Rabbit Trails: Cecil Rhodes and the Moral Complications of… Everything

NOTE: I’ve been playing with ideas for a future “Have To” History book, tentatively titled “Who In The World?” The premise would be to tackle major events and issues in world history through a series of brief narratives or biographies of world figures whose names may sound vaguely familiar but who aren’t the “A-listers.” Cecil Rhodes certainly fits that bill, but I’ve been having trouble narrowing down what to include and what to cut from his story. The draft I’m sharing today demonstrates both the potential of using biography as an anchor for larger themes and issues and the dangers of the rabbit trails which naturally result from this approach. I doubt most of this will make it into the final version, if such a thing should one day come about.

Cecil RhodesCecil Rhodes potentially represents many things in world history. In doing so, he reminds us of the futility of attempting to categorize our forebears into “good guys” and “bad guys.” Rhodes was… complicated. It in no way excuses the wrongs for which he was responsible for us to recognize and appreciate the laudable elements of his story. If anything, it reminds us that in the right circumstances, most of us are quite capable of being both swell and abhorrent – sometimes within a very short time frame.

As Marvel comics (or the Bible) figured out long ago, our heroes often have an unpleasant feature or two, while the nastiest villains may retain smatterings of graciousness, talent, or good intentions of the sort we’d much rather be reserved for someone more likable – hence the endless debates over whether or not the Declaration of Independence is forever tainted by Thomas Jefferson’s record as a slave owner or when it’s appropriate to spill tea on Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King, Jr. Personally, I’ve always found flawed heroes to be far more inspirational and complicated villains far more illuminating. Few of us can aspire to be as flawless as Superman of Gandhi as commonly presented. Perhaps, however, we can strive to emphasize the better angels of our nature even as flawed, fallen mortals.

Then again, Rhodes was no Jefferson or Gandhi by any measure, no matter how much grace we choose to employ. Whatever his mitigating intentions or ideologies tied to his times and circumstances, Cecil was in many ways a very naughty man who used and abused those he deemed lesser than himself – which was most people.

Rhodes wasn’t American, but his life echoed a Horatio Alger tale: misfit kid defies all the odds and becomes monumentally successful. He craved wealth and power and exploited both once attained. He believed his race was naturally superior to all others – particularly those native to the continent of Africa, where he made much of his fortune and at one time had two countries named after him. He used his wealth and political power to fight for the protection of the “little people” (of various races). He started a war which wasn’t at all necessary and cost tens of thousands of lives. He believed deeply in British values and culture and the good it could do for the world at large once embraced.

Rhodes was idealistic when it came to British values or the power of education. He left behind an endowment committed to providing opportunities for others like himself to attend Oxford University and carve their own pathway to success, explicitly specifying that “no student shall be qualified or disqualified for election … on account of his race or religious opinions.” At the same time, he pretty much laid the groundwork for what would later be known as “apartheid” across South Africa.

Oh, and he helped make diamonds sacred in western culture, sparking a bizarre conviction (which still lingers today) that unless you cement your relationship with small rocks worth several years’ salary, you’re not REALLY in love.

So, like I said… complicated, despite leaning quite naughty by modern standards.

The Son’ll Come Out, Tomorrow…

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

But his disciples muttered to themselves and insisted, that can’t be right. He’s mistranslating the original Greek or something. Can we go back and choose a passage from the Old Testament instead?

(John 9:2-4, Modern American Version)

Cecil Rhodes was born in 1853 in Hertfordshire, just north of London. He was by all accounts a rather “sickly” child – a generic term covering anything from asthma to allergies to lactose intolerance (but stopping short of something major enough to secure accurate diagnosis, like scarlet fever. His father was a clergyman in the Church of England, making the family what we’d today think of as “middle class.”  His older brothers attended what were known as “public schools,” the nineteenth century British equivalent of ritzy private schooling. Cecil, however, was sent to the local “grammar school,” an early version of what Americans today would think of as a decent, local public high school – humble, but still set above any “charity schools” in the area.

When he was sixteen years old, Cecil fell victim to “consumption” – most likely tuberculosis or something similar. This was a fairly severe condition in the nineteenth century and not everyone recovered. As we’ve recently been reminded, serious ailments which prove difficult to control tend to spark socio-political reactions on top of the personal suffering they cause. When people feel frightened or out of control, they tend to embrace explanations which offer them some sort of control or detachment from danger or suffering, reality be damned. Folks in nineteenth century England were no exception.

Like so many nasty things, tuberculosis was (and is) caused by bacteria attacking various organs inside the human body, most particularly the lungs. All that coughing and gagging and spitting up blood helps spread the ailment to fellow humans, making it highly contagious – particularly in crowded households, cities, or anywhere else people live and work together. Biologically, the disease itself was an equal opportunity infector. Rich folks were just as susceptible as the poor, other factors being equal.

But of course, other factors weren’t equal – end therein crept that socio-political dynamic history teaches us to expect. One of the primary benefits of wealth was having a little elbow room, thus reducing the chances of infection to begin with. Your surroundings tended to becleaner and you were more likely to spend time outdoors, further restricting the spread of yucky things.

Correlation, Causation, and the Moral High Ground

Nineteenth century medicine wasn’t quite caught up on the whole bacteria/infection thing, but physicians certainly noted the correlations between nasty conditions and disease. One of the most common treatments, in fact, was to send the afflicted who could afford it to warmer, and thus presumably healthier, locales, where they’d be directed to spend more time outside breathing fresh air and reading epic poetry or whatever. (In Cecil’s case, that meant sending him to South Africa to farm cotton with one of his brothers – but we’ll get back to that in a moment.)

Illness, in other words, correlated with poverty in the sense that poor folks were more likely to live in crowded, unsanitary conditions. Poverty, in turn, often correlated with the sorts of lifestyles upper classes derided as immoral and in constant violation of proper social norms. It’s not always easy to distinguish between difficult circumstances and poor personal choices, then or now.

By way of example, for centuries those paying attention had noted a strong correlation between bad smells and severe illnesses. It was thus reasonable enough to assume that strong odors were actually the source of many ailments. Avoid the nasty scents, and you’d reduce your chances of getting sick.

This “miasma theory” had such staying power because it largely worked. Staying away from gross things will, in fact, reduce your chances of serious illness. More time outside and “socially distancing” from others makes you less likely to take in new germs. Keeping your surroundings clean, eating healthier foods, and getting enough sleep also lower your odds of “consumption.” We can all break out our “correlation does not imply causation” memes, but it wasn’t such a crazy supposition – incorrect or not.

It was thus natural – if unfortunate – that many perceived a strong correlation between poverty and the careless, often “immoral” life choices which accompanied it, and tuberculosis. In other words, the disease took on an ethical component. As is so often the case throughout history, sufferers were thought to be at least partially responsible for their own conditions. If those living better lives, with better educations, and better morals, and better resources, were less likely to contract tuberculosis, then maybe those who did fall ill (or die) were kinda asking for it. Add in a predisposition for divine retribution and eternal justice and whatnot and you get the very human “just-world fallacy.”

Science Progresses; Bias Conserves

And therein lies the problem. (Well, one of them – and a BIG one.) The confusion about the source of illness is problematic from a purely medical standpoint, of course, but that element tends to clear up over time because that’s how science works – explanations are proposed, tested, messed with, and tried out, until refined into better explanations. Lather, rinse, repeat. It’s the oversimplification of the moral and personal factors which proves far more dangerous over time. Nearly two centuries later, and we’re still not fully convinced that poverty and illness aren’t primarily caused by the afflicted simply not being as wonderful as we are.

I mean, it should be obvious – we’ve worked hard to do all the right things, and while it hasn’t been easy, we’re doing OK. Therefore, that’s how things work. Therefore squared, anyone for whom things aren’t working out must not have worked as hard as we have or done as many right things – otherwise, the system is chaotic and random and meaningless and there’s no point to any of it and madness rules eternity.

It’s a tempting bit of reasoning, especially if we work very hard to avoid thinking about it too clearly. (It’s far “truer” when we just kinda “feel” it in the background and don’t over-analyze it.) Such a monumental fallacy goes nicely with some false dichotomy icing and blood-red sprinkles spelling out “EITHER OUR CHOICES MATTER OR THEY DON’T” in an awkward sugary scrawl (and the “DON’T” kinda crammed in at the far edge).   

In any case, “consumption” meant Rhodes was unable to attend the same sorts of schools as his brothers. He was instead sent to South Africa where it was warmer and he could spend more time outside, in this case working on a small cotton plantation with one of those same brothers. It just so happened that something else was going on in Africa at this time – something shinier and more appealing than picking or refining cotton.

Africa had diamonds. Lots of them. Now it simply needed someone with a little vision to make the most of the sparkly beasts.

Empress Theodora

Empress TheodoraTheodora was (most likely) born In 497 CE, a few years short of the dawn of the sixth century. She was the middle child of three, all girls, and more or less destined for disrepute. Her father was a bear trainer in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, capital of what we today tend to think of as the Byzantine Empire. If you’d asked anyone living there at the time, however, they’d have been far more likely to think of themselves as Rome.

While later historians would mark 476 CE as “the fall of the Roman Empire,” no one told Rome. Granted, they were plagued with endless foreign invasions (the Goths, the Vandals, and other punk-band sounding names) and struggling financially, but they didn’t exactly disappear – they just… adjusted a bit. The traditional capital in Italy was lost, but the seat of power had already largely shifted further east to what today is Istanbul. In reality, “Rome” continued until 1453 when the Ottomans overthrew their capital and changed the name.

Why did Constantinople get the works? That’s nobody’s business but the Turks.

The Bare Necessities

When you picture Roman chariot races, massive battle reenactments, and all the weird stuff they used to do to animals for entertainment, you probably include a standard “Roman coliseum” in the mix. One of the grandest was Constantinople’s Hippodrome. It’s not certain exactly what was covered by the title “bear keeper” (presumably it at least involved caring for the bears used as entertainment in various ways), but it definitely made Theodora and her sisters part of the “theater” class. Professional entertainment has always been a suspect class; it’s only in the past century we’ve begun celebrating entertainers as worthy of emulation or even idolization. For the previous thousand or so years, theater types were considered sketchy at best – right down there with Gypsies, Jews, and Tucker Carlson.

The details are a bit fuzzy, but the lines between “actress” and “prostitute” were pretty thin in the sixth century. It’s probably not that surprising that folks entertained by animals slaughtering one another or eating criminals or whatever weren’t overly highbrow when it came to their human entertainment. Much like today, fart jokes, violence, and sex were far stronger draws than philosophical discussions. Theodora was apparently quite ribald even at an age we’d consider WAY too young today, and for whatever reason she was VERY good at it.

She developed quite a reputation among fans of the “theater.” We can judge her for that if we like, but keep in mind that in most times and places throughout history, women have had very little political or economic power. They’ve been systematically marginalized and legally restrained. {Editor’s Note: if you live in a red state, please change this line to “some women have possibly at times been randomly subjected to unrelated episodes of sexism by individuals who coincidentally passed laws to reinforce their personal, non-systemic biases.”}

There was no option for Theodora to “study hard” or “make good choices” and get anywhere beyond tawdry routines and maybe some animal training. So, like many women who ended up in the history books, she used what she had – a gift for tantalizing men (and possibly a number of women as well) and a sharp mind – to raise her station. If she managed to break a few, um… “hearts” along the way, then so be it.

Working Her Way Up (And Down)

As sometimes happens when enough seed is sown, Theodora found herself with child and delivered a baby boy while still in her prime. The father was apparently happy to have a son, but less enthusiastic to be associated with the mother, so he took the boy back with him to whatever part of the world he called home. Not long after, Theodora had a chance to climb the social ladder a bit via an up-and-comer (as it were) named Hecebolus who was assuming the throne in Northern Africa. She lived in relative luxury for a time, but it seems the couple soon had a falling out and she was left with few resources and no way home.

It’s not certain what went wrong, but several plausible accounts suggest that while Theodora was confident and quick-witted, she lacked tact (or fear) when dealing with powerful men. This boldness was no doubt one of her most appealing qualities, but we’ve all read enough books and seen enough movies to know how things turn out for the saucy hottie once her target grows secure in his position and tires of her constant input and opinions. It’s likely Theodora shared one “insight” or criticism too many – a costly error she would never make again.

While it’s possible to trace her winding path back to Constantinople, the real story is the humiliation and degradation she suffered attempting to earn her sustenance and continue her travels. She’d been born into humble circumstances, but until now had always been able to seduce, charm, or think her way out of almost any crisis. It’s not that her beauty had faded – by all accounts she was still a stunner. She was simply in unfamiliar territory plying a far-too-common trade. It must have been devastating for her.

By the time she reached Constantinople, Theodora has been transformed – at least internally. She avoided the theater as well as the streets and found work spinning fabric, a humble but modestly respectable trade. She’d also become a devout woman committed to her religious faith. That’s where things will eventually get complicated.

Really complicated.

But that’s down the road. For now, we have a contrite Theodora, sitting at her spinning wheel, seeking Heaven’s approval, when Justinian somehow happens by. At 20, she’s half his age, but no doubt still quite a draw and certainly wisened by the years. Her past was at that point largely past, and it’s unlikely Justinian would have recognized her name or heard the stories. We don’t really have reliable accounts of exactly when they met or how their relationship first developed, but it seems likely that Justinian was drawn not only to her “maturing” beauty but her sharp wit and insight, now tempered by experience. It says nothing negative about Theodora if she jumped at the opportunity to nurture that interest. He was older, educated, and clearly on his way to bigger things – maybe she could come with?

Empress Theodora

When Justinian and Theodora first became a thing, Justinian was the trusted advisor and second-in-command to Emperor Justin I. (The similarity in their names is no coincidence – Justin was Justinian’s uncle and Justinian chose his name as an act of shameless flattery. His given name was “Flavius.”) While this was a great position to be in politically, it was inconvenient personally; the law prevented men in his position from marrying women with backgrounds like Theodora’s. It didn’t help that Justin’s wife simply could not stand the girl. Justinian and Theodora were free to do, you know… what people in love do – but officially, they’d have to bide their time.

Several years later, Justin I died and Justinian was the logical successor – especially after he had his only serious rivals murdered right there in the throne room. That meant the Empress no longer held formal sway over his life choices, and it was no real difficulty for him to simply change the laws which had prohibited their coupling.

Justinian I took the throne with Empress Theodora by his side.

The Nika Riots

In 532 CE, during Justinian’s fifth year on the throne, he faced the first real challenge of his rule. Political unrest had been growing as the emperor raised taxes and appointed abusively innovative men to help collect them. A botched execution and some weird crowd participation at the chariot races sparked this frustration into widespread rioting which continued for days. Much of Constantinople was burned down and Justinian’s efforts to pacify the masses did little to slow the destruction. These days are remembered as the Nika Riots.

Things went badly enough that Justinian and several of his top commanders eventually began planning their escape. One pictures them throwing robes, goblets, and scrolls into gilded trunks while racing around the room frantically – although in reality they were no doubt handling the situation with manly aplomb. (Dudes hate looking wigged in front of other dudes, and even more so in the presence of estrogen.) Nevertheless, it was time to get the #$%& out of Constantinople.

That’s when Theodora stepped in and spoke her peace:

My lords, it may be unseemly for a woman to add her voice to the affairs of men, but the situation at the moment is too serious for me to hold my tongue. We must focus on the wisest course of action – not ceremony or tradition.

In my opinion, fleeing is not the right course, even if it did somehow bring us to safety. It is impossible for a person, having been born into this world, to forever avoid death; but for one who has reigned it is intolerable to be a fugitive. May I never be deprived of this purple robe, and may I never see the day when those who meet me do not call me “Empress.”

If you wish to save yourself, my lord, there is certainly no difficulty. We are rich; over there is the sea, and yonder are the ships. But reflect for a moment whether, once you have escaped to a place of security, you would not gladly exchange that safety for death. As for me, I agree with the adage that purple is the noblest shroud.

The Color Purple

Theodora’s closing statement is sometimes translated as “I would rather die as royalty” or some variation thereof. Purple was so closely associated with and limited to royalty that official approval or high office were often referred to simply as “the purple.” An officer promoted to duty in the royal chambers was “elevated to the purple.” Royal children were “born in the purple,” and so on. (Naturally, any outside use of the color – even if somehow available – was strictly forbidden.) So… the “royalty” translation is thus accurate enough, but it lacks the flourish one might reasonably expect of someone brought up in the theater and extremely gifted at producing pretty much any emotion or reaction she wished in her “audience.”

Theodora’s rhetorical skill doesn’t imply deception or insincerity; there’s every reason to believe she meant precisely what she said. She’d been a commoner, and she’d lost the throne once before (in Northern Africa). She had no interest in repeating either experience. “Purple is the noblest shroud” was not merely poetic; it was a poignant reminder of what it meant to be truly “royal.” it was a statement of values, and self, and a worldview not easily forsaken once attained.

On a more practical level, the speech was a bit of a shamer as well – “Of course we could run, but… is that really who we want to be? I’d rather take my chances here and die at the top than hide at the bottom.” And it worked. Justinian and crew decided that perhaps they hadn’t exhausted their other options after all. They regrouped and ended up slaughtering tens of thousands of malcontents until order was restored.

Which I suppose counts as a “win.”

The city was rebuilt (the Hagia Sophia is particularly nice) and Justinian would go on to do lots of important stuff – not the least of which was his famous “Code of Justinian,” which formed an important link in the evolution of western legal systems. Theodora would stick around as well, often supporting Justinian and other times subverting him – especially in matters of faith. For the moment, however, she’d locked herself into history as a strong female, using the tools at her disposal to improve her situation and standing firm when those around her were about to break.

She remains, in our collective memory, forever shrouded in that purple she so craved. While she’d hardly qualify as “hero” or “role model,” she certainly at least earned that.

“Have To” History: The Boring Parts

H2H Boring Parts CoverMany history aficionados get a bit touchy when “outsiders” label something from history “boring.” Like, anything. There’s so much we find fascinating or important or connected or just… weird that it’s easy to take it a bit personally when someone labels our interests “lame” (even when they soften such declarations with more moderate language).

And yet, if we’re being entirely honest, there are some things in history – even U.S. history – which are serious yawners. That doesn’t mean they’re not important, or connected to things which are interesting. It doesn’t mean we don’t need to know them. It’s just that they’re, well…

Boring.

Whether you’re a high school history student, working your way through college, or simply read history for personal enrichment or a temporary escape from horror and embarrassment you feel at everything going on around you today, you’ve no doubt noticed how often you’re expected to zero in on stuff with no intrinsic traction at ALL – tariff policies, the Bessemer Process, anti-trust legislation, Jimmy Carter…

I mean, there was that thing where he was attacked by a bunny in the middle of a lake, but other than that… *SNORE*.

And yet, a number of these “boring” things keep showing up in state curriculums and standardized exams. Even AP U.S. History (insert all the usual disclaimers about how I don’t work for the College Board and they haven’t blessed my efforts with a cyan acorn) loves diving deep into stuff the rest of us would never think to get that excited about – the impact of new technologies on immigration patterns, fiscal policy tensions between nineteenth century political parties… even Jimmy Carter.

Seriously. They ask SOMETHING about him EVERY YEAR.

There are plenty of titles out there promising you the most interesting, unknown, or shocking stories from American history. Many of them deliver quite effectively. That’s a good thing. I love history, and I’m thrilled any time one of my betters finds a way to make it fresh and real to a new audience. If you want exciting tales from our collective past, they’re easy enough to find.

What I haven’t come across are titles focusing on the boring bits. If you want anything more than cursory coverage of the Hartford Convention, the American System and its contributions to sectional tensions, or the Populist Party, you generally have to commit to some rather hefty academic volumes. It feels like your options are either Wikipedia or enrolling in a master’s degree program focused entirely on the pros and cons of centralized banking.

Nothing wrong with either of those, but I figured we needed a third option.

“Have To” History: The Boring Parts covers all the stuff you really don’t want to know (but for some reason have to) about the most boring events, people, and issues in American history. Each chapter opens with the “Three Big Things” you just gotta gotta know about the topic, followed by historical context and any other essential background to help you make sense of the whole mess. It’s intended to be useful and engaging for students and adult readers alike. (It could prove helpful for many teachers as well, but we’re a touchy bunch and I couldn’t figure out how to say that without it sounding like I think we don’t all know everything about everything already.) Most importantly, there’s an ineffable “cool factor” which descends around you the moment you’re spotted reading it in any setting.

I’ve been surprised and flattered by the relative success (don’t read too much into that – my expectations were modest) of my first effort, “Have To” History: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. I was then humbled by the complete lack of, well… anything in response to the second, “Have To” History: A Wall of Education. Still, that one is a bit of an outlier, focused on a much more specific topic and written to scratch an itch of my own. 

So, if I can be real a second – for just a millisecond – let my guard down and tell the #11FF how I feel a second…

I’m genuinely proud of this latest book. I mean, just between you and me, it’s pretty damn good. I sometimes wish I hadn’t written it, just so I could read it for the first time and experience what you’re about to! Seriously, I get a bit teary just thinking about it.

I’d love it if you saw fit to check it out. If you happen to like it, please keep in mind that written reviews are everything on Amazon – good ones, mixed ones, even bad ones if you really think the book sucks. (It doesn’t. That kind of attitude is why no one likes you.) It’s available as an e-book, in paperback, and even in hardback… but I don’t know why you’d order it in hardback unless you’re a library. And if you’re a library, I’d probably send you one just for reading this.

I’d also love to hear from you if you do read the book (or any of my books). Effusive praise and sycophancy is ideal, but I’ll accept constructive criticism or suggestions as well (as far as you know). In the meantime, keep breathing. Keep connecting. Keep clinging to truth and caring for the people you love. It matters.

[email protected]

The 1950s (Part Two)

NOTE: Part One of this post can be found here. Both segments are from the rough draft of a book I’m hoping will be called something like “Have To” History: Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About The Most Boring Events, People, and Issues in American History.

It’s Moving Day (Rust Belt to Sun Belt)

For more than a century, manufacturing was central to the American economy. While the image of the north as universally industrialized and the south as endless agriculture is far too simplistic, a definable “Manufacturing Belt” was easily traceable from New York through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and eastern Illinois. Some sources would add St. Louis or other noncontiguous pockets, using the description less as a geographical marker than as an economic indicator – which it was.

Thousands of families throughout the “Manufacturing Belt” relied for generations on the solid blue-collar incomes available there. Workers produced steel, weapons, and automobiles, buoyed by a strong economy and periodic government contracts. Until, one day, they didn’t.

The term “Rust Belt” didn’t take hold until the late 1970s, by which time many factories were closed (or closing) and their structures left to decay. As with the more positive moniker, the term was less about specific location and more about economic changes – changes which took place unevenly and over an extended period. The decline of the “Manufacturing Belt” had been delayed by World War II, during which government defense needs brought a massive infusion of cash and energy to the region. Once peace ruined everything, however, the writing was on the factory wall. The party wasn’t entirely over, but the DJ had switched to slow dances and the host was out of punch.

History teachers like to talk about “push-pull” factors whenever people migrate. There’s usually at least one good reason to leave a place and a different good reason for one’s chosen destination. In the mid-twentieth century, changes in the economy and dramatic technological improvements began chipping away at blue collar jobs across the “Manufacturing Belt” (aka “Rust Belt”). At the same time, high-tech industries and defense plants were beginning to flourish in parts of the South and along the west coast. The “push” was the loss of opportunity up north; the “pull” was the need for skilled and semi-skilled labor in the south and west.

The migration didn’t happen overnight, and it wasn’t monolithic. A “Second Great Migration” from the south occurred at much the same time as Black workers left the south in search of greater economic opportunity and less racial oppression. Some headed north, but many headed west in search of the same jobs drawing white laborers from the north. (Side Note: “white” by this time had begun expanding to include descendants of all those different immigrant groups that used to be the primary targets of Anglo violence in the preceding century.) Skilled or semi-skilled workers could find reliable employment and good wages in Los Angeles, Portland, Phoenix, and the like, as well as in select cities scattered across the south – locations not previously known for their manufacturing prowess.

Remember the Missouri Compromise way back in 1820? Imagine roughly that same line reaching both directions to each coast. Once we get to the 1950s, everything below that line (minus Oklahoma, because… Oklahoma) becomes collectively known as the “Sun Belt.” “Sun” because it’s hot down there, but also “Sun” like “Here Comes the _____.” The Sun Belt was the new land of opportunity for workers in the fifties and thereafter.

When speaking of major migration patterns after World War II, especially during the 1950s, the general trend was from the “Rust Belt” to the “Sun Belt” or to the west coast. You’ll live a fuller, happier life if you take a moment right now to lock in mental images of the “Rust Belt” and the “Sun Belt” (plus California/Oregon), then add a few mental arrows indicating the general direction of the major migrations of the decade. Don’t forget those “Second Great Migration” arrows coming out of the south!

The 1950s were still a pretty good time to be a blue collar worker, but changes were already beginning in that world as well. Republicans had begun taking steps to limit worker protections and weaken labor unions. President Truman had vetoed the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, but Congress passed it anyway. Depending on your point of view, this act and others like it either reined in union abuses and suppressed communist influences in the workplace or began rolling back worker protections and working conditions to something more akin to the Gilded Age.

Politicians still like to bust out the guarantee that, if elected, they’ll restore the great age of manufacturing and bring back all those textile mills, coal mining jobs, and other 1950s era factory gigs. They’ll eliminate all manufacturing technology developed over the past half-century and ensure a glorious new age of sweaty uneducated labor for outrageously high wages. Oddly, this seems to work far more often than it should.

On The Road Again…

All this moving about was made much easier by the interstate highway system. The Eisenhower Administration championed the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act (1956) which dramatically increased the number and quality of freeways across the U.S. (Henry Clay and the Whigs would have been thrilled.) States often contributed funding to the segments within their borders, but federal money and planning was key – and that’s what was new and borderline exciting about the whole thing.

Much of this new or improved infrastructure was paid for through taxes on vehicles and gasoline and justified as essential for national defense. (If the Commies landed on our shores, we’d need to be able to get our soldiers, tanks, and boom-sticks to wherever they needed to be quickly and efficiently.) It was tolerated because most people were feeling pretty prosperous and didn’t want those “reds” coming for their nifty new black and white television and hi-tech frozen dinners. The trucking industry loved it, as did white families shifting to the suburbs and pretty much anyone moving from the “Rust Belt” to the “Sun Belt” – at least during the move itself.

Not everyone was thrilled. New construction often meant moving or eliminating older neighborhoods and relocating residents. Railroads weren’t thrilled. Urban residents who relied on public transportation soon found their lives becoming more difficult. The environmentalists wouldn’t have loved it either, but that really wasn’t a thing yet. They’d make up for lost time come 1970, however.

Whatever their downsides, interstate highways have become an essential element of state and federal cooperation and are considered critical infrastructure still today. They make excellent metaphors for freedom and opportunity and adventure (“If you’re going my way, I wanna drive it all night long…”). They’re also powerful symbols of environmental destruction, the loss of humanity and individuality, and a future rushing madly forward with unstoppable force (“I didn’t hear nobody pray, dear brother… I heard the crash on the highway, but I didn’t hear nobody pray…”).

Highways aren’t particularly helpful without automobiles, of course. Once World War II ended, Americans who’d saved up money during the war (partly because there were so few big-ticket items available) were ready to spend. Industries which had been fully committed to wartime production shifted back into making consumer goods, including automobiles. It was a perfect match of supply and demand.

No wonder the communists were so jealous. They didn’t even have toaster ovens.

The other major technological evolution smoothing this massive migration was air conditioning. The underlying technology had been around for several decades, but it was in the post-war years that air conditioning was first considered indispensable. If you want people to be productive during the day and tolerably comfortable and well-rested at night anywhere south of Nebraska, you need affordable, effective, artificial air-cooling. Now it was possible – even practical. When combined with neat stuff like refrigerators, washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners, and the like, Americans in the 1950s had arguably the highest quality of living in the known universe.

Even without Sea Monkeys (which were coming soon).

The Writing (and Painting) On The Wall

Not everything was as idyllic as it may have seemed in the 1950s – at least, not for everyone. Poverty still existed and racial disparities were glaring in many parts of the nation. Even among mainstream white folks, there were hints of discontent.

Some of the art, for example, was getting a bit challenging. Abstract expressionism was just coming into its own, while guys like Edward Hopper or George Tooker were utilizing new forms of realism (Hopper) and surrealism (Tooker) to explore the universality of human isolation. Jack Kerouac violated sexual taboos and experimented with drugs while writing it all down in no particular order. Allen Ginsberg broke poetry to better howl about broken people and a broken society, echoing the chaos around and within by writing in new and provocative forms. J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye explored teenage disillusionment through the eyes of a young man who failed classes and was diagnosed with mental disorders for how he felt about the world around him.

Also, he cussed. A lot.

Abstract art and the Beatniks may seem tame compared to what came next, but at the time… well, nothing had come next yet.

Making The Grade: What You’re Most Likely To Be Asked

Expect at least one generic multiple choice question about Levittown and the Baby Boom – sometimes together, sometimes considered separately. You should recognize Levittown as a response to the Baby Boom and/or an increased need for affordable housing after World War II, and remember that it was facilitated by improved infrastructure and a rise in automobile ownership. (The racial component probably won’t come up unless you bring it up as part of an essay response.)

The shift from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt will usually get at least one fairly general question as well – either identifying the movement itself or specifying the underlying causes. From time to time you’ll even see a map included!

APUSH and other advanced classes are likely to ask about ways in which “postwar economic and demographic changes had far-reaching consequences for American society, politics, and culture.” There are all sorts of ways this one can be narrowed down, but be prepared to tie the development of suburbs to things like the Reagan Revolution or to connect resistance to Brown v. Board with bussing efforts in the 1970s and the explosion of private schools and voucher programs still being debated today. It’s especially impressive if you have the opportunity to identify technological improvements (automobiles, air conditioning, etc.) as driving forces behind major migration patterns.

None of this means you can ignore all the expected stuff – the Truman Doctrine, the Fair Deal, the Taft-Hartley Act, Brown v. Board, Rosa Parks, the bus boycott, MLK, McCarthyism, NATO, the Marshall Plan, and curriculum writers’ bizarre fascination with John Foster Dulles. If it seems like a lot to keep up with, just wait until you get into the 1960s.

The 1950s (Part One)

NOTE: This post and its sequel are from the rough draft of a book I’m hoping will be called something like “Have To” History: Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About The Most Boring Events, People, and Issues in American History.

As is generally the case with the drafts I post here, the final version will presumably be tightened up substantially and better edited. Your comments along the way are very much welcomed. 

The 1950s – Because The Sixties Had To Come From Somewhere (Part One) 

Three Big Things:

1. The 1950s are largely remembered as a time of prosperity and “cultural homogeneity.” Nevertheless, the major issues of the 1960s were poking through everywhere.

2. The explosion of new “suburbs” (like Levittown) was facilitated by more highways and more automobiles. White families fled big cities for protected pockets of all-white schools, churches, shopping, and front lawns that all looked the same.

3. On a larger scale, workers and their families moved from the “Rust Belt” of the northeast to the “Sun Belt” of the south and west in pursuit of better employment opportunities. This move was facilitated by highways and cars as well, along with advancements in the modern miracle of air conditioning.

Introduction

The 1950s are an easily brushed-over decade, whether you’re rushing to get through someone else’s curriculum before “the test” or a lover of history browsing titles at your local bookstore or online.

As part of a formal curriculum, the 50s have the unenviable task of following World War II – which is kind of like booking Led Zeppelin as your opening act but hoping the audience stays for your one-man avant-garde banjo extravaganza. Even teachers who manage to get past “the last good war” before state testing or the AP Exam are anxious to get to the 1960s, where most of the important stuff is naturally engaging all on its own – sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, civil rights, hippies, war protests (and a war to go with them), MLK, JFK, LBJ, Malcolm X, Woodstock, “the pill,” Brown Power, the American Indian Movement, women’s rights – even men on the moon (yes, really).

Sure, we’d like to get to the Reagan Revolution and 9/11, but the Sixties managed to make even stage musicals naughty and blasphemous. And there were Sea Monkeys. Why would we ever move on?

For adults interested in history, it’s almost as bad. Browsing the shelves at your local bookstore or scrolling through Amazon search results, how often do you stop and exclaim, “Hey… post-war suburban development!” There are too many far more tantalizing topics to grab the eye, and no one wants to be the guy on the subway reading The Rise of the Sunbelt: How the Interstate Highway System and Modern Air Conditioning Impacted Twentieth Century Migration Patterns – as if your social life didn’t have enough problems already.

(Thankfully, the book you’re currently reading is a proven status magnet. Currently, everyone in the room either wants you or wants to be you, so play it cool and just keep reading… like you’re too deep in learning to care.)

The 1950s, however, have plenty to add to the conversation – and not just the parts about the Cold War, the G.I. Bill, and the birth of modern rock’n’roll. Let’s see if we can unborify a few of the most neglected or easily overlooked features of the decade before you blindly rush into all the violence, nudity, and social transformation of its successor.

The “Exciting” Parts of the 1950s

Despite its reputation (or lack thereof), there were numerous important history-ish things going on in the 1950s which you probably already know about, even if you don’t realize it.

The Cold War was easily the biggest. This half-century staring contest between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was going strong by the time all those post-WWII babies started to boom. With it came anticommunist hysteria topping even the “red scare” of the previous generation. All those Congressional committees investigating authors and the film makers and McCarthy with his supposed list of “known Communists” working for the State Department? That was all the 1950s.

The Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 for (apparently) passing along U.S. atomic know-how to the Russians. Those same Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, prompting the creation of NASA in the U.S. and all sorts of panic that American children didn’t know enough math or science. (Sometimes it really does take a rocket scientist.)

There were many less-dramatic-but-still-pretty-important results of the Cold War, such as the National Defense Education Act (1958). This provided financial aid for college students and boosted funding for math and science in high schools. It was the first meaningful foray of the federal government into public education and the basic approach proved so successful that it never went away: if the federal government offers states enough money to do X, Y, or Z, they essentially insert themselves as controlling partner in what were previously state functions (at least according to the Constitution). If states want the money, they have to follow the federal rules and adapt federal priorities.

Who’s a good state? Does someone want federal funding? Hmmm? Heel, state – heel!

Speaking of “sharing” as a means of control, don’t forget the Truman Doctrine (1947), under which the U.S. spends zillions of dollars every year propping up foreign “democracies” with American troops, money, and motivational posters. (The name is periodically updated to reflect whoever’s in office, but its substance hasn’t changed much in 75 years.) In 1954, President Eisenhower popularized the “domino theory” – the idea was that if communism was allowed to take hold anywhere in the world, the surrounding nations would soon fall to it as well. Capitalism and democracy, on the other hand, often required overwhelming military force to implement, as if they were for some reason less attractive to the rest of the world.

Weird, right?

American foreign policy was thus dramatically and forever altered. Rather than wait until U.S. interests were actually threatened, the military could now be sent anywhere in the world – locked, loaded, and overflowing with cash and lifestyle advice – to intervene wherever Uncle Sam thought it might be fun or profitable. It turned out to be surprisingly easy to justify just about anything in the name of someone else’s “freedom” or “democracy” or “unrestricted oil supply.” Besides, you wouldn’t want the godless communists to win, would you?!

This “domino theory” which would be one of the primary justifications for U.S. involvement in Vietnam a decade later was already being cited as justification for the millions spent in the 1950s to finance the war against communism in Indochina. In the meantime, there was a Korean “conflict” to tie everyone over – like a prequel or an appetizer. At least we got M*A*S*H out of the deal. (Rest in peace, Captain Tuttle.)

The modern Civil Rights Movement commonly associated with the 1960s began in the 1950s as well. The Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and began the long, messy push towards school desegregation. (It’s possible we’ll still get there someday.) Rosa Parks refused to change seats on the bus in 1955, which in turn sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956. A young reverend by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr., who just happened to pastor a church in the area, added his voice to the protests and soon became the most recognizable face, name, and voice of the entire movement – all before New Year’s Day, 1960.

There are a few other things we usually remember easily enough. The G.I. Bill, which helped returning soldiers go to school or start small businesses. The general economic prosperity of the postwar years. The explosion of modernity for normal people – kitchen appliances, automobiles, television, McDonald’s, and Barbie. Finally, of course, there’s that legendary “cultural homogeneity” of the 1950s – a collective sense of shared purpose lingering from WWII, now redirected into the brave struggle against alternative economic systems and political structures. There’s great comfort in sameness, particularly when accompanied by common enemies and a newfound prosperity for those enemies to threaten.

In reality, the 1950s weren’t quite as universally unified or prosperous as they appeared. Still, it was close enough to give the 1960s something to challenge – a lifestyle and presumed set of values for the youth of the era to reject. (It’s difficult to rebel against the mainstream if there’s no mainstream.) If nothing else, the 1950s made the 1960s possible. The decade became the “ordinary world” for a whole new hero’s journey.

So… what were the boring parts we should make sure we don’t overlook?

Levittown and the Growth of the Suburbs

All those folks coming back from the war needed somewhere to live. Plus, there was that “Baby Boom” thing which somehow started increasing the population – dramatically. The name you should most remember in connection with all of this is William J. Levitt.

Levitt built entire neighborhoods of affordable, but decent, family homes. The most notable was his pilot project in Long Island, New York – Levittown. Disposable income was up, and while the 30-year mortgage so familiar today wasn’t yet standard, it was becoming increasingly popular. The federal government played with ways to keep interest rates low and gave homeowners a big ol’ tax deduction as well. (Remember the part above about using money to promote government-approved lifestyles?) It worked. Levitt sold nearly 17,000 homes in Long Island alone before moving into other markets. Needless to say, other developers quickly followed suit.

The ready availability of automobiles and the growth of highways made travel to and from work more convenient, even at a distance – and just look at all those freshly-mowed lawns… looking exactly the same! These mass-produced suburban homes weren’t always easy to tell apart. It became easy comedy to portray a husband coming home from work and entering the wrong home without ever noticing the difference. But this was the 50s – being the same as everyone else wasn’t exactly a downside.

On the other hand, that homogeneity didn’t end with the shingle choices on your Cape Cod. Levitt’s suburbs, like many others, only sold to white families. This wasn’t something subtle or implied based on a close reading of the historical data; it was established policy. Part of the appeal of the suburbs was getting away from crowded cities and into affordable convenience, but “white flight” was quite intentional as well. White neighborhoods meant your kids could go to all-white schools and you could attend all-white churches and shop at all-white stores, etc. It may seem biased or hurtful to portray racism as planned, systematic, and intentional across the board and by everyone involved; it’s just that it was planned, systematic, and intentional across the board by everyone involved.

Other than that, though, the suburbs were (and are) swell.

Prosperity Doctrines

The federal government had poured major stimulation into the economy during the war, and they were in no hurry to dial it back just because the bad guys had finally surrendered. Tax dollars both collected and anticipated were funneled into education, social programs, highways and other infrastructure, the aforementioned G.I. Bill, mortgage protection for all those new suburban homeowners, and anything else Congress could think of. While federal spending in the 1950s may have been humble by the standards of subsequent decades, the idea that it was a time of pure self-sufficiency or any version of laissez-faire economics is just silly. That would be like suggesting that homesteaders and railroads after the Civil War forged west without constant, massive government support and encouragement.

Nothing against the “invisible hand,” but it’s terrible at land grants, killing Indians, or promoting interstate travel.

In the 1950s, at least, all that government stimulation turned out to be quite effective. Americans were able to whip themselves into a consumerist frenzy, purchasing homes, cars, appliances, entertainment, and anything else they could think of. All that buying and wanting meant higher demand for pretty much everything, which meant good wages and low unemployment while somehow keeping inflation low. It was truly a marvelous time to be alive.

And white.

NEXT TIME: The 1950s (Part Two) – “It’s Moving Day!”