Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 28, 1970 - Image 5

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-10-28

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Wednesday, October

28, 1970


Posg Five



Arthur W. Thompson and
Robert A. Hart, THE UNCER-
LUTION OF 1905, University
of Massachusetts Press, $6.50.
One of the first lessons the
student of American history
learns about foreign policy is
that from the very beginning it
was based on what was consider-
ed national self-interest, not
ideological commitments. It is
ironic that a nation which was
based on revolution and help
from abroad has not in turn
helped revolutionary movements
in Europe. Just eleven' years
after its own revolution America
showed the world, and pafticu-
larly France, that the Republic's
adherence to republicanism did
not extend beyond its Eastern

border and most certai
not transcend national ;
Author W. Thompson
died after doing resear
the book but before it v
tually written leaving th
perhaps more shallowt
was intended to be) and
A. Hart explore the Ar
response to the Russiana
to overthrow the Tzar i
They find that early
struggle, before 1905, Am
both aofficial and non-
seemed unanimously opp
the Tzar and 'in support
Russian attempt at rev
Clearly the Tzar was ti
personification of evil a
symbol of all that Amer
posed. The U.S. governme
a letter of protest to Ru
the time of the progrs
1903. Roosevelt support
Japanese in their early su

ny did against Russia and had the
self in- Navy Department prepare plans
for possible action at Viadivo-
' (who stok. The American public fav-
ch for ored the revolution, held mass
was ac- meetings in support, sent peti-
ie book tions, and wrote editorials call-
than it ing for a Russian "1776."
Robert But as time passed so did
merican America's passion for the Rus-
attempt sian Revolution. As Roosevelt
n 1905. began to see Japan as the "yel-
in the low peril," he no longer felt a
ericans, Russian Revolution was the na-
official, tional interest. (The government
osed to was noticably mute on the
of the bloody programs of 1905, prob-
olution. ably the worst in Russian his-
he very tory.) Editorials ceased support
nd the of the revolution and began to
ica op- portray the Tzar as a moderate
ent sent and the Revolutionaries as the
assia at source of Russia's troubles.
ams of Thompson and Hart show
ed the clearly that "American public
accesses opinion" switched from a warm

support of a revolution to open
hostility around 1905. The auth-
ors imply that as the Russian
revolution came closer to being
a reality, for many Americans it
began to look more like the
Pullman Strike and less like the
Boston Tea Party. The public
began to see the revolutionaries
looking more like Eugene Debs
and Big Bill Haywood and less
like good middle class gentle-
man revolutionaries like George
Washington and John Adams
(Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow
After reading The Uncertain
Crusade one does not really
know why the American public
turned against the Revolution
of 1905. The book unfortunate-
ly fails to pose an answer to,
the question which it raises.
Thompson and Hart's method
of arriving at "public opinion,"
is pai'tially responsible for this



New Plans to save the Brtish Hedgerow

Nan Fa irbr other, NEW
Afred Knopf, $12.50.
A warning: By rational;
American standards, Britain is
replete with preposterous
contradictions and absurdities.
From the people who brought
you the country manor and the
endlessly intriguing hedgerow
agricultural landscape came also,
the, urbanized society and the
industrial wasteland. The cities
that offer crescents of Georgian
townhouses invented the work-
ing class slum. The society that
worshipped Adam Smith nur-
tured Karl Marx. And the em-
pire famous for its nonsetting
sun now sjees precious little of it.
These h i s t o r i c a l contrasts
(which indeed heighten an
alien's experience) combined
with sharp cultural and environ-
mental differences between Bri-
tain and America, do not re-
quire a wholesale adoption of

the large - scale environmental
planning ideas offered in Miss
Fairbrother's book.
This is probably why it is a
rather good book. The author is
not trying to save the world--
only the English landscape. A
professional landscape architect
and writer, well acquainted with
the natural setting of the coun-
try, with a background that in-
cludes considerable rural experi-
ence, she is well-equipped to
deal with the geographical con-
text at hand. Yet underlying
her specific proposals for con-
serving and improving particu-
lar snatches of the British
scene are a number of philoso-
phical stands and conceptual
notices which we might do well
to import.
Miss Fairbrother recognizes
the greater mobility, productive
capacity and increased leisure of
our New Lives as positive quali-
ties provided they can also be
lived properly. They require new
landscapes w h i c h respect his-
torical continuity and the her-

itage o
biles a
links i
a mean
an aes
are no
they a
eral, th
as to3
the bo
only th
use imi

f the past but do 'not re-
into clumps of phony
ethan preserves. Automo-
md roads are seen as vital
n a rural transport and
nic system. They serve as
ns of providing uncrowded
ble recreation and also as
sthetic experience. ("The
apes of fast roads are al-
moving, but our design
ence is of static condi-
Industry and new towns
t bad in themselves, but
re only as good as the
vity of their designers.
pylons-no longer apolo-
grey, but painted proud
like cranes to display
airy elegance.") In gen-
hough I am not quite sure
how it is to be effected,
ok espouses a remarkably
auvinistic something-for-
ody spirit.
ceptually, the a u t h o r
a good distinction be-
land-use planning and
ape planning. In practice.
e former has usually been
ered. But specifying land-
pies only what sits on top
land and does not deal
local ecological relation-
or an integrated aesthetic
. We n e e d landscape
rng to define these char-
tics and we also need gen-
d categories of land-use
keep up with population
rents, economic develop-
and their resultant geo-
c trends.
r major land-use types are
ted: the Built-up Urban
cape, the province of man-
surfaces, architecture, and
Yindoor activities; the
- urban Landscape, the

limbo of suburbs, former green-
belts and encroaching city; the
New Farming Landscape, which
is increasingly organized for
large scale modernized agricul-
ture; and the Man-made Wild,
largely outdoor recreational land
with some grazing and forestry.
To complement these land-use
distinctions, a four-point plan
for landscape planning is pre-
sented. This encompasses land-
scape organization, which fo-
cuses on well-designed diversity
(much like Jane Jacobs' cities) ;
landscape pattern, which im-
plies large scale vegetational
groupings to separate land-use
categories; landscape material,
which concerns the utilization
of local resources in planting
and building; and landscape
texture, which chiefly involves
creating plant groupings which
respect natural processes and
afford easy maintainance.
Abstract ideas are substanti-
ated with many illustrations and
p 1 e a s a n t vignettes sprinkled
throughout the book including
many fine photographs and
cartoons. Nevertheless the text
is given to unnecessary repeti-
tion and rambling and could
probably have been shorter and
better organized. When it comes
to specific concrete proposals,
Miss Fairbrother is somewhat
limited to the effective use of
trees and shrubs - though she
has managed to increase my
understanding of their impor-
It is encouraging to see a
landscape architect go so far
afield as the author in continu-
ally looking at the whole society
and its dynamics for her ideas
rather than through the narrow
blinders of a single academic

discipline. But she has probably
not gone far enough. New Lives
are taken as essentially given
and she is neither prone to dis-
cern damaging trends such as
the anonymity of cities, nor
consider the feedback her New
Landscapes w o u 1 d have on
Lives! Furthermore, there is no
discussion of how she would
make her ideas politically tract-
able. Good intentions are by no
means legislative winners.
If you are part of the growing
breed of progressive ecologists,
the book is well worth reading.
Likewise, if you just like brisk
scoutmistressly language. Yet it
is essential to remember, when
thinking of the States, that it
rains everywhere in Britain, that
in Britain public utilities have
occasionally buried their lines
voluntarily, and that the photo-
graphs of middle aged couples
in full business suits sipping tea
while siting on portable lawn
chairs by the side of a rural
lane were probably not included
for satirical purposes. The Brit-
ish economy may have its peren-
nial tired blood, but not the
British culture. I have, met a
sizeable number of respectable
bourgeoisie who do not have a
yen for Holiday Inns, Meadow-
lark subdivisions, or power
mowers and Astroturf.

failure. The authors, while ad-
mitting that public opinion is
difficult to determine, confine
themselves "only to opinions
stated editorially in selected
organs of the press." (69) They
discover that "out of 56 impor-
tant general circulation maga-
zines and newspapers, 49 defi-
nitely had favored the revolu-
tion in January 1905. By Decem-
ber of the same year 42 of the
49 could be counted as support-
ers of the Tzar's regime." (69)
By cQnfinirng themselves to the
press the authors avoid the long
standing problems about the re-
lationship between the press and.
"real" public attitudes. And then
do not distinguish between the'
public and the press in the rest
of the book when they refer to
the American attitude.
The authors show that while
U.S. socialists and Jews consis-
tantly supported the revolution
and opposed the Tzar, many
editorials went to the other ex-
treme. The Nation for example
criticized American Jews for
complaining about internal Rus-
sian affairs (ie. the programs):
"we should certainly resent it if
Russia asked us to put a stop to
lynching." (115) the more re-
ligiously oriented Standard and
Times expressed the feeling that
"Programs . . . were the only
logical way to deal with those
'universally hated people . . .!"
(75) After the events of Easter,
1905 the. Tzar decreed religious
freedom for all Russians except
the Jews. The authors suggest
that it was this act which was
responsible for the positive at-
titude to the - Tzar expressed by
the American religious press.
Clearly events like the Easter
Ukase did effect the attitudes
of some Americans towards Rus-
sia; and as the revolution be-
came more militant it is not
surprising t h a t American lib-
erals became more afraid. How-
ever, after reading The Uncer-
tain Crusade I am still not sure
what actually did change the
unofficial American attitude to-
ward Russia. Certainly, as the
authors state in their last chap-
ter, the Russian revolution of
1905 remained a liberal demo-
cratic revolution long after Am-
erica had abandoned it. Later.
when it became radical in na-
ture, America had long, before
abandoned the revolutionary
cause and had supported the

Tzar, (exception here is of the
socialists and Jews). The auth-
ors explain convincingly why
those Americans with Russian
investments supported the Tzar,
but they do not explain the
change in attitudes among those
without any economic commit-
ments in Tzarist Russia.
The book raises an important
point concerning the govern-
ment's reaction to the revolu-
tion, but does not pursue the
implications of the official re-
action and public opinion. Be-
fore 1905 Roosevelt felt that a
strong Russia was a threat to
America's national interest in
Asia. Accordingly, he supported
both a liberal Russian revolu-
tion and the Japanese successes
in the Russo-Japanese war. Af-
ter Japan proved to be' more
than just a counter-force to an
expansionistic Russia, Roosevelt,
altered his view of both Japan
and the Russian revolution. The
miserable Tzar became a sym-.
path'etic Christian, and the lib-
eral revolutionaries (along with
the already damned radicals)
became insane bomb-throwing
anarchists (not that Russia was
without a few of these!)
Feeling that he would rather
have a relatively strong Tzarist
Russia than a weak liberal (hea-
ven forbid radical!) republican
Russia to oppose Japan in Asia,
Roosevelt engineered a peace .
between Russia and Japan at
Portsmouth - a peace which
many felt was the doom of a
Russian revolution. At the same
time the government publicly
changed its attitude toward the
Tzar and the revolutionists.
Shortly after the government
changed in attitude toward Rus-
sia, the American public began
to change their attitude. The
authors unfortunately do not
explore the relationship between
the official attitude'of the gov-
ernment and the public atti-
kIn the opinion of this review-
em, this study, the peculiar and
unaccountable change in the
American attitude toward Rus-
sia, could easily have led the
authors to an understanding be-
tween official attitudes and
public opinion. The leading
journals and papers from which


the authors attempt to gain an
understanding a b o u t public
opinion were not totally remov-
ed from the same world view
that Roosevelt expressed. Many
of them were in sympathy with
his domestic and foreign policy
and may well have changed their
attitudes in order to be in agree-
ment with the President. To-
day's Nixonites, especially the
Vice President, are well aware
of the power of the President
and other leading officials to
change or mold public opinion.
Unfortunately, the book fails to
fulfill its potential. We are left
knowing that there was a pro-
found change in what the au-
thors define as the American
opinion, but of the origin of
that opinion we know no more
at the end'of the study than at
the beginning.
The authors feel thatAmerica
despite her attitude would never
have helped the ,Russian revo-
lution. Our sympathy, at most,
would have confined itself to
parties for visiting revolution-
aries and editorials. With the
exception of the Socialists, who
had an ideological comm'itment
to the Russian revolutionaries,
and the American Jews, who had
an ethnic tie with the oppres-
sed in Russia, Americ s com.-
mitment to the revolution, in
the minds of the authors, was
a fad. It was part of the enthu-
siasm of the progressive move-
ment. But since it was only a
fad, it became stale. Americans
became bored with the revolu-
tion and its revolutioiaries. The
authors feel that since America
wasl never going to make a ma-
jor commitment to the revolu-
tion, it should never have made
its original vague offers.
Although the book does not
come to terms fully with the
reason behind the change in
opinion, except for the hypothe-
sis that the revolution was a
fad (a thesis which does not ex-
plain the change), it does shad
some rather embarrassing light
on some of our past national
leaders; for example the anti-
semetic remarks of both Roose-
velt and Root. It also points out
America's appalling lack of con-
cern for Jews at the turn of the
century, when her supposed
self-interest was at stake.

Cl osed
William Rodgers, THIN

.K: A

Think is a disappointment.
Although the cover notes prom-
ise a revelation of racism, sex-
ism and corporate madness the
book itself is little more than
a 340 page gossip column.
IBM has progressed in less
than half a century into one of
the world's most profitable cor-
porations. As the world's larg-
est non-union company it em-
ploys 250,000 people, half of
them college graduates and it
is worth more, quite literally,
than Fort Knox. Through a
holding company, "World Trade
Corporation" IBM has wholly
owned subsidiaries in 105 coun-
tries, none of them owned in
any part by indigenous nation-
als. Through ingenious political
maneuvering IBM has 'sunk
computer company after com-
puter company until is has
reached a near monopolistic po-
sition in the production of com-
puter hardware. And by even
greater political skill IBM has
ignored or circumvented dozens
of laws in as many countries
requiring indigenous stock own-
ership and control.
The book does not provide the
reader with more than a bare
minimum of information on
these, and other transgressions
by the company. Rodgers makes
criticism after criticism without
enough, or any, supporting facts
or figures.
To understand the true na-
tureof corporations, such as
IBM one requires a multitude
of information. It is a failure of
this book that despite its size
it is less Hof an indictment of
IBM than one of the company's
own annual reports. Oh, sure,
the book offers fascinating
glimpses of the internal power
struggles and the "joe College"
old school tie network that runs
the company but it.is not suf-
ficient evidence to justify the
For the student body:
A rr.- 1

of the
rporation, with I
accusations the author makes. planni
He will haye to do better than acteris
that. eralize
Perhaps the most satisfactory, which
and irrelevant, part of the book movei
is' the first half which is de- ment,
voted almost entirely to a bi- graphi
ography of IBM's founder, Foui
Thomas J. Watson,\ The story sugges
of the country bumpkin made Lands(
good is a fascinating glimpse of made
one man's rise into the "rich" chiefly
and from there into the "super- Green
rich." So what?<-
Ferdinand Lundberg in his two
books America's Sixty Families
and The Rich and the Super--
Rich provided more than suf-
ficient information on each of
his targets and it is quite ob-
vious that Rodgers has read
those books and attempted to
emulate them by writing Think
as an in-depth study of just one
of them.
Rodgers has regrettably failed
and it remains an open market
for anyone wishing to blow the
lid off the IBM myth.

is one of the many topics you can find in our
complete selection of hardcover and paper-
back books.

0 0 fl oor
"' ptcka
CO'+t 0c~skssvm
' Poa ror

- '

4'hat a night.
A/hat a tradition.
W/hat a concert!,
Men's Glee Club
Men's Glee Club

Maple Village, Shopping Center
(next to Fox Village Theatre)
Open every night till 9:00


Today's Writers ..
John Cumbler, a graduate
student in the history depart-
ment, specializes in r e c e n t
American history. Jack Eich-
enbaum, a Ph.D. candidate in
geography, spent a year in
Engla'kl learning to like warm
beer. Jonathan Miller, a Daily
reporter, boasts the unique cre-
dentials of joint British-Cana-
dian citizenship and detests


t zippidytr"doo jumpsuits
t )Sy'
for Muss J form one ,>




8:00 P.M.




THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29-10:00-12:00 A.M.
"The Fiscal Crisis the State
an interdisciplinary conference sponsored by the
Department of Economics
Marxist Political Economist, San Jose State College
Prof. Harvey Brazer, University of Michigan
Prof. William Neenon, University of Michigan

sleeky-smooth line in acrylic
knit with zipped-up fronts.

Red, brown or black. 5-13 sizes.
A. The sleeveless style with
double diagonal zippers.
B. Turtleneck jumpsuit.

'ft 4%A rUhUAL

-~ J,~

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan