#AND like practically half of all modern cartoon creators got their start working on AT LOL

[infizero-draws]

bout to stream 10 whole season of Adventure Time just for you because it looks so interesting

HOLY SHIT FOR REAL. DO YOU PROMMY

[ordinaryschmuck]

Why I (Want to) Love Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Salutations, random people on the internet who most certainly won’t read this! I’m an Ordinary Schmuck. I write stories and reviews and draw comics and cartoons. I also LOVE the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Whether as a kid, or an adult pretending to be a kid, this franchise is one that I’ll always revisit no matter how old I get. So when I heard that a new version of the series was coming out in 2018, titled as Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I was excited about it. Then I watched the series...and most of that excitement went down the sewer drain. 

Don’t get me wrong, there were some elements that seemed like there was some definite promise for a good series, but other aspects...I’ll have to explain. 

But keep in mind, I am going to be spoiling a lot about the series. So if you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend you do so to form your own opinions. Because while it may not have grabbed me as much, that doesn’t mean the same can’t be said for you. With that out of the way, let's get started with--

WHAT I LIKE

The Animation: If anybody ever tells you that Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has awful animation, they are objectively wrong. Rise of the TMNT has some of the best, if not the best, animated fight scenes I've seen from any action series in recent memory. Probably because the show understands the number one rule of action animation: Good animation is a requirement. Not an exception.

For an action-oriented animated series, the audience needs to feel the impact whenever characters punch, block, or dodge in each fight. Yes, even dodge. Because if you can feel even the tiniest gust of wind that passes by a character's face after a punch, then you know the animators are doing something right. And trust me when I say that is present in the majority of most fights in Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Are there moments when the movements are slow and rigid? Yes...during the dialogue and comedic scenes. Moments where good and quality animation isn't really all that necessary. You see this same technique in most modern anime: The animation is rigid and cheap for the dialogue-heavy scenes so the animators can give extra attention to the epic action set pieces. Not a single person complains about this happening in their favorite anime of the week. But when Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles does this, apparently it's a bad thing? Explain that logic to me!

The animation is phenomenal in this show. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise because those people are either blind or insanely stupid. Either works.

It’s Pretty Funny: And that's about it. It's nowhere near one of the funniest shows I have seen, and previous iterations of the franchise did a much better job at balancing humor and heart, but Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles did a great job at getting a laugh out of me from time to time. It has a very random sense of humor that works well with its manic energy, similar to what Star vs. the Forces of Evil did early on in its first season. Even if one joke fails, about ten more take its place, most of them funnier than the others. There may be an occasional issue where a joke spoils a dramatic moment, but Rise of the TMNT is one of the few shows where that issue doesn't happen often. Besides, the series sets itself up as more of a comedy than other reboots and reiterations, so it wouldn't look good if it wasn't funny. Thankfully, it is, and in a way, the show is a success because of it.

It Tries to be Something New: This is what I respect most about the series. The downside about a reboot is that writers have to find a way to tell the same story but with adjustments that make it seem different. That's the same way Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles operates as a franchise. The original concepts of the stories and characters are always iconic, and I'll love them with my whole heart, but I will admit, there's a point where the same thing over and over again can be a little tiring. Then there's Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which makes changes where other shows would ask "why," this is the one that asks "why not?"

Why not change the personality and backstories of characters that still fit with the spirit of the original?

Why not change the genders, races, and possibly sexualities of these iconic characters?

Why not make something new?

Now, some have argued that the show is a little too new. Which I can kind of see the point of. After all, what's the point of changing characters and concepts so drastically when you could just make an original series? But even then, most of the changes are pretty clever, that I think it’s worth remembering for future iterations. Like making Casey Jones a female. Casey is a gender-neutral name, and I legitimately thought this series would do it for that reason alone. So I feel bad that the writers never got a chance to allow the series to reach its full potential with ideas like this due to Nickelodeon screwing them over (Seriously, never pitch a show to Nickelodeon. It rarely ever works out, and it's not worth the risk). I can see how these ideas could result in an incredible show that might cement the series as one of the best iterations of the franchise. But I can't base a story on potential. I can only judge what I see, and what I see are brilliant changes that impress me from time to time.

The Creators Are Still Fans: Despite making something completely different, you can tell that everyone working on this show loves TMNT as the rest of the fans do. There are dozens of references to previous versions littered throughout the series. Whether it's shoutouts to the 90s cartoon to bringing back voice actors from the last one, there are moments where the crew behind the series emphasizes how much they care about the franchise. There are also times when a reference has such a deep cut to it. For example, the series has the previous VA for Splinter to voice the current version of Shredder. I shouldn't have to explain how that is a brilliant idea, especially given Shredder's relationship with Karai...which I can't fully explain due to it spoiling TMNT (2012). This might be a whole new experience, but it is clear that history is not ignored when it comes to Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

The Cast is Colorful: It's not precisely a diversity win to have half the Turtles voiced by black VAs, but it is unquestionably some good sign of progress. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are...accurately what they are called. So they are not defined by the skin tone of the VAs themselves. So having half of them be voiced by people of color makes me hopeful that maybe future reboots would consider more colorful castings. Hell, maybe one day we'll have a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot where all of them are POCs, to the point that we'll have an all-Asian casting for these timeless heroes (which makes way too much sense to me).

And it's not just the casting of the turtles that impresses me. Because the series making April O'neil black is an idea that I'm more than ok with. It's implied that she's black in the original comics by Keven Eastman and Peter Laird, so it works as another deep-cut reference that proves how big of fans the crew is. Plus, who cares? I mean, if we're still having issues of changing the race of a character who was originally white, all I can say is grow the hell up. You can complain if they don't grab you, but if the issue is because of one decision that shouldn't negatively affect anybody, I don't see the problem. Besides, at this point, a character being white is basically the base plate for someone in the future to change their race at another time.

Also, let’s give the people behind the casting a pat on the back for casting Asian VAs for characters who are, well, Asian. It’s the bare minimum of common courtesy and avoids the trouble of having white VAs do asian accents that have become quite culturally insensitive nowadays. So it’s a pretty cool decision if you ask me.

Diversity is never an issue, especially since representation always matters for people who demand to be heard. It's definitive proof that anybody can be anything, whether it's a hero in fiction or the voice of that hero behind the scenes. And you can't really do that when everyone is so white that it's blinding.

Donatello: This is the best character in the series. Not only because Donatello has the most consistent personality (more on that later), but also because I'm a sucker for the cynical super-geniuses. These types of characters always have a quick and dry wit that never fails to get a laugh out of me, and this version of Donatello became my favorite just for that factor alone. Most of the credit goes to Josh Brener, who does a phenomenal job at his performance and comedic delivery. As for the emotional bits, he's...fine, but the drama isn't the show's best strength anyway, so it doesn't matter as much. Because the fact that it's Donatello who earns the spot as best character in a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot is an impressive feat in itself that any criticism offered for him is moot in the process.

WHAT I DISLIKE

Leonardo: I'm willing to make half of this a personal issue because I have grown to despise Ben Schwarts in the last four years. No offense to the guy, I'm sure he's a really great person in real life...but he has done nothing but play the same character in FOURS YEARS! Whether he's Leonardo, Dewey Duck, Sonic the Hedgehog, or even M.O.D.O.K.'s son (yes, that's a thing), Ben Schwarts has practically played the exact same character each time. The highly energized, dimwitted, and egotistical character who slowly tries to learn to be a better person in the end. AND SOMETIMES, NOT EVEN THAT! I'm sick of it, as it always breaks the immersion of the series as all I hear is Ben Schwarts and not the character he's voicing. But it's not just the voice behind Leonardo that frustrates me. Because the thing is, I can see how this version of him can be incredible.

It doesn't take a genius to know that this version of Leonardo is meant to be more childlike and carefree so he can morph into the more mature leader we all know and respect him as. The issue is that the writers barely do anything with that idea. Sure some episodes make this Leonardo more like, well, Leonardo, but they're far and few between the ones where he's the same Ben Schwarts character that I've grown to hate. Even when he is at his most Leo-like, as seen in the episode "Man vs. Sewer," it's so drastically different from how he usually acts that it feels less like character development and more like inconsistency. It's a shame too because I really love this idea. With a little more polish, it could work out. As is, it's just a huge chunk of wasted potential.

Raph’s Too Good of a Leader: This is a similar issue to what I've mentioned about Leonardo. Because, again, I love this idea. Raphael, in multiple iterations, complained about how he should be the leader and just as frequently learns why the job rightly belongs to Leo instead. So starting with this role reversal should be a well-executed idea that gives Raph what he wants while eventually giving the fans what they want. And it would be if not for the fact that Raph seems to be too good at his job.

I get it. If Raphael was too incompetent, the turtles would have gotten nothing done, and it would get too tiring too quick as Leonardo constantly proves why he should lead and why Raph should follow. This actually happens from time to time, and it is already tiresom. The issue is that the intention was to make Leonardo the leader in the end. So why spend so much time showing how Raphael is capable at the job and barely any time showing why Leonardo is a better fit? There are even times when Raphael seems like he really is a better leader than Leo, which I feel as though it is contradictory to the point the writers are trying to get across. In the end, it's nothing more than another really great idea met with insanely poor execution.

Master Splinter (Early Season One): ...Did anybody like this version of Master Splinter in the first half of season one? Because this character was atrocious, especially compared to the previous Splinter from TMNT (2012). We went from what is easily the best interpretation of the character to what was, at the time, the worst. He was lazy, selfish, and emotionally distant with his sons to the point where he only acknowledges them by the color of their bandannas. I understand that the writers needed a more comedic version of the character due to leaning extra hard into comedy, but I don't think I laughed once with his antics in the first half of season one. Thankfully, he's been gifted with a softcore reboot during the second half and onward. This Splinter is awesome, serious, he works well as a straight man, and he has a backstory that's easy to follow while still being kind of heartbreaking. It's a tremendous improvement from what we've been given, but it still doesn't change how downright painful he initially was. I won't complain about the results, but I do have the right to complain about what we got beforehand.

Characters are Inconsistent: A common complaint you'll hear about Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is that the main characters are the same. That's not true because there are definite differences that separate each one apart from the other...the issue is that the writers are not consistent with those changes. I've touched upon it with Leo, but the truth is, everyone in the main cast suffers from inconsistency with their personalities. If Raph is supposed to be the meathead with a good heart, why are there times when he acts like the smart one who occasionally enjoys violence? If April is supposed to be as wild and carefree as the rest of the guys, why are there episodes where she seems to be the sane one? If Mikey is supposed to be kind yet somewhat stupid, why are there episodes where he's selfish and more intelligent than Leonardo? Even Donatello, who is the most consistent out of the whole cast, still suffers through moments when he isn't as clever and cynical as he usually is. These inconsistencies are annoying, and at times, it feels like their personalities are dependent on what the writers need for a joke or for the episode. Characters are the most essential aspect of any story for any medium. If audiences don't care about the characters, they'll find it hard to care about anything else. And how can we care about anyone if we're not one hundred percent sure what their personalities are in the first place?

The Pacing: I sort of expected this when it was announced that this reboot was swapping the franchise's usual half-hour runtime for a ten-minute one, but in all honesty, it isn't that bad. It is slightly fast at times, but that's just as quick to get used to. However, there is one strange phenomenon about this show that I can't let go of.

You see, this series somehow has worse pacing with extended episodes and specials than it does with its usual ten minutes. I don't know how this is possible either. Because despite having as much time as the writers want to establish each plot point, it still feels like they fly through them a little too fast than they regularly would. It makes no sense, but it's constant in every extended episode, especially the series finale (which, to be fair, is partially Nickelodeon's fault. AGAIN!). So keep that in mind when watching.

The Characters Are TOO Overpowered: It feels weird complaining about this. Because making the characters capable of doing anything and surviving much more leads to some of the most epic action sequences in animation history, not just the series or the TMNT franchise as a whole. Despite that, though, there is one crucial thing that is always missing from those fight scenes anyways: Tension.

To fully explain why tension is required in action, I'll have to use Samurai Jack as an example. You see, the titular character can, at times, be just as invincible as these versions of the Turtles and survive even worse. But regardless of him being victorious after nearly every episode, no matter how high the deck is stacked against him, there was always a sense that he fought hard, literally and figuratively, for those victories in the first place. Jack losing articles of clothing or getting cut up gives the illusion that he might not win in the end. He still does, and he always does, but showing the audience that he can and will get hurt makes seeing that victory feel earned. The only times the Turtles, April, or Splinter get hurt is either for comedic slapstick or because the story says so. This is why I consider Shredder destroying the lair is the best fight scene in the entire series. The second he starts destroying their weapons, it gives the tension required to believe maybe, just maybe, not everyone will make it out alive this time. Because if the characters aren't careful, they will face intense consequences as a result. Thus making an adrenaline-pounding moment in the process. Unfortunately, this is the one and only fight scene where that happens. Every action set piece is still epic, don't get me wrong. But there's a reason why writers make even Superman seem less invincible than typical in a fight.

Baron Draxum: THIS is the biggest issue that I have with the series.

As a villain, I didn't give a s**t about Baron Draxum. He was a dull antagonist with a generic evil plot, but other than that, he was perfectly serviceable for a series like this. Even getting a few chuckles now and again...but then the writers decided to make him REDEEMABLE!?

This guy?

The maniac who wanted to commit genocide on human beings, all because of insufficient proof that they'll do it to his species first?

Didn't we already learn how that's awful reasoning after Steven Universe?

Actually, that's not fair...because Steven Universe has a better explanation behind wanting to redeem the Diamonds than Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles does about Baron Draxum! And I'm not kidding! For Steven Universe, the characters believe that it's better to end things peacefully than killing anyone, even if they're the worst criminals. It's a flawed mentality, sure, but it's one you can grasp and understand. What's the reason for redeeming Baron Draxum? It's because he's the reason why Splinter and the turtles are a family...F**k all the physical torture Splinter went through on top of the social ostracization he experienced because of it. No, no, it totally validates the decision to forgive and forget...Oh, wait, no, it doesn't. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE INSANE!

Who in the f**k honest to goodness thought that would be a good idea? I'm all for finding silver linings in a bad situation, but that is just flat-out lunacy! Because it's the equivalent of saying, "Yeah, this person was a complete a-hole, but they're still the a-hole that made you who you are today." But that is a very dangerous lesson to preach to kids. Because here's the--Hey *snaps fingers* Here's the thing: If a person treats you like garbage, you don't owe them anything for who you are. It's one thing if a person inspired you or cheered you on, but if someone basically ruined your life and physically harmed you and others, don't forgive them. They don't deserve it. ‘Cause f**k Baron Draxum. And whoever thought this was a good idea, you seriously need some help.

Man, is this how it feels to be Lily Orchard? IT SUCKS!

IN CONCLUSION

And that's what I think about Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. 

It's a fantastic series! I just like everything except for the execution of ideas, most of the characters, and the overall pacing of it...that means it's not a good series, is it?

Yeah, it's a real shame that I don't like this. Because I want to. I really want to. The pieces are there, and I can see how this could be a great and memorable version of a series I loved since I was a tater-tot myself. But I don't. I'm sorry, but I just don't consider this to be an A+ series. It's a solid C, for sure, because it's mostly just style with very little substance. I still respect the amount of effort everyone put into this reboot, but for me, it just never had its chance to fully rise to the occasion.

[qqueenofhades]

Historical People of Color in Europe (and America): “It’s Not Historically Accurate!!” and Other Nonsense

Right, so. Rather than hijacking the Black Victorians post with a lengthy addition, I decided to make a separate one to talk about something I have wanted to have a good rant on, especially given the current state of racial rhetoric, concerns about whitewashing and the representation of non-white folks in a fictional (particularly fictional historical and/or fictional historical-fantasy) setting, and all the other time-worn “I’m Not A Racist (tm) But There Weren’t Any People of Color In [Insert Your Setting of Choice Here]” arguments that appear.

If you would like to save yourself some time and get on with your day, spoiler alert: It’s bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit, and moreover, these arguments are made for a specific political reason. Narratives of past “nonexistence” are always used to try to justify present repression (or rather, these arguments represent a thinly-veiled desire for an imagined time when racial and ethnic diversity presumably did not exist, or that said racial and ethnic diversity was acceptable to discriminate against without consequences, or that a monolithic “white default” population was the only existing paradigm). Claims of a past “white Europe” (which is supposed to be superior to multicultural Europe) are always, ALWAYS right-wing, nationalist, and racially charged. The underlying assumption is that multiculturalism is modern liberal PC rubbish, that people of color are the “invaders” disrupting an imagined timeless “Aryan�� ideal, and that somehow, much like gay people, they only started to exist in the 20th century when the establishment admitted they did.

(Let me just put right at the top here that the Nazi project of applied racial and religious genocide was thoroughly based in the work of the American eugenics movement, and that Hitler wrote a fan letter to one of its creators.)

You may have heard of the recent kerfuffle when Mary Beard, professor of classics at Cambridge University, endorsed a cartoon depicting a multi-racial Roman family with a black father as accurate to the diversity of Roman Britain. The alt-right trolls went all in with their determination to prove that Roman Britain (and the Roman empire in general) was white, which, if you know anything about the borders and demographics of ancient Rome at all, was completely ludicrous. (Many of the trolls freely admitted to never having studied a damn thing about actual history, but they were still convinced they knew more than, you know, a distinguished professor at Cambridge.) But as Beard pointed out in a response to her critics, this reflects the fact that any claim to historical diversity (or more specifically, the purported lack thereof) has become the realm of people who are insistent on their interpretation, don’t care about facts, and are using them for a specific and damaging political project.

So.

Let’s make some racists angry, shall we?

The idea of “Europe against the barbarians” as a political project goes back at least to the crusades and their inception in 1095, but it was conceived in its quasi-modern form by the Duke of Sully, minister to Henry IV of France, in the seventeenth century, as the “Grand Design.” It proposed keeping the peace in fractious Europe by fighting the “infidels” -- the same argument that had often been used to justify the crusades. (For a very good discussion on all this, see Anouar Majid, Freedom and Orthodoxy: Islam and Difference in the Post-Andalusian Age, esp. page 211-13.) The crusades remained a potent metaphor throughout all of Europe long after their official “end” in 1291, and were used to justify racial, colonial, and imperial projects of all kinds. Sir Winston Churchill praised the wisdom of the Grand Design in a 1948 post-war speech for the reunification of Europe -- i.e., this racial violence was exactly how they intended to move Europe forward into the modern age after so destructively fighting each other, by giving it back its old enemies. I have literally written a master’s thesis on the post-1291 intellectual and legal inheritance of the crusades and the racial construction of the Euro-American historical narrative, so I could go on for a long time here, but this is the takeaway point: the academic (and elite) practice of history, especially Western history, has always been used to justify the erasure, destruction, elimination, and removal of agency from non-white individuals and civilizations alike. So even if you’re claiming “history” as a legitimating tool for your racial fantasia of lily-white Europe, this history is an intentional and actively tailored instrument of racial prejudice that does not reflect reality.

Now that the theoretical stuff is over, let’s get into specifics.

Medieval Spain (Iberia) and medieval Sicily in particular were richly diverse societies that supported numerous distinct racial, religious, and ethnic groups, including Jews, Muslims, Greek/Eastern Christians, Latin/Western Christians, Normans, Africans, and other communities from around the Mediterranean.  I have linked only a quick/initial source for each, but there is tons out there. These communities had episodes of strife and tension, of course, but also lived together for extended periods of time in essential cooperation. Spain in particular produced an incredibly rich intellectual climate in the early medieval era, such as the golden age of Toledo.

While the crusades were a project of warfare against non-Christian, non-Europeans (and sometimes also against Europeans, such as the Albigensian and Northern Crusades), they were also the first time many of the Northern European crusaders had met Arab Muslims and Africans -- encounters which were not always uniformly hostile, and which were shaped by recognizable diplomatic customs. One of my favorite examples is in the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis Ricardi, a Latin prose narrative of the Third Crusade otherwise hostile to the Muslims. See especially pages 276-283 above, where the author cannot help but be impressed by the graciousness and generosity of Saladin and his Muslim forces hosting Christian visitors in Jerusalem (after a treaty was made to end the crusade) and which includes Saladin inviting Bishop Hubert Walter of Salisbury to dinner, where they have a long and friendly chat and are both impressed. My feelings on the genuine respect and admiration that existed between Saladin, his brother, and several of his generals, on the one hand, and Richard the Lionheart, on the other, are probably well-known. (See also Thomas Asbridge, Talking to the enemy: the role and purpose of negotiations between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade.)

Even after the crusades, Elizabethan England was deeply connected to the Islamic world and its empires: Ottoman, Persian, and Moroccan. Trade between them was frequent, so many Englishmen settled in Arabic Muslim societies that there were attempted royal proclamations and incentives to lure back expatriates (see Majid, 55), and a proposed Anglo-Moroccan alliance against Spain was a key feature of the foreign policy of the later years of Elizabeth I’s reign. (It should be noted that early modern England’s fairly friendly relationship with the Islamic world, so unlike Spain’s driving hatred of the Moors, had to be jettisoned as they moved into the realm of competing colonial conquests.) Abd el-Ouahed ben Massoud was the Moroccan ambassador to England during this time, and may have been part of the inspiration for Shakespeare’s Othello. “Cinthio’s Tale,” published in 1565, purported to tell the true story of a Muslim/Moorish captain serving in the Venetian army and deceived by a treacherous ensign, which was also drawn upon by Shakespeare.

The Golden Age of Piracy was strongly black, Indian, and Native American. Famous pirates like Blackbeard, Edward England, Samuel Bellamy, William Kidd, and others had up to one-third black/Native crews, who were treated equally (this was not universal among pirates, but attacking slave ships and disrupting the slave trade was one thing for which they were principally known). John Julian, the sixteen-year-old Mesquito Indian who was the pilot of the Whydah, a former slave ship captured by “Black Sam” Bellamy, was later one of the only two survivors of its wreck in 1717. Bellamy’s crew of 150 men had between 30-50 free blacks; Blackbeard’s crew was over half black; Edward England’s nearly 300-strong cohort had over 70 black men.

There were also mixed-race captains in the Royal Navy, such as John Perkins. In his long and vastly adventurous career, he commanded half a dozen ships of the line in at least four wars, served as a spy, and nearly got sentenced to death for smuggling weapons to revolting slaves. His obituary in 1812 records, “he annoyed the enemy more than any other officer, by his repeated feats of gallantry, and the immense number of prizes he took.” (See page 373 of the pdf.) By this time, there were a considerable number of free blacks in England, who had founded the learned abolitionist society known as the Sons of Africa. The late eighteenth century saw men like Ignatius Sancho, Olaudah Equiano, and Ottobah Cuguano. All of them were literate, accomplished men who wrote letters and memoirs, including passionate manifestos against slavery, corresponded with high society, were internationally best-selling authors, and, in Sancho’s case, is the first black man known to have voted in Britain (around 1780). There were also women like Dido Elizabeth Belle (great niece of William Mansfield, author of the deciding opinion in the landmark 1772 Somersett case against slavery and subject of the 2013 film starring Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the American poet Phillis Wheatley. There were important figures in the American Revolution like Agrippa Hull, and political radicals like William Davidson, who was part of the “Cato Street Conspiracy” in 1820.

There was Alexander Crummell, the Episcopalian preacher, theologian, and African activist who graduated from Cambridge in the 1840s. How about you check out Black Oxford: The Untold Stories of Oxford University’s Black Scholars? Or Alain LeRoy Locke, the first African-American recipient of the Rhodes Scholarship in 1907, after it was founded in 1903 (something that would doubtless terribly annoy noted white supremacist Cecil Rhodes) and who also studied at Harvard University? Oh yeah, Locke was the intellectual father of the Harlem Renaissance and was also gay.) Speaking of biopics, about Victoria and Abdul, which tells the story of an aging Queen Victoria and her deep friendship with Abdul Karim or the “Munshi,” who taught her Urdu and Hindustani, and who, yes, faced incredible prejudice from the deeply starchy and racist British court?

We can definitely mention how a majority of cowboys were black or Native American (it was a grueling, dangerous, unforgiving job with low pay and no glamour, of course they made the people of color do it -- don’t believe everything the heroic, rugged-white-man-Americana John Wayne myth tells you). The inspiration for the Lone Ranger, Bass Reeves, was black. Ira Aldridge was a world-famous black Shakespearean actor and anti-slavery activist in the 19th century. I could go on, but this post is already long enough.

(Lastly: Read Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas In America, by Ibram X. Kendi, an award-winning young African-American historian and director of the Anti-Racist Research and Policy Center at American University.)

So yes. If you’re invoking “historical accuracy” for the convenient nonexistence of people of color in a historical/historical fantasy/fictional narrative:

a) You’re wrong.

b) You’re super wrong, please stop.

c) If you don’t stop, You Are A Racist. Time to work on that.

The point is: imagine, create, and write black/POC Roman centurions, medieval scholars, soldiers, pirates, Royal Navy captains, spies, political activists, best-selling authors, public intellectuals, famous actors, talented lawmen, etc, and write them existing in Europe and the Americas at pretty much any time you like. Not only will you make a racist mad, you will be hella historically accurate, can flip the bird with both fingers, and moonwalk out of the room. Remember: denying the existence or agency of historical people of color is always tied to a desire that they didn’t exist or have agency in the present, and that isn’t how things “used to be done,” ergo they must be wrong. This is the appeal of a certain kind of history as an imagined “legitimate space” for racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, where these attitudes used to be accepted and promoted without challenge. The people who hold them now want those views to enjoy the same kind of hegemony. And if you’ve paid any attention to the world recently, you’ll realize how dangerous and pervasive those narratives are, and how badly they need to be challenged and upended.

[thedunwells]

T-Shirt Cover and Recommendations

Nowadays the modern T-shirt has spawned a vast textile and style industry, price around two-billion pounds to the world's retail trade. The unlikely start of the t-shirt was a fairly tutu sukně tyl occasion, however that simple little bit of apparel was collection to change the designs and fashions of countries for generations to come. Eventually the T-Shirt will be applied as a political instrument for protest and using occasions and places ever sold, a mark of innovation and change. At the start the shirt was small more than a little bit of underwear, an exceptionally functional one at that. In the late 19th century the union match, (also colloquially known as extended johns), was in their hi day, utilized across America and upper elements of Europe. Common for the duration of class and technology, this simple knitted one-piece protected the complete human anatomy, from the throat to the arms and ankles. The models pièce de résistance presented a drop flap in the trunk for simplicity in the old outhouse. As cotton became more and more widely available, underwear companies gripped the minute to generate an alternative to the mainstay and relatively troublesome design. Knitted substance is hard to cut and sew seams and therefore with cotton a revolutionary change towards mass-made style can begin. In Europe occasions were adjusting, as the Americans extended to work and itch, a simple "T-shaped" format was cut twice from a piece of cotton fabric and both pieces confronted and sewn together in a lowly European workhouse. It absolutely was half a couple of long johns, nonetheless it soon needed on a life of their own. Since the Commercial Revolution achieved their certain realization, James T. Honda created the world's first generation point, the a few ideas of functionalism, performance, and practical design joined the main-stream mind of groups across the entire world, and Europe in particular. Several begun to question the Puritanism of the past, Victorian buttoned-down a few ideas of modesty were starting to give solution to scantier and scantier swimsuits, ankle-bearing dresses, and short-sleeved shirts. As World War One loomed upon the skyline, the shirt was about to be conscripted to the army. Old researchers establish the initial noted event of the release of the Shirt to the United Claims happened all through Earth Conflict One when US soldiers remarked upon the mild cotton undershirts American troops were released as common uniform. American soldiers were fuming, their government were still issuing woolen uniforms, this was not style, it absolutely was practically a tactical military disadvantage. How could a sniper keep however and goal his weapon with drops of work pouring in his eyes, and a scratch that just wouldn't go away? The US military might not need reacted as rapidly as their troops would have enjoyed, nevertheless the highly sensible and mild t-shirt might soon produce its in the past to the mainstream National consumer. In the very first couple of years after World War Two, the European fashion for carrying T-shirts as an outer outfit, influenced mainly by new US army outfits, spread to the private population of America. In 1948 the New York Times described a fresh and special advertising tool for that year's plan for New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey. It absolutely was the very first recorded "slogan T-Shirt", the information study "Dew It for Dewey", directly repeated by the more famous "I Like Ike" T-shirts in Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidential campaign. In early 1950s enterprising businesses situated in Arkansas, California, started initially to enhance tee shirts with Floridian resort names and even cartoon characters. The first recorded graphic t-shirt catalogue was produced by Tropix Togs, by their creator and founder, Arkansas entrepreneur John Kantor. These were the first licensee for Wally Disney characters that involved Mickey Mouse and Davy Crockett. Later other individuals widened to the tee shirt making business that included Sherry Manufacturing Business also based in Miami. Sherry began company in 1948, the dog owner and founder, Quinton Sandler, was rapid to get onto the brand new Shirt trend, and easily extended the monitor print scarf business in to the biggest screen print registered clothing company in the United States. Soon more and more superstars were observed on national TV sporting that new risqué apparel including Steve Wayne, and Marlon Brando. In 1955 Wayne Dean offered the T-Shirt street standing in the common movie "Rebel Without A Trigger ".The T-Shirt was fast changing into a contemporary symbol of edgy youth. The first furore and community outcry soon died down and within time even the National Bible Gear could see their practicality of design. In the 60's persons begun to link color and screenprint the basic cotton T-Shirt making it an even bigger commercial success. Advances in making and dying allowed more selection and the Container Top, Muscle Shirt, Scoop Throat, V-Neck, and a great many other variations of the T-Shirt got into fashion. During this period of social experimentation and upheaval, many independent T-shirt units produced copies of "Guerrillero Heroico, or Heroic Guerilla", the popular portrait of Ernesto "Che" Guevara taken by Alberto "Korda" Diaz. Because which it's considered probably the most reproduced image in the annals of photography, primarily thanks to the increase of the T-shirt.

[deesdiaries]

Roundtable: What Happened to Tumblr?

After 11 years, founder David Karp is leaving—and it might mean that the platform is finally fading

BY ALYSSA BEREZNAK HANNAH GIORGIS ALISON HERMAN KATE KNIBBS VICTOR LUCKERSON MOLLY MCHUGH, AND KATIE BAKER

NOV 29, 2017, 8:30AM EST

Nearly 11 years after launching Tumblr in his mother’s apartment, David Karp announced this week that he’s stepping down as head of the social network. His departure signals a bleak future for the site, which has struggled to grow and turn a profit since it was acquired by Yahoo in 2013 for $1.1 billion. Even Karp’s goodbye email to staffers had a tinge of mourning to it: “I look back with so much pride. At a generation of artists, writers, creators, curators, and crusaders that have redefined our culture, and who we have helped to empower.”

Karp’s not wrong. Before Tumblr was sucked into the purple-paned corporate labyrinth that is Yahoo, it was a hotbed of excellent online content: a lovely, creative community that pumped out original GIFs, memes, and niche-interest blogs at an impressive rate. People went there to be entertained, to connect with like-minded peers, and to ogle pics of hungover owls. But over the years—as competitors like Facebook and Instagram have grown—that creative energy has slowly drained from the site. It’s likely only a matter of time until Verizon shutters the company and dissects it for parts. The question now: How did we get here? Ringer staffers Katie Baker, Hannah Giorgis, Alison Herman, Kate Knibbs, Victor Luckerson, and Molly McHugh weigh in. —Alyssa Bereznak

____________________________________________

(Read remainder of the article below the cut.)

This article suggests an ominous future for tumblr.  Personally, I’d hate to see it end.  My tumblr addiction began with the True Blood fandom on May 14, 2012 when I opened my blog as trueblooddiaries.tumblr.com.  When the HBO True Blood series ended and Charlaine Harris published her last awful book of the series, I changed mu URL to deesdiaries (simply for a lack of a better alternative or lack of imagination).  

How and when did you begin on tumblr?

Let’s start off on a positive note: What are your fondest memories of Tumblr in its heydey?

Molly McHugh: There was once a Tumblr where an artist would draw scenes from Craigslist Missed Connections pages. I loved that. I also really enjoyed making an MRW GIF blog when I lived in the Caribbean.

Alison Herman: I was a party crasher—I first logged on in 2010 or 2011, which I’ve been told is past its *real* heyday. I remember tentatively asking my friend what “what is air” means; I had no idea how thoroughly my brain was about to be broken.

Hannah Giorgis: I met some of my best friends because of Tumblr! Heben Nigatu and I stumbled upon each other's blogs way back in 2010 or 2011 I think. We were both shocked to find another Ethiopian girl grappling with some of the same issues (racism, sexism, etc., at predominantly white institutions and, you know, also in America). Neither of us had ever encountered that IRL. We ended up meeting in person the next year when I interned in New York, and I was connected to so many great folks in her orbit then—many of whom are now my closest friends here in New York, five years later.

Herman: It's mocked for it now, but Tumblr also taught me a lot of the basics of social justice discourse, mostly by just reading the perspectives of people whose backgrounds were different from my own. If Twitter is an ideological silo, Tumblr was a horizon opener.

Katie Baker: I was working in finance in 2008 and bothering a friend with constant emails when he finally responded: “Hey, have you considered starting a Tumblr?” Little did I know that it would be the start of a whole new career. … I felt like I had finally found “my people” even if it turned out that “my people” were, like, weirdos who liked reblogging Joe Biden memes and writing whispery posts about blogger drama. (One of the early Tumblr memes that really spoke to me was the great “Sad Guys on Trading Floors,” which made its debut shortly after I joined. It was weirdly comforting in a time of huge financial and societal upheaval.)

Alyssa Bereznak: I got into Tumblr when I first moved to New York in 2010 (which, yes, is pretty late in the game). I was delighted to find extremely specific pages that celebrated the weirdness of the city, like Halloween or Williamsburg? or Accidental Chinese Hipsters.

McHugh: Just the other day, my aunt texted me that she'd bought a cookbook called Thug Kitchen. I was going to explain that that used to just be a Tumblr, but what would the point be?

Giorgis: To Alison’s note, I appreciate that Tumblr is what helped give me the words for why something like Thug Kitchen, helmed by white people, really is troublesome (beyond just the icky feeling it gave me in my gut).

McHugh: Totally. I was going to explain everything wrong with it, but I think it would have been entirely lost. It was just wild to me that some people see Thug Kitchen as a cookbook that exists on its own.

Herman: It's hard to explain outside the context of Tumblr, right? Tumblr really did give users an almost secret language.

What set the Tumblr community apart from other social networks?

Herman: There’s a really obvious and powerful symbolism to the heart button, I think; pile-ons definitely happened, but Tumblr was always a way more positive place than almost any other social network. It was a home for enthusiasms!

Knibbs: What I always liked about Tumblr was the lack of emphasis on shuttling everything into one feed. It was more about discovery than scrolling quickly through whatever an algorithm told you would be most relevant. It really catered to rabbit holes and niches. Also, Shitty New Yorker Cartoon Captions didn’t exist anywhere else.

Bereznak: I always think about the bone controversy—in which people accused one practicing "witch" of stealing human bones for spells—as a good example for the network’s tolerance for very niche interests and sensitivity toward even the most bizarre topics of discussion. The response to the incident wasn’t, “What is this person doing practicing witchcraft with bones?” It was, “Any knowledgeable witch knows this is a very good way to piss off the spirits.”

Baker: I think for me it was the fact that it even was a social network, as opposed to the other blogging platforms of the time. I remember trying to start a Blogspot blog, because I read and loved so many of them, but I felt like I was just typing into the void and had no idea how to get involved in the link economy or anything like that. (In those days getting a Gawker “Blogorrhea” link was an epic accomplishment.)

Giorgis: Something about the quasi anonymity of Tumblr enabled both community and personal growth in a way that platforms like Facebook and Twitter—which feel very persona driven—don't allow for. On Tumblr you didn't have to worry about your family and friends finding out that you reblogged 500 Misfits gifsets. The site let you explore what you love—and what upsets you—with enthusiasm and energy, and connect with people who might share those with you while also introducing you to different things, concepts, etc.

Herman: Also, to get really basic: the mixed-media aspect! It was pretty to look at AND you could have long-form thoughts/discussions.

McHugh: It allowed for a lot more interpretation. Not just the content, but the design. There is no social network now that gives you even half as much flexibility. Everyone’s Instagram profile looks the same. There’s a lot more monotony across other social networks that I think lends us to scrolling mindlessly and not really FINDING anything. Tumblr was more exploratory partly because of this.

Giorgis: The Wikipedia of social networks!

Knibbs: It also existed in that sweet spot where blogs still mattered, and made it easy to connect those bloggers together.

Baker: At the time, I think even Facebook didn’t have quite the same “self-publishing tools,” if you can call it that, that it does now—I’d have to look up the history of Facebook to be clear on the timeline, but for a while, writing a status update still meant answering the prompt “Katie Baker is …”

Herman: Does anyone remember those “me on Facebook”/”me on Tumblr” memes?

Giorgis: Absolutely. I think a lot of what feels like modern Twitter humor has its roots in early Tumblr memes, especially the vaguely meta ones that reference the platform itself.

Herman: Tumblr also felt friendlier than other famously weird internet zones like Reddit or 4chan. I still felt like I was on a cool detour, but I wasn't in the Wild West, you know?

Bereznak: Yeah! Even the more risky adult content Tumblrs leaned toward sex positivity, not raunchiness. There was never really a fear that you might happen upon a deeply disturbing GIF or something.

Victor Luckerson: I kind of feel like Tumblr’s ability to propagate memes was the beginning of its undoing. I only ever consumed Tumblr content passively, but I primarily recall it as the vehicle through which memes—which I was familiar with as a trawler of message boards since my parents got us dial-up internet in the sixth grade—became a mainstream medium. When What Should We Call Me blew up around 2011, it was kind of jarring to see internet humor suddenly become something that people of all ages and backgrounds consumed. Then this type of humor was quickly co-opted by Twitter/Facebook accounts.

Herman: WHAT SHOULD WE CALL ME! I can't believe a single person invented the concept of the reaction GIF. It's a universal internet behavior that can be traced back to a user who took the practice mainstream. That’s wild.

Bereznak: How is the What Should We Call Me person not included in every “Top Internet Innovators” list of all time?!

Do we think that Yahoo really ever understood what Tumblr was for? What did it do to hurt or help the site?

Bereznak: I should disclose that before this, I was a reporter at Yahoo News, and was forced to use Tumblr as a CMS there. It was not ideal, but I won't say anything more for fear of breaching an NDA and being sued.

Knibbs: It doesn’t sound like the company ever got what Tumblr was, beyond that it was cool with the teens. I’d really love to know whether David Karp thought Yahoo would help Tumblr or if he just wanted that sweet blog money.

Herman: The detail in that Mashable storyabout an executive trying to hype them by saying they could “create the next-generation PDF” …

Bereznak: Also the fact that some Tumblr employees didn’t know what Yahoo was …

Luckerson: Lol, they were lying.

McHugh: They at the very least knew about Yahoo Answers. The only user overlap between Yahoo and Tumblr is Yahoo Answers.

Giorgis: I will admit that it's a bit hard for me as someone who used to be a very, very regular user of the site to disentangle my reflexive irritation with the Yahoo acquisition news from any sort of objective evaluation of what happened. Did Tumblr users just react dramatically to news of change? Maybe! But what incentive was there to think Yahoo would bring anything good to the site?

Herman: It’s weird—I can't point to any material impact of the acquisition on my user experience, but the decline in relevance definitely started soon after.

Luckerson: Yahoo’s goal must have been to have more content to serve ads against right? Once you refocus Tumblr as a blog for funny GIFs rather than a social network, it becomes much more likely to have its territory taken over by others. Basically, I could find plenty of memes on Twitter or Facebook by the Yahoo years, and that’s all I ever really used Tumblr for.

Bereznak: The narrative of the acquisition was that Yahoo would help Tumblr monetize, something that Karp had always been pretty reluctant to do himself. I always felt like he was protective of the company in that sense, and that his decision to sell it to Yahoo was basically a matter of: I can’t do this to my own child.

Baker: Alyssa, I think that’s a good way to think about it. Karp was too close to his Tumblr son. And also, because of how intimate Tumblr felt, I think the users felt more entitled to weigh in on the decisions he made and take them personally.

There’s a kind of cynical ethos that “everything good on the internet dies.” Do you think Tumblr was doomed before it was ever bought by Yahoo?

Luckerson: There is no way to scale the intimate connections that attracted early users, so yes, if their goal was to become a social media giant, definitely doomed.

Herman: I think a lot of people just outgrew it, too. I know people from Tumblr who are still big on the internet; they just use different platforms.

Knibbs: After we dismantle Facebook and Google and enter the Second Golden Age of Blogging, I think Tumblr could still rise again.

Giorgis: I still occasionally retreat to Tumblr when everything else is Too Much, but it makes more sense for me as someone who’s in a different professional place to primarily use Twitter/Facebook now (ugh).

Baker: Yeah, in some ways it’s the natural life cycle of a cool social network, I guess. If it weren’t Yahoo it would be something else.

Let’s finish it off with your all-time favorite obscure Tumblr dot com site.

Bereznak: Mine, as you may have guessed from the intro, is the hungover owl one.

McHugh: It’s kind of basic, but I enjoyed Cats That Look Like Ron Swanson.

Luckerson: Poor Michelle, about all the times Destiny’s Child’s Michelle Williams was snubbed by fate/cosmic circumstance/Beyoncé.

Giorgis: I don't know that it was obscure, but I still love Things I Learned from Sex and the City. Something about seeing a million screencaps from the show just perfectly highlighted the absurdity of its premises and dialogue—and also why there's still so much to love!

Herman: I’m gonna be extremely on brand here and vote for True Detective Conversations.

Baker: I’m Remembering! made me feel so seen. I lived in gripping fear of winding up on Table for One.

Bereznak: Man, I’m Remembering! was such a gem.

Baker: SUCH. The tag that was like “my brother josh.”

Knibbs: I was and am obsessed with the Old Loves Tumblr.

Bereznak: Man, I’m Remembering! was such a gem.

[lindsaynsmith]

Read This: The Mother of All Muckrakers

The Mother of All Muckrakers http://ift.tt/2jtzgXB

Ida Tarbell brought down, single-handedly, the first mega-corporation. Now that corporate morality has captured the White House we need her skills as never before.

I’m sure that in his forty plus years at ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson learned of the work of Ida Tarbell. I’m equally sure that Donald Trump has never heard of her.

Yet Tarbell is someone of immense relevance to the four years of living dangerously that this republic now faces.

Tarbell was the nemesis of John D. Rockefeller, the creator of Standard Oil, precursor of ExxonMobil. But she was a lot more than that — as a journalist she was the first to understand and challenge the power of the modern corporation, the first to dig deep into the way corporations bought and used politicians and the first to force a president to check that power.

And all this at a time, the age of the robber barons, when white males dominated not only big business and politics but also journalism. Indeed, there has never been a woman who so single-mindedly cleaved her way through all the male hierarchies and vanities and humbled them.

If she were here now Tarbell would surely have recognized what seems to be taking a lot of people too long to recognize: that the ethics and interests of the corporation have now totally captured the heights of the political system, including the White House.

Recognizing this is the first step in assessing whether today’s journalists are as up to the task as she was. This raises the issue of the technical literacy of journalism — are there enough reporters literate enough in the way that corporate power is developed and exploited, particularly the way in which it effectively covers itself with opacity and uses deliberate deception in the promotion of its policies?

Nobody could have started out with less knowledge of what she was going up against. Tarbell’s story is, among many other things, a lesson in how a journalist can build, by relentless diligence, a revelatory grasp of details and finally see them whole, as a picture that nobody was meant to see, least of all the American public.

Tarbell was the protégée of Samuel S. McClure, editor and owner of McClure’s Magazine, a man with a practiced eye for talent — among his discoveries were Theodore Dreiser, Willa Cather, O’Henry and Damon Runyan.

In the summer of 1892 McClure found Tarbell, a graduate of Allegheny College, working as a freelance writer in Paris, very much living hand-to-mouth. He assigned her to write a profile of Napoleon. It was such a hit that he brought her back to New York and assigned a similar profile of President Lincoln. That was a hit, too, and both articles became books.

But Tarbell wanted to move from research to reporting. In New York McClure had two of the most renowned reporters already on staff, Lincoln Steffens and Ray Stannard Baker. Steffens, in particular, epitomized the all-male clubbish journalism of the time, cultivating close relationships with politicians, lawyers and cops as he busted open big city racketeering.

Tarbell was just 32, and a relative innocent in the game, when she told McClure that she was interested in what she saw as a classic American innovation, the octopus-like consolidation of big business in the form of a corporation. She settled on Standard Oil as the most aggressive example. McClure thought that there might be enough material for six pieces. After Tarbell had done months of reporting he upped it to 12. In the end, after well over two years of reporting, the investigation went to 19 consecutive pieces, beginning in 1902, under the bland title of, “The History of the Standard Oil Company.”

It was a sensation. But an unusual level of intellectual curiosity shaped the narrative — far from the hysterical prose of traditional scandal-busting. Tarbell delivered a devastating record of how Rockefeller had ruthlessly and systematically created a monopoly of the oil business in the form of a trust — but she saw a kind of genius in its design. Her penultimate piece was titled, “The Legitimate Greatness of the Standard Oil Company.”

However, the admiration came with a withering moral assessment:

“This huge bulk…has always been strong in all great business qualities — in energy, in intelligence, in dauntlessness. It has always been rich in youth as well as greed, in brains as well as unscrupulousness. If it has played its great game with contemptuous indifference to fair play, and to nice legal points of view, it has played it with consummate ability, daring and address.”

The main reason why she was able to drill down deep into Standard Oil’s dark genius is that the corporation had given her unprecedented access. And this is where there is a salutary lesson for today’s journalism. Tarbell never got to interview Rockefeller, who was bitter about her view of him. Nonetheless his corporation decided to try some subtle damage control.

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason

Mark Twain was a friend of McClure. Twain contacted McClure to report that one of the most powerful men on the board of Standard Oil, Henry Rogers (he and Twain were close) wanted to talk to Tarbell. Tarbell said she would like nothing better.

Part of the calculation was that Rogers would vamp the lady. And that seemed to work — Tarbell wrote of her first meeting with Rogers, in his 57th Street mansion: “He was a man of about sixty at this time, a striking figure, by all odds the handsomest and most distinguished figure in Wall Street.”

In fact, Rogers was notorious in Wall Street, known as the Hell Hound, making himself rich from sudden coups on the market.

For two years, with the collusion of Rogers, Tarbell made many clandestine visits to Standard Oil’s headquarters at 26 Broadway. Rogers gave her a carefully vetted stash of documents, but Tarbell was not fooled. She made use of the material that Rogers disclosed without revealing to him that, by pure luck, she had stumbled on one meeting that unlocked the whole design of the trust.

It happened over breakfast in Saratoga where, Tarbell, revealed, Rockefeller had said to two co-conspirators, “Let us become the nucleus of a private company which gradually shall acquire control of all refineries everywhere, become the only shippers, and consequently the master of the railroads in the matter of freight rates.”

In that way Standard Oil was able to fix the price of everything from the oil well to the refiners and from the refiners via the railroads to the customers, through a web of 40 companies, controlling 80 per cent of the American oil market.

Across the country newspapers followed and reported on Tarbell’s revelations. Front page cartoons depicted Rockefeller as a frock-coated looter. A vaudeville routine of the time became a hit — “They say it’s tainted money. Sure it’s tainted. ‘Taint yours and ‘taint mine.” Rockefeller was jeered as he left church on Sunday and had to hire Pinkerton guards for protection.

In Washington the president, Teddy Roosevelt, felt he was being upstaged by Tarbell. He wanted to act against the business trusts himself, but to do so required building bipartisan support, and that needed time. Roosevelt called Steffens to try to get the magazine to slow down the investigation; Steffens said that was not possible, but  Roosevelt summoned Tarbell to the White House, like Rogers believing that he could vamp her with his charm.

Instead, the president got an earful from Tarbell. She listed the names of senators in the pay of Standard Oil who planned to kill anti-trust legislation and warned him that the State Department had been infiltrated by Rockefeller stooges to help Standard Oil build its foreign oil interests.

No contest: afterward Roosevelt called Steffens and said, half in anger and half in awe, “That’s the damndest woman I ever met.”

In 1906 the attorney general opened a case against Standard Oil under the Sherman Antitrust Act, charging it with conspiracy to rig the oil market. In 1911, after years of appeals, the Supreme Court upheld an original ruling that the Standard Oil trust was to be dissolved. The outcome shaped all future anti-trust actions.

Even cut down to size, Rockefeller’s creation proved resilient and, slowly recovered to ultimately become the global octopus of ExxonMobil.

But Tarbell had instructed journalism with a lesson that remains the ultimate test of any newsroom now: do you have the ability and stamina required to pursue the forces that Teddy Roosevelt, his eyes opened by Tarbell, described as “the malefactors of great wealth?”

Nonetheless, Roosevelt himself demonstrated an ambivalence toward investigative journalism that all presidents, no matter how progressive they claim to be, seem to harbor. In a speech to editors at a gathering in Washington that was supposed to be private, he compared a crusading reporter with the man with the muck rake in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress: “…eyes fixed on the mire when he might have seen a celestial crown” and added, “if the whole picture remains black there remains no hue whereby to single out the rascals from their fellows.”

From this outburst came the term muckraker, happily adopted by some unapologetic editors but felt by others as a warning not to rock the Washington boat in case everyone went down with it if it was too damaged.

Suggesting that sometimes a collective interest, political, commercial, social or patriotic, should sometimes override the urge to rake the muck — however great its stink — is an insidious form of coercion. Indeed, sadly it was a factor in the way some of the finest of our newspapers were swayed into backing the invasion of Iraq, and even conned into buying phony stories about Saddam acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

But the stakes are a lot higher now. The disparagement of adversarial reporting began early with Trump. He has convinced legions of his supporters that any reporting that he doesn’t like is dishonest. Most threatening is that he has stacked his Cabinet with people who don’t apparently believe that the first duty of public office, as opposed to corporate office, is to be scrutable. Tillerson, for example, spent his entire career in a corporation that felt no shame in cooking up an alternative science of its own to undermine public policy on climate change.

For the moment, let’s leave this field of battle with an observation by Ida Tarbell as she completed her reporting on Standard Oil: “A large body of young men in this country are consciously or unconsciously growing up with the idea that business is war and that morals have nothing to do with its practice.”

via articles http://ift.tt/2g5ToNF January 13, 2017 at 01:55PM