I just read a BBC article talking about the Sears Tower being renamed the Willis Tower. Though in a sense it makes sense to name a building after the people who own it (because the Sears tower is named Sears because Sears built and owned it of course!), the article says that there is quite a bit of local opposition to the change in name, with one resident claiming that they'll never call it anything but Sears because thats what it is.
I do understand that. In a sense i'm sure its all blown out of proportion - the world isn't going to stop spinning on its axis etc because the Sears Tower is renamed - but I do appreciate the frustration of corporate re-naming. It happened here in St Helens recently when the hundred-or-so year old rugby league stadium Knowsley Road was named the GPS Recruitment Statium after GPS bought the naming rights.
Whats the problem you may ask? Surely it makes good business sense to package the naming rights for the stadium and fund the team to greater sporting success, or rename the skyscraper and ensure it continues to be used and function as a successful business enterprise. Well, yes i'm sure it does. But once you have an iconic building on your hands you move into that preverbial quicksand that is culture and heritage.
These buildings are symbolic for many people. They are inheritently local. Knowsley Road -the St Helens rugby stadium - was a name that instantly brought identification with something local, something historical, a link to the team's (and the town's) ups and downs for a hundred years. It overflowed with character. GPS Recruitment stadium on the other hand oozes about as much passion and heritage as a Tesco microwave dinner. Its just so unappetising, so dull and meaningless and it seems so bizare to seemingly abandon that heritage for what is a small amount of money.
The Sears Tower is a bit different I guess (its neither as old, nor perhaps has the same affection held over by fans of a team), but it is no doubt synonymous with Chicago. It dominates the skyline (sadly i've never seen it from the ground but flying over it certainly does hold a prominent place in a skyline packed with skyscrapers), and was (perhaps is) heralded as the premiere Chicago landmark. As such people probably take offense to what they might percieve as an outsider coming in and renaming their building.
Also, think of it this way. New York is famed for many skyscrapers, but certainly two of the better known would be the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. I would imagine that both of those buildings have had many owners over the years, but they have retained their original names. What if these classics of American architecture, with all their history, heritage and art deco styling were suddenly unveiled to the world as the Walmart Plaza and the Gatorade Emporium? Perhaps it wouldn't make you blink and you'ld think 'oh, ok,' or 'cool!' I think though i'd be sad that money and corporate business had muscled in yet again. It would be akin to the Tower of London being renamed Beefeater World or something (I apologise for the lack of imaginative rebrandings but you get the idea!).
I dunno. It just seems a shame.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Founding Brothers
I have recently finished reading a book entitled ‘Founding Brothers’ by Joseph J Ellis. I picked it up in Borders a few weeks ago, eager to read a little more about the generation of Americans who are covered by the collective title ‘The Founding Fathers.’
For the most part, it is a great book, setting out to examine the characters of a few of the more high profile Founding Fathers and some of the unique ways in which they interacted with one another. In the process you begin to see that they were at once a remarkable bunch of men, and yet also deeply afflicted with all of the same maladies and flaws that afflict every other generation.
Take Alexander Hamilton for instance. Hamilton had a relatively high profile career in the Continental Army (that is the US army during the American Revolution for British folk who like me had no concept of American history at all until recently), was a key force in the Washington administration (serving as he did as the first Secretary of the Treasury and in doing so establishing many aspects of the US economy that still persist to this day), and also came to be the most prominent member of what was the Federalist Party (one of the two main political parties of the day). However, at the same time he seems to have had ideas that even now seem a bit peculiar. For instance he raised a large standing army without any recourse from the then President John Adams, with the intention of marching into Virginia and removing the political opposition to his party (with the army) before marching into Mexico and the rest of Latin America and conquering (and according to Hamilton liberating) those nations by bringing them into the American Empire. This didn’t happen largely as John Adams recognised that this would be a disastrous turn of events and pulled the plug on the army by taking away the justification Hamilton gave for its existence (by securing peace with, and averting a potential war with, France).
Even Hamilton’s death is a bizarre story. He seems to have been a man who attracted (even courted) a great deal of controversy, and one such man who seemed to take issue with Hamilton was Aaron Burr. Burr, who served as Thomas Jefferson’s first Vice President, determined that he would settle his particular quarrel with Hamilton with a duel (as was still common at the time) and thus the two men were rowed out to a remote location along the Hudson River, took aim with their pistols (apparently in the belief that if they aimed straight at each other and fired they would inevitably miss as the pistol was so inaccurate!), and fired. Unfortunately for both men, Hamilton was hit and subsequently died. Burr, deeply upset that he had actually hit Hamilton, fled. Thus in a moment the vice president of the United States and one of the key figures of the American Revolution entered the pages of bizarre notoriety.
The book also shed light on James Madison and George Washington, and in the discussion of the latter I certainly gained more respect for his abilities and discernment. He seems to have been the ideal figurehead for the nation both in war and in peace, showing a clear understanding of what was necessary, rather than what was deemed popular. Interestingly though not even the man who led the Americans to Independence could escape sharp criticism and Washington was virulently attacked in the press as a monarchist and a new King of America.
However, the focus of the book (certainly for me) are the two figures of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In some respects I probably don’t know enough about Jefferson to know whether the tales regarding him in this book are an accurate representation of the man as a whole. Part of me already wants to rush out and purchase a suitable biography on him! However at the moment i’m not going to do that so in regards to what i’ve already read, I find him very hard to like as a historical figure. Certainly he accomplished a number of significant steps on the way to establishing the United States – his drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the Louisiana Purchase for instance – and he was undoubtedly both very well read and also very shrewd in his understanding of the tide of public opinion (more specifically how to use that ebb and flow and when it was ebbing and flowing). However for all his intelligence and political skill, he also seems to have either been very naive or exceptionally deceitful. For instance after George Washington stepped down as president, an effective two horse race began between John Adams and Jefferson for President. Jefferson effectively denied both any knowledge that he was running for President or a desire for the position publically, but then also endorsed Adams to his friends on the basis that whoever took the Presidency after Washington was doomed to fail and that he (Jefferson) wanted to attain the position after Adams. So it would seem that Jefferson was actually aware of his presidential campaign (in his dictating that Adams not he should be President) and had desires on the position himself, albeit preferring to defer to better political times.
During Adams Presidency, Jefferson served as Vice President and continued to act in that naive or duplicitous manner. Adams specifically invited Jefferson to work with him to achieve a well rounded policy, to which Jefferson said no, and then proceeded to complain that Adams was neglecting his opinion. Jefferson denied and condemned the rise of political parties, whilst at the same time effectively serving as head of the Republican Party (which was actually something of a different animal to the current Republican Party). Then whilst Adams was attempting to negotiate a peace with a belligerent French government, Jefferson lead the attacks on Adams (from behind close doors) and accused him of war mongering against a French government desperate for peace with America. Later when it turned out Adams was right Jefferson denied ever supporting the French. Jefferson, who had (and would later have) a strong friendship with Adams and his wife Abigail also wrote letters pledging the strength of his friendship to Adams, whilst at the same time paying a newspaper correspondent to attack Adams personally. He then denied all such claims until it was confirmed in another newspaper, and then he kept on denying it!
The list could go on, though it should be noted that later Jefferson did express some remorse for his actions and thoughts, whilst Jefferson was of course not perfect. But this is a man who has been received by posterity as one of the great American Presidents (his head adorns Mount Rushmore for instance) and yet I do find him deeply hard to like. Ellis praises him for his political foresight and his ability to adjust to the demands of public opinion, as well as romantic and simplistic understanding of the American dreams of liberty and freedom. In respect to the latter two points it is easy to see why he has been so fondly remembered in that people will always like someone who does what they want (or seems to understand their desires) and who paints the picture they want to hear (that of an unstoppable, universally popular American Revolution). However, does that necessarily make for a good leader?
Adams on the other hand I find much more palatable, though if the two histories i’ve read of him are to be believed neither his contemporaries nor generations of scholars and critics since have found him to be a man who could be easily liked or admired. I’ve discussed Adams before (on my blog that is in reference to a biography of him by David McCullough) but again his essential characteristics shine through. Like Jefferson he was extremely well read. He was a fighter and also very adamant in his perspectives and beliefs on an issue. If he saw something that was unjust or a cause that had to be won in the national interest, he would fight for it, no matter the cost to his own reputation or popularity. So it was that he accepted the Presidency after Washington as his duty to the United States (whereas Jefferson ducked the task knowing it would be deeply unpopular). In the course of that Presidency he faced both rage from the Federalists for not attacking France and disdain from the Republicans for attempting to start a war, all the while trying to secure peace (which he eventually did just as he left office, leaving Jefferson to claim the spoils so to speak).
Adams comes across as something of a realist, recognising that human nature is inherently flawed and that America was open to the same perils as any other nation (whereas Jefferson believed America would be free from the same problems as experience in Europe or Latin America). Joseph Ellis seems to see Adams’ realism as a weakness, if not even a sign of actually physical madness (in that he didn’t view the world as black and white) though (perhaps as this is how I tend to see things) I think Adams strength lay in that he saw things for what they were – messy. So in Adams estimation the American Revolution was a deeply protracted affair, not always universally supported, never certain, fought for relentlessly by many individuals and having its origins in so many different events, documents and acts. As such he hated the idea of the 4th July becoming a pivotal date as it was just one of many dates, whilst he also warned of the dangers of rewriting history to fit the desires of people looking for a mythical creation.
He did of course have his flaws – stubbornness, a bit of a temper, vanity all being labels given to him by close friends – but on the whole I like Adams much more than Jefferson. Adams is described as being like an oak tree, in that when public opinion went against him he refused to move unless he saw it in the national interest. Of course this made him unpopular but I think he was spot on given his recognition that the will of the people isn’t always correct. In that sense he seems by far the better leader to me.
As for the book, then it’s a great read of which I’ve only skimmed the surface here (and I apologise for the lack of references – it’s a disgrace especially given I have two history degrees, but then this is only for my blog!), and it definitely helps to explain the character of modern America a little more.
For the most part, it is a great book, setting out to examine the characters of a few of the more high profile Founding Fathers and some of the unique ways in which they interacted with one another. In the process you begin to see that they were at once a remarkable bunch of men, and yet also deeply afflicted with all of the same maladies and flaws that afflict every other generation.
Take Alexander Hamilton for instance. Hamilton had a relatively high profile career in the Continental Army (that is the US army during the American Revolution for British folk who like me had no concept of American history at all until recently), was a key force in the Washington administration (serving as he did as the first Secretary of the Treasury and in doing so establishing many aspects of the US economy that still persist to this day), and also came to be the most prominent member of what was the Federalist Party (one of the two main political parties of the day). However, at the same time he seems to have had ideas that even now seem a bit peculiar. For instance he raised a large standing army without any recourse from the then President John Adams, with the intention of marching into Virginia and removing the political opposition to his party (with the army) before marching into Mexico and the rest of Latin America and conquering (and according to Hamilton liberating) those nations by bringing them into the American Empire. This didn’t happen largely as John Adams recognised that this would be a disastrous turn of events and pulled the plug on the army by taking away the justification Hamilton gave for its existence (by securing peace with, and averting a potential war with, France).
Even Hamilton’s death is a bizarre story. He seems to have been a man who attracted (even courted) a great deal of controversy, and one such man who seemed to take issue with Hamilton was Aaron Burr. Burr, who served as Thomas Jefferson’s first Vice President, determined that he would settle his particular quarrel with Hamilton with a duel (as was still common at the time) and thus the two men were rowed out to a remote location along the Hudson River, took aim with their pistols (apparently in the belief that if they aimed straight at each other and fired they would inevitably miss as the pistol was so inaccurate!), and fired. Unfortunately for both men, Hamilton was hit and subsequently died. Burr, deeply upset that he had actually hit Hamilton, fled. Thus in a moment the vice president of the United States and one of the key figures of the American Revolution entered the pages of bizarre notoriety.
The book also shed light on James Madison and George Washington, and in the discussion of the latter I certainly gained more respect for his abilities and discernment. He seems to have been the ideal figurehead for the nation both in war and in peace, showing a clear understanding of what was necessary, rather than what was deemed popular. Interestingly though not even the man who led the Americans to Independence could escape sharp criticism and Washington was virulently attacked in the press as a monarchist and a new King of America.
However, the focus of the book (certainly for me) are the two figures of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. In some respects I probably don’t know enough about Jefferson to know whether the tales regarding him in this book are an accurate representation of the man as a whole. Part of me already wants to rush out and purchase a suitable biography on him! However at the moment i’m not going to do that so in regards to what i’ve already read, I find him very hard to like as a historical figure. Certainly he accomplished a number of significant steps on the way to establishing the United States – his drafting of the Declaration of Independence or the Louisiana Purchase for instance – and he was undoubtedly both very well read and also very shrewd in his understanding of the tide of public opinion (more specifically how to use that ebb and flow and when it was ebbing and flowing). However for all his intelligence and political skill, he also seems to have either been very naive or exceptionally deceitful. For instance after George Washington stepped down as president, an effective two horse race began between John Adams and Jefferson for President. Jefferson effectively denied both any knowledge that he was running for President or a desire for the position publically, but then also endorsed Adams to his friends on the basis that whoever took the Presidency after Washington was doomed to fail and that he (Jefferson) wanted to attain the position after Adams. So it would seem that Jefferson was actually aware of his presidential campaign (in his dictating that Adams not he should be President) and had desires on the position himself, albeit preferring to defer to better political times.
During Adams Presidency, Jefferson served as Vice President and continued to act in that naive or duplicitous manner. Adams specifically invited Jefferson to work with him to achieve a well rounded policy, to which Jefferson said no, and then proceeded to complain that Adams was neglecting his opinion. Jefferson denied and condemned the rise of political parties, whilst at the same time effectively serving as head of the Republican Party (which was actually something of a different animal to the current Republican Party). Then whilst Adams was attempting to negotiate a peace with a belligerent French government, Jefferson lead the attacks on Adams (from behind close doors) and accused him of war mongering against a French government desperate for peace with America. Later when it turned out Adams was right Jefferson denied ever supporting the French. Jefferson, who had (and would later have) a strong friendship with Adams and his wife Abigail also wrote letters pledging the strength of his friendship to Adams, whilst at the same time paying a newspaper correspondent to attack Adams personally. He then denied all such claims until it was confirmed in another newspaper, and then he kept on denying it!
The list could go on, though it should be noted that later Jefferson did express some remorse for his actions and thoughts, whilst Jefferson was of course not perfect. But this is a man who has been received by posterity as one of the great American Presidents (his head adorns Mount Rushmore for instance) and yet I do find him deeply hard to like. Ellis praises him for his political foresight and his ability to adjust to the demands of public opinion, as well as romantic and simplistic understanding of the American dreams of liberty and freedom. In respect to the latter two points it is easy to see why he has been so fondly remembered in that people will always like someone who does what they want (or seems to understand their desires) and who paints the picture they want to hear (that of an unstoppable, universally popular American Revolution). However, does that necessarily make for a good leader?
Adams on the other hand I find much more palatable, though if the two histories i’ve read of him are to be believed neither his contemporaries nor generations of scholars and critics since have found him to be a man who could be easily liked or admired. I’ve discussed Adams before (on my blog that is in reference to a biography of him by David McCullough) but again his essential characteristics shine through. Like Jefferson he was extremely well read. He was a fighter and also very adamant in his perspectives and beliefs on an issue. If he saw something that was unjust or a cause that had to be won in the national interest, he would fight for it, no matter the cost to his own reputation or popularity. So it was that he accepted the Presidency after Washington as his duty to the United States (whereas Jefferson ducked the task knowing it would be deeply unpopular). In the course of that Presidency he faced both rage from the Federalists for not attacking France and disdain from the Republicans for attempting to start a war, all the while trying to secure peace (which he eventually did just as he left office, leaving Jefferson to claim the spoils so to speak).
Adams comes across as something of a realist, recognising that human nature is inherently flawed and that America was open to the same perils as any other nation (whereas Jefferson believed America would be free from the same problems as experience in Europe or Latin America). Joseph Ellis seems to see Adams’ realism as a weakness, if not even a sign of actually physical madness (in that he didn’t view the world as black and white) though (perhaps as this is how I tend to see things) I think Adams strength lay in that he saw things for what they were – messy. So in Adams estimation the American Revolution was a deeply protracted affair, not always universally supported, never certain, fought for relentlessly by many individuals and having its origins in so many different events, documents and acts. As such he hated the idea of the 4th July becoming a pivotal date as it was just one of many dates, whilst he also warned of the dangers of rewriting history to fit the desires of people looking for a mythical creation.
He did of course have his flaws – stubbornness, a bit of a temper, vanity all being labels given to him by close friends – but on the whole I like Adams much more than Jefferson. Adams is described as being like an oak tree, in that when public opinion went against him he refused to move unless he saw it in the national interest. Of course this made him unpopular but I think he was spot on given his recognition that the will of the people isn’t always correct. In that sense he seems by far the better leader to me.
As for the book, then it’s a great read of which I’ve only skimmed the surface here (and I apologise for the lack of references – it’s a disgrace especially given I have two history degrees, but then this is only for my blog!), and it definitely helps to explain the character of modern America a little more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
