are willing to put boots on the ground. The only regional one that clearly is, is Iran, and that presents its own problems.

Pretty grim situation.