American Beginnings: The Frontiersmen and The White

Late eighteenth century America would be a place completely unrecognizable to a modern day American. While much of the eastern seaboard was tied up in the conflict that would eventually lead to our independence from Great Britain, the areas of Ohio, western New York and Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky were facing their own battles. As white settlers pushed further and further west, they intruded upon the lands of Native Americans, often with disastrous results. The White by Deborah Larsen and The Frontiersmen by Allan Eckert highlight some of these struggles, headlined by names such as Mary Jemison, Simon Kenton, and Tecumseh. Both books are shining examples of how historical fiction can illuminate both the factual and emotional elements behind historical events.

The Frontiersmen is the first of Eckert’s epic six-volume series. It focuses largely on the life of Simon Kenton, who entered the frontier at just sixteen after he thought he had killed another man in a fight. Kenton easily adapted to life in the woods, becoming an expert marksman, scout, and trapper. Kenton travelled up and down the Ohio River and into parts of Kentucky previously unexplored. He surveyed hundreds of thousands of miles of land, helped newcomers safely venture through the area, and guarded the settlers from attack. At one point, he was captured by the Shawnee, but survived long enough that he was eventually adopted into their culture. Upon returning to white culture, Kenton continued to serve as a local living legend until his death in 1836.

Eckert also highlights the hero of the Native Americans - a young Shawnee named Tecumseh. Frustrated at the theft of his people’s lands and the murders of his fellow Native Americans by the whites, Tecumseh quickly becomes a respected leader among the entire Native American community. Travelling all across the country, he gives lengthy and powerful speeches encouraging each unique group of Indians to unite as one strong force against the white invaders. Unfortunately, his own brother’s foolish actions prevent his dream from fully coming to life. He is forced to ally with the British, whose disregard for the Native Americans and general poor planning ends in the rebellion’s defeat. Tecumseh himself is killed in battle, and none other than Simon Kenton identifies the body. Kenton, out of respect for the man he came to know during his explorations, prevents his peers from disrespecting Tecumseh’s body.

Eckert writes in masterful detail, and his lengthy footnotes show his amazing attention to the facts. There is no doubt that Eckert puts the history first in his fictional adaptations. The dialogues are often taken directly from letters and diary entries, and are short enough to really keep from true adaptation. The narrative style adds to the flow of the story and brings each of these amazing American men to life.

Simon Kenton was still an infant when 12 year old Mary Jemison, living just outside of present day Adams County, Pennsylvania, was captured by a group of Shawnee Indians and Frenchmen in 1758. The rest of her family was killed by their captors, but Mary was adopted by two Seneca sisters to replace their murdered brother. The young woman adapted to this new culture and learned to thrive in it, never forgetting her roots but choosing not to let her past hinder her future. Readers watch her transformation from a terrified young girl to a noble, welcoming mother, wife, and community leader.

Author Deborah Larsen first discovered the story of Mary Jemison while touring the area around her home in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. She came across a statue of Jemison in the Buchanan Valley, the same area of Pennsylvania where the Jemison family was captured back in 1758. After reading an early edition of James Seaver’s A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Mary Jemison, she was hooked. “When one finds such a breathtaking narrative with so much sweep, it is as if a gift has appeared out of nowhere.” Larsen said.

Her passion for Mary’s story is evident in her writing. Larsen uses a far more emotional style of storytelling than Eckert, taking readers inside Mary Jemison’s thoughts and feelings with her captivating prose. In fact, Larsen’s first interpretation of Jemison’s life story came in the form of a screenplay. History is often a place where the stories of brave men overshadow the stories of equally brave women. It is refreshing to see Mary’s life fleshed out in such a unique and captivating way, just as it deserves.

As for the historical accuracy? Certainly, we can only guess at Jemison’s true thoughts and conversations all those years ago. According to Larsen, much of the books events were shaped on Seaver’s account, with additional information gathered from Arthur C Parker’s works as well as American Indian Lacrosse: Little Brother of War by Thomas Vennum Jr. Unlike Seaver’s original account, however, Larsen gives Mary Jemison her own voice, independent from Seaver’s “rather stiff, Victorianish prose”.

She hopes that readers of The White will question its historical authenticity. “I wanted to make American history and personages appealing to others using any means I could. If curious people are led back to other sources and to historical documents, this is all to the good.”

And that is the exact reason why historical fiction is a necessary part of how we preserve our past. History does not have to be boring. It is the story of all of us, both brave and weak. It is the story of mistakes, tragedies, and great accomplishments. But history is not always interesting for everyone, and most people with just a casual interest in a subject will not be thrilled to sit down to a heavily detailed, impersonal nonfiction account. Historical fiction helps to bring these stories to life, and if done in a way that still respects the history behind it, can be a brilliant way to make history accessible for a wider variety of people. Both The Frontiersmen and The White recall the lives of amazing individuals who shaped the history of America, with a little embellishment. And if those extras help to introduce even just one more person to these stories and the historical fact behind them, then it is worth it.

And these stories do still matter. “Mary Jemison faced both personal and early-American turmoil and trauma, including the French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution. She suffered and triumphed by facing these events and by being resilient She also went out of herself and often took an active role in aiding others, no matter what their political, racial, or ethnic backgrounds. We think of multiculturalism as a somewhat modern phenomenon, but during Mary’s New-York-State years, she lived right in the middle of it.” Larsen said. “I think the world today could use more of her openness, thoughtfulness, humility, and activism.”

Two Wars, Two Men

The Korean War and the Vietnam War are two of America’s darkest hours. Both wars, while not total defeats, were also far from total victory. David Halberstam’s The Coldest Winter and Neil Sheehan’s A Bright Shining Lie take a look at Korea and Vietnam respectively to show just what went wrong for the world’s superpower. In many cases, the mistakes of Korea were reflected in the mistakes of Vietnam. Most interestingly, both authors chose to look at the war through the perspective of the man they found most influential to the course of the war - in Halberstam’s case, General Douglas MacArthur, and for Sheehan, John Paul Vann.

Both Halberstam and Sheehan worked in Vietnam during the early days of the war as correspondents. They witnessed first-hand the incompetencies and trials of a war abroad, and surely this experience led them both to write about America’s Asian land wars. Both men are not afraid to portray the ugliest sides of the conflict, never hesitating to criticize the men they feel are responsible for the chaos. They are fascinating accounts that will satisfy the needs of any reader with an interest in military history.

David Halberstam’s The Coldest Winter covers the major battles of the Korean War, but the work focuses mostly on the politics behind the battle. Countless chapters are devoted to the infighting among Communist leaders in China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union, as well as the factionalism back in the United States, where the China Lobby and general fear of Communism played a huge role in the way President Harry Truman was forced to operate. Other books on Korea may choose to focus on the battles and military mistakes themselves, but Halberstam shows the true reasoning behind the war. The Washington Post’s Stanley Weintraub, an expert on George Bernard Shaw, notes that this lack of linear structure best serves a story so heavily influenced by politician’s back home.

At the heart of this story, however, is General Douglas MacArthur, a man deeply loved by the American people for his success in World War II. A cult of personality developed around MacArthur, making him almost untouchable to even the President of the United States. MacArthur was given complete control of the war, even when his own ideas greatly conflicted with the reality on the ground. In a display of his own hubris, MacArthur claimed that the Chinese would be so impressed by an amphibious landing at Inchon that they would back down and refuse to intervene, leaving the North Koreans to be crushed. The initial success of the landing against all odds again contributed to the mystique of MacArthur. When intelligence reports indicated that thousands of Chinese were moving in the north, MacArthur simply manipulated the details to make it go away. As a result, the American troops were divided, understaffed, improperly clothed, and completely unprepared when the Chinese finally struck. They were forced to hastily retreat back south, leading to the death of thousands. Halberstam’s position on MacArthur is clear as he coldly notes that MacArthur never spent “a night in the field in Korea”. It isn’t until Truman finally fires MacArthur that the war can finally get back on track to a simple stalemate. Halberstam ends his story over a year before the war is formally drawn to a close, reflecting the true impact of MacArthur on the war.

It seems that America did not learn from her mistakes. Those same causes for failure - ignoring the men of the ground with the best look at the war combined with the sense of superiority over an Asian race - would be seen yet again in the Vietnam War, according to Neil Sheehan. Sheehan tells the story of John Paul Vann, an adviser to the Saigon regime, whose rare, insightful understanding of the war in Vietnam seemed almost ahead of his time. From the earliest days of the war, Vann was skeptical of the Saigon regime and the American military command’s overwhelming confidence. For him, the problems existed within the Saigon regime, not the war itself. When he couldn’t bring about the change he wanted through ordinary means, he went through the Saigon Press Corps, which included Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam, in order to show the incompetencies to the American public. While his superiors saw him as a nuisance, Vann quickly gained the respect of the men he was commanding because of his energy, dedication, and bravery. His ability to act under pressure and create real action made him a hero until his tour of duty ended in April of 1963.

Sheehan is not simply in awe of the man who shaped his early reporting career. As noted by Ronald Steel of The New York Times, part of what makes Sheehan’s writing so engaging is his ability to portray Vann as a complex, human character. The man who rose up against all odds in a poor and dysfunctional Norfolk family still possessed many flaws. He cheated on his wife frequently, once with an underage girl. While the military cleared him of all charges, Sheehan speculates that this event may have kept Vann from moving up the military chain any higher. Vann also kept two Vietnamese mistresses, one of whom he got pregnant. Sheehan does not seem to draw his own conclusions about a man he obviously admired, but whose flaws cannot be ignored. This character portrayal is perhaps the greatest difference between Sheehan and Halberstam’s books. While Halberstam’s MacArthur is almost a villain, Sheehan’s Vann is simply a regular man, with both good and bad characteristics.

Perhaps it is because of these issues back home that Vann was so drawn to return to Vietnam, this time as civilian officer with AID.  Here, he finds true way to win the war - winning over the peasants. The peasants were regarded as expendable by both the Americans and the Saigon regime, who did not hesitate to destroy their homes or kill them. As a result, the peasant population was far more inclined to side with the Viet Cong. Vann proposed that in order to win the war, the peasants should be provided with food, resources, and educations to show them that Saigon and the Americans were truly on their side. As a Deputy for CORDS, Vann attempted these reforms on a small scale. However, the vast corruption within the Saigon government made this nearly impossible.

Vann died in a freak helicopter accident before the war’s end. His funeral, held at Arlington National Cemetery in 1972, brought together ideological enemies to mourn a man so widely admired. Sheehan attended as well, and the service inspired him to spend 16 years compiling A Bright Shining Lie. The research is evident in Sheehan’s amazing portrayals of war, men, and government in vivid detail.

Both books are clear portrayals of the wars they describe. Their authors, influenced by seeing war up close and personal, aimed to tell the true story behind these conflicts. Rather than focusing on the linear structures and moving battle to battle, they discussed the real stories of the men and politics who shaped the war. The results are two fascinating, detailed, and emotional histories of the American military abroad. While America cannot change its past, we can learn from these mistakes. The Coldest Winter and A Bright and Shining Lie are both portray two unique men in two unique wars, yet the stories ring eerily similar.

The Phenomenon of Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell is one of the most successful North American authors in our world today. Since 1996, Gladwell has written for The New Yorker. His first two books, The Tipping Point (2000) and Blink (2005) both made The New York Times bestseller list, as did his next three books. Readers adore Malcolm Gladwell. And who can blame them? He is an unbelievably talented writer with an ability to retell bland scientific reports in such a way that readers won’t want to put down the book. He’s funny, engaging, and you leave his books feeling like you’ve been let in on the next scientific breakthrough.

Despite the success, Gladwell has been subjected to serious criticism as his popularity increased. The problem? Gladwell’s writing relies heavily on anecdotes to convey his point, including everything from Airwalk shoes to the forged kouros statue at the Getty Museum. His easy to read, relatable style makes these stories into fascinating reads. However, it is when Gladwell tries to pull these anecdotes into a deeper meaning where he struggles, perhaps because of his training as a short story writer for The New Yorker.

In particular, McGill graduate and Harvard professor Steven Pinker shared a particularly scathing review of Gladwell. According to Pinker, the issue lies in the fact that Gladwell simply interviews one expert on a subject and reaches his conclusions from that interview. “When a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert,” Pinker wrote. “He is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse, or flat wrong.”

Stephen Bailey at The Guardian points out that Gladwell really does not develop that strong of an argument. In Blink, readers are left confused as to whether or not rapid judgement is actually better than deeply considered decisions. He offers anecdotes to how each is beneficial. On one hand, there is the instance in which the Getty Museum purchased a Greek statue despite numerous art experts noting that the statue just didn’t look right. On the other, after performing poorly with blind taste tests, Coca Cola dramatically altered their recipe in a way that ended up being hugely unpopular with consumers. So which is best?

Gladwell’s critics do share some fair points, but ultimately, this criticism would not be so elaborate if not for Gladwell’s overwhelming success. He is able to accomplish what so few writers can - making science popular. How many average people would read about the research of Paul Eckman’s Facial Action Coding System in their own time? The hundreds of muscular combinations would bore us, or be too complicated for us to understand. Gladwell succeeds because he serves as the liaison between scientific thinkers and the average person. Sometimes, the average person needs that simplification in order to enjoy and comprehend what they are reading.

It is no secret that Malcolm Gladwell is a master of the essay. His anecdotes present fascinating tidbits of social science that appeal to a vast majority of readers. Perhaps he is guilty of oversimplifying in many instances, however, how can we blame him? Malcolm Gladwell is not a scientific writer, he is a popular journalist. He knows how to entertain us, and we will continue to gobble up his books time and time again.  

Grapes of Wrath

The Grapes of Wrath, published in 1939, follows the story of migrant workers in California during the 1930s Dust Bowl, particularly through the eyes of the Joad family. When Tom Joad is paroled from prison, he returns home to find his family’s farm destroyed. Due to the Great Depression, changes in the agricultural industry, and bank foreclosures, they are now living with their uncle, John, with no options left. The family decides to pick up and move to California, after receiving a handbill advertising thousands of available agricultural jobs in the Golden State.

The journey across the country is far from easy. The Joads purchase the best car they can with their few funds, but it still experiences many problems. The grandmother and grandfather both die from the exhaustion of the trip and heartbreak of leaving their home. As they get closer to California, they start experiencing prejudice from locals against the newbies, who they rudely refer to as “Okies”. They encounter other travellers on the road back to Oklahoma, who could not find work and prefer to starve in a comfortable environment than the strange land of California. The family starts to get the first hint that life in California may not be as great as it seems.

The Joads are hit with a harsh reality upon reaching California. They travel from camp to camp, searching for the perfect balance of work and safety, but it is not easily found. In places with work, such as the peach picking camp, there are so many workers pleading for jobs that the owners are able to push the wages down to two and a half cents a day. In the government-owned Weedpatch Camp, conditions are wonderful. There is running water, Okie-run local authority, and federal protection. However, there is little work near the camp, and eventually the Joads must leave.

In addition to trying to avoid starvation, the Joad family must also contend with their son, Tom. Back home in Oklahoma, Tom was on parole for killing a man in a bar fight, and by leaving that state he broke the terms of his parole agreement. His short temper often leads to problems. He hits a local police officer threatening to burn down a Hooverville and even kills the man who murdered family friend Jim Casy.

Aside from being a well-written and gripping story, The Grapes of Wrath was also a call to action. Steinbeck wrote the novel with the intention of hitting the reader “below the belt”. A native Californian, he had watched The Grapes of Wrath play out in real life for thousands of migrant families. He hoped that this novel would draw national attention to the issue. In order to prevent critics from claiming that his work was inaccurate, Steinbeck did extensive research, even visiting the Arvin Federal Government Camp near Bakersfield.

The contemporary response to the novel was far from positive. Hatred came particularly from California, whose locals were portrayed as vicious and cruel. In fact, a contemporary review from The New York Times describes the state of affairs in California as similar to that of Nazi Germany. Naturally, many protests regarding the book occurred. The Associated Farmers of California deemed the book “a pack of lies” and “communist propaganda”. Several of the more successful farming communities even participated in book burnings. Kern County, California, where the Joads reside at the end of the novel, banned the book from the local library. Steinbeck was accused of being a socialist and a communist, but ironically, even Josef Stalin banned the book in the Soviet Union.

The book banning really speaks to the power behind this book. Steinbeck was one of the first people to truly reveal the strife and inhumanity of migrant life to the American public. California farmers realized this, and knew that their time in charge was coming to an end. They feared that migrants might be inspired by the likes of Tom Joad or Jim Casy and rise up in rebellion. This fear was so great that it caused grown adults to ban and burn books.

Unfortunately for the farmers of California, their efforts were for naught. The American people made the Grapes of Wrath a bestseller, and it eventually won the National Book Award and a Pulitzer Prize. Millions of people became educated about the plight of the California migrant worker. While Grapes may not have solved the problem, it did encourage the American people to take action. Combined with the Second World War, migrant farming became less of an issue.

However, many of the messages in Grapes of Wrath still ring true today. The disparity between rich and poor continues to grow. And while the modern-day Joad family may not be travelling to pick cotton in California, perhaps they are working in a Bangladeshian clothing factory. Here in America, migrant workers still exist, although they are largely Latino. Grapes of Wrath represents our past and our present.

The book ends abruptly as spring rains threaten to flood the Joads camp. Daughter Rose of Sharon gives birth to a stillborn infant as the waterline creeps higher. Eventually, the family flees to a barn on higher ground. There, they find a man dying from starvation and his young son. To save the man’s life, Rose of Sharon offers him her breast milk for support. It is an abrupt ending, and the reader never finds out the fate of the Joad family. Of course, this reflects the never-ending effect of poverty. There is no happy ending for the Joads or the migrant workers in 1939. The ending calls for action to help these people live humanely.

Chilton, Martin. "The Grapes of Wrath: 10 Surprising Facts about John Steinbeck's Novel." The Telegraph. N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Fbooks%2Fbooknews%2F10755043%2FThe-Grapes-of-Wrath-10-surprising-facts-about-John-Steinbecks-novel.html>.

"The Author, On 'Grapes Of Wrath'" The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Aug. 1990. Web. 02 Dec. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/06/opinion/the-author-on-grapes-of-wrath.html>.

Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief

Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief seeks to explain one of newest American religions: Scientology. The Pulitzer Prize winning author began his investigation after writing a piece on former Scientologist Paul Haggis for The New Yorker. His quest to understand this less than understood religion resulted in two years of investigation and a spot as a finalist for the National Book Award for Nonfiction.

Wright begins the story with the biography of its charismatic, controversial founder - L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard is undeniably a genius. He publishes thousands of science fiction novels throughout his lifetime. Eventually, he is able to convince roughly a hundred people to sign a billion-year contract and join the Sea Org, sailing around the Atlantic to avoid government intervention. Soon, his religion would grow to include millions of followers, according to the Church of Scientology.

However, Hubbard is also a pathological liar, fabricating war stories, medals, and injuries to help further his religion. He is abusive to his second wife Sara, who accused him of “systematic torture” in divorce papers. Members of the Sea Org found him “comically self-important” and seemed to think he was insane at times. Despite his shortcomings, he was still able to become a powerful, influential religious figure.

Our first hint that Scientology might not be the best comes during this Sea Org period, as Hubbard’s paranoia leads to the creation of Operation Snow White. He and his wife, Mary Sue, convinced that the American and British governments are responsible for the negative reputation of Scientology, placed roughly 5,000 Scientologists in 136 government agencies worldwide. Their task was to serve as the Church’s intelligence agency, “gathering information on critics and government agencies around the world, generating lawsuits to intimidate opponents, and waging an unremitting campaign against mental health professionals”, according to Wright.

From there, Wright covers Scientology’s shift to Hollywood through the influence of several key members, including John Travolta, Paul Haggis, and most notably Tom Cruise. Following the death of Hubbard (explained to Scientologists as dropping the body “in order to move on to a higher level of existence”), David Miscavige takes over the Church. Miscavige is reportedly abusive to his fellow Scientologists, except for his friend and shining star of the Church, Tom Cruise, who receives luxury treatment. This brings us to the Scientology we see today - celebrities engaged in a very secretive, private religion that seems almost cult-like to an outside eye. It is amazing to see how a religion with money and resources has become so powerful.

Wright’s biggest strength is his fairness to the religion. He never seems vengeful, hateful, or disgusted by the material he is writing. As Michael Kinsley The New York Times jokes, “That crunching sound you hear is Lawrence Wright bending over backwards to be fair to Scientology.” Given the church’s extensive history of harassing and suing those who publish critical material on Scientology, it is easy to see why he took this route. However, it also adds to his credibility by showing his commitment to presenting the facts rather than making broad judgements. As Lisa Miller of The Washington Post points out, “this author is not fooling around.” His footnotes and list of sources could make a whole book on their own. Wright wants the reader to know that he searched for the truth, and he is not about to let anyone discredit his findings.

However, Wright’s work has not been without its critics. Obviously, the Church of Scientology was highly unhappy with the book. They reached out to several news organizations with a response to the highly damaging claims made in Going Clear. The Daily Beast published one such article written by Church lawyers, which accuses Wright of being “blatantly bigoted”. They claim that Wright refused their assistance and refused to provide an advance copy despite their many requests. They state that Wright “doesn’t inform his readers about the sources in the book” despite the roughly forty pages of listed sources Wright provides.  

In fact, the lawyers clearly state that they only read “certain passages” provided on the Amazon.com website. It is hard to take their criticism seriously when they couldn’t even be bothered to read the entire book.

Wright’s biggest misstep is becoming so absorbed in his material that he often leaves the reader behind. By the middle of the book, the reader already forgets all of the newly-learned Scientology terms such as PTS/SP or OT V status. He is telling a complicated story and it is easy to leave the reader behind.

However, that should not scare anyone away - Going Clear is a highly informative and fascinating portrayal of Scientology. It is definitely worth the read. A religion that has long escaped understanding in America is finally explained in Going Clear.

All the President's Men

 
All The President’s Men tracks the investigation of Watergate by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein from its measly beginnings to turning the government upside down. Their persistence and good journalism skills allowed them to uncover that the Watergate break-in was not a singular incident, but rather a small piece of a great puzzle of political corruption.

Some of the most interesting parts of the book come from Woodward and Bernstein’s details of life in the newsroom. The reporters had to be dedicated to printing the truth but still remaining up to date in the world of daily newspapers. As the story grew, more and more news outlets such as The New York Times and Newsweek began to do investigative work of their own. Despite their suspicions, they had to remain ethical in printing just the facts. Fortunately, the layout of the daily newspaper afforded them the time to do the job properly. This book highlights the competition in the world of print journalism, which is starkly different from our world of instant, 24-hour news today.
It is a bit disappointing that Bernstein and Woodward did not take advantage of the opportunity to share their own feelings within the book. In numerous occasions, from deciding to take a bribe, telephone grand jury members, or uncover their sources, the pair of reporters are faced with huge moral decisions. They must weight finding the truth with their own journalistic ethics. As mentioned by Doris Kearnes in The New York Times, “the same passionate language which keeps the story moving keeps the reader at the threshold of moral choice; rarely does it permit looking at the decision making process.” With this book, Bernstein and Woodward truly had the chance to offer their own introspection into these moral crossroads, but they simply did not take it.
At the time of publication in 1974, the Republican Party was highly unhappy with the book. Even during the investigation, they attempted to accuse Bernstein, Woodward, and The Washington Post of being McGovern sympathizers trying to throw the election in favor of the Democrats. Ben Stein of The American Spectator panned Bernstein and Woodward, attempting to discredit their work by noting that they “got what they wrote from sources, not from original research.” In their mind, the reporters overdid their articles, creating a “false image” of Nixon’s White House. 
This response is to be expected, however. Until Watergate, Nixon had been an overwhelmingly popular president. At his reelection in 1972, he boasted a 68% approval rating. By September of 1974, 58% of Americans wanted him tried for possible criminal charges, according to the Pew Research Center (Kozlowska). Republicans saw this as a liberal attack, rather than a partyless, catastrophic abuse of power.
It’s a fair assessment that Bernstein and Woodward did get the majority of their information from sources, but the contacting of these sources was original research in its own right. Not to mention, the two reporters were among the few who kept digging. They easily could have reported the simple fact of the burglary, but their perseverance ended up tying these facts together to expose the larger picture.
The impact of Watergate is something that we still feel today. Before, Americans had an admiration for politicians and the office of the President in particular. However, Watergate exposed the ugly, dirty side to politics.
Ultimately, Watergate shattered a generation. It destroyed the trust between the American people and their President. According to a CNN Poll cited on NPR, 53% of Americans felt that the government could be trusted all or most of the time in 1972. By 1974, following the Watergate scandal, that percentage dropped to 36%. It has remained under 50% ever since, except for a brief spark following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. When one looks at the sort of bashing that President Barack Obama has faced while in office, from people refusing to believe that he was born in the United States to calls for impeachment, it is easy to see how this attitude has impacted American politics. Will American politicians ever be able to regain that trust from their populace?
Finally, it is revealed that Nixon has been bugging his own office. The tapes reveal that he knew of his men’s involvement and actively covered up the Watergate scandal, thus setting the process of impeachment into motion. In the final paragraphs of the book, President Nixon delivers his Oath of Office for his second term. He reassures the public that everything will be fine, and that the Watergate scandal will not destroy his government. It is an abrupt ending, without the full answers (as they were not available at the time) but a fitting conclusion to the whirlwind story of how two reporters uncovered the greatest scandal in American political history.


Kozlowska, Hanna. "Watergate's Emotional Legacy." Op Talk. NPR, 8 Aug. 2014. Web.

'The Lord says it's Okay.' - Under the Banner of Heaven

     In Under the Banner of Heaven, Jon Krakauer explores the violent history of fundamental Mormonism through the 1984 killings of 24 year old Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter, Erica, at the hands of Dan and Ron Lafferty.
     Dan and Ron Lafferty began as regular members of the Mormon Church, however, after Dan’s business was shut down for lack of proper license, he became increasingly anti-government. He found solace in Book of Mormon - particularly Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, which validated the principle of plural marriage.
     But there was one problem – their sister-in-law, Brenda. Highly educated, Brenda encouraged the other wives to resist their husband’s decent into polygamy and other strange, non-Mormon beliefs. Ron’s wife listened, leaving her husband and moving to Florida with their children. Soon, the two brothers were excommunicated from the LDS Church. Eventually, the brothers claimed receive a commandment from God, ordering the death of Brenda and Erica Lafferty.
     Emily Bazelon of The Los Angeles Times notes that Krakauer’s book is far from an easy read. It is terribly disturbing to hear the countless stories of young girls being brainwashed and raped in abusive marriages. Not to mention, in many of these exclusively FLDS towns, the entire law enforcement system is run by the Church. With nowhere to turn, these young women are trapped, unaware that a reality exists outside their town.
     Krakauer also speaks to several former members of the FLDS Church, who finally rose up against years of teachings to start a life of their own. These interviews, particularly with DeLoy Bateman, are incredibly insightful and interesting.
     As pointed out by Robert Wright of The New York Times, Krakauer’s jumps from present day to the beginnings of the religion can seem disconnected and choppy. However, the information provided gives the reader a better understanding of Mormonism and the church doctrine that allowed Dan and Ron Lafferty to evolve from perfect believers to excommunicated killers. Killing in the name of God is far from a new phenomenon, even in the Mormon Church.
     Obviously, the Mormon Church was less than thrilled by their portrayal in this book. Richard E Turley, the managing director of the Family and Church History Department for the LDS Church, posted a scathing review of the book. He claims that the book will only appeal to “gullible persons” and that “serious readers… need not waste their time on it.” However, this is a story that must be told. When Americans discuss the idea of religious violence, they often do not consider that this could be happening right here at home. It is very easy to dismiss religious fundamentalism as something that happens elsewhere, an action done by other people and other religions. However, this book points out the very dangerous and very real fundamentalism happening right in our own backyard.
     Turley was also upset that Krakaeur’s narrative left out the “vast majority of Latter-Day Saints” who are a “peace-loving people”. I believe that’s a fair assessment. There are thousands of Mormons who would never dare to kill someone or engage in polygamy. The majority of the atrocious acts highlighted in this book were committed by excommunicated fundamentalists. However, Krakauer makes a clear distinction between the two, never hiding the fact that his book is not about the common Mormon, just in the same way that a book about 9/11 is not about the common Muslim.
     Krakauer concludes the book by returning to the Lafferty trials, which posed highly important questions. Can Lafferty be truly deemed insane if he was simply following the orders of his God? If so, does that mean that every religious person is insane, and that their crimes done in the name of God are excusable? What sort of precedent does that set?
     In the end, Lafferty is found mentally capable of understanding the full nature of his crime. Now, he sits on death row, awaiting the day when he will be put to death.