In July 1933, six months after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, his government established the Hitler salute — right arm extended with palm open, together with the declaration "Heil Hitler!" — as the "properly German form of greeting." As Tilman Allert shows in his slim book, The Hitler Salute: On the Meaning of a Moral Gesture (Metropolitan Books), the greeting swiftly entrenched itself as a social convention and a gauge of loyalty to the regime. According to one Nazi newspaper, it reminded Germans of "the grand goal and challenges Adolf Hitler has given to us all." The salute, it said, "is a bit of practical National Socialism that everyone can perform." And so they did. Customary salutations gave way to the Hitler salute, which had no precedent in German history.

Allert, a professor of sociology and social psychology at the University of Frankfurt, quotes from the diary of a university student: "We knew where all our teachers stood toward the [Nazi] party, and we didn't have to check whether they were wearing an insignia. We got a clearer indication from the way in which they performed the mandatory Hitler greeting." By the 1936 Olympic Games, in Berlin, the salute was so ubiquitous that the English and French delegations demonstrated their respect to the host country by entering the stadium with right arms outstretched.

Allert dismisses the work of those historians who trace the rise of Nazism to anti-Semitism and an authoritarian German national character. Instead he encourages us to look at the microcosmic world of greetings to see how social mores decay, "making it easier for people to blind themselves to what was happening around them." In other words, the Hitler salute was not only a stark indication of the extent to which ideology intruded into the most pedestrian routines of everyday life in Germany, but, according to Allert, also served to "silence a nation's moral scruples."...

Without a radical shift in thinking about first nations archaeology, B.C. is in danger of losing what is left of its ancient heritage and sparking heated conflict with natives, according to PhD candidate Michael Klassen.
Virtually all of the first nations' 9,000-year-old footprint in southwestern B.C. has been eradicated by development, Klassen said.

Most of it has been destroyed lot by lot, because each property taken alone may not register as scientifically significant.

"But when you look at it cumulatively, it is nearly all being wiped out," Klassen said.

From the inception of this public website, we imagined that it would have a companion forum for the exchange of ideas among persons with a professional interest in U.S. strategy and foreign policy. We call that companion MESHNet. MESHNet is a members-only message board, ideal for hosting open and structured discussions. We plan to develop MESHNet as a place where established and budding experts can express views among their peers, and where we can quickly congregate to enlighten and update one another during the crises that inevitably punctuate the affairs of the Middle East.

MESHNet will be launched next Tuesday, April 1. If you think you might qualify for membership, we urge you to apply.

Researchers who use the European Reading Room at the Library of Congress are up in arms over rumors that it is about to be shut down to make way for exhibition space. They have begun a grass-roots campaign to urge concerned scholars to write protest letters to their representatives in Congress and to James H. Billington, the librarian of Congress.

Some have even set up a Web site, Save the European Reading Room at the LC!, to encourage people to take action.

The consternation reflects an anxiety among scholars not just over the fate of one reading room but over whether the library is putting tourism and public history ahead of its longtime commitment to research.

In a short statement issued on Tuesday, the library denied the closure rumors and sought to reassure researchers. The European Reading Room "will not be closed," it said. "Beginning this summer, the reading room will be relocated to the Southeast Pavilion, a space adjacent to the current reading room."

[HNN: The article says the AHA's Arnita Jones has received several emails about this from historians.]

When Hillary Clinton recently floated the idea of choosing Barack Obama as her running mate, she won political points without being taken seriously (especially by Obama). The primary season has turned into the kind of slog and slugfest that makes opponents more opposed to each other, not less. But humor me, for a moment, and imagine that the kind of reconciliation that would allow them to be running mates is possible. Not to mention the best outcome for the party.

But which should it be: Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton? In fact, voters in November could actually endorse both versions of the ticket—truly, two presidents for the price of one. How? The Constitution's 25th Amendment allows for a new paradigm of political teamwork: The two Democratic candidates could publicly agree to take turns in the top slot.

Adopted in 1967 in the shadow of John F. Kennedy's assassination, the 25th Amendment allows presidents unilaterally to transfer presidential power to their vice presidents and enables presidents, with congressional consent, to fill a vacancy in the vice presidency should one arise. By creatively using the constitutional rules created by this amendment, the Democrats can, if they are so inclined, present the voters in November with a new kind of balanced ticket.

Gordon Wood, a professor of history at Brown University in Providence, R.I., is a legendary figure in his field of early American history. He has written many books about the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers.

His newest book is "The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History."

In 21 varied and provocative essays, Wood considers how history has changed over the years in the hands of both popular and academic historians. As a professor with a doctorate from Harvard, he falls into the academic classification, but his philosophy has veered toward the popular.

"I try to appeal to two audiences simultaneously," said Wood during a phone interview from his office at Brown University. Whereas he used to write primarily for the university student and budding professor, he now writes with the general public in mind, and he is not worried that many historians writing today do not have doctorates.
Well-known popular historians like David McCullough (biographies of Harry Truman and John Adams) and Thomas Fleming tend to attract a larger reading audience than academic historians, Wood said. "McCullough, who has a wonderful sense of style, is the best known and is the natural successor to Barbara Tuchman. Thomas Fleming, author of 'The New Dealers' War,' is also a superb historian."

Others who write popular history include Ron Chernow, Walter Isaacson and Stacy Schiff.

Wood also praised the work of the prolific academic historian, Daniel Boorstin, who "reached two audiences and whose whole career caused academics to be displeased with him. His series of three books entitled, 'The Americans,' will be with us through the 21st century."

Wood believes that more historians in recent years have become literary, consciously making their books more readable to the non-historian. There also has been a remarkable increase in the numbers of authors writing so-called "historical novels," which Wood approves of "as long as they're labeled that way. You can learn a lot reading a historical novel, but most readers want to know if what they are reading is true."...

Edward J. Blum, a historian of race and religion at San Diego State University and author of "W. E. B. Du Bois, American Prophet" and "Reforging the White Republic: Race, Religion, and American Nationalism, 1865-1898," suggests that while some Americans may be understandably offended by Wright's divisive remarks, those remarks are part of a long and storied tradition among African-American church leaders who have forged Christian ideologies and rhetoric to condemn racial discrimination. Blum spoke with NEWSWEEK's Jamie Reno about this history and the entry of race as a front-burner issue in this presidential campaign. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: You've said that African-American church leaders have taken America's Christian values and turned them against the nation's practitioners of racial discrimination, violence and imperialism for hundreds of years. When and how did this tradition begin?

Edward J. Blum: It began even before the United States became the United States, during the slave trade. Throughout slavery, African-Americans used the Bible to challenge their enslavement. Olaudah Equiano, a slave who was later freed, wrote a narrative juxtaposing the Christianity of the slaveholders vs. his own Christianity. Frederick Douglass said he hated the Christianity of whites but loved the Christianity of Christ. As Africans became Americans and embraced Christianity, they continued to turn the teachings of Jesus against whites.


Newsweek: But we've obviously come far since the days of Frederick Douglass. Is it still appropriate or effective for African-American pastors to condemn America with such harsh rhetoric?

Blum: Well, it's important to make a distinction between prophets and politicians. Rev. Wright doesn't want to be a politician, he wants to be a prophet, and prophets always border on treason and heresy. Their social function is to push the envelope, to speak the unspeakable. Politicians like Obama, however, have a different set of tasks. Their job is to bring unity among diversity. For Obama it would be inappropriate to say "God damn America," but not for Rev. Wright.

Newsweek: How do you think Obama handled this controversy in his speech on Tuesday?

Blum: He handled it beautifully, because he refused to repudiate Wright completely. He held on to the notion that [Wright] was a strong influence in his life, while repudiating specific words. Obama, who is savvy about hating the sin and loving the sinner, continues to see Wright as more than just those words. And let's not forget that the notion of God judging America doesn't just come from African-American churches or from the left. We heard it from Billy Graham as far back as the 1960s, and more recently from [one right-wing religious group] who would go to soldiers' funerals and say that the war was happening because of homosexuality and that God is judging America. It comes from different places for different reasons.

Newsweek: How much damage do you think the surfacing of Wright's remarks has inflicted on Obama's campaign, especially among non-African-Americans?

Blum: There is real damage. I've gotten two types of e-mails since Obama made his speech [on Tuesday], the first set coming from other academics who support Obama reminding me that great African-American leaders throughout history have said these same types of things. I've received another set of e-mails from old friends from high school, more white, middle-class, mainstream folks, who are all saying the same thing: "Can you believe this guy [Wright] said this?"...

For the best part of two centuries, United States relations with China have been built on trade.

But as to the future, "there are no guarantees here at all," said Craig Canning, a historian at the College of William and Mary.

U.S.-China trade began in 1784, when the ship Empress of China set sail from New York, bound for Canton -- now Guangzhou -- with a cargo of fur and ginseng, prized in Asia for its healing properties.

"It turned a handsome profit," Canning said. "And right away, other Americans went out to seek their fortune."

China scholar Canning spoke last night to about 35 people with the World Affairs Council of Greater Richmond at the SunTrust Building in the downtown financial district.

With interruptions -- notably the Maoist era, when commerce between the two countries was practically nonexistent -- "trade and economic interests were what primarily drove U.S.-China relations," Canning said.

Since 1979, when the U.S. formally recognized China, the Asian giant's economy has grown astonishingly as has its trade with the U.S.

"They go hand in hand," Canning said in an interview before his talk.

The United States' commerce with China amounted to $386.7 billion last year, he said, and the U.S. is China's largest single-nation customer....

To the Editor:

Re “Obama Urges U.S. to Grapple With Race Issue” (front page, March 19):

I taught American history for 40 years and the history of African-Americans from the Civil War to the 1990s at the City University of New York. I think Barack Obama’s speech on race and politics on Tuesday is one of the most, if not the most, impressive and intelligent speeches made by a politician in our history.

It was indeed transcendent. It went far beyond the issue of his relationship to his church and pastor. It directly confronted the most serious problem in our country, and displayed a self-awareness and a penetrating insight into the race issue as it affects blacks and whites.

Mr. Obama did not avoid any of the questions raised by his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. He met them head-on with eloquence, candor and understanding.

No matter what happens in this endless political campaign, we as Americans can be proud of this man’s rise and achievements.

In November 2002, the Chronicle of Higher Education asked a number of scholars this question: “What will the world be like five years after a war with Iraq?” To mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, MESH asked all of the respondents to revisit their predictions. This week, MESH is posting the responses it has received.

John L. Esposito is University Professor and Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. In 2002, he wrote: “Five years after a U.S. war with Iraq, it is likely that the Arab world will be less democratic than more and that anti-Americanism will be stronger rather than weaker.” (Read his full prediction here.)

From John L. Esposito

It is both satisfying and yet depressing that my predictions five years ago have in fact been realized. Anti-Americanism has grown exponentially in the Muslim world as it has in many other parts of the world. Thus, the question “Why do they hate us?” remains important to ponder. Likewise, while the spread of democracy has been the stated goal of the Bush administration, the charge that America is does not seriously support democracy and really operates under a double standard continues to be strongly leveled against us.

As we follow up on such issues after five years, what have we learned? To begin with, we have a new tool to enhance our understanding. Rather than depending upon the opinions and predictions of “experts,” we can listen to the people in the regions themselves by using data from the Gallup World Poll, which has been conducted since 2001 around the world.

Through 50,000 hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have substantial Muslim populations, we have the largest and most comprehensive poll of the Muslim world, representing the voices of more than 90 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, young and old, educated and illiterate, female and male, living in urban and rural settings

Responses to both closed and open-ended questions tell us a lot. For example, starting with anti-Americanism, our answers to the common question, “Why do they hate us?” have often been “They hate who we are—our way of life, freedoms, democracy, and gender equality.” However, if we listen to the voices of Muslim respondents, they contradict these views. When asked what they admired most about the West, the top response was the West’s technology, its value system of hard work, responsibility and rule of law and its fair political systems, democracy, human rights, free speech and gender equality.

On the other hand, when asked what they admire least about the West, among the top responses was “hatred or degradation of Islam and Muslims.” And when asked what the most important thing the United States could do to improve their quality of life, the most common response after “reduce unemployment and improve the economic infrastructure” was “stop interfering in the internal affairs of Arab/Islamic states,” “stop imposing your beliefs and policies,” “respect our political rights and stop controlling us,” and “give us our own freedom.”

Thus, while we continue to talk about the importance of democracy and self-determination for the Muslim world, majorities in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Morocco disagree that the United States is serious about spreading democracy in their region. In fact, looking at those we will call “Muslim democrats”—those who believe that democracy is important to their progress and future—we find that this group is more concerned about better relations with the West, but at the same time, more likely to view the United States unfavorably. Only 5 to 10 percent respond that the United States is trustworthy, friendly or treats other countries respectfully.

What of the future? A major concern for the foreseeable future will center on stopping the growth of global terrorism. While the military will continue to be needed to capture, kill and contain terrorists, the broader challenge is to limit radicalization. As data from the Muslim world reveals, while majorities are moderate, the number of politically radicalized is significant.

The Gallup Poll identified moderates and radicals by looking at those who said the 9/11 attacks were completely justified and also had an unfavorable view of the United States. Moderates, the vast majority (93 percent), said the 9/11 attacks were unjustified. The politically radicalized and thus potential supporters of extremism—7 percent—said the attacks were completely justified and view the United States unfavorably. Identifying respondents as “politically radicalized” does not mean they commit acts of violence, but rather that they are a potential source for recruitment or support for terrorist groups.

Although concern among respondents about bias and Western political interference in their affairs was widespread, the politically radicalized were far more intense in their belief that Western political, military and cultural domination is a major threat. When asked to define their greatest fears about the future of their country, the politically radicalized most frequently cite interference in their internal affairs by other countries, national security, colonization, occupation, and fear of U.S. dominance.

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the politically radicalized compared to 48 percent of moderates disagree that “the U.S. will allow people in the region to ’fashion their own political future as they see fit without direct U.S. influence.’” Surprisingly, 50 percent of the politically radicalized feel more strongly that their progress will be helped by “moving toward governmental democracy” compared to 35 percent of moderates. And even more surprising, the politically radicalized (58 percent) are more likely than moderates (44 percent) to associate Arab/Islamic nations with an eagerness to have better relationships with the West.

In a post-9/11 environment in which many are caught between the contending and contentious views of the battle of experts and pseudo-experts, we now have data that can lead the discourse and to guide future policies aimed at reducing the threat of global terrorism.

More about mutual misperceptions and developing policies and programs designed to “win the minds and hearts” of Muslims around the world can be found in the just-published book based on the Gallup World Poll, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, which I have co-authored with Dalia Mogahed.

The New York Times’ Tim Weiner has had the kind of career that most reporters can only dream of. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, Weiner’s reporting on national security issues, and particularly the CIA, has earned him the near-unanimous respect of his peers, a loyal following of readers and, of course, clout.

Last summer Weiner’s career reached yet another peak when his latest book, “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA,” hit the New York Times best-seller list....

Yet it is Weiner’s handling of documents and sources, not to mention his book’s theme that the CIA’s record is one of almost abysmal failure, that has come under serious question by a growing cadre of critics.

The grumbling — in specialist journals, on the Web and in a flurry of e-mail among historians and investigative reporters — has gone undetected, or perhaps ignored, by the usually sensitive radar of the East Coast media, even as it now threatens to deny Weiner another Pulitzer next month.

The awards will be announced April 6.

Until recently, “Legacy of Ashes” had been considered a shoo-in. No longer.

“I can’t think of another spook book that has aroused similar passions for a long time,” says Thomas Powers, the acclaimed intelligence historian and author of “The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms & the CIA.”...

The State of Rhode Island, backed by briefs from more than 50 organizations and public health experts, filed legal papers yesterday urging the state Supreme Court to reject an appeal by three corporations seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict two years ago that found their lead-based paints created a nuisance by poisoning children throughout the state....

Most of the evidence came in testimony by David Rosner, a professor of history and public health at Columbia University, who co-wrote Deceit and Denial, a book about lead poisoning. Rosner testified that all three companies heavily advertised and sold their paints in Rhode Island.

Rosner’s co-author, Gerald Markowitz, a professor of history at John Jay College, also testified that there was extensive evidence that the companies were fully aware that their products were poisoning children and they discussed the resulting bad publicity as long ago as 1930.

The state in its papers described litigation that was “fierce” at times. It said at one point there were 121 lawyers who appeared for the defendants. Written legal pleadings exceeded 2,000. Trial judge Michael A. Silverstein issued 18 written decisions and 174 separate orders. Some 412 depositions were taken. On the eve of trial, defendants requested an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court. The state’s lawyers produced tens of millions of pages of documents.