“Giving Their All” for America

 

A 1948 Shmoo clock (with store display) from Lux Clock Company.

According to a Harlan Ellison (author, 1934-2018) article, “Shmoo Goes There,” cartoonist Al Capp (1909-1979) had “one great idea”; it wasn’t comic strip “hillbilly” L’il Abner.
Instead, said Ellison, it was the Shmoo.
I disagree. I think both were great ideas.
However, while the L’il Abner cartoon strip ran over 40 years, the Shmoo was a “viral craze” that only lasted from the late 1940’s through the mid-50s.
Besides the comic strip, there were Shmoo toys, clocks, and nesting dolls.

The Shmoo was an animal invented by Al Capp, for his L’il Abner strip.
They were cheerful characters willing to sacrifice anything and everything for humankind.
They laid eggs, and gave milk.
When fried, the Shmoos tasted like chicken; when broiled, they tasted like red meat.
On top of that, Shmoos didn’t begrudge using their ham-shaped bodies to feed humans.
Instead, they were thrilled to be roasted for human pleasure.
Like the tribbles on Star Trek, the Shmoo reproduced asexually at a fantastic rate, and were very affectionate.
Like the newts in novelist Karel Capek’s War with the Newts, Shmoo skin made an excellent leather.

The GPO 1949 savings bond series for children featured the Shmoos. (Click to enlarge.)

In the Dogpatch comic strip, American business people attempted to kill off the Shmoos (because big business couldn’t compete with them).
However, heroic L’il Abner saved a pair, and kept them safe in a secret space.
The Shmoos were so popular that the U.S. issued a colorful premium for purchasing savings bonds for children.
(Al Capp accompanied President Truman at the certificate’s unveiling ceremony.)

Shmoos can be thought of in the same way as America has thought about slaves, indentured servants, and immigrants—as a commodity, to be used by the elite.
On the other hand, when it became apparent that the indigenous peoples wouldn’t “fit” as colonial tenant farmers, America gave the First Americans a choice—assimilation or death.

Mingo (Ed Ames, on left, an actor of Ukrainian descent) was the highly-educated Native American “sidekick” in the TV series Daniel Boone (1964-1970), that starred Fess Parker (right) in the title role.

In Jefferson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans, Anthony F.C. Wallace analyses Thomas Jefferson’s “inconsistent” history with indigenous peoples.
While Jefferson appeared to admire Native American character and culture, he engineered Native American genocide by seizing indigenous lands.
(Shockingly, Jefferson was so fascinated by Native American customs than he dug up their burial mounds!)
In 1791:

Rumors flew that. . .the offer to teach the Indians [Native Americans] to raise cattle and tend their fields like white men was merely a ruse to turn Indian men into women (who were the native horticulturists) or “beasts” like oxen and packhorses, to raise corn for the white men.

In the early days of the thirteen colonies, there was a severe labor shortage.
In order to help solve this problem, in 1607, the British Virginia Company set up a system by which Europeans could sell four to seven years of their labor in exchange for passage to the New World.
The British prison system dumped at least 52,000 criminals on our shores, also slated to enter indentured servitude. 

According to “Indentured Servants in the U.S.”—a History Detectives Special Investigation by PBS—one-half to two-thirds of early immigrants arrived as indentured servants.
The mortality rate was high because the agricultural conditions were brutal (plus masters were allowed to beat, and overwork, their servants). Female servants who were raped by their masters (or fellow servants) had their children taken away, and an extra year added to their sentences.
A few former servants eventually bought farms, usually on land vulnerable to indigenous warfare.
All in all, being an indentured servant in America was not a happy life.
Many servants fled, either back to Britain, or deep into the forests.

Although indentured servitude wasn’t officially barred until 1917, the colonial elite grew disenchanted with just using the indentured servant system to solve American labor problems.
(These “ingrates” actually expected some dignity, after they completed their sentences.)
TPTB decided that while the white indentured servants could eventually win back freedom, all the Black indentured servants would become permanent slaves.
The first slave ship that arrived on colonial shores was the White Lion.
It arrived in 1619, before the Mayflower.
(No one honors the descendants of Americans who came over on the White Lion.)

Clarence Lusane’s book, The Black History of the White House, outlines how Blacks built the White House—and built this country—covering the early days of the thirteen colonies, through the start of the Obama administration.
Besides the White House, “enslaved labor built much of early America, especially in the South.”

French poster for Song of the South—based on the Uncle Remus African folk tales (told by former slaves to a white journalist).

It was a patronizing endearment to call older slaves “Uncle” or “Aunt.”

(This 1946 film is no longer available in the U.S., and isn’t included on any Disney DVD/Blu-ray compilations.)

The curious thing about American slavery, was that slave owners actually expected enslaved people to be content with being slaves!
Clarence Lusane’s book tells how distressed George and Martha Washington were when “disloyal” companion and seamstress, Oney Judge (1773-1848), escaped from their family in 1796, and their magnificent chef, Hercules Posey (also known as “Uncle Harkless”), escaped a year later.
The President’s family had no idea why these valuable, well-clothed, slaves would want to abandon them, especially when they were “humane enough” to treat house slaves “as part of the family.”

Prior to the Civil War, “slaves accounted for nearly 60% of all agricultural wealth” in the Southern states.
After the Civil War, the “abolition of slavery eliminated about $2 billion of Southern capital and reduced Southern land value by roughly the same amount.”
(Data from Wealth and Democracy, by Kevin Phillips.)
All in all, the Civil War made the South much poorer, and the North much richer, because the South’s wealth was tied up in using people as property.

Chow Yun-Fat in poster for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

Chinese men wore their hair in a long, braided style, from the 1600s through the early 1900s.

To return to China—without their hair in this style—was an act of treason against the Chinese government, punishable by death.

Between 1865-1869, thousands of Chinese migrants—not immigrants—toiled to build the Transcontinental Railroad.
(Most Chinese men wanted to return to China. That’s why they kept their long, braided hairstyles/queues.)
I remember reading about the saying “not a Chinaman’s chance” (meaning “little or no chance”) in Maxine Hong Kingston’s The Woman Warrior.
Does the idiom come from so few Chinese workers being able to return to China?
(Many were robbed and murdered, en route.)
Does it come from railroad work being so dangerous, or the 17 Chinese men lynched during the Los Angeles Massacre of 1871?
(For data on the 1871 Massacre, see page 19-21 of White Borders, by Reece Jones.)

Round Trip to America, by Mark Wyman, deals with European migration to the U.S.
(Although there were 20 million arrivals between 1890-1924, the return rate averaged 35%, with some countries averaging 65%.)
This book recounts that during the early 1900s, a high percentage of American industrial jobs were held by recent immigrants.
Carnegie Steel (in Pennsylvania) employed 14,359 laborers, 11,694 of whom were Eastern Europeans.
A Ford auto plant counted 12,880 workers in 1914, and 9,109 were also from Eastern Europe.
A survey of Michigan copper mines (1910) found that 80% of those employed in the mines were born in Finland.
Recent immigrants were very attractive to employers because so few wanted to join unions.
Instead, they “willingly endured lower wages, coarse treatment, and poor conditions.”
(Sadly, many broke labor strikes, when asked.)

While the Pledge of Allegiance clearly says “with liberty and justice for all,” many Americans are just mouthing the words.
(They’ve conveniently forgotten the word “all.”)
As immigrants quickly discovered, Americans may talk a big game about “fairness” and “equality.” However, all some really want is money, and to have other people at their feet.
(Today’s elite doesn’t “hate” the “lower orders”; they just want them to know their place.)

In the last scene of The Best Years of Our Lives, poor white WWII veteran Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) proposes—to Peggy Stephenson (Teresa Wright)—saying “we’ll have to work, get kicked around.”

Although the lobby card made it look like a comedy, this 1946 film dealt with issues like class, and veterans finding work.

Almost 250 years ago, the men of the colonies had their reasons for not wanting to be under the thumb of King George III.
However, not all were desperate for a new government, or not allowing the thirteen colonies to continue as a “cash cow” for Britain.
Some—especially bigwigs owning land in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia—were terrified that the British government would soon end slavery in all its’ colonies,* and then what would happen to colonial wealth? 

Slaves, indentured servants, indigenous peoples, and immigrants (of certain nationalities) have all been expected to know their place, and not consider themselves equal to white, Anglo-Saxon, property-owners.
Indigenous peoples were expected to be passive, as each treaty was broken, and they were left with less and less land.
Americans were taught that Anglo-Saxon people were the “stars” in this country, and everyone else was a “supporting player.”
That’s the myth of America.

*In 1772, the Somerset vs Stewart decision set free 14,000-15,000 Blacks who were residents in Britain. After an American official (Charles Stewart) brought his household to London, his slave (James Somerset) fled Stewart, gained the help of Granville Sharpe (1735-1813), sued for his freedom, and won! (For the full story, read Slave Nation, by Alfred W. Blumrosen and Ruth G. Blumrosen.)

“Woke” or “Anti-woke”: What Does ChatGPT Say?

I wanted to clarify (in my own mind) what it means to be “woke” or “anti-woke,” and how censorship relates to both concepts.
While it’s hard to agree on what these words describe, many are convinced that they’re either one or the other.
First, I wrote about 500 words.
Then, I downloaded ChatGPT, to see where the app took me.
To my surprise, ChatGPT was useful.
The ChatGPT text was as dry and colorless as expected.
Moreover, the essays were full of platitudes, and contained falsehoods.
However, ChatGPT did offer some ideas that I hadn’t thought of.

When I asked ChatGPT to define “woke,” I received an essay saying (in part) that:

To be woke signifies a deep commitment to social consciousness and active engagement with systemic injustices. . . and a willingness to challenge the status quo. 

The significance of being woke lies in its potential to bring about meaningful change, fostering a more inclusive, equitable, and just society for all.

When I asked ChatGPT for a definition of “anti-woke,” I received an essay saying that:

Being anti-woke represents a rejection of what critics perceive as the dogmatic and stifling aspects of the woke ideology.

It emphasizes individual responsibility, intellectual diversity, and the importance of free thought and expression.

While acknowledging the existence of systemic injustices, the anti-woke movement encourages a more nuanced and balanced approach to social issues . . . and open dialogue.

When I asked whether censorship was an issue on the political right or left, I received an essay saying that:

Censorship is not inherently a political right or left issue, but rather a complex and multifaceted dilemma that intersects with various ideologies.

While the political right may often advocate for censorship to protect societal values, the political left may prioritize censorship as a tool to combat discrimination and promote inclusivity. 

The ChatGPT response to my request for an essay on “culture wars” was mere gobbledygook.
It ended with the sentence: “Only through a commitment to mutual respect and a willingness to confront these issues head-on can the United States move towards healing and reconciliation.”
Well, that’s completely useless!

I would disagree with the ChatGPT definition of “woke” in several ways.
“To be woke” doesn’t always mean “a commitment to changing the status quo.”
Often, it just means being a bit more open to societal change.
“Woke” people are usually more open to erasing words like “master bedroom” from their vocabularies, using personal pronouns in their email signatures, and being more aware of microaggressions.
Often, it only means that the “woke” are more willing to face uncomfortable information, and learn from history.

I would also argue with the ChatGPT definition of “anti-woke.”
While “being woke” is perceived by the anti-woke as dogmatic, it’s difficult to figure out which beliefs are actually in contention.
It’s as if the perceived attitudes of self-satisfaction in the woke, are more distressing than their actual ideas.
“Collective guilt” and “cancel culture” came up in the ChatGPT essay, but I’m sure that only a small percentage of “the woke” feel guilt.
Further, the woke are more likely to cancel people on their side, than the anti-woke.
(Think of comedian Kathy Griffin and former Senator Al Franken.)
I also wonder what percentage of the anti-woke “acknowledge the existence of systemic injustices,” or desire an “open dialogue” (as suggested by ChatGPT).
Overall, being anti-woke may only mean that you are unhappy with the speed of, or existence of, societal change, or that you find “woke” people annoying self-righteous.

I was very happy with the ChatGPT response on censorship.
Saying that the political right wants to “protect societal values,” while the political left wants to “combat discrimination and promote inclusivity” just about sums it up.
However, everyone has their own thoughts about what our societal values should be, which words are good or bad in promoting inclusivity, and whether “words” are important in this task.

Front cover for the paperback version of Casino Royale by Ian Fleming (published under the name You Asked for It by Popular Library in 1953).

Back cover for You Asked for It.

President John F. Kennedy was a big fan of the James Bond spy-thrillers (oddly called “Jimmy Bond” on this back cover).

However, JFK likely read the hardcover versions.

In order to “promote inclusivity,” the publisher of the late Ronald Dahl recently produced two different versions of James and the Giant Peach—changing “Cloud-men” to “Cloud-people” (among other changes) in their Puffin version—and keeping “Cloud-men” in the classic Penguin version.
The spy-thrillers of Ian Fleming, and the mysteries of Agatha Christie, underwent a similar process.

Lobby card for Gone with the Wind with house servant Mammy (Hattie McDaniel) tying the girdle (or stays) of Scarlett O’Hara (Vivian Leigh). Hattie McDaniel received an Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role, for playing Mammy.

Combating racial, and other types of discrimination, through “sanitizing,” or even cancelling works, isn’t new.
I remember debates in the 1970’s about whether 1939’s Gone with the Wind should be banned.
Disney’s 1946 blend of live-action and animation, Song of the South,* isn’t considered “appropriate in today’s world,” and hasn’t been seen on home video legally since 1986.
Some Warner Brother cartoons (like “Herr and Hare” and ”Daffy-the-Commando,” produced as propaganda between 1941-1945) were restored and rereleased—along with a lengthy disclaimer—in 2008.
(Volume 6 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection.)
However, some of the more racially-insensitive 1930’s and World War II cartoons (for example, ”Tokio Jokio”) will likely never see the light of day—at least, legally.

Meantime—in order to ”protect societal values”—U.S. school boards are removing classic children’s books (like Charlotte’s Web and A Wrinkle in Time) from their school library shelves.
(I mention Charlotte’s Web and A Wrinkle in Time because these were two of my favorites.)
I looked up why one parent group proposed removing 1952’s Charlotte’s Web, and the parents disliked characters dying, and thought that “talking animals” were “disrespectful to God.”
A Wrinkle in Time (1962) was criticized for “promoting witchcraft.”
I have fond memories of both books.
I remember my 4th grade school teacher, Mrs. Simmons, reading Charlotte’s Web aloud to us.
(I adored Mrs. Simmons.)
I checked out A Wrinkle in Time from our public library during the 1960’s, and ended up reading every other book I could find by Madeleine L’Engle.

Is it “woke” to buy a children’s book like 2005’s And Tango Makes Three—a story about two male penguins who help raise a chick together—in order to foster a more inclusive society?
Is it “anti-woke” to ask that And Tango Makes Three be removed from your public library, so that children won’t be influenced to accept homosexuality as normal?
In the end, I agree with those who support parents not allowing their children to read certain books, but not the right to deny librarian-approved books to others. 

Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit cover.

It’s believed that Beatrix Potter based her Peter Rabbit stories on Uncle Remus.

*Song of the South was based on the once well-known Uncle Remus stories. The folklorist/author was Joel Chandler Harris (1848-1908), a white journalist. Harris wrote down the Br’er Rabbit and Br’er Fox tales after listening to African folk tales told by former slaves—primarily, George Terrell. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (11/2/2006), Disney Studios purchased the film rights for Song of the South from the Harris family in 1939, for $10,000—the equivalent of about $218,246.76 today.