June 5th: A Young Man Goes to War - 1944 - Arthur F. Adams Jr.
2003, 120 Pages, Pick of the Litter
I saw this book at the thrift store and instantly knew I needed it. The war memoirs of a (very) young man, this was an interesting little slice of WWII. Drafted into the Army in 1944 at the age of 18, Arthur received “...a Readers Digest version of the war. In only 19 months he was drafted, trained as an infantry replacement, assigned to a division, sent to Europe, went into combat in Germany, was wounded, captured by the Germans, liberated and wounded again, recaptured, liberated again, hospitalized, assigned to a division that was to be trained for the invasion of Japan, and finally turned into a “fearless” military policeman.”
Sidenote: Somehow I just knew this book would have typos - by the physical copy of the book I could tell it was done with a “small production budget” - and I was right. Nonetheless, it was a great, short read and the typos didn’t subtract much, if anything, from the story.
While I normally read war memoirs partially for the gruesome, harrowing accounts of combat, this one was interesting in a different way. This guy wasn’t some gung-ho Marine that enlisted because he wanted to “kill me some (an antiquated term for the fine folk of Japan)” or an elite paratrooper who had a death wish for serving his patriotic duty to his country; he was a bit of a nerdy guy who liked repairing radios and could ride the Muni at half-fare because he looked like he was still a kid. But he got a letter in the mail and went to war to do what was asked of him.
As the quote above suggests, he had a bit of a goofy wartime; slightly reminiscent of Kurt Vonnegut’s absurdist WWII experience. Arthur goes off to boot camp and builds his physical body, discovering himself and what he can be; but he also discovers that you can avoid work detail on the weekends if you just walk around with a clipboard that has some random papers on it. He then gets to Europe and witnesses German V-1 missiles bombing Antwerp; but he also gets blind drunk with his Sergeant and has to sleep off the hangover the next day.
He then gets to the frontline of the Allied advance in Holland where he experiences real combat with casualties; but he also comments on how a lot of combat is boredom with the occasional bullet passing overhead and the farm animals completely oblivious in the fields. Then he gets wounded in a flanking run, captures some Germans who accidentally walked straight up to his platoon, sprays some Germans with his machine gun, gets surrounded, and surrenders.
His depiction of the POW camp can be read more as a deranged men’s camp than a horrific Rambo-esque torture den; even going so far as the US troops goose-stepping at reveille one morning to mess with the Germans. A lot of it seems less like enemies holding enemies captive and more like guys just doing the thing they’ve been told to do. Then he gets freed by Patton’s Army only to get ambushed, surrender again, and get freed again.
And all of this with so many exclamation points you would think he’s narrating it through a big, goofy grin. It really just went to show how strange and absurd war can be; almost like he was a bystander getting pushed around rather than participating.
Having said all that, there were still plenty of sections about casualties, the horrible conditions of POW camps, near brushes with death, and astute observations about the destruction of war. For example, one of the most distressing parts was his account of Russian and Eastern European prisoners; the Germans would just throw them a pot of food and let them fight over it while they slowly starved to death.
I think the general “goofiness” of his tone was due to his perspective at the time of writing his story. He was an elderly man that I bet liked to crack lots of jokes and lived life with a smile on his face; he was probably just happy to still be alive given his life’s story.
Lastly, it was just really interesting to read something written by a local man. While he lived in a few places throughout his life, by the time he settled and wrote this book, he was living in Palo Alto and La Selva Beach, California. Just goes to show you never know what your neighbor has been through if you don’t ask.
Mr. Adams passed away in Palo Alto in 2022.
June 25th: The Citizen’s Almanac - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
2014, 100 Pages, Pick of the Litter
In light of my current trudge through a massive fantasy book, and my recent partying that would fill the Founding Fathers with pride, I panickedly grabbed this little book off my shelf so I could have a second thing to write about from June. While I am fully aware the entire premise of this book is doused in white-washed history, bias, and propaganda, there were still plenty of interesting little tidbits and forgotten history to ponder. So here are some of my thoughts in no particularly cohesive manner:
One of the main themes in this book, as is immediately outlined, is the interplay between rights and responsibilities. While you may disagree with whether some of our rights are infringed or if all the responsibilities are justified, it is rather undeniable and important to remember. For example, the right of free speech comes with the responsibility of respecting the ideas of others; the right to bear arms comes with the responsibility of not endangering others; the right to vote in elections comes with the responsibility of staying informed.
On a side note, that I hope to elaborate on in a later post: If you pay attention to the language of our government and its founding documents, the rights of the people are not granted, bestowed, or given, they are established, enumerated, and preserved. This is because these “certain unalienable Rights” of humans are “endowed by their Creator”. No person can give another person a right; they are simply a part of the human experience and that truth is “self-evident”. Human rights exist regardless of citizenship; the "privilege" of US Citizenship is granted as the nation’s collective strength to protect those natural rights (at least in theory). Anyways…
In regards to some of our forgotten history, there is a section about Patriotic Anthems and Symbols. Now, I assume most people know The Star Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful, but have you read The New Colossus (“Give me your tired, your poor, Your Huddled masses…”), I Hear America Singing, and The Concord Hymn? I knew next to nothing about them and those are just a small sliver of the previously popular knowledge that has been lost by the general population.
On the topic of anthems and symbols, there’s a sub-chapter about the Pledge of Allegiance. For those that don’t know, this verse has been a bit controversial for a couple reasons. First, it’s a pseudo-religious cultish veneration of an inanimate object that can represent oppression and horrible acts for some people. But secondly, and this is what I want to touch on, is the 1954 addition of “under God” to the pledge, years after it was officially recognized by Congress in 1942. Some people see this addition as a violation of the separation of church and state and/or some sort of not-so-subtle inclusion of Christianity into our nation’s core. However, I have two counter-points to this argument.
Eisenhower, who signed the legislation to add “under God”, stated that this inclusion was to reaffirm “the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.” In a way, he is saying that there is an incorporeal, spiritual aspect to the American ethos that should not be forgotten, in order to maintain the fabric of our country. Whether you agree with him or not, it’s an interesting notion to ponder.
However, I find this next point to be more compelling: the idea of “one Nation under God” is not religious in nature but rather a statement of our country’s sovereignty.
When the revolution was first underway, one of our earliest flags was the Pine Tree Flag, which included the motto “An Appeal To Heaven”. This comes from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government (an influential text on our nation’s founding) where he says that in cases of oppression by one’s own government, when people have “no appeal on earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven”. Heaven being the dwelling of God, an appeal to heaven would be an appeal to God (which some of the flags actually said instead). This appeal bypasses the earthly authority of an unjust ruler, thereby placing the revolutionary directly under the authority of only God. In this context, a nation that is “under God” is a sovereign nation whose only higher authority they appeal to is that of God.
With that simple explanation out of the way, let’s turn to some statements made by past presidents.
On January 6, 1941 FDR stormed the US Capital Building… wait, wrong January 6… He actually made a famous speech called “The Four Freedoms”, which upon reading, I think has actually led to quite a lot of our modern problems, much more destructive than the recent “Jan. 6”. In it, he (unsurprisingly) calls for four freedoms: the “freedom of speech and expression”, the “freedom of every person to worship God in his own way”, the “freedom from want”, and the “freedom from fear”. While that might sound real nice and dandy, he ends each of those clauses with “everywhere in the world” (he actually ends the freedom from fear clause with “anywhere in the world” but who’s counting). Again, that may sound like a great sentiment, to go saving oppressed people all over the world, but I think that idea is flawed. Whether it comes specifically from FDR, that general sentiment has led the US down our long, arduous, life-costing foreign intervention road that has plagued us for the past 80+ years. Essentially, being the ‘global protector of human rights’ has given our government free license to go meddle in affairs that are actually none of our business, costing thousands of human lives in the process, destabilizing entire corners of the globe, and costing the US tax-payer much more than their fair share of financial pain.
And I don’t say this because I think it’s bad to help people in other countries, I say this because it has allowed our government to continue its buffet style of “helping other countries” while having a thin justification to veil it with. If FDR was honest when he said, “Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them”, then we would have troops covering about 80% of the globe and aid flowing damn-near everywhere. Instead, that justification is used to throw our support to where the arms dealers and politicians can make the biggest stack of cash while simultaneously ignoring the same justification with the other few billion people denied all four freedoms.
On January 20, 1961, JFK delivered his inaugural address. This speech is most known for the line, “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” Quite a famous sentence and sentiment, I was more intrigued by the following line, “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” I don’t know about you but I never read that one in my textbooks. And correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like he’s saying, “don’t ask America to fix the world if the world isn’t going to help fix itself too.”
Lastly, I want to touch on a couple presidential quotes about a super fun and lighthearted topic - immigrants.
There’s a few common themes the select quotes have: they all say immigrants are a long-standing, instrumental part to this nation, America is a beacon of hope to the world and land of opportunity where humans can strive for individual aims bound only by their own abilities, and this country welcomes all… assuming they assimilate. Here are some examples of that important latter caveat:
George Washington (1783)
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.”
Welcome to America; you get the good stuff… if you deserve it.
Thomas Jefferson (1801)
“Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules.”
You can join us… if you follow our rules.
Ulysses S. Grant (1874)
“The United States wisely, freely, and liberally offers its citizenship to all who may come in good faith to reside within its limits on their complying with certain prescribed reasonable and simple formalities and conditions.”
Citizenship is open to all… that comply with our “simple formalities and conditions”.
Grover Cleveland (1897)
“Heretofore we have welcomed all who came to us from other lands except those whose moral or physical condition or history threatened danger to our national welfare and safety.”
All can come… unless your way of life is dangerous to us.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1943)
“The principle on which this country was founded and by which it has always been governed is that Americanism is a matter of the mind and heart; Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry. A good American is one who is loyal to this country and to our creed of liberty and democracy.”
America is in the soul… and that soul better be aligned with America.
George W. Bush (2006)
“America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be a citizen… And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.”
This is a nation of humans, regardless of background, that make our country more American… not by simply being here but by embracing our ideals.
Perhaps I am reading too much into these words, or simply misreading them, but nonetheless I find the through-line across the ages to be apparent. Further, I find it funny how the idea that immigrants should assimilate is a bit controversial for me to even point out, when that idea has been normal and accepted for the past 200+ years (“when in Rome”?); and it also follows if you earlier agreed that rights come with responsibilities.
For that matter, much of what I just said in this book review has a tinge of controversy to it, despite most of it coming directly from a (supposedly) basic, entry-level book to being an American. Does that speak to my ideas and prejudices? Or more so to the zeitgeist of our populace? Perhaps both.
As I said, this book is obviously steeped in pro-state ideals and a cursory glance at history, like skimming a glass of clean water from a 100 foot deep lake that has dead bodies sunk to the bottom. Nonetheless, and I consider myself a decently educated citizen of America and its history, this book gave me new knowledge; and what I mentioned here is merely a fraction of the contents. Perhaps books like this should be read by more than just our newcomers.
Stats:
Total Books: 2
Average Year of Publication: 2008.5
Pages Read: 220
Pages A Day: 7.33
That first book sounds like a great find! The 2nd book obviously brings a lot of thoughts. The world has gotten smaller (I can walk around downtown New York, London, etc. and know so much) however there are so much basic history that we are forgetting.