Tag: H2H

Roe v. Wade (1973) – Draft from “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases

~ Blue Cereal

This is an early draft of a chapter from “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. The final version is more concise and, I believe, a bit more clear.

“Have To” History: Roe v. Wade (1973)

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About Tiananmen Square

Roe v. WadeThree Big Things:

1. Roe v. Wade (1973) established the right for women to have an abortion, at least at some stages of pregnancy, as part of a constitutionally implied “right to privacy.”

2. Roe codified a trimester approach to abortion’s legality, with legal guidelines shifting as a pregnancy progressed. (This was later modified to more specifically reflect the viability of the fetus at various stages.)

3. Roe is one of the best-known and most-debated cases in Supreme Court history, despite its efforts to anchor its findings in historical approaches to abortion in western culture and an only recently-discovered “right to privacy” in the U.S. Constitution.

Background

Norma McCorvey was 21-years old when she discovered she was pregnant with her third child in the summer of 1969. Her friends in Dallas suggested she claim to have been raped, believing (incorrectly) that this would allow her to get a legal abortion in Texas. (State law at the time only allowed abortion “for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.”) She soon rejected this strategy and attempted to secure an illegal abortion instead, but the facility she chose had been shut down by authorities before she could do so.

It was at this point that McCorvey met two attorneys fresh out of University of Texas Law School – Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. Together they filed a lawsuit claiming McCorvey’s constitutional rights were being violated by anti-abortion legislation which was vaguely framed and overly restrictive. Henry Wade was the District Attorney in Dallas at the time, so he was named as the defendant. The name “Roe” was a standard pseudonym (like “John Doe”) used for women whose identity was either unknown or who – as in this case – wished to avoid public scrutiny.

Abortion at this time was regulated (or prohibited) on a state-by-state basis. Most had laws restricting the circumstances in which abortion was legal, and many had banned it outright, generally with exceptions for saving the life of the mother. At the same time, the nation was just emerging from the 1960s, a time of expanded sexual freedom and a dramatic shift in what sorts of rights – including those related to sex or sexuality – the Supreme Court was willing to protect. While Chief Justice Earl Warren had retired just as McCorvey was learning about her third pregnancy, the impact of the Court under his tenure was still very much in play. There was little reason to expect dramatic shifts in judicial philosophy under the new Chief Justice, Warren Burger.

The Decision

The Court ruled 7 – 2 that the Texas law prohibiting all abortions was unconstitutional. They did not, however, embrace the argument that women should have unrestricted access to abortions; the state could limit the practice to some extent. The Majority Opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, can be broken into five basic sections addressing the various issues involved:

1. Justiciability. Is this something the Supreme Court should even be ruling on? By the time the case came before the Supreme Court, Norma McCorvey had had her baby – she wasn’t pregnant any longer, and the Court doesn’t do “theoretical” cases. Was the issue “moot”?

“Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness,” Justice Blackmun wrote. Because of the unique nature of pregnancy, following typical procedures would mean that no woman could ever bring suit on an issue related to her pregnancy since the system moves too slowly. He cites a wonderful phrase from an otherwise unremarkable 1911 case, Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC: “It truly could be ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” The Court could hear the case. 

2. History. Blackmun starts with abortion policies under the Greeks and Romans and follows the thread all the way into the 20th century. Limitations or prohibitions of the practice, he notes, were far from universal. Those which did exist generally attempted to distinguish between the fetus as part of the mother’s body and the fetus as distinct living entity by identifying the moment of “quickening” – the point in the pregnancy in which the child moved under its own apparent volition, thus demonstrating one of the defining features of “life.” Other times it was the moment of “animation” – the state at which the fetus starts to look more like a baby than a glob or a stomach tumor. Neither was particularly scientific, but the takeaway was that it mattered how developed a “potential life” seemed to be when creating legal restrictions on eliminating it.

Overall, Blackmun found relatively few legal limitations of any sort on abortion prior to the late-19th century. Even when pregnancies were ended in violation of existing statutes, penalties were mild, and almost never impacted the mother directly. In short, while abortion was discussed and somewhat debated prior to the 20th century, it was hardly the explosive source of controversy it had become.

3. The “Right to Privacy.” The First Amendment protects, among other things, an individual’s right to be left alone in matters of faith or their choice of friends. The Third protects the privacy of citizens’ homes from soldiers in need of a place to crash. The Fourth protects that same property, along with any private “papers and effects,” from search or seizure without a compelling and well-documented reason. The Fifth protects individuals from sharing anything they don’t wish to, even in their own trials, and introduces due process into any situation where the government wishes to limit individual freedom or take your stuff.
The Ninth Amendment specifies that just because an individual right hasn’t been addressed in the previous eight, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The Framers may not have codified your prerogative to dye your hair, to own ferrets as pets, or to privatize space flight, but (the Ninth suggests) you absolutely have those freedoms unless the government (including the judicial branch) finds legitimate reasons you don’t.

Then, of course, there’s the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s here the “right to privacy” is most often discovered:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

McCorvey’s team claimed that she was unable to get a “safe, legal” abortion because she could not afford to travel to where the procedure was allowed. The Texas statutes involved were “unconstitutionally vague” and violated her right of personal privacy as protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She claimed to be suing not only for herself, but “on behalf of herself and all other women” similarly situated. The Court largely accepted this argument. Blackmun cites numerous precedents – none of which addressed abortion specifically, but all of which inferred some version of a “right to privacy” guaranteed by the Constitution. There’d been three particularly poignant examples in the decade leading up to Roe:

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – State restrictions on contraception were overturned based on the “zone of privacy” found in the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, at least in reference to married couples. A few years later, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended this to unmarried couples as well. (In addition to laying the groundwork for Roe, Griswold would be cited decades later in cases decriminalizing various homosexual behavior and applying Fourteenth Amendment protections to same-sex couples.)

Loving v. Virginia (1967) – The Court declared unconstitutional a state law prohibiting marriage between citizens of different races. Their decision was founded on the Due Process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. While less founded on “privacy” than other cases listed here, the Court’s decision did strengthen the idea that the government needed pretty strong justification for controlling private lives. (Not surprisingly, this one will also be cited a half-century later during arguments over same-sex marriages.)

Stanley v. Georgia (1969) – Individuals have the right to possess and view pornography in the privacy of their own homes. “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.”

4. Is the Fetus A “Person”?

The majority carefully avoided taking a spiritual, ethical, or even medical stand on this one. Blackmun instead explored the use of the term “person” in the Constitution and concluded that it does not include anyone or anything pre-natal. “Persons” run for office or endure servitude, both of which would require first being born. The Fourteenth Amendment defines “citizens” in terms of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Blackmun was quick to clarify, however, that just as the State had an obligation to consider a woman’s health and safety, it could also be legitimately concerned with “potential life.” That’s not quite on par with being a citizen, or even a person, but it certainly implies a legal status better than, say, an extra kidney.

5. The Trimester Plan

The Court rejected McCorvey’s claim to unrestricted abortion rights as well as Texas’s mandate that life begins and conception and must not be interfered with except in extreme cases. Blackmun and the majority instead implemented a three-trimester approach based on historical precedents and medical understanding circa 1973.

During the first trimester (roughly the first three months of pregnancy), decisions about abortion are left to the woman and her doctor. There’s insubstantial evidence of “potential life” or viability as traditionally understood – certainly not enough to override a woman’s “right to privacy” or to medical decisions about her own body. During the second trimester, the state may begin regulating abortion procedures to protect the mother’s health. The State at this point has acquired a “compelling interest” in the well-being of the mother. It is only during the third trimester, the point at which the smaller entity could conceivably live outside the womb, that the state has “compelling interest” in the “potential life” of the unborn child. This may be offset by concern for the mother’s life or well-being, but otherwise the State may prohibit abortion at this stage or not, as it sees fit.

Aftermath 

As in many decisions made by the Warren Court before it, the majority in Roe was criticized for moving beyond the role assigned to it by the constitution. Even supporters of abortion rights have at times expressed a desire for more substantive foundation than the reasoning offered therein. On the other hand, variations of “give it more time, let the legislature get there on its own” have become a bit clichéd whenever rights are extended to those not already in social or political power, be they pregnant women, people of color, or others. Often it simply means, “we’d prefer to keep stalling on this indefinitely.” 

The issue is not simply one of legal specifics, of course. For those who frame the issue in terms of a woman’s “right to choose,” abortion laws are one more example of the misogynistic, oppressive, blame-and-shame culture of the political right. The idea that the conservatives who generally support such limitations intend to protect women and children is perceived as self-evidently ludicrous and entirely inconsistent with the remainder of their dogma and political choices. “Pro-choice” advocates are quick to point out how many of those opposing abortion rights are old white men unlikely to become pregnant themselves, and who’ve historically opposed any threats to their elite status – women’s suffrage, labor unions, civil rights, etc. “They’re not pro-life, just pro-birth” is a succinct expression of this frustration and the inherent accusations thereof.

For those who genuinely believe that life begins at conception, however – especially if they’re under the impression this is specified in the Bible – the question of abortion is far more than the political fulcrum it’s often become. For “pro-life” proponents, arguments about separation of powers, judicial activism, or substantive due process only obscure the central question behind them all: “Is it OK to kill babies?” It has pushed many to become “single-issue voters,” accepting an array of positions with little or no relation to fetal viability in order to demonstrate their opposition to what they see as a horrific, unforgivable practice.

The issue continues to rise to the forefront of political and social debate from time to time and has arguably been used to both rally and outrage voters by both sides of the proverbial aisle. As of this writing, the decision in Roe has been periodically challenged and somewhat modified but has not been overturned. Its place in case law is by no means entirely secure, however. There are many still anxious to revisit the issue, usually in the name of validating universal bans of abortion regardless of circumstances. We’ll see what happens.

You Want to Sound REALLY Smart? (Related Jurisprudence and Legislation)

Doe v. Bolton (1973) – Decided at the same time as Roe, Doe clarified that in matters of determining the impact of pregnancy on the “health” of the mother, “the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient.” This gives doctors (and their patients) subjective leeway and has subsequently been cited in cases involving abnormalities revealed by prenatal screening,

Supreme Court nominees are regularly asked their thoughts on Roe during confirmation hearings, and while most refuse to discuss it in detail, it’s become something of a “litmus test” for both liberals and conservatives. It rarely guarantees anything related to the issue once appointed.

The Hyde Amendment – Passed by Congress in 1976, this prohibits the use of federal funding to pay for abortions, particularly through Medicaid. It was upheld by the Court in the 1980 case of Harris v. McRae and has been in effect ever since with periodic modifications. It’s still a hot topic whenever the issue of abortion comes up during political campaigns.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) – A split Court (5–4) upheld several abortion restrictions and adjusted the trimester system in Roe to reflect improved medical technology. 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) – Another split Court (5–4) decision, involving an array of Pennsylvania statues not entirely banning abortion, but clearly making it difficult for women to access (a mandatory “waiting period,” parental consent for minors, permission slips from husbands, etc.). The Court invoked the standard of “undue burden” to uphold parts of the legislation while invalidating others. The Court also shifted the focus from trimesters to viability to accommodate medical progress.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) – Yet another 5-4 decision (see a pattern?), this one involved so-called “partial birth abortions,” a term which meant absolutely nothing medically but certainly stirred up imagery and emotions. The Court struck down attempts by Nebraska to ban these procedures because they did not meet the basic requirements of Roe or Casey. There was no exception for the life or health of the mother, and the prohibition included pre-viability pregnancies, despite the methods so labeled were often the safest for the mother during the second trimester. Nebraska’s legislation thus triggered the “undue burden” on women referenced in Casey.

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) – Another “partial birth abortion” ban, this time by Congress itself, and another 5-4 decision, this time allowing the legislation banning the procedure. The Court accepted government arguments that the statue referred only to a specific procedure, not to all abortion, and thus did not create “undue burden” and did not require an exception for the life or health of the mother since other options remained available.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) – The Court in a 5-3 vote struck down Texas legislation imposing heightened requirements on abortion providers, finding they did little to increase safety or otherwise protect the mother but were mostly thinly veiled efforts to make it difficult to get an abortion – “undue burden.”

Tiananmen Square (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About Tiananmen Square

Three Big Things:

Tiananmen Square Protests1. In 1989, Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was one of many sites across China where citizens marched, chanted, and otherwise protested government corruption; they demanded reforms and protection of basic human rights.

2. Government response was brutal, especially at Tiananmen Square; foreign reporters and photographers managed to smuggle out stories and media of the Chinese military abusing and executing protestors.

3. One especially poignant video (and the still photo encapsulating it) shows an unknown individual waving his arms at a tank, then climbing up and shouting at the operators before being rushed off by equally unknown figures. This individual has since been remembered as “Tank Man.”

Background

By June of 1989, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had been in power for forty years, following decades of civil war against the Kuomintang (KMT), or Nationalist Party. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was declared in 1949 with Mao Zedong as its unquestioned first-among-equals; he ran the nation in ways both brutal and strange.

The KMT, led by Mao’s nemesis Chiang Kai-Shek, retreated to Taiwan, where they established China Classic, and remained (in the eyes of the west) the officially recognized government until 1971. Despite being virulently anti-Communist, the KMT weren’t exactly “good guys” in this tale. Taiwan was under martial law for nearly forty years, led by a government in perpetual paranoia over potential spies or Commie sympathizers. In 1971, the United Nations finally relented to reality and gave the KMT’s seat to the PRC.

Within a few short years, China Major – the big, red part we all know and love today – went from a “Cultural Revolution” in which anyone insufficiently excited about Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book” was assaulted, humiliated, or simply made to vanish, to welcoming President Nixon and celebrating the “thawing” of relations with the west. For the next few decades, the U.S. and China took turns pretending to care about basic human rights while building a complex and mutually profitable relationship. China purchased a bunch of America’s debt and allowed U.S. industries partial access to one of the world’s largest markets, while the U.S. became a massive importer of Chinese goods and created an endless supply of movies for them to illegally copy. For better or worse, the two became (and remain) inseparably bound. 

China craved economic growth and global legitimacy, seeking the ideal mix of market forces and “Chinese Socialism” while reclaiming some of their historic status in the eyes of the rest of the world. They loosened their grip on the little people, hoping they’d behave on their own if they knew what was good for them, and even wrote themselves a new constitution, adopted in 1982. It was super-socialist, to be sure, but also rather ambitious in terms of protecting personal liberties.

And Then 1989 Happened

Tiananmen SquareOn April 15th, 1989, a popular politician by the name of Hu Yaobang died (he was 73 and had a heart attack – nothing nefarious). Hu was rebellious and relatively progressive, popular with idealists and college students – the Bernie Sanders of his day. Students and others took to the streets to mourn his passing, which inevitably transitioned into rather blunt criticism towards those still alive and in power. Soon their demonstrations became protests – against corruption, against the party’s mistreatment of Hu, and whatever else came to mind along the way. And they spread.

Government response was inconsistent. Sometimes the powers-that-be power cracked down; other times, they seemed open to discussions. Protestors were unpredictable as well. It’s complicated enough to be clear what you’re against; far trickier to consistently project what you’re for. There were hunger strikes, rallies, some violence, and lots of yelling.

Always with the yelling, those protestors.

By June 4th, the government had had enough. After several strong editorials warning the masses to wrap it up and get on with their carefully managed lives, troops were sent in to disperse the protestors. Sometimes they made arrests, other times they simply fired into the crowds. This was not, however, a tense situation which somehow erupted into violence; this was methodical military action carried out according to orders from above.

Tanks then rolled into Tiananmen Square – site of one of the largest demonstrations. Protestors who refused to move or who simply couldn’t get out of the way were rolled over – several reports say multiple times, so their remains could be literally hosed into the sewers rather than taken away and buried. Clearly China was sending a message about just how seriously all of this new “freedom” was to be taken – and they were willing to sacrifice their own citizens and a certain amount of reputation in the eyes of the world in order to do it.

The official death toll was 200 – 300. The Red Cross estimated 2,700. Recent memos between British and U.S. officials suggest an alarmingly specific 10,454 – dead at the hands of their own government.

China did attempt some damage control with the international press. Reporters had their equipment seized, their hotel rooms trashed, and their well-being threatened over the words and images they were determined to send back to their respective outlets. But It turns out that pesky liberal media can be quite heroic sometimes, no matter what flavor of corrupt, arrogant power tries to shut them down. So… go free press, and all that.
That is why – against all odds – we have images like this:

Tank Man
 
“Tank Man”

It’s not at all clear who this was. He may have been a 19-year old student named Wang Weilin, or maybe not. He was eventually pulled away – but by whom? Government agents? Sympathetic protestors trying to protect him? He may have been imprisoned, tortured, or killed, or he may have simply faded into obscurity and gone on with his life. We’ll probably never know.

Here’s what we do know. He had absolutely no reason to think those tanks were going to stop.

They hadn’t, the day before. As he stood there defiantly, he could hear the gunshots and screams of other protestors paying for their defiance. It’s not clear where he came from or how he ended up alone in Tiananmen Square, facing off with destruction, but he quickly became an international symbol of… something. Defiance, maybe. Or freedom. Human rights, or perhaps the entire Tiananmen Square protest and resulting crackdown. To some extent, what his action symbolized is in the eye of the beholder. We’re certainly unlikely to ever know what he thought it meant.

Aftermath

“Tank Man” didn’t stop the tanks. We can’t reasonably connect his actions to the saving of any lives. At best, he slowed down one segment of a long, complex series of horrors for about five minutes.

Nothing changed in China’s policies, tactics, or narrative as a result of the protests, either, in Tiananmen Square or anywhere else. All references to the event are scrubbed from Chinese internet searches and prohibited in all Chinese sources. If “Tank Man” lived past his asymmetrical showdown, it’s extremely unlikely he had any idea that his actions had been viewed or discussed by anyone not there that day. Even if he’s alive and well today somewhere in China, odds are he has no idea that he’s an iconic photograph or world history talking point.

China quickly moved on, as if the massacre never happened. In 2001, they joined the World Trade Organization. In 2008, they hosted the Olympics. Their economy continues to grow steadily in the 21st century, and at times China appears ready to play nice with the rest of the world.

Other times, not so much.

Human rights abuses are still a substantial concern, but in the modern age of omnipresent news, never-ending tragedy, and ubiquitous corruption, the rest of the world is far less focused on specific problems – in China or anywhere else – than we perhaps used to be. Besides, most of the nations who’d have once taken issue with such things are making quite a bit of money from their relationship with China – as a customer, a supplier, or merely an open door to foreign investments and corporate expansion.

Still, the name “Tiananmen Square” and the image of “Tank Man” still resonate decades later, clearly speaking to something in our collective human experience. Such intangibles, however, are the purview of psychology, sociology, or maybe even mythology. In terms of history, the protests happened, then were removed. The fate of “Tank Man” we simply don’t know, and probably never will.

“Have To” History: The Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement (1856 – 1857)

~ Blue Cereal

Three Big Things:

1. The Xhosa were a South African people threatened by European encroachment beginning in the 17th century.

2. In 1856, a young Xhosa girl encountered two supernatural strangers who told her a time of renewal was coming but must be preceded by the slaughter of their existing cattle and crops.

3. The resulting Cattle-Killing Movement left the Xhosa destitute and divided against themselves. Over a century and a half later, they remain one of South Africa’s poorest demographics.

Background

Xhosa MapThe Xhosa were (and are) a major cultural group from the Eastern Cape. The land was fertile and there were plenty of fresh water sources for their cattle – which, as it turns out, were rather important to them. Like the Zulu, they were descended from the Bantu who centuries before had migrated from the northwest. Xhosa is still one of the most-spoken languages in Africa, and the native tongue of Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and the Black Panther.

The community unit was the “district,” made of extended family “homesteads.” Each district was led by a chief whose power was balanced by the expectation he would guide and protect the district. The chiefs answered to a Xhosa king, to whom they were usually related in some way, and whose power – like theirs – was contingent on perceptions of his success.

Manipulations of or by evil spirits were thought to be the source of all sorts of trouble by the Xhosa. Illness, poor crops, natural disasters – witchcraft was always a suspect. It didn’t have to be the immediate source; merely tolerating it, whatever its form, led to disasters. Fortunately, family ancestors properly honored acted as good spirits, offering guidance how to refute the evil. One of the most common ways was through sacrifice. A variety of animals were used, but by far the most sacred were cattle.

Cattle were everything to the Xhosa. They were sustenance – milk and meat – as well as a source of hides, tools, fuel, and fertilizer. They were also currency – the central unit of value understood by all. They indicated status and they purchased wives. Minor crimes could be forgiven for what we’d think of as a small “fine,” generally paid to the chief in the form of – you guessed it – cattle.

Conflict & Crises

Armed BoersSince the mid-17th century, the Xhosa, like the rest of Southern Africa, had been forced to accommodate European settlers on the Cape – first the Dutch, then the British. The Dutch Boers were especially problematic. Staunch Calvinists, they believed themselves quite literally chosen by God and rarely hesitated to transgress on Xhosa territory. In turn, the Xhosa raided Boer settlements for (what else?) cattle, and hostilities erupted regularly.

Since 1779, the Xhosa had been engaged in hostilities with the Boer and the British – sometimes united, sometimes separately. Historians divide this century into nine distinct wars, the eighth of which lasted from 1850 – 1853 and primarily involved the British. It was rooted in ugliness on both sides, but one interesting element was a Xhosa prophet who predicted the tribe would be completely unaffected by the colonists’ bullets. 

He was incorrect. It was the most devastating loss of the century for the Xhosa.

In 1854, “lungsickness” began spreading through the Xhosa cattle. It was brought from Europe by Boer ranchers looking to improve their herds with imported stock. The disease decimated Xhosa herds, leaving the community hungry, destitute, and looking for answers. What they were certain of was that their physical suffering reflected a commensurate spiritual corruption on the part of those responsible.

The Prophecy

Nongqawuse was a 15-year old Xhosa girl whose uncle, Mhlakaza, was a respected diviner and advisor to King Sarhili. In April 1856, Nongqawuse and a friend walked to the banks of the Gxarha River, near the Indian Ocean, to scare away birds who sometimes threatened family crops there. It was an area of indescribable natural beauty – the river, the ocean, farmland, bushes, and cliffs, making it something of an Eden in otherwise dark times for the Xhosa.

There, the girls met two strangers who claimed to be ancestor-spirits and proceeded to explain that the Xhosa dead would soon rise and a new era of supernatural prosperity would begin. They were to tell their people to abandon all forms of witchcraft, incest, and adultery, and begin preparing enclosures for the many new cattle about to appear and fields for the bountiful crops about to spring forth.

They would, of course, first have to destroy all existing crops and cattle to make way for this renewal. They were contaminated anyway – corrupted, both literally and spiritually. For things to become new, the old must pass away. So, let’s go kill those cows. All of them.

Nongqawuse & FriendThe homestead was understandably hesitant to embrace this revelation, so Mhlakaza returned with the girls to the site of the visitation. The strangers would only communicate through Nongqawuse (which perhaps should have been a red flag) but Mhlakaza was nonetheless convinced one of the spirits was, in fact, his deceased brother, and embraced the prophecy wholeheartedly. Mhlakaza sent word to the other chiefs, and soon the entire nation was talking. Even King Sarhili sent trusted family members to investigate; soon he, too, was officially a believer.

Reactions across the kingdom were mixed; some embraced it immediately, eager to bring about a newer, better world. Others rejected it entirely, declaring it foolish to destroy an already inadequate source of sustenance. Most were somewhere in between, not wanting to commit wholeheartedly to such extremism, but afraid to anger the ancestors or incur censure from the community. Perhaps not surprisingly, districts hit the hardest by lungsickness, or who’d recently lost land to white encroachment, tended to more readily embrace the call to radical action.

Muddy Waters & Collapse

In the twelve months preceding Nongqawuse’s revelation, there had been multiple prophecies involving a “black nation across the sea” who would soon be coming to the aid of the Xhosa. In preparation, their messengers declared, the Xhosa should destroy their fields and kill their cattle, then prepare for newer, better crops and livestock.                                                 

Sound familiar?

These prophecies referred to the Russians, then currently engaged in the Crimean War against the British and others, and who were thought to be both supernatural and black-skinned by much of South Africa. Nongqawuse’s vision, which implied the removal of Brits and Boers but never mentioned them directly, renewed interests in these prior predictions, bringing an explicitly anti-white tone to the discussion by association.

As the months dragged on without the dead rising or the cattle returning, adherents to Cattle-Killing began blaming non-believers for the failure of the prophecy, sometimes killing their cattle and destroying the crops clandestinely to help speed the renewal. Other Xhosa had sold their cattle in order to avoid looking like non-believers, but this, too, was betrayal, since appropriate sacrificial rituals were essential to the purification required.

The more evident it became that renewal was not forthcoming, the more committed and dogmatic the faithful became – a tragic pattern in these sorts of things. Even if the entire community had reversed course, however, it was too late for any real hope of recovery. They had simply destroyed too much of the foundational elements of their way of life – arable land and healthy cattle.

In February 1857, King Sarhili met with Nongqawuse and Mhalakaza at the site of the original vision, where they spoke privately for a long (but unspecified) amount of time. He then announced that the promised New World would begin in exactly eight days, with a blood-red sunrise and a massive storm, during which only the homes of true believers would remain standing and the colonizers would return to the sea. Finally, the dead would begin rising, the crops begin growing, and the new and improved cattle return.

Sarhili’s proclamation prompted a final week-long spasm of crop destruction and cattle-slaughter, until the eighth day arrived. It was a normal sunrise, and the weather was mild.

Aftermath

Xhosa Cattle-Killing

Reactions to Nongqawuse’s cattle-killing prophecy fragmented not only districts, but homesteads and families. In the resulting destitution, something in the neighborhood of 40,000 Xhosa died of starvation, illness, and related violence. The British-controlled Cape began offering assistance to Xhosa willing to move to the colony under special labor contracts. They had to agree to work anywhere in the colony for whatever amount of money was offered in order to receive food, medical care, or other relief. The Boer, on the other hand, had little use for such subtleties and simply continued enslaving or killing the Xhosa as circumstances allowed.

The Eastern Cape never fully recovered. Today, “Nongqawuse” is a byword – brought up whenever someone’s ideas are considered especially foolish or destructive. The destruction visited on the Xhosa by what they perceived as the white man’s God convinced many they should try to get on his good side instead. In 1850, there were almost no self-identified Christians among the Xhosa; a century later it was the area’s majority faith.

It’s easy to paint the Cattle-Killing Movement as self-destructive, but that over-simplifies the dynamics and the desperation of those involved. Many mainstream belief systems promote narratives in which sacrifice and apparent foolishness lead to spiritual (and sometimes temporal) victory. Jesus had an opportunity to establish an earthly kingdom but chose death on a cross in exchange for something longer-term. Gandhi protested British imperialism with a Salt March, at the end of which he and his followers were severely beaten – but which changed British policy. Obi Wan fell before Darth Vader, warning him that “if you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine”; he came back as a hologram who could no longer be blamed for subsequent plots.

The whole nature of faith is that you don’t actually know that what you’re doing will work. The “God-Worshippers” were taking part in the Taiping Rebellion at almost the same time the Xhosa were killing their cattle. The “Ghost Dance” Movement of the Plains Amerindians and the Boxer Rebellion were a half-century later. Even today there are evangelicals thrilled at their perception that President Donald Trump is hastening the end of the world through his foreign policy choices, believing that imminent destruction for the rest of us means a new and better plane of existence for them, the chosen few.

Right or wrong, radical faith like that of the cattle-killing Xhosa was an act of defiance and hope when less-extreme measures had proven inadequate. That it didn’t work – at least by our mortal standards – makes it no less true.

The Ghost Dance Movement(s)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To)

Three Big Things:

Ghost Dance Green1. The tribes of the Great Plains faced confinement or extermination as the 19th century drew to a close; they were desperate and confused in the face of ongoing U.S. expansion, aggression, and manipulation.

2. The “Ghost Dance” promised to bring back their former way of life, to raise their dead, and to bring peace and prosperity to all who believed.

3. Variations in tribal interpretations of “Ghost Dance” teachings and white fears of Amerindian uprisings led to unnecessary death and violence, most notably at Wounded Knee in 1890 – the effective end of Native resistance on the Great Plains. 

Background

The end of the American Civil War allowed the U.S. to turn its military focus to the Great Plains. The Homestead Act (1862) codified and intensified the westward expansion which had been a defining feature of the United States since its political birth a century before. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 had largely cleared the southeastern portion of the continent of its Native American inhabitants, most famously the Five Civilized Tribes, who were forcibly settled in Indian Territory (I.T.), along with a number of lesser-known tribes, where they did their best to rebuild what lives they could in this strange new land.

When the Civil War broke out, the Five Civilized Tribes largely supported the Confederacy – some wholeheartedly, others in part. Upon Union victory, Congress – controlled by the same Radical Republicans who would try so intently to “reconstruct” the South – punished the inhabitants of I.T. by drastically reducing their land allotments. The Five Tribes were confined to what is today the eastern half of Oklahoma, thus opening the western half to a new round of forced migration. This time it would be the tribes of the Great Plains – roughly the middle third of the U.S. – who would be hunted, cajoled, or otherwise forced onto this ever-shrinking reservation.

The Post-Bellum Indian Wars

The U.S. used a variety of tactics against the Plains Tribes in the decades after the Civil War. A favorite of George A. Custer was the early morning winter attack. Soldiers would surprise a village of “hostiles,” bundled with their women and children against the cold, and open fire just before dawn. Startled warriors were caught without their horses, weapons, or even clothing, and were generally slaughtered with relative ease. 

A second strategy was less direct but arguably even more effective. Buffalo were essential to cultures and basic survival of most Plains Amerindians. Food, clothing, tools, storage, and rituals all involved parts of this ubiquitous beast. The U.S. began encouraging large-scale hunting of these creatures, on horseback or – no joke – by railroad. Excited urbanites paid good money for the chance to lean out of train windows firing rifles into the herds. The carcasses were often left in the sun to rot.

Then, of course, there were the actual battles between U.S. soldiers and various Plains tribal groups. There were a few Amerindian victories – most notably the Battle of Little Bighorn (aka, “Custer’s Last Stand”) in 1876, but by and large the Native Americans adapted poorly to the sort of hierarchical structure and sustained discipline essential for U.S.-style military engagement. While brave and creative warriors, they carried a deeply-rooted sense of individuality and a distaste for telling other men what they could or could not do. However much this stirred the romantic notions of distant whites, it completely undermined efforts to coordinate large-scale resistance.

In short, the U.S. had them out-numbered, out-gunned, out-financed, and out-structured. By the late 19th century, few Amerindians of any tribe could claim much hope for their collective futures.

The First Ghost Dance: Wodzibob 

Around 1870, a Paiute holy man by the name of Wodzibob began sharing a vision he’d had in which God had taken him up to heaven and informed him that a time of resurrection was soon coming. The dead would be resurrected and the buffalo would return. The people could help speed this by performing a series of rituals, most notably an extended dance involving the entire community, women as well as men, moving rhythmically in a large circle. 

“Round dances” were not new to the Plains Amerindians; most tribes had their own variations. Dancers sometimes entered trance-like states leading to visions or prophesies, so while Wodzibob’s message was new, the format and source were familiar. It was left to the individual to decide the extent to which someone else’s revelation applied to them. As an established healer and respected member of the tribe, Wodzibob’s teachings spread quickly and endured for several years, until it gradually became clear his predictions were not coming to pass in the promised time frame. 

WovokaThe Second Ghost Dance: Wovoka

By the late 1880s, the majority of the tribes native to the continental United States had been defeated – by warfare, by disease, by the loss of land, and – in the case of the Great Plains – the disappearance of the buffalo. Many were forced onto reservations or packed into Indian Territory where they were expected to farm and practice “white” lifestyles on unwilling land, without essential tools or adequate supplies, and minus the requisite desire. The provisions “guaranteed” by the U.S. government either never arrived or were of such poor quality as to prove useless. The proud nations of the Great Plains were broken and bewildered, and quite possibly nearing extinction.  

In January 1889, an emerging Paiute spiritual leader named Wovoka (aka “Jack Wilson”) claimed to have experienced a vision reminiscent of Wodzibob’s two decades before. Wodzibob’s teachings and experiences would have been familiar to Wovoka, both as recent tribal history and because his father had been a close associate of the revered shaman, so it’s probably no surprise the basic message was the same:  those who’d been lost would soon return, as would their way of life, so have faith and dance.

Wovoka’s message, however, reflected additional influences, particularly his exposure to Christianity. Wovoka taught that the people should love one another, avoid stealing or lying or even fighting the whites, and do their best to live in peace even with those who had abused them. Tribal rituals involving self-mutilation were condemned, although by some accounts Wovoka punctured his hands – a “self-inflicted stigmata” to reflect his role as either the prophet of the returning Christ, or perhaps some form of the Messiah himself.

There was also a bit where God put Wovoka in charge of the weather, at least in the western half of the United States. That’s the tricky thing about visions and faith and conflicting primary sources – they make history so much more interesting but also so… messy.

The Wounded Knee Massacre

Ghost Dance SiouxAs tends to happen with ideas as they spread, Wovoka’s message quickly evolved as it was taken up by different tribes. With the Lakota Sioux in particular, it took on a more militant tone. Their concept of renewal – of heaven on earth – was incompatible with the presence of white folks, despite Wovoka’s calls for racial unity. It was also most likely a Lakota who added the idea of a “ghost shirt,” which would render its wearer impervious to bullets (since, presumably, you can’t shoot ghosts). It was exposure to the Sioux version of Wovoka’s visions which most led to white characterizations of the dance at the heart of the movement as a “Ghost Dance” with militant overtones. 

As U.S. concern over a possible Sioux uprising simmered, they more and more saw the dance as inherently hostile, or even preparatory for war. It was this fear that led to the arrest and subsequent death of Sitting Bull in 1890, a few weeks before Christmas. U.S. military officials next targeted a Lakota chief by the name of Big Foot. Most of his followers were women and children whose men had been killed resisting U.S. aggression. As those who’d lost the most, they were often the most devout adherents of the dance, pushing themselves until they collapsed or became otherwise incoherent.

Wounded Knee MapBig Foot had led his group to the Pine Ridge Reservation to surrender. They were told to set up camp while officials figured out what to do with them next. The next day, December 29th, 1890, soldiers were sent into the camp to gather any remaining weapons among the Sioux. It’s unclear to what extent the Lakota resisted. Some accounts refer to a medicine man encouraging them to don their “ghost shirts” and fight, while others focus on a single young Sioux, probably deaf, who attempted to retain his rifle. Whatever the specifics, at some point a shot was fired and things pretty much went to hell from there.

Soldiers opened fire on the camp while panicked Sioux tried to grab what weapons they could to fight back. When the shooting stopped, 153 Lakota and at least 25 soldiers were dead. Most of the U.S. deaths appeared to be the result of “friendly fire,” which would be consistent with the sort of panic that comes after weeks of creeping paranoia.

Aftermath

Although periodic smaller conflicts would continue for a time, the Massacre at Wounded Knee marks the effective end of “Indian Resistance” on the Great Plains. Seemingly rubbing salt into the tragedy, the U.S. awarded twenty medals of honor to surviving soldiers for their actions.

As news of events at Wounded Knee spread, reactions were mixed. Some saw the military’s behavior as a gross overreaction – further abuse of a people clearly already defeated and pacified. Whatever the extent of the backlash, it did result in temporary efforts by the U.S. to more consistently honor its treaty obligations with survivors.

It would be nearly a century before American Indian groups began actively reclaiming their status and tribal identities.

Mass Grave Wounded Knee

The Second Boer War (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the Second Boer War

Three Big Things:

1. The Boers were descendants of Dutch, Germans, and Huguenots who settled the Cape of Good Hope in the mid-17th century. They were farmers and ranchers who believed they were among God’s most favored elect. 

2. There were two distinct wars between the Boers and the British – the Boers won the first using superior horsemanship and marksmanship. The British won the second by having way more soldiers than the Boers.

3. The Boer resorted to guerilla warfare; the British responded with “scorched earth” tactics and concentration camps for Boer women and children, where thousands died of hunger, disease, and neglect.

Background & The Great Trek

Cape Colonies

In 1652, the Cape of Good Hope was colonized by the Dutch, including a group of farmers referred to as “Boers.”  They were everything you’d expect from gritty, self-reliant farmers who shared a strong faith and traditional lifestyle. 

Great Britain eventually took control of the Cape. They were anti-slavery, anti-Calvinist, and anti-speaking Dutch. As a result, nearly 15,000 Boers moved northeastward as part of “The Great Trek.” As they’d migrated, the Boers, also called “Afrikaners,” enslaved or otherwise marginalized the rather sparse native (and black) African population and soon considered themselves very much the “real” citizens who deserved to be there, as opposed to the (British) interlopers who eventually followed and with whom they continued to clash.

The Boer Republics

By the 1850s, the Boer had established two independent republics in southeastern Africa – The Transvaal (aka “The South African Republic”) and the Orange Free State. These republics instituted apartheid – strict segregation and discrimination, enforced by law as well as social custom. For a decade or two, it seemed they might just be left alone.

In the late 1860s, however, diamonds were discovered in Transvaal. The resulting rush of Uitlanders – “outlanders” – soon outnumbered the locals and began demanding greater political participation and basic protections. Factions rose up and clashed, tensions increased, and eventually things erupted in the First Boer War (1880 – 1881). The British were caught off-guard by Boer marksmanship and tactics; the brief conflict became Great Britain’s first military defeat since 1783. Transvaal (aka “the South African Republic”) secured its independence, at least temporarily.

Tensions Renewed

In 1886, a substantial gold deposit was discovered in Transvaal. The Boer had by that time learned the role mineral wealth could play in maintaining their independence and took full advantage. By 1890, South Africa was the largest source of gold in the world. They became major players in the international monetary system and invested heavily in the neighboring Orange Free State and other Boer communities, throwing a rather expensive wrench into Great Britain’s longsuffering desire to eventually unify South Africa under British rule.

Rhodes ColossusNevertheless, with so much gold came more Uitlanders – ambitious individuals as well as foreign companies with the resources and know-how to manage difficult extraction. The Transvaal government made it difficult for newcomers to vote or otherwise fully participate in society, which didn’t bother those only interested in quick profits but antagonized the British to their ideological cores.

Conveniently for future history students, the complexities of Anglo-Boer relations coalesced at this point into two colorful personalities. Representing Transvaal was President Paul Kruger, a Boer nationalist whose street cred went all the way back to the Great Trek. Flying the Union Jack was Cecil Rhodes, Premier of the Cape Colony and founder of DeBeer Diamonds. You’ve probably seen that political cartoon of him standing spread-legged across Africa – claiming the continent for Queen, country, and white culture everywhere. He’s also why there’s a “Rhodes Scholarship,” which allows deserving youngsters of solid occidental backgrounds to attend his alma mater, Oxford University.

Rhodes recognized that if Transvaal’s prosperity was allowed to continue, they’d soon be in a position to push Great Britain out of South Africa entirely. He helped put together a plan to stir up an Uitlander revolt – a debacle which became known as the Jameson Raid, so titled because it was to be led by Dr. Leander Starr Jameson (a name only slightly less awesome than “Orange Free State”). The revolution was slated for late December, 1895.

Poor communications, disputes among Uitlander leaders, and the preference of many to celebrate the New Year instead of overthrowing “the man” sabotaged the plan from the outset. Rhodes and his co-conspirators tried to call off Jameson’s invasion, but the raiding party had somehow cut their own communications instead of Transvaal’s, so while the Boer were kept well-informed of what was happening, Jameson was not. His party was captured on January 2nd and sentenced to death, soon reduced to fines and severe embarrassment.

Paul KrugerThe Jameson Raid reinforced to the Boer the importance of sticking together – supporting one another while constraining the Uitlanders. Tensions continued to build for several more years and eventually the British resorted to a more traditional approach and began building up troops along the border. In October of 1899, President Paul Kruger issued an ultimatum demanding they withdraw.

They didn’t.

Transvaal and the Orange Free State declared war on the British. 

The Second Boer War, aka “The Anglo-Boer War” or “The South African War” (1899 – 1902)

For the first several months, things unfolded very much like they had in the first war, but on a larger scale. The Boer struck and retreated, blending into their surroundings. They used horses to maximum advantage and shot with what must have seemed impossible accuracy. They occupied key cities and drove back the British at almost every confrontation. Had they pressed their advantage aggressively, it’s possible they could have ended the war by Christmas.

But the Boer weren’t looking to destroy the British, or even to take back the Cape. They wanted to be left alone, and when given the opportunity to conduct total war, preferred to lay siege to entrenched towns or otherwise dial back the death and violence. Surely the British were learning their lesson, and perhaps this time it would stick.

The British had learned from their previous encounters – but not the lessons the Boer hoped. They remembered an embarrassing military loss followed by feeling disrespected and marginalized by a bunch of farmers with weird accents. This time Great Britain brought in reinforcements – lots of them. They made some strategic adjustments as well, but like the North in the American Civil War, they didn’t have to win every battle or rethink every maneuver if they could consistently outnumber and overwhelm their opposition.

Which they did.

Armed BoersBy the end of 1900, the British controlled most Boer territory and officially annexed both Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This should have been the end of hostilities, but many Boers still refused to surrender. Thus began a new phase of the war – two years of guerilla warfare and raids. The Afrikaners vandalized railroads, cut telegraph lines, and otherwise harassed British forces endlessly. They struck and then vanished, never allowing their opponents security or peace, but avoiding open conflict whenever possible. 

The Brits strung barbed wire, established military checkpoints, and otherwise struggled to contain the guerillas. When these proved unsuccessful, they initiated a “scorched earth” policy – burning fields, destroying towns, and killing livestock which could conceivably be used to support the rebels. They fortified their supply storehouses and put heavy armor on their trains. Boer civilians – women and children as well as men of all ages – were gathered into concentration camps, where thousands died of disease, starvation, and neglect.

It’s not entirely clear whether such brutality towards the wives and children of those fighting was part of a “total war” strategy or the tragic result of poor management and conflicting priorities. In might have been retaliation for the suffering endured by cities previously besieged by the Boers, or merely reflected the harsh realities of the times. Disease killed more fighting men than bullets, and even back in mother England, over a third of those volunteering for military service were rejected for various health-related issues.

Black Africans suspected of helping the Boers were placed in separate camps, where conditions were even worse – if such a thing were possible. Both Brits and Boers desired that this be a “white man’s war,” but separating such a thing from the people in and around it proved impossible. While some Africans found ways to profit from wartime conditions, many others lost jobs, homes, and lands as a result of the conflict.

Boer CampThe Anglo’s perceived brutality severely damaged their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world as well as provoking outrage and protests back home. The war became increasingly unpopular as it continued to drag on, prompting the British to offer increasingly generous terms to the guerillas. Those determined to fight to the bitter end became known as Bittereinders (I’m not even making that up), while those who accepted reconciliation were labeled Hensoppers – literally, “hands-uppers.”

If nothing else, the Boer wars gave us arguably the most fascinating vocabulary list in all of world history curriculum. 

Aftermath

By May of 1902, it was over. Citizens of both Transvaal and the Orange Free State voted to accept the terms of the most recent British peace offer, the Treaty of Vereeniging. The former republics were absorbed into the British Empire which promised them some degree of self-government – a promise they delivered by creating the Union of South Africa in 1910.

Bitterness remained between the Boers and their English-speaking neighbors, and racial divisions between both groups and Black Africans would get worse before they got better. Apartheid shaped much of the 20th century until its abolition in the 1990s, and the Afrikaners throughout have retained their own language and culture. There are today around 2.6 million Boers – over half the white population of South Africa. Some are still fighting for separate recognition.