I don't know that she should do it. She's a one-hit wonder with an all-time classic. Another book will do little to help her and could hurt her legacy if it is just mediocre. Sounds like a great opportunity for a publisher and promoter, but for her? She's not even in good mental health to decide. If she had had feedback from constructive critics who approved of the move that's another story. There's nothing in the article to indicate this either way.
I read about this this morning, pretty exciting. It's interesting that this is the original book she wrote and that her editor liked the flashbacks so much he persuaded her to write To Kill a Mockingbird. I sure hope history was kind to my sons namesake.
I hope so too. The blurb actually sounds a bit ominous. There, according to the publisher's announcement, "she is forced to grapple with issues both personal and political as she tries to understand her father's attitude toward society, and her own feelings about the place where she was born and spent her childhoood." I hope Atticus didn't become a neocon or something.The new book will be intricately tied to Lee's first. Scout, the little girl at the heart of To Kill a Mockingbird, returns home two decades later as an adult in Go Set a Watchman. She has left New York City for Maycomb, Ala., in order to visit her father, Atticus.
The meaningful difference was that communists were actually a thing then, and it was their stated goal to make communism the world's system. We can look back and strongly disagree with many of the methods they employed, but they had a legit enemy and were right to oppose them. Today's neocons lack such an enemy and have used terrorists as their strawman to fight for world corporatism.
True. But most of our actual intervention in the '50s was -- well, not as completely unnecessary as this decade's, but very close. I'm in the historical camp that thinks we had the threat of communism way overblown, whether men like Dulles were lying to themselves or just propagating their own power intentionally. There was some threat, sure, but in a lot of ways the threat was manufactured.
The historical camp is irrelevant, as that has the benefit of hindsight. Those in power were operating with limited knowledge at the time, but what they did know was that Stalin had increased his sphere of influence many times over in the aftermath of WWII, and that he completely ruined all of Eastern Europe, decimating their economies and enslaving millions of people. That's not manufactured propaganda; that's historical fact. This may not in itself be a justification for our nonsense in Latin America and Southeast Asia, but in my opinion it's a bit unfair to call communism overblown. The world could have been a much better place in the 20th had Stalin not taken over Eastern Europe (to say nothing of Mao's nastiness, but of course China wasn't really a security threat to us at that time). All that said, there's certainly no denying that many individuals and corporations used the threat of communism as a pretext to rob a lot of sovereign nations of a lot of national wealth.
Well, I disagree. Hindsight may make blame irrelevant or unfair for the reasons you list (although I wouldn't go that far), but it definitely doesn't mean we can't use our position in the aftermath to discern the truth. And since our politicians' foreign policy has often been used not only to react to international events but also (even primarily sometimes) as a domestic power play... it does not seem farfetched. Speaking of, nothing has changed. Don't forget Africa. The thing is, there's just not a whole lot of evidence (being nice, here) that the communist grassroots movements in any of those places had anything concrete to do with the mother country. In many places they existed as local factions. There's even some evidence that by drawing the Soviets' attention to those localities, we merely encouraged them to foment whatever anti-American/nationalist/populist ideology they noticed lying around. Arguing counterfactuals never gets anywhere, though. Not sure what really happened. I just don't think it unlikely that we exaggerated the threat. If we did so out of fear (as some assuredly did), that's excusable. But if we also did so to cement power selfishly (as I would heavily bet was the case -- hell, remember Kissinger and Vietnam), whole different animal.The historical camp is irrelevant, as that has the benefit of hindsight.
This may not in itself be a justification for our nonsense in Latin America and Southeast Asia, but in my opinion it's a bit unfair to call communism overblown. The world could have been a much better place in the 20th had Stalin not taken over Eastern Europe (to say nothing of Mao's nastiness, but of course China wasn't really a security threat to us at that time).
Finally got around to reading that link. These guys make me breathe a heavy sigh. There's a key difference between then and now. It's a big difference that no politician ever will admit to, because the Big Lie is dependent on it. That is that no amount of Islamic extremism is an existential threat. John Kerry got crucified in the 2004 election for suggesting that America's goal in the "War on Terror" should be to reduce the level of terrorism to a nuisance. Lesson learned for politicians. But it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were very much (and remain so, so long as they have stockpiles of Nukes) an existential threat to the whole West (just as we're an existential threat to the world, should we ever want to take that tack). Walker is a moron of the highest order. The dude didn't even finish college--even Ms. Palin got that far. I applaud the reporter for going for the throat when challenging him to clarify what he means, but still, implicit in her questioning is the idea that something must be done. Until we define a strategic mission (e.g. protect key oil fields; serve humanitarian ends, etc.), then tactical operations are meaningless and wasteful. So far, I haven't read anything to assuage my fear that we don't actually have a strategic goal in Syria (other than the vagueness of "bringing stability to the region", whatever that nonsense phrase means). Walker likely isn't smart enough to understand much of this, as he doesn't seem to have a decent grasp of history. My guess is that he's just treading water, trying not to say anything too dense until his handlers educate him on what line to toe. Just a guess.
But it doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were very much (and remain so, so long as they have stockpiles of Nukes) an existential threat to the whole West (just as we're an existential threat to the world, should we ever want to take that tack). Very true. Terror is not a truly existential threat, and nukes are. But the outbreak of nuclear war is different from the spread of "communism" (really, nationalist populism) which America spent so much time and money combating from 1950-1975. The nuclear arsenal was the threat. The ideology was never as intoxicating in the third world as we made it out to be. (In my opinion.) Nor did the latter affect the former, except in rare cases -- Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps. I think you're right about Walker. I've heard it said that Obama didn't win the election; Romney lost it. The GOP nomination may therefore go to the guy who generates the least "stupidity" press. I don't think Walker has a shot unless something strange happens, but he clearly thinks he does. I don't know that I want us to have goals in Syria. Even those Washington insiders with a strong grasp of history can't really distinguish between good and bad over there. It's only going to get worse in 2015, though. War Nerd notwithstanding, this seems to be the Year of ISIS so far, at least if you ask the media. We'll see.There's a key difference between then and now. It's a big difference that no politician ever will admit to, because the Big Lie is dependent on it. That is that no amount of Islamic extremism is an existential threat. John Kerry got crucified in the 2004 election for suggesting that America's goal in the "War on Terror" should be to reduce the level of terrorism to a nuisance. Lesson learned for politicians.