PRESENTLY - PREPOSTEROUS POLITICS PREVAILS
Some musings on preposterousness, absurdity, the Know-Nothings.
I have shared excerpts from a paper on the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850’s which I find rather fascinating. I wished to find clear preposterous conspiracy theory writings of these people, but much can be inferred from what I included. It is quite interesting to consider the majority Catholic US Supreme Court of today in relation to the prejudice of the Know-Nothings toward the Catholic religion, and the despotic Pope. I searched for very bizarre conspiracy theory from that time. It certainly must have existed, but seems not to be directly written down according to my modest attempts at research.
Carlson, A. Chere
The Rhetoric of the Know-Nothing Party: Nativism as a
Response to the Rhetorical Situation. April 1988.
“As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics.”
— Abraham Lincoln, 1851
The Know-Nothing party created their conspiracy theory along traditional lines. An evil force was threatening to subvert the values of the United States, its agents had been detected, and brave heroes were needed to crash the threat. The nativist version cast Catholics and immigrants as the villains and American voters as the heroes. The Know-Nothings were masterful at turning this basic plot line into a compelling drama. They did so by appealing to the basic concepts that were strong in the American mind at that time: secrecy, patriotism and Protestantism. The first created a heroic role for the audience, while the later represented values these heroes were called upon to defend. These elements will be discussed in return.
Secrecy was used by the party in the early stages of its development, especially during the drive for stronger membership. Burke has noted that “mystery” is a powerful force in any society. It serves to create hierarchies between social classes. The United States was supposedly a classless society, where any person could rise as high as another. Yet, Americans still sought ways of maintaining some form of personal distinction. A secret order made membership a privilege, and the secrecy created a bond that made it difficult for members to depart.
The secrecy of the party also allowed to create a mysterious hero, anonymous titan who eventually becomes known as “Sam.” Sam is not “Uncle Sam,” but rather a chimeric figure sometimes young, sometimes old, always heroic: That noble and mysterious personage Sam, with sound head and pure heart - coming up from the fires of the Revolution, shaking his hoary locks of wisdom, and cleaving to the doctrine of our fathers is seated upon his war horse and with sword in hand, is flying over the plains of the new world, bearing down on all opposition with the purpose as firm as the eternal granite that supports the earth, “that Americans shall rule America.”
Joining the order became “going to see Sam,” and new members could partake of the spirit he personified. Members shared his god-like qualities, and joined him in the relentless pursuit of America’s foes: “He never strikes without warning, but when he does, the edge of his *claymore severs joints and marrow, and a **hecatomb falls at every blow.” The Order of Know-Nothings thus cast its members as mighty heroes, ones set apart from ordinary mortals who did not share the secret. These heroes were ready to defend the "American way." The next task for the party was to reveal what the American way was, and who were its enemies.
*The two-handed claymore was a large sword used in the late Medieval and early modern periods.
**an extensive loss of life.
As far as Know-Nothings were concerned, the blood of the Revolutionary soldiers called out for action against the foreign threat: And why not? America for Americans we say. And why not? Didn't they plant it, and battle for it through bloody revolution. Why shouldn’t they shape and rule the land red and rich hallowed with the blood and ashes, memories of their fathers? Why not rule their own, particularly when the alien betrays the trust that should never been given him and the liberties of the land imperiled?
America’s excellence was grounded in the spirit of the American people, rather than any physical accomplishments. The Know-Nothings set that spirit above all else. Naturaly, the power of this noble spirit infused the newly formed nation with such strength and nobility that it soon created “a nation of the century, and yet mightier than the oldest empire on earth.” Americans were God's new chosen people, endowed with strengths and abilities far beyond those of any “breed” of human.
Americans were used to suspecting the Catholic Church of harboring subversion, although they infrequently acted upon these unspoken
asumptions. Know-Nothings played upon these old suspicions. They identified Catholics as agents who served a despotic Pope who wanted nothing less than the total destruction of Protestantism. The Church was presented as "anti-American in everything that relates to the freedom and the purposes of American institutions and of American society.”
Party members claimed that this solution would stop the Catholic Church's political aims without compromising the Catholics’ religious freedom. It would sacrifice the political rights of a few “benighted” immigrants to preserve the rights of the mass of native Americans. Never did the party directly admit that they were practicing religious proscription, rather they claimed a motive of loving concern for the immigrants, who simply did not know enough to protect themselves from despotism. Fredrick Anaspach summed his party’s attitude succinctly when he claimed “It is because we love [the Immigrants] and the interest of our country that we would give them no higher politcal position than citizenship, and that only after they are prepared. As such, they can be happy and useful.”
Frederick Rinehart Anspach (January 1815 – 16 September 1867) was an American Lutheran clergyman, author and editor.
From another source reference to Anspach and anti-Irish prejudice of the time.
With this rise in notoriety came a simultaneous rise in the negative con- notations associated with Catholic immigrants. In addition to showing a massive amount of immigrants, the above mentioned illustration shows a characteristically dirty, poor, and uncivilized group. Likewise, in his pro-Know Nothing book entitled The Sons of the Sires of 1855, Protestant Minister Frederick Rinehart Anspach described the rise in Irish immigration as the “many recent arrivals of foreign criminals and paupers.” Historian Carl Fremont Brand echoed this idea by asserting that “the pauper and criminal element among the immigrants was believed to be large.” While it is true that many of these immigrants arrived to America with little money and little education, the perception of the Irish became a caricature; that of a vulgar, dirty, and uneducated Irish Catholic. Cartoons like Frederick Opper’s “Puck’s Gallery of Celebrities. The King of A-Shantee” pictured the increasingly common Irish stereotype of a lowly, primal man. This image of Irishmen was further reinforced throughout society; job openings specifically discriminated against Irishmen with the prevalent catch phrase “No Irish Need Apply.” The popular drinking song of the same name propagated the idea of a violent, savage Irishman and established the cultural precedent of anti-Irish prejudice.
Below are some excerpts from Fredrick Anspach’s book The Sons of the Sires. This book from the Lutheran author is careful in not expounding too much on the conspiracy theories and established myths which obviously affect his opinion primarily upon Catholic immigrants, as well as of all non-American born people (except for black slaves and Native Americans). In the upper right corner of the image Anspach’s description of the behavior of an effective tyrant seemed to have some pertency today and appears to be quite accurate.
Here are some quotes broadly on preposterousness which I found edifying to my predispositions. I found the Grant quote rather outside of my whole theme here in that traditional government needs to be saved from outside forces wishing to dismantle it. Grant makes a good point about the needed evolution within government. He does not recommend doing away with it however. There is a treatise on stupid people which I found interesting to include, it from Wikipedia.
“It is folly for him who cannot command himself to think to command others.”
— Laberius.
Decimus Laberius (c. 105 BC – 43 BC) was a Roman eques and writer of mimes (farces). Laberius seems to have been a man of caustic wit, who wrote for his own pleasure. In 46 BC, Julius Caesar ordered him to appear in one of his own plays in a public contest with the actor Publilius Syrus. Laberius pronounced a dignified prologue on the degradation thus thrust on his sixty years, and directed several sharp allusions against the dictator, including apparently predicting Caesar's demise: Needs must he fear, who makes all else adread.
“Men love their ideas more than their lives. And the more preposterous the idea, the more eager they are to die for it. And to kill for it.”
— Edward Abbey
Edward Paul Abbey (January 29, 1927 – March 14, 1989) was an American author and essayist noted for his advocacy of environmental issues, criticism of public land policies, and anarchist political views. His best-known works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups, and the non-fiction work Desert Solitaire.
“Nobody knows, understands or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature does what he does. In fact there is no explanation - or better there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid.”
— Carlo M. Cipolla
Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.
These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
“It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies.”
- Ulysses S. Grant
Ulysses S. Grant ( born Hiram Ulysses Grant; April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885) was an American military officer and politician who served as the 18th president of the United States from 1869 to 1877. As commanding general, he led the Union Army to victory in the American Civil War in 1865 and thereafter briefly served as U.S. secretary of war. Later, as president, Grant was an effective civil rights executive who signed the bill that created the Justice Department and worked with Radical Republicans to protect African Americans during Reconstruction.
The following is a good writeup on the word and meaning of preposterous and absurdity, showing the distinction and stating where it has its place in life.
Word-of-the-day, by Danna Martínez
Sometimes we hear or say comments so disoriented from reality that all we think is, “Pff, That’s crazy!” or “No way,” or even “That’s preposterous.”
The word preposterous comes from the Latin praeposterus. This term refers to the strange, weird, crazy, illogical, or foolish.
Absurd is the opposite of reasonable. An object, subject, or situation can be classified as ridiculous when it is meaningless or makes no sense at all. The preposterous is opposed to rationalism and logic.
The “absurd” situations are relative. Thinking that something is absurd is a matter of each person’s perspective.
The things that are considered absurd vary from person to person. The preposterous is illogical, and what has logic for me maybe has no logic for someone else. At some point in our life, we may have done something that we were sure would turn out well. But, sometime later, we realized that what we did didn’t make any sense. This happens in different contexts: a little mischief, a fight with a loved one, or an inappropriate comment.
However, the relativity of the absurd not only depends on each person but society and its context.
Absurdness today is an irrational act.
The absurd is a concept that has gained importance in different fields of knowledge:
In literature, currents such as surrealism inspire the preposterous concept. It also provides a sense of humor and surprise.
In philosophy, the absurd provides a different reflection on the questions of existence and the meaning of life.
Humor and the absurd are closely related. In some ways, irrationality has played a fundamental role when it comes to laughter.
Preposterous ideas are part of our human actions. Living in society, we are used to recognizing specific standards. Daily life means for us to know the basic norms of coexistence as well as the indirect norms of civilization. For example, we understand that a late-model car does not cost $100. If somebody told us that it costs that amount, we would not believe it, and we would think that what that person said is “absurd.”
When we know the meaning or purpose of something, we understand it rationally. Conversely, when there is an absence in the finality of something, we would believe that it is absurd.
I found some helpful advice from the following blog on how to deal with preposterousness. This blogger is specifically writing on how students can deal with preposterous scientific or non-scientific ideas which one finds now constantly on the internet. I find that his three step approach may be valuable to learn and put into practice.
Tim Slater, University of Wyoming, Tim@CAPERteam.com
Suggested Citation: Slater, T. F. (2017, Aug). Proposing preposterous propositions for improving pedagogy. Society of College Science Teachers Blog.
An innovative approach to helping students learn to successfully become an informed skeptic in the scientific domain is to periodically propose preposterous propositions to students. Upon being challenged with a preposterous proposition, my students’ response tasks are three-fold.
First, and perhaps most important, is for students to identify precisely what evidence or data they need to see agree with or disagree with the preposterous propositions. Maybe that’s a table of data from the back of the textbook. Maybe it’s evidence that would need to be constructed from desperate data sources. Maybe it is just a single counter-factual. There are a lot of possibilities for students to mull over.
NOTE: In media interviews with MAGA Republicans, and in listening to their comments often based upon disinformation the interviewer seems never to ask them for their source of information. This in my view is a very bad mistake, this is being important data in which to have an actual starting point for meaningful discourse. I found this related to the first task listed above.
The second, and probably a little less important, is to use that evidence or data to disagree with the preposterous proposition. The reason I suggest that this second step is likely less important is because students learn relatively quickly over a few assignments that my preposterous propositions are almost always incorrect.
Again without comparing sources for information little is accomplished at this step in arguments with today’s Republican and misguided Democrats.
The third step, which typically takes just a few moments, is to reword the originally proposed preposterous proposition with an accurate, but still attention grabbing, short, replacement proposition. In the spirit of the Twitter-sphere, my requirement is that this corrected proposition be less than 140-characters, although I prefer that phrases sound like catchy-news headlines or, in contemporary student-speak, “click bait.”
Perhaps if the discussion gets to this step, actual solutions might become composed between separate viewpoints. Getting to this task is difficult and might require much patience and “stick-to-unous.”
43rd Posting, July 3, 2023