April 28, 2024 (Vol. 18 No. 21) - It shouldn't surprise anyone that protests have broken out on many of our nation's college campuses over the ongoing war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. As I have noted in this space on several occasions, Israel's response to the October 7 terror attacks has been both justified and excessive to the point of alienating many of its most ardent supporters. Spring campus protests are almost an American right of passage. Above are pictures of my personal right of passage - anti-Vietnam war protests at the University of Maryland on May 1, 1971. There had been even more violent protests one year earlier after President Nixon announced a military incursion into Cambodia. To be truthful, I was more of a small town spectator than a street activist. However, my attitude changed when I was tear-gassed by trigger-happy members of the Prince George's County Sheriff's Department. However, getting back to the present, students today have a right to protest Israel's actions, just as those who support Israel enjoy the same free-speech rights. The rub comes over the time, place and manner of the protests. Protesting students are occupying public spaces, thus disrupting normal campus operations. College administrators are struggling to straddle the fine line that exists between First Amendment rights and legitimate operational and public safety concerns. Their efforts are further complicated by a small percentage of protesters whose rhetoric crosses into the realm of antisemitism. On the top of that is the disingenuous and artificial outrage generated by people like Mini-Mike Johnson, the perhaps not-for-long speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and faux-journalistic outlets like Fox News. They are just looking for another way to blame Joe Biden. (I think they blamed Biden for last week's solar eclipse.). And let's be clear on one point: Criticizing Israel and its leadership is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. The struggle between the legitimate right to protest and the need for law and order — especially on college campuses — is as old as the nation, itself. American philosopher Henry David Thoreau challenged the world order in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, in which he explained his rationale for refusing to pay federal taxes to support what he felt was the immoral U.S.-Mexican War. He wrote that when a government is unjust, people should refuse to follow the law and distance themselves from that government. Thoreau was a disciple of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Transcendentalism, a belief that people find truth within themselves in the spiritual world. The reality is that people who proclaim they absolutely know what is right and wrong are probably more often wrong than right. One of the great challenges of a democratic society is the ability to find - and respect - the fine balance between competing values. We call those who choose to do so leaders. Those who don't are most often known as MAGA-Republicans. Of course, they will protest that characterization. That's it for now. Fear the Turtle. Photos by David Guth

April 20, 2024 (Vol. 18 No. 20) - I guess it was inevitable. Within days of the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge at the mouth of the Baltimore harbor, a self-appointed group of community activists proclaimed that the replacement bridge should be christened under another name. It seems that, at least in their eyes, Francis Scott Key was an unredeemable racist who should be stricken from our history. They propose that the replacement bridge be named for the late Congressman Parren Mitchell, a civil rights pioneer and first black man elected to Congress from Maryland. Make no mistake about it, Mitchell is worthy of the honor, However, as a historian, I happen to believe that Key is, as well. There are those among us who want to view history through a 21st century filter that ignores the context of past events. Yes, there are aspects of Key's record that do not appear favorable in the light of today's reality. But here's the rub: Francis Scott Key did not live in the 21st century. He lived in the 19th century, a time where he was honored among his peers and was even considered somewhat liberal when it came to his attitudes toward race. I have no problem in pointing out the flaws in the man. But can't we do so with an understanding of the social, moral and political constraints of his time? I have no problem removing confederate civil war statutes that glorify "The Lost Cause" from public grounds. After all, by definition, the confederates were engaged in treason. On the other hand, I have no problem of public remembrances of the Civil War, including the recognition of those who sacrificed their lives for a misguided cause. I feel the same way about Key. Frankly, whether or not he was "a good man" is not a slam dunk either way. My view is, that in the context of his time, the good Key did for the people of Baltimore, Maryland, and the United States - black and white - outweighs the negatives. I don't believe we should whitewash our history. But I also don't believe we should erase it, either. The only ethical approach to the study of history is to do so within the context of the times. That's it for now. Fear the Turtle.