"Democracy Contested"

[We have the following announcement.  DRE]

Democracy Contested? A virtual event of Cornell University to be held Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 7:00pm to 8:00pm.

As the U.S. Presidential Election nears, the nation’s courts, political systems and media are preparing for the possibility of a contested outcome. A panel of Cornell faculty experts will examine the history of contested elections in the United States and worldwide, while also discussing how disinformation and fake news reports might influence the election result and voter participation.

Moderator:
David Bateman, Associate Professor, Government

Panelists:
Kenneth Roberts, Richard J. Schwartz Professor, Government
Alexandra Cirone, Assistant Professor, Government
Julilly Kohler-Hausmann, Associate Professor, History

Keller on Common-Law Qualified and Absolute Immunity

 Scott A. Keller, Baker Botts LLP, has posted Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law, which is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review:

Qualified immunity has become one of the Supreme Court’s most controversial doctrines. But caselaw and scholarship has paid surprisingly little attention to how qualified immunity could be reformed — short of eliminating the doctrine altogether. While there has been plenty of commentary criticizing the Court’s existing “clearly established law” test, there has been no thorough historical analysis examining the complicated subject of government officer immunities under 19th century common law. Yet the legitimacy of state officer immunities, under the Court’s precedents, depends on the common law as it existed when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1871. In the Supreme Court’s own words, it cannot “make a freewheeling policy choice” and must apply immunities Congress implicitly adopted from the “common-law tradition.”

This article therefore provides the first comprehensive review of the 19th century common law on government officer immunities. In particular, it canvasses the four 19th century tort treatises that the Supreme Court consults in assessing officer immunity at common law: Cooley’s 1879 Law of Torts; Bishop’s 1889 Commentaries on Non-Contract Law; Mechem’s 1890 Law of Public Offices and Officers; and Throop’s 1892 Law Relating to Public Officers. Not only do these treatises collect many overlooked state common law precedents, but they rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s own, often ignored, 19th century decisions.

These historical sources overwhelmingly refute the modern prevailing view among commentators about one critical aspect of qualified immunity: The 19th century common law did recognize a freestanding qualified immunity protecting all government officers’ discretionary duties — like qualified immunity today.

But many other important features of the Supreme Court’s current officer immunity doctrines diverge significantly from the 19th century common law: (1) high-ranking executive officers had absolute immunity at common law, while today they have only qualified immunity; (2) qualified immunity at common law could be overridden by showing an officer’s subjective improper purpose, instead of “clearly established law”; and (3) the plaintiff had the burden to prove improper purpose with clear evidence, while today there is confusion over this burden of proof.

These three features from the common law provide a roadmap for reforming qualified immunity. If high-ranking executive officials have absolute immunity, that will sufficiently protect the separation of powers without needing the “clearly established law” test — which pervasively denies plaintiffs money damages when lower-ranking executive officials violate their constitutional rights. At the same time, if plaintiffs in qualified immunity cases have the burden to prove lower-ranking officers’ subjective bad faith with clear and convincing evidence, then officer defendants and courts will have significant procedural mechanisms to dismiss insubstantial claims before trial. In sum, restoring the 19th century common law on state officer immunities could address many modern problems with qualified immunity.

--Dan Ernst

Smith v. Allwright at University of Kentucky

Lonnie Smith Votes in 1944 Primary

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE.]

The University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center (SCRC) pleased to announce a new exhibit titled “Black Voters, White Primaries." Using case files from the papers of Supreme Court Justice Stanley Forman Reed, as well as other archival materials from the collections, the exhibit explores how Smith v. Allwright (1944) helped end the “white primary," a voter suppression tool that served as the first line of attack—and often the only one needed—to prevent Black Americans from voting in the Jim Crow South. BONUS: UK Rosenberg College of Law Professor Josh Douglas weighs in on voter suppression this election season.

The exhibit was created as part of UK’s John G. Heyburn II Initiative for Excellence in the Federal Judiciary, a non-partisan endeavor devoted to the preservation and study of federal judicial history, with a particular focus on Kentuckians in the federal courts. 

Credit for image:  “Courtesy University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center”

Morley on Partisan Gerrymandering and State Constitutions

Michael Morley, Florida State University College of Law, has posted Partisan Gerrymandering and State Constitutions:

Since the U.S. Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable under the U.S. Constitution, reformers have shifted their focus to pursuing such claims under state constitutions. In some cases, longstanding state constitutional provisions have been re-interpreted to prohibit partisan gerrymandering. In others, state constitutions have been expressly amended to either forbid partisan gerrymandering or transfer authority over drawing congressional and legislative district lines from the state legislature to independent redistricting commissions.

The U.S. Constitution does not confer authority to regulate federal elections on states as entities, however, but rather specifically on the “Legislature” of each state. The “independent state legislature doctrine” teaches that a state constitution is legally incapable of imposing substantive restrictions on the authority over federal elections that the U.S. Constitution confers directly and specifically on a state’s legislature. Over the past 130 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly adopted conflicting positions on the doctrine without recognizing its deep historical roots or normative justifications.

The independent state legislature doctrine reflects the prevailing understanding of states, Congress, and other actors throughout the Nineteenth Century, and was consistently applied during that period across a broad range of circumstances. It protects important structural considerations and is consistent with the political theory underlying the U.S. Constitution’s election-related provisions. Properly understood, the independent state legislature doctrine is a powerful, largely overlooked obstacle to the use of state constitutions to combat partisan gerrymandering.

–Dan Ernst

Policy History 2021

A draft of the program the eleventh biennial Conference on Policy History in Tempe, Arizona from Wednesday, June 2 to Saturday, June 5, 2021, is here, but the organizers are still accepting “additional panel and paper proposals on all topics regarding American political and policy history, political development, and comparative historical analysis. Complete sessions, including two or three presenters with chair/commentator(s), and individual paper proposals are welcome. Participants may only appear once as a presenter in the program.”

Trump and Hitler, an apt comparison?

I'm going to open this post with a quote from Bernie Sanders:

"A nation cannot be called impotent as long as it is able to produce the minds that are necessary to solve the problems crying out for solution. We can measure the greatness of a people by the minds it produces. That, too, is a value, but only when it is recognized as a value. If a nation has the ability to produce great minds a thousand times over, but has no appreciation for the value of these minds and excludes them from its political life, these great minds are of no use."

A powerful quote from a great mind, except actually it's a HITLER QUOTE!  Only slightly modified to make you think Bernie might have said it!  *EVIL LAUGHTER*  Bernie supporters really love HITLER!  I've used the power to pluck a quote entirely out of its context, tweak it, and post it to fool you mere cretins who support Senator Sanders!

This is the sort of story I see now repeatedly which, in its many forms, attempts to link Donald Trump, Trump's current voter appeal, or Trump's statements into some sort of Hitler clone.  For example:

So although I'm not a "history teacher" I would like to point out that, first, slapping Trump's head on a classic Hitler pose does not a compelling image make.  Furthermore I checked - Hitler is not anti-immigrant.  Really, he doesn't speak on it often, because immigration was not a major issue for Germany in the 1930s.  Hitler did stand in opposition to Communism, violently opposed to it, but that is a far more complex battle than the above text implies.  One of the groups the Nazi party opposed in Germany was the German Communist Party, which also was the party that most often matched the Nazis in the late 1930s in seats in the German parliament.  So this would be a comparable moment if you actually had in the United States some sort of "Muslim Terrorism Party" that ran against the Republicans and controlled about half the United States House of Representatives regularly.

Which of course also fails as a comparison because the German parliament was nothing like the United States Congress - being based on a Parliamentary model of organization it was closer to the British Parliament.  (Variable elections based on the ability of the government to pass legislation versus fixed terms of service.)

This is Hitler - when Hitler was rising to power in the early 1930s he did it on the back of a massive economic implosion (no the recent Great Recession is not the same), and he did it leading a people still psychologically recovering from a humiliating defeat in a war and harnessing a myth that this people had been "stabbed in the back" by their government.  Also, as you can see from this genuine speech of Hitler's from 1927 Hitler is obsessed with seeing the world through a racial lens.  (Trump panders to racists but I highly doubt you will find he sees the world through a racial lens in any way like what Hitler sees it.  Imagine if in ALL of Trump's speeches he argued that the Mexican people were a separate people, a people with inferior blood, based solely on their being Mexican.  A sneaky separate people that have oppressed Anglo people around the world for generations.  A people with a secret powerful connection to shadowy cabals.)  See, it doesn't work, that isn't Trump's appeal.

Because Trump isn't trying to appeal to the prejudices of early 1930s Germans and he wasn't educated on a diet of really crappy anti-Semitic pamphlets while stewing in flophouses trying to be an artist.  Hitler wasn't well educated (Trump is comparatively), Hitler came from lower middle class roots shifted to extreme poverty (Trump didn't and isn't), and Germany in the 1930s was dealing with a completely different set of ideological problems than the United States in the mid-2010s.

But I can hear you saying "But we need something truly EVIL to be able to compare to Trump, otherwise how can we make a fast easy set of memes to draw people to what a problem he is."  You don't need to dig into the collection of 1930s European Fascists, as people of the United States we've got our own contemporary example of Trump and his dangers right here.

I give you George Wallace, 1960s politician from right here in the United States.  I propose he is a perfect stand-in for Trump:

• He's unabashedly racist and you can substitute "Mexican" into many of his speeches where he says "Black" and you'll find good parallels
• He was in favor of segregation as a permanent feature of United States policy and believed strongly in state's rights
• Passionate orator who got crowds riled up and once called upon a crowd to go deal with a group of "pinkos" protesting his rally.  (Unlike Trump when the crowd got up to actually kick some ass he calmed them down.)
• His 1968 independent run for the Presidency of the United States has some really eerie similarities to Trump's currently stated politics
• He was also big on lowering taxes to court business to moving to his home state of Georgia (just replace Georgia with "United States" and "north" with "China" and you'll be fine.)

Now I know, who has ever heard of George Wallace as compared with Hitler?  You'll have to do more work building up the meme connection between the two, maybe get some late-night television hosts to do a snappy bit on the topic, but America we can make this stick.  Let's leave the Germany's their unhappiness and tap into our own rich vein of political assholes when talking about possible evils to compare to Trump.

If nothing else do it for the children, so they can stop being taught that Hitler was some sort of mega-evil monstrosity on par with an ogre or a troll.

Sources:  Wikipedia entry on George Wallace

19th Immigrants to America - the wrong message for a modern election

So the image above has been making the rounds on Facebook and appears to be showing a queue of immigrants, either in the late 19th or early 20th century, passing through Ellis Island or an equivalent port of entry into the United States.  The tagline at the bottom says that these immigrants "never burned our flag, respected American culture, cared about America."  With the top line it implicates that immigrants entering the United States in the 21st century, illegally, don't equal the same "higher quality" immigrants from a cultural protection perspective than these older immigrants.

First off, wow, the levels of cultural perspective shift held in that image, especially considering the widespread anti-immigrant feelings in the United States in the early 20th century specifically targeted at the above groups of immigrants is shocking.  But I am going to let that go for now, because the reality behind this text line is also wrong.

This image if from 16 September 1920, and is from the bombing of Wall Street, an act of revolutionary violence which was, most likely, carried about by Anarchists attempting to disrupt the United States economy and political system.  Although the United States government never formally determined who was responsible for the bombing attack, most evidence at the time and in later investigations points to a group of Italian immigrants, the Galleanists, a dedicated revolutionary group of Italian anarchists and followers of Luigi Galleani.  This group was mostly made up of Italian immigrants and most certainly did not respect United States culture or care about America as it was in the 1920s, it was dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government and American society.

The above bombing by the way killed a total of thirty-eight people and was done with a massive explosive device planted in a horse-drawn carriage.  It was detonated at noon to ensure maximum carnage.  (The physical damage to the Wall Street building was left in place and can be seen today.)

The center point of this particular movement is pictured above, Luigi Galleani, an anarchist from Italy who was expelled from multiple European nations, and the Middle East, before arriving in the United States.  He traveled the U.S. East Coast with a goal of motivating other anarchists, spreading revolutionary fervor among the working class, and supporting striking workers.  He was a believer in "propaganda of the deed" - carrying out revolutionary violence to inspire others to join in.  His followers are responsible for waves of assassination attempts (some successful), bombings, mass poisonings, and building a support network for anarchist activists through the early 20th century.  (His newsletter was also a source of an early form of "doxing" - printing home addresses of leading capitalists to inspire his readers to direct action.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it came to immigrant activism, throughout that period Socialists, Communists, and other political dissidents came to the United States to spread their ideas and make a strong attempt at revolution within the United States.  The Anarchists happen to stand out  in United States history because they were more colorful than other efforts and far more aggressive in the use of violent tactics.

But broadly there is no magical period of dutiful, loyal immigrants who came to the United States that can be contrasted with the immigrants of today.  Even in the late 19th through early 20th century immigrant boom in the United States you had efforts within that community to deliberately destroy the society and government of the United States, with any eye towards forging something new.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Wall Street bombing of 1920 and Luigi Galleani

Getting the New Deal Wrong

I understand people get incredibly passionate about the 1930s, I really do, and the piece I read recently in favor of Senator Bernie Sanders has a paragraph touching on the New Deal with statements such as Franklin D. Roosevelt being an answer to 1930s America's call for "Hope and Change" and also how he engaged in "one crazy, untested, heavily-criticized, but often effective program after another" in reference to the New Deal.  The problem with this, at its core, is that FDR was not a paragon of revolutionary change nor were his initial New Deal efforts an amazing effort to entirely redo the American economy or radically re-invent the social structures of the United States.  FDR began from a fairly moderate position and worked within the confines of the existing United States, he only moved further left as the 1930s wore on.

Yes, in the first 100 days plus, as part of the First New Deal, FDR did end the United States reliance upon gold as the backing of our currency (domestic impact only) and did massively reform the bank system to stabilize the system.  However FDR did not replace the banks with a federally owned system, instead he used existing banks and a system of consolidation.  In fact, the Emergency Banking Legislation FDR passed was anti-local banking in nature, squashing over 4,000 local banks forcibly into larger national banks to stabilize the system.

FDR did pump $500 million into state, county, and local governments for the purpose of civil improvements, revenue drawn in part by borrowing on the credit of the federal government.  FDR faced regular criticism from his own cabinet members and conservative Democrats, as well as Republicans, for his regular argument that between 1933-1934 he had two federal budgets to oversee, the "regular budget" which he "balanced" by cutting salaries to federal workers and veterans pensions and the "emergency budget" for his various social programs which he ran in a high deficit.  But lets talk about the real turd in this First New Deal, the Blue Eagle program or as it is officially known, the National Recovery Administration (NRA).

That shiny Blue Eagle was something put into the windows of businesses that voluntarily complied with the National Recovery Administration (NRA) efforts at a centrally planned United States economy.  Using a system of price controls, wage controls, employment quotas, and production quotas this system of industry-developed and policed economic plans was implemented across the nation to stabilize the economy.  What it actually did was simply create an immediate, and powerful, black market in goods and services to undermine its controls and pushed more economic power to larger corporations which had set the prices and standards to ensure their economies of scale could pound smaller competitors out of business.  (Which was a stated FDR goal of the NRA program by the way, ending "harmful competition" and more "soberly administering" the current economic capacity of the nation.)

The second New Deal, from 1935-1938, is the one most Americans associate with FDR.  That is then the National Labor Relations Act, the Works Progress Administration (poster above), and Social Security were all created.  In addition that was when FDR put through his massive income tax increase - targeted at the ultra-wealthy.  These are the programs, along with First New Deal programs that were successful, that most Americans think back upon when they wax nostalgic about the Progressive 1930s and compare these policies to Senator Sanders proposed plans.  There is just one more tiny problem to bring up though.

That image is from 1937, when the economy went into another tailspin when FDR moved to end many of the federal programs to see if the United States economy had stabilized without federal subsidies.  The short answer is no, it hadn't, and cutting off the artificial stimulation of federal aid provoked a massive crunch in the economy.  FDR claimed it was the work of a criminal conspiracy aimed at undermining him, the Democrats, and the New Deal spearheaded by a wealthy elite, but no evidence of that was ever found.  FDR eventually had to pump another $5 billion in federal aid in 1938 to once again boost domestic purchasing power and end the 1937 recession.

It's not that FDR's policies failed or the United States didn't need many of the efforts of the New Deal, but what is critical is to paint the New Deal accurately.  It was a massive effort that did some good, did some bad, and flirted with some ideas that the United States pretty roundly rejected.  Even in the worst economic crisis in modern United States history the general public showed they were not interested in planned economies, massive federal reshaping of the economy, or even prolonged federal presence in the economy except for dealing with an immediate crisis in 1932-1933.

Senator Sanders supporters can certainly argue for modern change, but please don't hold the New Deal up as "proof" that popular outrage sparked a huge change in the economy led by a Progressive Wonder in FDR.  FDR actually was far more conservative, and cautious, in his efforts and pushed the nation in a new direction gradually.

Sources:  Wikipedia entries on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration

Majority view Scotland as a Country

During my free time , I conducted a survey on a another website in the form of a poll (viewable here via Historum). The survey included 100 internet users, and the question was:

Is Scotland a Country?
And the results are:

Perhaps a future motto ? :)

A majority of 62 percent, that is 62 Participants, voted that Scotland is indeed a country (note: it isn't mentioned that it is an independent country). 17% had voted that it is not, and 21% (I assume) are undecided or say it is both Yes and No.

This could be an advantage to the Scots, I have to say. It reaffirms Scotland's own unique heritage and culture as well as nationality. Whether this is a prelude to the support for a referendum for Scotland's independence, I do not know. But what is known is, there is a continuing increase in the likelihood of independence of Scotland from the United Kingdom.

Hiroshima Email – twisting history for political ends

I was forwarded a fascinating email today by a co-worker, it is a single email showing a series of images from 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The email discusses how both cities were devastated by atomic weapons in 1945 by the United States, then the email shows a series of pictures of modern Hiroshima.  They, of course, depict the modern vibrant city that is now Hiroshima, many of the shots are lovely nighttime images of the city aglow with lights and life.  The email then includes a series of images of modern Detroit, drawing a link between the dilapidated conditions in Detroit today and the amazing wonder of Hiroshima, the email argues that both cities suffered devastation but Detroit was not rebuilt while Hiroshima was.  The conclusion drawn by the email is that this key difference between Hiroshima and Detroit is that in Japan there is no welfare system but in the United States we have welfare institutions in place, therefore in Japan there was an incentive system that encouraged the citizens to rebuild while in Detroit the free money of the U.S. welfare system encourages people to simply not care.

First off, logically, it is incredibly simplistic and, bluntly put, downright wrong to draw a parallel between the situations in Detroit and Hiroshima and then blame it solely upon the existence of a larger U.S. welfare/social services network then any present in Japan.  (Which on its own is wrong because in the U.S. social services/public welfare systems are handled on a blended model of local/state/national administration.  Japan has a similar structure for its social services.)  More critically though this email bluntly ignores the reasons for the rapid development of Hiroshima at the end of World War II.  The city of Hiroshima was rebuilt during the U.S. Occupation of Japan, which took place from 1945 through 1951.  During that period the government of Japan, with permission from the U.S. Occupational Authorities, levied special taxes upon the entire nation of Japan specifically to fund the rebuilding of Hiroshima.  In addition the U.S. directly poured funding into rebuilding Hiroshima during this period as well – the devastated infrastructure of the city was cleared and new structures rapidly built to help restore the cities economic value and functionality.  In fact Hiroshima had to appeal for the extra funding with a proposal to use it to build a new “Peace Park” as the center of the city, to commemorate peace and condemn in very general tones the horrors of war.  That fit well with post-war U.S. policy towards Japan and hence why the “Peace Park” is in Hiroshima to the present day.

Hiroshima – a city rebuilt by massive direct investment in infrastructure repair and restoration by a national government and a large foreign government providing direct aid.

Detroit, on the other hand, is in a state of decay due to gradually shifting economic factors and market forces that have been changing how the United States functions as a nation since the mid-1960s and early-1970s.  With the decline of the northern manufacturing industrial base upon which Detroit heavily rested, the massive riots in the late 1960s throughout the U.S. during the civil rights struggle (the 1967 Detroit Riots were considered some of the worst of this period.)  There has been no major effort by the U.S. on a federal level to rebuild Detroit nor to attempt to offset its economic decline by a national effort.  Detroit also did not suffer a single devastating disaster but instead deflated as a city, declining slowly as population left the city and nothing moved into the empty spaces to keep its economy fully functional.  However currently there appears to be a slow movement by young populations back into Detroit – slowly bringing with them economic strength, consumer demand, and investment income.  Which, in turn, has slowly begun to spark the beginnings of a renaissance for Detroit.

All of which, at best, has only a peripheral link to welfare programs between the U.S. and Japan.  One could as easily draw a link between Hashima Island in Japan (an abandoned coal mining island which has an incredibly dense, highly urbanized city on top of it now simply allowed to decay) and Texas City, TX and its devastation after the 1947 industrial explosion and how today it is a thriving city with great economic development.  Of course you can then link that to the amazing welfare system in the U.S. as compared to Japan.

If you see this email do yourself a favor – look at the pretty pictures, smile to yourself, and then delete the damn thing!

To the Victor Goes the Pen

Ever heard of Carthage ? You know, that little place just to the lower left of Italy's coast. There's a high probability you haven't. For a civilization like the Carthaginians, who were based in Carthage (modern-day Tunis), who were arguably one of the strongest nations during the Roman era. Carthage is the home of Hannibal Barca, one of the greatest military tacticians of his time. 

The Carthaginian Empire in 264 BC (Source:Aldan-2)

Carthage's might was almost alike that of the Romans, so powerful was Carthage that Rome had engaged in a series of wars with Carthage over superiority in the Mediterranean, these wars were called the Punic Wars.
A clear testimony to this might was the fact that Hannibal led an expedition to Rome, bringing with him elephants (and the works). But, in the end, Rome was the victor and Carthage was sacked.

We know very little of Carthage's history aside from those from Roman sources (which were biased). The reason was that the Romans destroyed practically everything pertaining to the Carthaginian nation. Its history was lost as their tablets and scrolls were burned and destroyed. We have no idea of Carthage's religion at the time, aside from Roman sources which claimed they were Pagans and such.

This is a textbook example of a phenomenon that had gripped Man's history , many times did the victor wield the power, both literally and metaphorically speaking.
They wielded the pen of history at the time, they could choose to include or eradicate or demonize whoever they wished. This had worked for many times, in fact, we only know about Carthage via Archaeology and (once again) biased Roman historical tablets.

But, this is being challenged nowadays. In the ever-increasing and technological world, humans are closer than they were before. We can now inform and relate to each other information at the blink of an eye even if we are hundreds of miles apart

This proves critical, it allows the observer to have an opposing view of a particular situation. One that was not available before, for example Romans claimed Carthage had human sacrifices but records do not exist that both endorse this view nor oppose it, hence we often have to accept it.

Twitter and Facebook, seen as the vanguard of this new offensive try to break this phenomenon and give the opposing view, the defeated one's view on how it was. No longer would History simply vanish before our eyes, everything nowadays is recorded and we could safely say that the Pen is no longer with the Victor.

The Omani Invasion of Bahrain and the "Century of Madness"

The Omani Invasion:

During the beginning of the 18th Century, an Afghan uprising (in Afghanistan) and subsequent invasion of Persia by the Afghans caused regional instability which resulted in the Persians pulling out their garrisons from Bahrain. Taking advantage of the confusion, the Sultanate of Oman (in 1717), then a regional power in the Gulf, invaded the island thus lifting 115 years of Safavid control of the island.

The Bahraini cleric, Shaikh Yousif al Bahrani (the cleric I previously mentioned) provided a detailed account of this invasion in his autobiography and book:

The earth shook and everything came to a standstill while preparations were made to do battle with these vile men [the Khārijite Omani invasion force]. The first year they came to seize it they returned disappointed, for they were unable to do so. Nor were they able to succeed the second time a year later, despite the help they received from all of the Bedouin and outlaws. The third time, however, they were able to surround Bahrain by controlling the sea, for Bahrain is an island. In this way they eventually weakened its inhabitants and then took it by force. It was a horrific battle and a terrible catastrophe, for all the killing, plunder, pillage, and bloodshed that took place.

After the Khārijites had conquered it and granted the inhabitants safe passage, the people—especially the notables—fled to al-Qaṭīf and other regions. Among them was my father—God have mercy upon him—accompanied by his dependents [i.e., wives] and children, who traveled with them to al-Qaṭīf. But he left me in Bahrain in the house we owned in al-Shākhūra because some chests filled with bundles of our possessions, including books, gold coins, and clothes, were hidden there. He had taken a large portion of our possessions up to the fortress in which everyone had planned to [take refuge] when we were besieged, but he had left some behind in the house, stored in hiding places. Everything in the fortress was lost after the Khārijites took it by force, and we all left the fortress with nothing but the clothes on our backs. So when my father left for al-Qaṭīf, I remained in Bahrain; he had ordered me to gather whatever books remained in the fortress and save them from the hands of the Khārijites. I did manage to save a number of books that I found there along with some that were left in the house, which I sent to him a few at a time. These years passed in an utter lack of prosperity.I then traveled to al-Qaṭīf to visit my father and stayed there two or three months, but my father grew fed up with sitting in al-Qaṭīf because of the large number of dependents he had with him, the miserable conditions, and his lack of money, so he grew determined to return to Bahrain even though it was in the hands of the Khārijites. Fate, however, intervened between him and his plans, for the Persian army, along with a large number of Bedouins, arrived at that time to liberate Bahrain from the hands of the Khārijites. We followed the events closely and waited to see the outcome of these disasters; eventually the wheel of fortune turned against the Persians, they were all killed, and Bahrain was burned. Our house in the village [of al-Shākhūra] was among those burned.During this time, I was traveling back and forth to Bahrain in order to take care of the date palms we owned there and gather the harvest, then returning to al-Qaṭīf to study. [This continued] until Bahrain was taken from the hands of the Khārijites by treaty, after a great sum had been paid to their commander, because of the Persian king's weakness and impotence, and his empire's decline through bad administration. 

Political Limbo in Bahrain:

No clear historical evidence suggests that the Omanis had stayed for a significant period of time aside from the data above. It is widely believed that Bahrain had been pillaged by the Omanis simply for wealth. However, when the Omanis had left, political instability in the island had led to many invasions by Huwala Bedouins. These were Sunni Arabs who had migrated to Persia in the early centuries, it also applies vice versa( Sunni Persians settling in Arabia). Al Bahrani says that these tribes had 'ruined' Bahrain.

A map (in Arabic) showing the extent of the Omani Empire

Almost constant warfare between various Sunni bedouin tribes, the Kharajite Omanis and then the Persians under Nadir Shah (who had sought to re-establish Persian dominance in the island) and Karim Khan Zand laid waste to much of Bahrain, while the high taxes imposed by the Omanis drove out both the ulema,pearl merchants and the pearl divers .

In 1736, Bahrain had been recaptured by Persia , along with the aid of the British and the Dutch. But afterwards, it was ruled by the Arabs of Abu Shahr of the Bushire-based Al Madhkur family but it was indirectly a vassal state to (then De Facto Shah) Karim Khan of the Safavids.

The years of almost constant warfare and instability in the period led to a demographic collapse - German geographer and Arabist Carsten Niebuhr found in 1763 that Bahrain's 360 towns and villages had, through warfare and economic distress, been reduced to only 60.The influence of Iran was further undermined at the end of the 18th century when the ideological power struggle between the Akhbari-Usuli strands culminated in victory for the Akhbaris in Bahrain (Bet you thought they all died out :P )

Book Review: The Man Who Sold The World

Title: The Man Who Sold The World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America
Author: William Kleinknecht
Publisher: Nation Books

I read this book about a month ago and I’ve been meaning to post a brief review of it, I purchased it a year ago because it promised to examine the legacy of Ronald Reagan and the actions of his administration and how Reagan’s actions as President of the United States undermined the culture, economy, and political system of the United States.  The author attempts to prove nothing less then Ronald Reagan, or at least those he put in power, deliberately engaged in a series of policies that were intentionally designed to transfer wealth into a smaller pool of hands within the United States, destroy the environment of the United States, and undermine economic organizations and regulations that protected small businesses, small towns, and individual consumers within the United States.  One of the major central arguments the author puts forward is that culturally Reagan undermined the idea of government competence with any sphere of society in the United States and also undermined the idea of community as a guiding force within the United States culturally.  Specifically Kleinknecht argues that Ronald Reagan, in his campaign for the Presidency as well as his administration, emphasized the ideal of the individual over the community, personal gain over societal gain, “me ahead of you” to put it crudely.

The problem however is that Kleinknecht in his book dabbles more in politics and in crafting an opinion then in actually reporting the history of the domestic policies of the Ronald Reagan administration, more critically he misses the target of his subject and instead drifts over a wide range of accusations against various conservative forces that took a leading role in the federal government while Reagan was in office.  Kleinknecht though does not limit his proof to that period, instead he draws upon events that happened while Reagan was in office, George W. Bush Sr. was in office, and William Clinton was in office, attempting to use all of these to prove a more broad hypothesis that conservative elements in the United States, since 1981, have engaged in a constant series of policies that have undermined what Kleinknecht argues are core values of the United States.  Specifically Kleinknecht argues in favor of federal regulation of markets and business, federal control and limitations on the economy, and returning the United States politically towards a system of federal control closer to that of the 1960s and 1970s then the system the United States currently operates under.

All valid outlooks to hold and argue but not matters of history – they are matters of policy and politics.  The line may seem a fine one to draw but Kleinknecht avoids dealing with the history of the Reagan administration directly and instead grapples with the ideology of the Reagan years, but even that task is not attempted in a neutral tone.  Kleinknecht has a point to argue, that Reagan and those Reagan brought into power undermined Kleinknecht’s ideal vision of the society of the United States.  If you are looking for a book documenting the history of the United States in the 1980s and the massive cultural revolution it underwent, a topic of considerable complexity and breadth, this is not a book I can recommend as a starting point.