Approaches to History.

This essay raises an interesting perspective on the Reformation's relationship to history.

The traditional Protestant perspective is that Protestantism is a return to the sources ("ad fontes"); Protestantism scrubs off the barnacles that attached themselves to Christianity during the nebulously defined "Middle Ages." As such, Protestantism is the historic Christianity.

The problem with that approach is that anyone who studies Christian history discovers that the further they go back, the more Christian history looks Catholic/Orthodox. At the beginning of the Second Century, St. Ignatius is talking about the pre-eminence of bishops. St. Clement refers to apostolic succession in the 80s or 90s A.D. The best case scenario for Protestantism is that their "primitive Christianity" lasted for a four week period sometime in 33 AD. The worst case is that it is "turtles all the way down."

So, what do you do about that?

One approach, which I've noted in these pages, is to ignore history. For many people, history a foreign country indeed, and too many people think the Dark Ages ended shortly before they entered High School. The Protestant contribution is to imagine a kind of ahistorical "Bible Time" and then jump forward to today.

The essay argues that some historically-aware Protestants are taking a different approach:

In singing the praises of Protestantism, Leithart repeatedly does so not on the basis of its dedication to a return ad fontes, but because it represents a newer, better, more evolved form of the Church. He admiringly quotes 19th century Calvinist theologian Philip Schaff (one of the coiners of the phrase Reformed Catholic, though certainly not quite in Leithart’s camp) when he says that the “Reformation is the legitimate offspring, the greatest act of the Catholic Church.”

Thus, the partisans of Reformed Catholicity have lit upon a new way for the Protestant to deal with Christian history. The old way was to dismiss it all as so much apostasy. The most common way is simply to be ignorant of it. (“I don’t believe in history,” a fellow priest’s Baptist mother once told him. I don’t believe they’re related to the Fords, however.) And now we have a new way: Christian history is legitimate, but the Church has been improving over time, and Protestant denominationalism is in fact a higher and better version of the Church.

If you think about it, I believe that this really is the only way to hold on both to denominationalism (multiple, competing, contradictory doctrines and communions who are somehow all legitimately the Church) and keeping any semblance of historical integrity. After all, the arguments for apostasy are pretty watery. Once you accept the canon of the New Testament (and most Great Apostasy advocates do), you then have the sticky problem of dealing with all that liturgy and sacraments and bishops and such that seem to dominate the world that canonized the Bible. (One way to get around that problem is to take Joseph Smith’s approach: God gave me new revelation, and the old one was probably always corrupted, anyway. This is actually getting more common these days than we might like to think.)

I really have to hand it to these guys, because this is an ingenious way of dealing with all this data—you get to hang on to your own denominational (or non-denominational) loyalties, recognize those whose doctrines oppose yours as true Christians, and also subsume into your own legitimacy the Christianity of the past. You can even quote the Fathers and stir in a little of their liturgy into your otherwise bare walls echoing with sermons!

Never mind that historic Christianity still actually exists in “earlier forms of the church” whose membership represents the vast majority of living Christians. You can dismiss them as “childish.”

But that’s not the deep problem in this historiographical scheme. The deep problem is twofold. The first is the problem of knowledge: How am I supposed to know the truth? If the Church is always evolving (the real semper reformanda?), how can I be sure I’m actually on the Way? How am I to know that Reformed Catholicity is actually a better, legitimate offspring, “the greatest act of the Catholic Church,” and not just an egg it laid that turned out to be a dud? How do I know that that which has survived (for now) is really the fittest?

The essay is spot on about the attempt to dismiss the early church as "childish." A while ago, Parchment and Pen put up a blog post which made literally that argument, while providing the following illustration:

Likewise, the post-modern, evolutionary approach can be seen in Alister McGrath's "Christianity's Dangerous Idea," which argues that since "private interpretation" is Christianity's "dangerous idea," the advantage that Protestantism has is that it can be anything at all. To quote my review:

McGrath recognizes that "private interpretation" means that there is no teaching that cannot be made Protestant, so he decides to make a virtue of a necessity and decide that this diversity is a really good thing and the strength of Protestantism. As the book progressed, I started to wonder if the "dangerous idea was "the priesthood of all believers" and the fact that Protestantism disclaimed the existence of a "spiritual elite." p. 233. But, again, this is an idea that is honored in the breach by several of the main iterations of Protestantism, such as the Reformed wing, which taught that the 5th Commandment's injunction to love and honor one's father and mother applied to one's pastor. p. 293.

The "dangerous idea" seems to be the formless, protean essence of Protestantism. According to McGrath, historically, there was not a single Protestantism; Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anabaptism had separate origins and distinctive and contradictory beliefs. What held the Protestantisms together was the fact that they were not Catholic. (p. 132 ("Historically, Protestantism has always needed an "other," an external threat or enemy ,imagined or real, to hold itself together as a movement."

McGrath goes so far as to question whether essential Protestant distinctive such as Sola Fide and the inerrancy of the Bible may not be required doctrines in Protestantism. See p. 250 - 251. McGrath notes that the Protestant commitment to reassessing doctrines in the light of social development has led to "sea changes" in interpretation. For example, early Protestants held to a belief that the "great commission" of Matthew 28:19 to take the Gospel to the ends of the Earth had ended with the apostles. p. 176, 225. This understanding was reversed in the Nineteenth Century. Similarly, early Protetants held to "cessationism" which taught that the gifts of the Holy Spirit ended with the Apostles, but, again, in the 20th Century, with the rise of Pentecostalism, this doctrine too has been reversed.

So, it isn't clear that Protestantism has any particular core of doctrine. Even the adherence to the Trinity is questioned by "oneness Pentecostals." p. 434. Can we say even that the adherence to the Bible only is a core Protestant idea in light of the fact that, according to McGrath, the rise of science was a principally Protestant undertaking engaged in by people who wanted to interpret the "book of words" (the Bible) through the "book of works (nature) as Calvin proposed. p. 373 - 375. Ultimately, what is left of Protestantism, according to McGrath is a commitment to the idea that "all interpretations of the Bible must be regarded as provisional, not final." p. 377. This leaves Protestantism with nothing but a method and the core of Protestantism is the tautology that ends the book, "We have seen that Protestantism possesses a unique and innate capacity for innovation, renewal and reform based on its own internal resources. The future of Protestantism lies precisely in Protestantism being what Protestantism actually is."

Whatever that happens to be.

All in all, this approach seems to be more about making lemons into lemonade, than dealing with history.

Did you know that the Pope condemned the slave trade...

...in 1837...

...in the slave state of Maryland?

Here is the text of In Surpremo Apostolatus:

IN SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS

(Apostolic Letter condemning the slave trade, written by Pope Gregory XVI and read during the 4th Provincial Council of Baltimore, December 3, 1839.)

Placed at the summit of the Apostolic power and, although lacking in merits, holding the place of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who, being made Man through utmost Charity, deigned to die for the Redemption of the World, We have judged that it belonged to Our pastoral solicitude to exert Ourselves to turn away the Faithful from the inhuman slave trade in Negroes and all other men. Assuredly, since there was spread abroad, first of all amongst the Christians, the light of the Gospel, these miserable people, who in such great numbers, and chiefly through the effects of wars, fell into very cruel slavery, experienced an alleviation of their lot. Inspired in fact by the Divine Spirit, the Apostles, it is true, exhorted the slaves themselves to obey their masters, according to the flesh, as though obeying Christ, and sincerely to accomplish the Will of God; but they ordered the masters to act well towards slaves, to give them what was just and equitable, and to abstain from menaces, knowing that the common Master both of themselves and of the slaves is in Heaven, and that with Him there is no distinction of persons.

But as the law of the Gospel universally and earnestly enjoined a sincere charity towards all, and considering that Our Lord Jesus Christ had declared that He considered as done or refused to Himself everything kind and merciful done or refused to the small and needy, it naturally follows, not only that Christians should regard as their brothers their slaves and, above all, their Christian slaves, but that they should be more inclined to set free those who merited it; which it was the custom to do chiefly upon the occasion of the Easter Feast as Gregory of Nyssa tells us. There were not lacking Christians, who, moved by an ardent charity 'cast themselves into bondage in order to redeem others,' many instances of which our predecessor, Clement I, of very holy memory, declares to have come to his knowledge. In the process of time, the fog of pagan superstition being more completely dissipated and the manners of barbarous people having been softened, thanks to Faith operating by Charity, it at last comes about that, since several centuries, there are no more slaves in the greater number of Christian nations. But - We say with profound sorrow - there were to be found afterwards among the Faithful men who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries, did not hesitate to reduce to slavery Indians, negroes and other wretched peoples, or else, by instituting or developing the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, to favour their unworthy practice. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their charge, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those engaged in the traffic and a shame to the Christian name; they foresaw that as a result of this, the infidel peoples would be more and more strengthened in their hatred of the true Religion.

It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare 'to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,' to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated.

Benedict XIV confirmed and renewed the penalties of the Popes above mentioned in a new Apostolic Letter addressed on December 20, 1741, to the Bishops of Brazil and some other regions, in which he stimulated, to the same end, the solicitude of the Governors themselves. Another of Our Predecessors, anterior to Benedict XIV, Pius II, as during his life the power of the Portuguese was extending itself over New Guinea, sent on October 7, 1462, to a Bishop who was leaving for that country, a Letter in which he not only gives the Bishop himself the means of exercising there the sacred ministry with more fruit, but on the same occasion, addresses grave warnings with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery.

In our time Pius VII, moved by the same religious and charitable spirit as his Predecessors, intervened zealously with those in possession of power to secure that the slave trade should at least cease amongst the Christians. The penalties imposed and the care given by Our Predecessors contributed in no small measure, with the help of God, to protect the Indians and the other people mentioned against the cruelty of the invaders or the cupidity of Christian merchants, without however carrying success to such a point that the Holy See could rejoice over the complete success of its efforts in this direction; for the slave trade, although it has diminished in more than one district, is still practiced by numerous Christians. This is why, desiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.

Episcopal Church plans to apologize to Catholics for oppression and theft...

...oh, wait. That's wrong.

The Episcopal Church is apologizing to American Indians for "invading" America and exposing the natives to Christianity.

Episcopalians from around the country gathered here this week for their church's 77th triennial General Convention, which ended Thursday. Although other Protestant denominations have national governing councils, the Episcopal Church's triennial gathering stands apart. For starters, it's one of the world's largest such legislative entities, with more than 1,000 members.

General Convention is also notable for its sheer ostentation and carnival atmosphere. For seven straight nights, lavish cocktail parties spilled into pricey steakhouses, where bishops could use their diocesan funds to order bottles of the finest wines.

During the day, legislators in the lower chamber, the House of Deputies, and the upper chamber, the House of Bishops, discussed such weighty topics as whether to develop funeral rites for dogs and cats, and whether to ratify resolutions condemning genetically modified foods. Both were approved by a vote, along with a resolution to "dismantle the effects of the doctrine of discovery," in effect an apology to Native Americans for exposing them to Christianity.

Here is the Episcopal lament over the "Doctrine of Discovery" (which is from their 2009 General Convention an dnot from the current convention):

“In an unprecedented step of significance for Christian response to the European invasion and settlement of the Americas, the Episcopal Church is the first Christian denomination to publically repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery through the actions of D033 taken at GC 2009,” explained Eagle Heart. “The Church demonstrated the courage of our convened leadership by offering the repudiation in 2009, and now in 2012 calls upon and invites all Episcopalians to join in a substantive response to the Doctrine of Discovery through participation in this lament to acknowledge, honor and respond compassionately to our grievous past of invasion and settlement.”

Here is the Episcopal Resolution on the Doctrine of Discovery.

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention repudiates and renounces the Doctrine of Discovery as fundamentally opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and our understanding of the inherent rights that individuals and peoples have received from God, and that this declaration be proclaimed among our churches and shared with the United Nations and all the nations and peoples located within The Episcopal Church's boundaries. This doctrine, which originated with Henry VII in 1496, held that Christian sovereigns and their representative explorers could assert dominion and title over non-Christian lands with the full blessing and sanction of the Church. It continues to be invoked, in only slightly modified form, in court cases and in the many destructive policies of governments and other institutions of the modern nation-state that lead to the colonizing dispossession of the lands of indigenous peoples and the disruption of their way of life ...

The replacment appears to be syncretizing prayers to the "Great Spirit" and to the Four Directions.

In their puppy-dog desire to be loved, the Episcopal Church has managed to equate the "White Buffalo Woman" with Our Lady of Guadalupe, i.e., the Mother of God:

The Virgin of Guadalupe

[Note: Although it is not on the Liturgical Calendar of the Episcopal Church, December 12 is still widely celebrated by many Episcopalians as the Feast of the Virgin of Guadalupe.]

Huh?..."still celebrate"...WTF?

When did the Episcopal Church recognize the Our Lady of Guadulupe as authentic?

Notice that for these Gaia-worshipping feminist liberal Christians, Our Lady of Guadulupe is simply the "Virgin of Guadulupe" and all connection with the reason that makes her "Our Lady," namely that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, is forgotten in order, it seems, to make Mary as legendary and non-historical as "White Buffalo Woman."

As a member of the Church that does put the Feast of Our Lady on its calendar, I'd appreciate it if the Episcopal Church would bloody well not dechristianize our beliefs now that it has managed to bleed its own beliefs of any Christian meaning.

Then there is this Episcopal document, which suggests that the Episcopal Church views the whole project of America as something of dubious provenance and doubtful legitimacy:

The national commemoration of Columbus Day poses a painful problem for many American Episcopalians. The public legal and religious reasoning and language used to explain and justify the discovery and conquest of the Americas, stands in glaring contrast to the vows of the Baptismal Covenant “to persevere in resisting evil, to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself and to strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.”

Looking at Columbus Day through the Lens of the Baptismal vows is no simple matter. It is not something to be quickly addressed, and then left behind.
This journey into “Exposing the Doctrine of Discovery” is part of a call from God to Healing and Hope for all people. With Resolution D035 offered at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 2009, the Church repudiated and renounced the Doctrine of Discovery. The Doctrine of Discovery refers to documents, and practices of Church and state that legally justified the theft of Native lands, genocide, denial of basic human rights and self-determination, and the attempted extermination of Native identity.

General Convention took this step of repudiation because even though 1492 was a very long time ago, the reasoning and language used to explain and justify the discovery and conquest of the Americas, stands in glaring contrast to our Baptismal vows. The Doctrine of Discovery continues to be invoked in contemporary legal practice, and contributes to the on-going
oppression of Native Peoples. The on-going impact of the Doctrine of Discovery can be seen in and attributed to the failure of state and federal governments to fulfill the promises made in 400 still legally binding treaties, negotiated in exchange for the land on which most Americans now live. These treaties – are “the supreme Law of the Land” according to the
Constitution of the United States – purported to buy the land that is now the United States, from Native tribes with promises to provide for monetary payments, continued hunting and fishing rights, and provisions for housing and health care.2 Few, if any of these treaties, were fulfilled as promised.

Look at the scare quotes for the description of the Constitution as "the supreme Law of the Land."

Are the Episcopalians saying it isn't?

The Episcopal Church wants its members to view the founding event with shame. How can any people hope ot survive that way?

Ross Douthat asks whether "Liberal Christianity can survive?"

The answer would appear to be, not if it doesn't stop committing suicide.

By the way, the original resolution made a fashionable stab at blaming Catholicism for the "Doctrine of Discovery," but this is only part of the story. The whole story includes the fact that the Catholic Church attempted to protect the rights of indigenous populations as human beings.

Discovery was happening. The normal course of human history involves the wholesale enslavement of the weaker populations. Something unique happened when Christians ran up against that situation - their church demanded that they treat the weaker population like human beings and not enslave them.

Here is the text of the Papal Encyclical Sicut Dudem:

Eugene, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God,

To our venerable brothers, peace and apostolic benediction, etcetera.

1. Not long ago, we learned from our brother Ferdinand, bishop at Rubicon and representative of the faithful who are residents of the Canary Islands, and from messengers sent by them to the Apostolic See, and from other trustworthy informers, the following facts: in the said islands—some called Lanzarote—and other nearby islands, the inhabitants, imitating the natural law alone, and not having known previously any sect of apostates or heretics, have a short time since been led into the Orthodox Catholic Faith with the aid of God’s mercy. Nevertheless, with the passage of time, it has happened that in some of the said islands, because of a lack of suitable governors and defenders to direct those who live there to a proper observance of the Faith in things spiritual and temporal, and to protect valiantly their property and goods, some Christians (we speak of this with sorrow), with fictitious reasoning and seizing and opportunity, have approached said islands by ship, and with armed forces taken captive and even carried off to lands overseas very many persons of both sexes, taking advantage of their simplicity.

2. Some of these people were already baptized; others were even at times tricked and deceived by the promise of Baptism, having been made a promise of safety that was not kept. They have deprived the natives of the property, or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons, and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them, because of which very many of those remaining on said islands, and condemning such slavery, have remained involved in their former errors, having drawn back their intention to receive Baptism, thus offending the majesty of God, putting their souls in danger, and causing no little harm to the Christian religion

3. Therefore, We, to whom it pertains, especially in respect to the aforesaid matters, to rebuke each sinner about his sin, and not wishing to pass by dissimulating, and desiring—as is expected from the pastoral office we hold—as far as possible, to provide salutarily, with a holy and fatherly concern, for the sufferings of the inhabitants, beseech the Lord, and exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities, and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade, or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously.

4. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.

5. Those who humbly and efficaciously obey these, our exhortations and commands deserve, in addition to our favor, and that of the Apostolic See, and the blessings which follow there from, but are to be possessors of eternal happiness and to be placed at the right hand of God, etcetera

Given at Florence, January 13th, in the Year of Our Lord, 1435

And here is Sublimis Dei:

Sublimus Dei
Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians)

To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

[Dated: May 29, 1537]

Christians did enslave and slaughter, but it was despite Christianity.

Cooler than the Dos Equis Guy.

Cracked magazine has become my "go to" site for the truth about history and science. Cracked seems to operate on the policy of going with the turth because truth is always stranger than fiction inasmuch as fiction has to be plausible. 

So, this bit about Jack Johnson is stunning:

Jack Johnson was the first black heavyweight champion, but also paved the road for future athletes in the ways of trash talking, flashy bling and openly banging white women in an era when that could get you lynched. The man was everything Muhammad Ali would be...


The Badassery:

...except he was doing it at the turn of the century. We weren't kidding about the lynching thing--this was 39 years before Jackie Robinson and just a generation removed from his father being born a slave.

After he became champion, the media openly pined for a "Great White Hope" to come forward and beat him, and set the racial hierarchy back to its natural order. Former undefeated champion James J. Jeffries came out of retirement to fight Johnson, satisfying both the white masses and fans of alliteration.

In the ensuing "Fight of the Century," Johnson forced Jeffries corner to throw in the towel in the 15th round to avoid a complete knockout and post-fight cuckold session (as was the custom of the time).

Outside of the ring, Johnson's hobbies included racing flashy sports cars, traveling the world and generally making the Dos Equis guy look boring. He rocked gold teeth and a gold handled pimp cane while sipping champagne and taking his pet leopard for walks.

He spent time as a jazz musician, Chicago nightclub owner, stage actor, dock worker, coral fisher, bullfighter, volunteer secret agent in World War I for the U.S. Government (and possibly also for the Kaiser) and as a beer salesman. He was a legendary eater and drinker (and spent a night in Russia downing vodka shot-for-shot with Rasputin) and had the onions to deliver a speech on sportsmanship, fair play and the golden rule to the motherfucking KKK.

It should be noted that nothing in the previous paragraph was a joke. All that shit really happened. He was a goddamned bull fighter, people!

Forget that noise - he patented a wrench!  In prison!

Wow!

Seems like a metaphor for a lot of things.

Are we the Greek vase painters?

After the palaces had fallen, vase-painters went on for a couple of generations reproducing, without much conviction, imitations of the style to which men were accustomed,” A.R. Burn tells us:

This is the length of time it usually takes for a people, after a far-reaching social change, to get habits which are no longer relevant thoroughly out of their system; for the first generation of survivors are still people brought up under the old order, and the second generation are people brought up by people who were brought up under the old order. This is one reason why a century, a period of about three generations, so often seems to have a distinctive character. In the third generation, vase-painters at Athens and perhaps elsewhere had at last lost the feeling that the decadent sub-Mycenaean was in some way the “right” style, and a fresh start is made with proto-geometric, the folk art of a vigorous and talented people.

 

Memory Lane.

The evolution of the automobile sound system.

Last eyewitness to Lincoln assassination appeared on the television game show "I've Got a Secret"...

....in 1956.

Here is the article.

Samuel J. Seymour was 5 years old when he saw John Wilkes Booth jump to the stage of the Ford Theater.  He was 96 when he appeared on "I've Got a Secret."



Also, celebrities were smarter in those days.  Jane Meadows got the answer after 30 seconds of questioning.