Category Archives: Crises

Why tear up the past?

A destroyed statue of Ulysses S. Grant, why?

We’re in the midst of a rapidly changing reaction to perceived and actual police violence against unarmed black males which has gone beyond its original purposes to protest against that violence.  It has morphed into protest against many features from our past that were connected in one way or another to the issues of slavery and race in our history and present.

All dramatically changing  movements will include excesses, an example from the 1960s includes:

Freedom trash cans were places set up by some women to dispense of women’s garments and included bra burnings.  In 1968, radicalized women protested the Miss America pageant as exploitive of women.  Some of us remember those days.  Those protests didn’t last long, but the fact that they took place illustrates the point made in this blog.

Now, we have statues, monuments, and place names associated with the Confederacy and/or racism being torn down or changed.  This has gone too far, in this author’s view.

Why was a statue of Grant torn down?  Allegedly because his wife’s family owned slaves.  The folks who did this displayed their ignorance of what Ulysses S. Grant did as commander of all the Union Armies to destroy slavery.  Later as President, he helped push for the 14th and 15th Amendments to protect the rights of African Americans.  He also used federal power to break the KKK.  He did what he could.

The alleged defacing of the Lincoln Memorial is a hoax.  See:

Why tear down or deface statues and monuments of Confederate leaders?  Because the great majority of them were put up usually by white women’s organizations who raised the funds and then got permission from public authorities to put them in public squares to help enforce white supremacy in the 1880s into the 1920s and again in the 1950s.  They were not put up primarily to honor those leaders.  General Lee, for example, specifically opposed any statues or monuments to supposedly honor him.  His explicit wishes were later ignored.  That was dishonorable.

Here, we MUST draw a distinction between those statues and monuments as opposed to those put up on Civil War battlefields to honor the men who fought there.  Surely, we can make that clear. Those put up much later should be moved to museums or at least used as teaching devices where they are; or, perhaps moved to Civil War battlefields to join those already there.  They ought not be destroyed as they ARE part of our history that should be remembered.   My long experience in college teaching has been that few of my students were aware of when and why and by who these statues were created. What do you think?

Well, what about President Woodrow Wilson?  Here, it gets complicated.  He segregated the U.S. Government and had the White House host a showing of D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation which was designed to show that the KKK redeemed the South and with it the nation from radical reconstruction and blacks.  It is a false narrative (though an innovative film in its techniques), but Wilson believed it and said so.  There is no question that he was a racist. His legacy has been seriously debated at Princeton more than once before the current discussion.

And, yet, he was a Progressive Reformer.  He eventually pushed for women’s suffrage though only under pressure to do so.  See the film Iron Jawed Angels but with serious caution:  But, he helped get it done. 

His lasting legacy is hard to quantify but it has been immense.  Please consult:  Also:

Do we toss him into the dustbin of history and change key parts of Princeton named after him?  Try this from Princeton’s current President:

This author issues a qualified dissent.  If you look at his academic career, it was stellar and had a lasting positive impact on Princeton.  Overall, after his stay at Princeton, his legacy is without question of great significance.  So, which is more important?  His impact on Princeton?  His overall legacy?  His racism?  The changes made to remove his name at Princeton strike this author as a bit of an overreaction, but what do you think? Teach about his legacy.

I’ll end with a food for thought from our experience in Presov, Slovakia.  Suzanne, my wife, and I were teaching at Presov University in 1996-7 while on leave from Black Hawk College in Moline.  Of course, we noticed the hammer and sickle memorial in the town center.  What was that Soviet emblem there to represent? 

It turns out that after Communism fell and the Soviet tanks left there was a serious discussion on whether or not to tear it down.  The decision was to leave it as is because it was part of their history since the Red Army had liberated Presov from the Nazis, at great cost in lives at Dukla Pass 

Yes, Soviet communism was awful, but that emblem needed to be taught about, and it has been.

Suzanne and I think that’s a good role model.

Black America in Peril

The most recent issue of The Economist on p. 25 carried the headline Black America in peril.  The article begins with a quote from Dr. W.E.B. Dubois in 1899: “The most difficult social problem in the matter of Negro health…” was why were so few whites bothered by that problem.  He carried out a pioneering sociological study of “Negro health” in Philadelphia.  His research indicated that: “The Philadelphia Negro” lived and suffered in the worst sections of the city with abominable health care.

Regarding the police murder recently in Minneapolis by a white officer against a black unarmed citizen, one really should see if the issues Dubois identified are still in essence true?  The answers point to YES they are.  Take a look at D.C., for example.  In the two poorest black wards the black residents have little access to decent food and health care.  Thus, it should not be surprising that the group most impacted by Covid-19 are blacks.  If they contract the virus, they are 2.4 times more likely to die from it than whites.  Covid-19 was bound to especially harm those in tightly compacted neighborhoods with high poverty rates coupled with obesity and diabetes issues.

President Obama made a serious effort via the ACA to address these issues by extending Medicaid.  The 20 million Americans who received health care thanks to that act were most likely blacks or Latinos.  As The Economist pointed out, this helps explain why the opposition to the ACA came primarily from whites especially connected with the GOP.  This conclusion was reached earlier by Dr. Kevin Fiscella in The American Journal of Medicine in August, 2015: “In summary, opposition to ACA is largely by white Americans. This opposition seems to be associated with increasing political polarization surrounding the Obama presidency, perceived self-interest, and racial attitudes.”  It is noteworthy that President Trump has been shrinking the act’s reach through technical changes.

If you add to the Covid-19 results the unemployment rate, due to the various shutdowns, is twice as high among blacks as it is for whites then you are in a better position to understand why there are so many protests and with that riots.  Further, there is likely to be a rental crisis regarding payments for those who have lost their jobs or are on layoff.  That is especially likely to hit blacks.  In Minneapolis, black home ownership was much less than white home ownership. 

Finally, we come to perceptions of police relationships with blacks and whites.  The gap is large between blacks and whites.  Close to 81% of blacks believe that police are far more likely to use deadly force against them than 61% of Hispanics and 33% of whites.  Research shows that DWB (driving while black) IS a reality.  Many blacks are certain they are more likely to be followed in upscale stores than whites.

Perhaps the most significant current disconnect is the gap between who certain elected politicians blame for the riots and those who actually did cause them.  The politicians are quick to blame “outside agitators” (sound familiar to those involved in the Civil Rights movement?) such as Antifa on the left; or, right wing white hate groups.  In fact, the evidence suggests that the majority of the perpetrators are local, not from outside.  The CBC news team reported that the majority of those arrested, for example, in Minneapolis, came from that region.  They have also reported that it appears that too many PDs have not learned the lessons from Ferguson, MO. 

In short, we live in a racially divided society and have done so for a long time.  Dr. King’s Dream has yet to be fulfilled.  So, what will you do about that?


During the 1918-1919 “Spanish flu” pandemic, neither the federal government or the states took any action and were not expected to so any closings were left to local municipalities. So, here are several examples of actions taken by local municipalities followed by a general conclusion. At the peak of the Pandemic church services were banned in D.C. as part of a ban on all public gatherings on Oct. 3, 1918. The DC Protestant churches called an emergency meeting on Oct. 5 and agreed unanimously to abide by the ban. The African American churches also agreed unanimously to abide by it.
Some tried to get a workaround approved for outdoor meetings but those too were banned.
Once the numbers of deaths began to decline by Oct. 28 pressure began to stop the ban. The ban was lifted on Oct. 31.
During the pandemic, restrictions on public gatherings affected churches. In Washington, D.C., a group of Protestant ministers “voted unanimously to accede to the request of the District Commissioners that churches be closed in the city.” Churches were also closed in cities such as Dallas, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and Seattle, yet remained open in Chicago and San Francisco. Where there were church closings, there were only a few instances of disobedience. A Baptist pastor in Murray, Kentucky, held services on January 26, 1919 in violation of the state’s ban and was arrested in his pulpit at the evening service. A Catholic priest in St. Louis was allegedly turned in to police after 200 parishioners were seen at the church. The priest told police the people snuck in through the church’s side windows, and he didn’t see them. No charges were pressed. Lessons Learned from the 1918–1919 Influenza Pandemic in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota
Very different policies were pursued by the two cities. Despite St. Paul’s principle health official’s conviction that the closing of public places would be ineffective, on November 6 St. Paul’s government officials overruled him and enacted a closing order for the whole city, including schools, theaters, churches, and dance halls. The St. Paul Citizens’ Committee—consisting of 15 physicians, church leaders, and community members who were appointed by St. Paul’s main health official, Dr. Simon—was concerned by the record of 218 new cases on November 5, as well as 36 deaths between November 4 and November 5, 1918, so they recommended this policy change (Figure 1). The number of new cases began to decline 10 days later, with only 24 new cases, and the next day, Dr. Simon reopened St. Paul businesses and churches. While the churches were closed, there were no significant protests from church leaders about the closings.
Minneapolis closed its schools on two separate occasions but not all public places.
When the flu epidemic hit Omaha one of its first fatalities in the City of Omaha, the Rev. Siefke S. de Freese, the 35-year-old pastor of St. Mark’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, had died suddenly after coming down with the Spanish flu symptoms — just days after conducting services and interacting with hundreds of parishioners. At least 25 other Omaha residents were sick with flu.
The city’s health commissioner, Dr. E.T. Manning, knew he had a problem. A big one. After weeks of afflicting East Coast cities, the Spanish flu pandemic had reached Nebraska.
Within 24 hours, Manning issued a sweeping order closing churches, schools, movie houses and theaters, and shutting down public events. He banned spitting in public, and urged people who felt sick to self-isolate. He told people to stop kissing. People who did venture out wore surgical masks.
“Prohibition of public gatherings is the only way known to medical science to check the spread of disease, and I believe we are justified in ordering that to prevent a more serious situation,” Manning said, according to a report in The World-Herald. “I would rather be blamed for being overcautious than to be responsible for a single death.”
Manning’s quick action was credited with saving many lives over the next three months. But Omaha still suffered. Before the end of the year, at least 974 people died in the city of about 180,000 residents, and 14,000 became ill — though both numbers are believed to greatly underestimate the scope of the disease.
The Spanish flu remains the worst natural disaster in Omaha’s history.
The churches complied with the ban until the crisis had passed.

Conclusion: banning worship services was not regarded as some form of religious persecution. It was questioned by churches once the death rates began to go down significantly. Churches complied with few exceptions so public enforcement was not a major issue. It appears that very few, if any, saw the bans as an infringement on their 1st Amendment rights.
So, a good question would be why has that turned into more of an issue in this pandemic over a century later? That’s a topic for another time to deal with.

How Previous Presidents Handled Pandemics

Our nation’s expectations of how well Presidents should handle epidemics and pandemics has increased over time.

1. Wilson and the flu pandemic of 1918-9. Wilson was so tied up first with the war and then with post war negotiations centered around the eventual Versailles Treaty and League of Nations that few expected him to do much about this flu pandemic. He himself contracted the flu while at Versailles but recovered. There were no federal policies at all at that time related to the flu pandemic. His only action, at the behest of his generals, was to stop troop transfers to and from Europe for a while to help contain the spread of the virus.
America felt it was on the cutting edge of dealing with issues like typhus and yellow fever; and, it was. But, the President was not expected to have any significant role in these matters.

2. Ike and polio This was a major issue at the time, but the President was again not expected to play much of a role. The development and distribution of the Salk vaccine in 1954 completely changed the nature of this terrible scourge. Ike’s appointed head of the brand new Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was Olveta Culp Hobby and it was she who made the crucial decision to make Salk’s vaccine widely distributed.
I recall, and I imagine many of you reading this, also remember standing in line to receive the vaccination. In my case, I was in junior high and stood in line in our gymnasium to get it.

Hobby was forced to resign soon after her decision due to criticisms of not putting in place strong enough safety measures.

These days that would surely be a major scandal, but it wasn’t at the time. Her reputation soon recovered enough for Ike to ask her to consider running for President in 1960.
Now, there’s a what if!

3. Gerald Ford and the Spanish flu epidemic that never happened. I honestly didn’t remember this at all. Gerald Ford and the swine flu pandemic that never happened in 1976 is a reminder that government action can backfire. Ford became worried of reports that a severe flu outbreak had happened at Fort Dix among military recruits. So, he promptly put in place a vaccination protocol to nip it in the blood or face a reemergence of the 1918 Spanish flu. Around 40 million were vaccinated, BUT it was not necessary as the flu that was present turned out not to be fatal. Worse, around 500 had the nasty side effects of Guillian-Barre syndrome of whom thirty died.

But, this debacle paled in comparison to the impact of his courageous pardon of Richard Nixon and, worse, his statement in a debate with Carter claiming that Poland was not under Soviet domination really hurt him. I recall watching that.

4. It really wasn’t until Ronald Reagan was first elected that a President was seriously expected to deal with a pandemic, in this case, HIV/AIDS. He and his aides were severely criticized for a tardy response to that crisis. But, one must recall that their views accurately reflected the moral views of social conservatives especially including evangelicals as a significant part of his base that this pandemic was a just consequence of improper behaviors.

5. It is VERY IMPORTANT NOW to correct a common misperception about President Reagan that he was utterly opposed to homosexuality and was willing to just let HIV/AIDS victims die.

In 1978, a right wing state legislator in Reagan’s home state of California, John Briggs, pushed for a state ballot initiative named Proposition 6 to bar gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools sure that Reagan would support him and publicly pressed him to do so. And, Reagan’s own political handlers urged him to stay away from this issue.
But, in September, he told reporters and with a following op ed that he was opposed to this Proposition as it would do “real mischief”, and the Proposition lost by a wide margin.
He had gay friends, such as Rock Hudson.

While he was very reluctant as President to take any public stand on HIV/AIDS for the first part of his Presidency, he did so clearly and unequivocally at a response to a question in a press conference in September 1985. On Feb. 5, 1986, he made a surprise visit to the Department of Health and Human Services where he said, “One of our highest public health priorities is going to be continuing to find a cure for AIDS.” He also announced that he’d tasked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a major report on the disease. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Reagan dragged Koop into AIDS policy, not the other way around. He followed up with a major address in 1987 supporting efforts to combat AIDS. He got support from Congress for financing this battle from 8$ million in 1981 to $26.5 in 1983 soon increased by Congress to $44 million and doubled that in 1984.

6. With the President’s support, it was his Surgeon General C. Everett Koop who came to the fore to speak out strongly about the need to aid those suffering from this dread disease. His cause was helped when it became apparent that there were those contracting this disease unawares. Koop strongly advocated for the necessity of sex education in the schools to teach about using condoms to protect them contracting this disease. Needless to say, that opened him up to public criticism from those conservative activists who had backed him for being appointed to his post. But, those criticisms soon faded and he has come to be regarded by many as the gold standard for what a surgeon general should do to educate the public.

7. Sadly, probably no case ever equaled in public impact in favor of empathy for those afflicted with HIV/AIDS than the sad, sad case of what happened to tennis great Arthur Ashe. Ashe had found out he contracted the disease while having a blood transfusion during heart surgery in 1988. He kept that a secret for three and a half years until he found out that his secret was going to be revealed to the public. He eventually died of pneumonia brought on as a complication of having that disease.

8. I know this is a bit of a diversion from our topic, but I feel President George H.W. Bush deserves great credit for advocating for the U.S. becoming an ADA environment which is generally regarded as the last major piece of civil rights legislation. Having traveled extensively, we are the gold standard in this field. THANK YOU President George H.W. Bush!!

9. Now we come to one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, humanitarian Presidents ever in terms of saving lives from potentially fatal diseases—George W. Bush. For details please see: The March 19, 2020 issue of The African Exponent’s article–
George W. Bush’s Initiative To Fight The HIV/AIDS Epidemic Has Saved Millions of Lives in Africa.

Since being launched in 2003, the global initiative against HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR, has achieved remarkable success, and has been hailed as the biggest single disease global health initiative in history.

And, the article is correct. I know, I know, he and his administration came under great criticism for their conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with subsequent humanitarian disasters. But, NOTHING should take away from this initiative of his. PLEASE read this article. It notes the quite different actions of Obama vis a vis Trump in continuing W’s work.

For Obama and Bush together in Africa see:

10. We now come to President Obama, the second great humanitarian of our Presidents. Given that his handling of the H1N1 crisis has been so heavily politicized and littered with false accusations, here’s the CDC’s official timeline of the H1N1 crisis:

A good rule of thumb to aid you would be that if you see stories that say he didn’t act until it was very late in the game with a declaration of National Emergency in October of 2009 that strongly suggests that those are partisan political attacks. Just consult the actual record as reported by the CDC and you’ll see he acted much sooner than that. When one considers that the eventual fatality rate was at 0.02% that was significantly lower than was expected. Let’s hope we do that well now, though projections right now are at around 1% which would bring a significantly higher fatality rate.

Let’s take a look at how Obama brought the spread of Ebola to a halt in West Africa. We know that well from our friends in Sierra Leone. Naturally, he faced nasty partisan attacks for his efforts here, but he stayed the course. Again, please consult the CDC timeline. It was President Obama who made the decision to have CDC coordinate the efforts to stop Ebola and it involved sending 3,500 medical personnel to the region to vastly improve their health system’s abilities to deal with this deadly disease:

11. It is early for a historian to say much about President Trump as his first term has not yet come to an end.  Still, the record shows that President Trump was consistent from the start of the coronavirus19 outbreak of minimizing the nature of the coronavirus crisis while stating that we were well prepared and/or it was under control, when in fact we weren’t well prepared nor was it under control. He frequently contradicted what was being said by his own health care professionals. He has recently changed his tune but has denied that he ever minimized the crisis let alone was contradicted by his own health care professionals though the recorded record is clear that he did and they did.

This timeline has been updated on March 17 to reflect his change in message. He has also made repeated false claims about Obama’s handling of the H1N1 crisis in order to deflect from his own culpability in this crisis. Until he changed, it appeared that he had been more willing to listen to Fox commentators like Hannity and radio personality Limbaugh than to his own health care professionals. Unhappily, he still goes public with disinformation but likely believes it.  This is balanced by how much he relies on a health care professional to provide sound medical advice publicly.

The latter good practice provides a good transition for, despite the issues noted above, the fact that he has made several verifiable good decisions such as early on ordering a ban of Chinese nationals coming to the U.S., ordering a national emergency later, and, ordering restrictions on those coming to the U.S. from Europe.  We must give credit where credit is due and not focus only on his shortcomings.

There has been a surge in public support for him recently which is fairly common early on for Presidents dealing with major crises. That support can have a short shelf life depending on how well the public perceives he is handling it.  Let’s see how this plays out.  As a nation, we need him to do well.