The Wolfe Affair: Nationalist Networking on the Celtic Fringe

1870 Atlas Map of Ireland and Scotland by Samuel A. Mitchell.

(This essay has been cross-posted at Irish Diplomatic History.)

On Tuesday, 18 September 1962, a Scottish nationalist politician named William Wolfe and an Irish government diplomat and civil servant named Con Cremin met in Dublin, Ireland, for a late dinner. Having never previously met, they talked into the evening about recent European politics and economics, presumably ate some food, and agreed to talk again on Friday the 21st for a follow-up to a small request Wolfe was making of the Irish government.

This is a fairly insignificant nugget of historical ephemera that, in most circumstances, would not register in the broader historical record. After all, the human past is littered with moments similar to this that leave no historical traces or remnants behind for historians to investigate, interpret, and impart meaning upon. They are simply lost in time like tears in rain.

However, this particular dinner has left behind a paper trail in the archives. This is because the circumstances of Wolfe and Cremin’s meeting were not without some subdued political controversy. Even more serendipitous, both men reported back to their respective political masters– for Wolfe, the National Council of the Scottish National Party (SNP), of which he was a member, and for Cremin, the Irish government of Fianna Fáil Taoiseach Seán Lemass — providing written descriptions of what they discussed and their views on the other.

What follows then in this post is an examination of this late night meal between Wolfe and Cremin — or more appropriately, its surviving archival record. My reasons for exploring this are twofold, one scholarly and the other less so. First, it is important for scholars working on the history of the modern British Isles to keep the transnational interconnectedness of regional politics and diplomacy in mind when doing their work. Second, part of the fun and the frustration of doing historical work is needing to weigh differing descriptions of the same historical event.

Irish or Welsh or English political activity did not take place in a hermetically-sealed bubble; in fact, the various political actors in the region were talking with each other, passing on information, ideas, suggestions, and other kinds of aid. That is to say, there was and is a transnational political culture in the British Isles that has become more prominent as globalization and the information age has shrunk distances between people and places. This meeting between Wolfe and Cremin represents one small example of a wider phenomenon often obscured by a parochial focus on national histories. And this dinner, with its surviving dual accounts, offers an interesting lesson in how historians go about evaluating and interpreting conflicting primary source materials.

In other words, I am making a small point about transnational politics in the British Isles in the 1960s and engaging in an intellectual exercise for fun. Welcome to the weird fixations of a historian.

————

Letters and Correspondence of the Wolfe Affair.

L’Affaire Wolfe began with an innocuous letter to the Irish Taoiseach from Ian MacDonald, the National Organizer of the SNP. Dated 22 August 1962 and on SNP stationary, the letter requests a meeting for mid-September between Wolfe – described by MacDonald as “our candidate in the recent West Lothian by-election, when we forced the Unionists and Liberals to lose their deposits” – and either Lemass himself or another representative of the Fianna Fáil government. The SNP’s reason for requesting a meeting with the Irish Taoiseach was, as the letter states, “so that we may get some indication of your attitude to Scottish independence, and an idea as to how far you would be prepared to support us.”1

Innocuous as it may seem on the surface, the MacDonald letter caused some consternation in the Office of the Taoiseach. A handwritten notation on the letter from N.S. Ó’Nualláin, the Secretary to the Government and chief civil servant, suggests asking the Department of External Affairs (DEA) for advice on how to reply. In the subsequent official request to External Affairs, dated 24 August 1962, Ó’Nualláin noted that the only previous correspondence they could find that was at all relevant was two letters from the Scottish National Congress, dated to 1956-57, asking for the Irish government’s aid in bringing Scotland’s case for independence from the United Kingdom before the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. This was not the same organization as the SNP and thus offered no useful precedents for a reply.2

After a few weeks delay, External Affairs responded in a letter dated 11 September 1962. Written by Con Cremin as Secretary to the Department, the letter suggests that Wolfe “should be received at a fairly high level,” but then goes on to question whether “it would be appropriate for the Taoiseach to see him.” It then recommends having either a member of the Dáil or Seanad (the Irish houses of parliament), or an official in External Affairs meet with Wolfe.3

On 12 September 1962, Ó’Nualláin wrote to Ian MacDonald, apologized for the delay in responding, and indicated that Wolfe would be free to meet with Cremin in place of the Taoiseach. To explain why Wolfe could not meet with Lemass himself, Ó’Nualláin explained that the Taoiseach “while, naturally, sympathetic … is unable to see how he could take any effective action to support your Party until the people of Scotland, by a majority, have demonstrated their desire for the constitutional change which he understands that your Party have in mind.”4

In a written response dated 13 September 1962, MacDonald accepted the meeting with Cremin on behalf of Wolfe before finishing up with a mild response: “While I agree that the Taoiseach is unlikely to be able to take any effective action at the present moment, I feel sure that we may be able to get some advice on various aspects of the future development of our Party.”5

————

Sean Lemass on the cover of Time Magazine, 12 July 1963.

So, what was going on in this brief flurry of letters and ministerial notes? What exactly was the chief difficulty? The short answer is, of course, politics, but there was more going on than simply political gamesmanship or the managing of an uncomfortable political situation.  It is not much of an exaggeration to suggest that a high profile meeting between the Irish Taoiseach and a representative of the SNP in the early 1960s could have spawned a diplomatic incident between Ireland and Great Britain. The reason for this was nationalism, or more specifically, the seemingly burgeoning threat the Scottish nationalist movement represented to the British constitutional system.

In the early 1960s, the Scottish nationalist movement entered a period of dynamic growth and development that would last well into the 1970s. During this, the SNP transformed itself from, in the words of Scottish historian Christopher Harvie, “a resilient little sect” into an organized political party built to contest and win parliamentary elections.6  This transformation included not only instilling new levels of professionalism, organization, finance, and policy analysis in the party as a whole, but also extending the party’s connections with various nationalist movements and other sympathetic political groups throughout Europe. The SNP’s outreach to the Irish government was merely an extension of this activity, i.e. nationalist networking.

Ideologically speaking, the Irish Government under Lemass’s Fianna Fáil Party should have been rather sympathetic to the goals of the SNP, and by all accounts, it generally was. The Party’s background was one firmly rooted in the anti-Anglo-Irish Treaty camp. As such, under the guidance of Taoiseach Eamon de Valera, it played a key role in reshaping the Irish Free State around a populist Irish Republicanism that sought to weaken and eventually remove British political ties to Ireland. Therefore, Fianna Fáil was the sort of successful nationalist party the emerging SNP wanted to connect with, if only to gain advice on how to grow and develop their own nationalist party and achieve independence from Britain they way Ireland had (although presumably without the violence of the Anglo-Irish War). Both sides understood this dimension very well. In fact, according to Wolfe, during their dinner meeting, Cremin openly acknowledged just that: “Mr. Cremin gave me to understand that the Fianna Fáil Party would probably be very sympathetic with the aims of the S.N.P. In fact, any Irish Party in power would probably be just as sympathetic as Fianna Fáil.”7

However, for the Lemass Government, there was very little upside to having the Taoiseach publicly meet with a representative from the SNP. Anglo-Irish relations in the early 1960s were moving through a slow burn normalization process after years of tension related to past conflicts over Irish independence, neutrality, and partition.8  This normalization mainly took place within the context of Britain and Ireland’s first applications to join the European Economic Community (EEC); that is to say, relations between the two governments grew less contentious as problems with overcoming French resistance and attaining EEC membership forced them to work more closely and cooperatively. Lemass suddenly appearing to give public aid and comfort to a minority political independence movement inside Britain could have disrupted the thawing bilateral relationship with the British, which in turn could have damaged his wider economic modernization goals.

————

William "Billy" Wolfe in 1963.

So what of the mid-September dinner meeting between Wolfe and Cremin then? Both men provided written reports dated early October 1962 on their encounter to their superiors. Each report describes the circumstances of the meeting’s origins before turning to a substantive discussion of the meeting’s topics and contents. However, this is where the reports begin to differ, not necessarily about the factual details, but rather on the relative importance each man placed on the various topics of conversation and the goals of the meeting.

Wolfe’s report, labeled at the top “Private and Confidential,” is nearly four single-spaced pages of detailed description, exploring his dinner with Cremin along with a follow-up meeting the Irish civil servant arranged for him with Dr. Donal McCarthy, the then director of the Irish Government’s Central Statistics Office (CSO). In it, Wolfe provides basic historical background on Cremin, Lemass, and a few other figures in Irish politics, presumably as context and information for the other members of the SNP’s National Council. The remainder of Wolfe’s report consists of observational commentary on what he and Cremin discussed over dinner.

Wolfe had nothing but praise for Cremin, describing him as “obviously a man of great experience” and later “a very shrewd observer of the World political scene.” As to what they spoke off, Wolfe denotes several distinct topics, including Britain and Ireland’s attempt to join the EEC; the situation in Northern Ireland and whether EEC membership would provoke movement on Irish reunification; the benefits of Scotland entering the EEC as an independent nation; the role of the Roman Catholic Church in Irish politics; odds on the Conservative Government in Britain surviving much beyond 1964; Gaelic language policy; and, strangely enough, Canadian politics (brought up partly in how it related to EEC and Commonwealth concerns for Britain).9

There are some interesting little conversational gems buried in Wolfe’s report. In mooting the idea of SNP representatives meeting with de Valera instead of Lemass, Wolfe describes the aging Irish President as the “G.O.M. of Irish politics and the ‘Father’ of Fianna Fáil…[who] apparently takes a very long view of politics nowadays, in fact some of his colleagues apparently think that his view is much too long.” In discussing Scotland’s potential as an independent nation in the EEC, Wolfe writes that Cremin assured him that Scotland would find support not only from small European countries for them but also from France, where “educated French people definitely regard Scotland as a separate nation.” Amusingly, Wolfe also notes some choice comments Cremin apparently made about US diplomats on the world stage at the time: “Mr. Cremin also passed some remarks about the Americans whom he thought were rather naïve in World politics and who had made many serious blunders and who had much to learn about or in the acquisition of diplomatic and political polish in the conduct of their international affairs.”

————

The cover to Niall Keogh's biography on Con Cremin and his career during the Second World War.

Cremin’s report on the meeting is rather different.10 Addressed specifically to Ó’Nualláin in the Office of the Taoiseach, it is a more terse and to the point document. He describes Wolfe as “extremely agreeable and sensible” while also noting that he was not as obnoxiously nationalistic in his conversation as he might otherwise have been (or as Cremin diplomatically put it, “without any extravagance in the expression of the nationalist opinions which he obviously sincerely holds”). As to what they specifically discussed, Cremin dismisses most of it thusly: “We had naturally a long conversation from which, however, nothing of particular note emerged.” The contrast with Wolfe’s more expansive topic by topic breakdown is striking, albeit not particularly surprising, considering the relative differences between the two men’s official positions and their differing goals for the meeting’s outcome.

However, what Cremin does focus the rest of his report on are the two issues that had gripped the upper echelons of the Government while deciding whether to accept the meeting. These were: 1) what specifically Wolfe and the SNP wanted from the Irish Government; and 2) whether or not they could or should actually help the SNP.

According to both reports, Wolfe and the SNP sought the Irish Government’s help in developing a set of national financial statistics for Scotland. Presumably this was in order to have a basis for more effectively comparing the position of Scotland to the other Celtic Fringe areas of the British Isles and demonstrate that the region was financially worse off because of its subservient role in the United Kingdom. Cremin mentions that he promised Wolfe he would look into the matter and then brought the issue before the Taoiseach the next day. As he also notes, his advice to Lemass was to “put Mr. Wolfe in touch with Dr. [Roy] Geary [then Director of the Economic Research Institute in Dublin] — which would have the double advantage of his making contact with a competent body which is not official.” Lemass agreed, or as Cremin put it, “The Taoiseach felt that we could at least go this far.” Obviously, the diplomatic optics of the situation were still very much on their minds.

————

In the end, the archival record remains stubbornly silent as to whether this encounter produced much of anything (although with further research…). Dr. Geary was apparently away on vacation, which necessitated the back-up meeting Wolfe had on the following Friday with Dr. McCarthy at the CSO that both Wolfe and Cremin briefly comment on in their reports.  Beyond that, the only remaining archival remnant is a fulsome thank you letter, dated 28 September 1962 that Wolfe sent to Cremin. In it, the SNP man thanks Cremin for the “help and useful advice” he and Dr. McCarthy had given to him. Wolfe then ends on a wistful note: “Now that we have established a link with you I sincerely hope that it will be strengthened and that the day is not too far distant when you will have an ‘opposite number’ in Scotland.”11

Time and political developments in the UK have yet to confirm Wolfe’s hopeful prediction, although the existence of an SNP First Minister in a devolved Scottish Parliament and an independence referendum on the horizon does speak to some fairly significant changes in the political fortunes of Scottish nationalism lately. However, in 1962, such issues were well in the future. Instead, the focus then was on movement building, of which nationalist networking throughout the British Isles was only one particular facet. The Wolfe Affair reflects an early attempt by a young nationalist movement to reach out to a more established and successful cousin. It was most certainly not the last.

Image Credits:

Footnotes:

  1. Macdonald to Lemass, 22 August 1962, National Archives of Ireland (NAI), Department of the Taoiseach (DT), S.6022 B/62.
  2. Ó’Nualláin to Cremin, 24 August 1962, NAI, DT, S.6022 B/62.
  3. Cremin to Ó’Nualláin, 11 September 1962, NAI, DT, S.6022 B/62.
  4. Ó’Nualláin to Macdonald, 12 September 1962, NAI, DT, S.6022 B/62.
  5. Macdonald to Ó’Nualláin, 13 September 1962, NAI, DT, S.6022 B/62.
  6. Christopher Harvie, Scotland and Nationalism: Scottish Society and Politics 1707 to the Present, 4th Edition (London: Routledge, 2004), 162.
  7. William Wolfe, Report to National Executive of SNP, 4 October 1962, National Library of Scotland (NLS), Robert McIntyre Papers, Acc. 10090/89.
  8. Maurice Fitzgerald briefly discusses this changing dynamic in Anglo-Irish relations in Maurice Fitzgerald, “The ‘Mainstreaming’ of Irish Foreign Policy,” in The Lemass Era: Politics and Society in the Ireland of Sean Lemass, eds. Brian Girvin and Gary Murphy (Dublin: UCD Press, 2005), 82-98.
  9. Wolfe, Report to National Executive, 4 October 1962. Subsequent quotes in this section are from this document.
  10. Cremin to Ó’Nualláin, 5 October 1962, NAI, DT, S.6022 B/62. Subsequent quotes in this section are from this document.
  11. Wolfe to Cremin, 28 September 1962, NAI, DT, S.6022 B/62.
Posted in Research | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Big Pimping: More on Uses of History in Tabletop RPGs

I won’t make a habit of poking my own website every time I post something at Play The Past, but I figure for this, what the hell (the intro to this series was in December, so peeps might need a reminder, I say…). And hey, I haven’t posted here in a while, so content is good.

I have a new post up in my Historical Hit Points series at Play The Past, which sketches out a rough framework for how I will be analyzing the uses of history and cultural heritage in various RPGs during the rest of the series (however long it runs). You can read the post by following the link below:

Posted in Books & Writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Capsule Review: THE CRIMEAN WAR by Orlando Figes

Orlando Figes. The Crimean War: A History. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2011. vii + 576 pp. Bibliography, Index. $35.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8050-7460-4.

Prior to picking up this book, I had only two cursory impressions of the work of Orlando Figes. The first came from having to peruse a previous book of his — A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924 (1998) — for my doctoral comprehensive examinations back in 2001-2002. As is the nature of a comp experience, I now remember next to nothing about that book, but I am sure I have notes on it in a box somewhere. The second impression came from the 2010 controversy Figes found himself embroiled in over his writing anonymous reviews on Amazon.com criticizing the work of fellow Russian historians while talking up his own books. As such, in deciding to read Figes’ newest book on the Crimean War, I had absolutely no idea what to expect.

The Crimean War is an excellent narrative treatment of a mid-19th century war between Tzarist Russia on one side and Great Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire on the other that is, as Figes claims, “a relatively minor war…almost forgotten” today.1 However, the book does not focus merely on the war itself, which took place between 1853 and 1856, but also explores how the conflict fit into the wider context of European political and diplomatic history both before and after the war. This is a key strength of the book. In developing this wider analysis, Figes relies upon a broader primary source base than most English language treatments of the war, drawing extensively from Russian, French, and Ottoman sources to provide a more comprehensive examination of the main combatants and why they became involved in the conflict. For instance, Figes spends considerable time at the beginning of the book describing the longstanding religious turmoil between Orthodox Russia and the Islamic Ottomans that was a major factor in the war’s outbreak. This was an aspect of the conflict I had not previous been cognizant of; that is to say, I had not particularly considered the Crimean War a religious war, instead focusing on the geopolitical issues surrounding Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea through the Dardanelles straits. Thanks to Figes’ book, I can now see why this was a limited view of the conflict.

The other key strength of the book is the attention Figes gives to the experiences of the soldiers fighting and suffering during the war. The chapters dealing with the siege of Sevastopol provide a grim overview of the conditions soldiers fought and lived through. Reading this, one is struck by how much this war was a precursor to the abhorrent and nihilistic carnage of the Western Front during the First World War. And that, ultimately, is Figes’ wider point.

Overall, Figes is attempting to reframe our understanding of the war, making the argument that the Crimean War reflects a key transition point between the older, aristocratic and Napoleonic styles of war fought in Europe in the 18th and early 19th centuries and the newer, more modern and destructive industrial wars of the 20th century. As Figes argues in the introduction, “This was the first ‘total war, a nineteenth-century version of the wars of our own age, involving civilians and humanitarian crises.”2 While it has become almost de rigueur lately for historians to claim a particular war was the “first total war” (for a relatively recent example, check out David A. Bell’s The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It), Figes makes a strong case for the importance of the Crimean War as a key transition toward modern warfare. Scholars and educators of modern European history will find much of value in this book.

 

  1. Orlando Figes, The Crimean War: A History (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2011), xviii
  2. Ibid., xix.
Posted in Books & Writing | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

My AHA 2012 Debrief: Sunshine in the Windy City

An Anchorman T-Shirt from Urban Outfitters

I think this should be the conference t-shirt for AHA 2013 next year in New Orleans. Let's make this happen!

This past week, I spent several days in Chicago, Illinois, attending the American Historical Association’s 2012 annual conference. Normally I would have blogged about this throughout the experience, but the infinite universe or the Elder Gods or rogue bacteria decided to inflict upon me a dental issue of excruciating pain just as the conference started. It took tremendous willpower and a shitload of OTC drugs to make it through the weekend. Now that I have obtained more powerful drugs (to help me last until I can hit the dentist later this week), I wanted to get my thoughts down about my experience in Chicago. I’m going to do this in a capsule digest form, and, as is typical of me, it’s focused mainly on me, me, me.

Before starting, how about that weather? Holy shit, compared to the blizzard that was Boston last year, the weather in Chicago this year was spectacular — 50+ degrees in the beginning of January! I officially declare this should be the case every year. Make it so, Global Climate Change.

THATCamp AHA

Beyond the AHA’s stated conference theme of “Communities and Networks,” I think it was pretty clear that digital history/humanities was the other key theme that ran throughout the whole weekend, exemplified by the first time inclusion of a THATCamp unconference at the AHA on Thursday. For those not in the know, THATCamp (The Humanities and Technology Camp) is an unconference managed by the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, which has spawned dozens and dozens of regional THATCamps all over the world in the last three-four years. The goal of these unconferences is to reject the staid model of static, one-way paper delivery that bogs down many an academic conference in favor of decentered, hands-on activities and dialogue between scholars in the humanities and technologists. The experience is really unlike any conference I’ve attended before.

This was my second shot at attending a THATCamp, having gotten my feet wet at the 2011 Great Lakes THATCamp run by the indefatigable Ethan Watrall at Michigan State University (an experience I wrote about previously here: “Coders and Girl Geeks and Luddites, Oh My: Great Lakes THATCamp 2011″). I have to be honest in saying that I was not as enamored with the experience as I was at the Great Lakes THATCamp last year. It was a combination of factors really. The starting schedule scrum was less tolerable, seeming to drag on forever and suffering from Academic Me-ism (academics do love the sound of their own voice, present company included). Some of the suggested topics were the usual mix of interesting and the not-so-interesting (to me), but the balance seemed tilted more toward not-so-interesting. And I’m pretty sure I didn’t get a t-shirt (I wanted a t-shirt, damn it!). Ultimately, it was my dental issues that ruined the experience for me; I even had to leave the proceedings halfway through to do some triage on my mouth.

Enough whiny bitching, what did I find valuable about it? I was able to attend one session, a workshop on grant-writing strategies led by Jen Serventi and Josh Sternfeld of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), which was informational and useful as I contemplate how to fund all the projects I want to do. You can find some scattered and rough notes from the session here. I was particularly annoyed that in leaving I wasn’t able to catch the workshop on teaching digital history by Jeff McClurken of the University of Mary Washington (it was the whole reason I registered to go to the AHA THATCamp), but Professor McClurken did post the schedule and links from his workshop on his blog, so I’m grateful for that.

All in all, I’m not ready to give up on THATCamps by any means, just ones where I’m delirious and in pain. Bring on Great Lakes 2012.

Live-Tweeting Fun

When I wasn’t struggling with my own dental issues, I did find some time to attend a few regular conference panels and live-tweet them. The first was a session on Friday entitled “Successfully Teaching History in the Online Environment: Experiences, Tips, and Thoughts.” The points raised during this session nicely jived with what I have seen in my own online courses, but also offered some useful suggestions for how to improve my rather pedestrian online efforts (something I hope to address during 2012, when I have the time). For ease of archiving, I used Storify to collect and order my tweets during the session:

The second panel I attended was Saturday morning, entitled “Presenting Historical Research Through Digital Media” and included a couple of my friends (Drs. Lemont Dobson and Katrina Gulliver). I also used Storify on this panel as well, which had a lot of interesting bits of information on finding new ways to communicate historical stories to the public effectively and engagingly:

Twitterstorians To The Max

Twitterstorians drinking in a bar

Surreptitiously snapped a pic of Twitterstorians in their natural habitat during the AHA.

On Friday night, the Twitterstorians had a drink up at a local cocktail bar (The Drawing Room). As usual, it was a raucous good time, made even more so by me bringing my lovely wife Andrea, who immediately made it her mission to talk to every single person at the drink-up (which she did) and to touch Patrick Murray John’s “gorgeous Van Halen hair” (which she also did). On the other hand, I spent most of the time sucking on ice cubes to numb my mouth on the edge of the proceedings. Nevertheless, I was able to make the new acquaintance of a number of Twitterstorians (some more briefly than others), so cheers to @conservadora, @cap_and_gown, @maureenogle, @cliotropic, @raherrmann, and @dmcconeghy. It was lovely to meet you all (and my apologies to anyone I forgot; drugs will do that).

Book Buying Isn’t Dead Yet

My favorite part of the AHA is always the book stalls in the main exhibit hall. As a scholar, I have that wonderful disease where I buy books, books, and more books; promptly take them home and forget to read them; and then go buy more books, whereupon the cycle repeats itself ad nauseum. This year I consciously tried to maintain some discipline and not buy tons of books. I was relatively successful; I only bought four.

Carthage book cover

Every time you read this book, God kills an ancient civilization.

To indulge my ancient history fetish, I bought two cheap books from the Penguin booth. I love their $10 hardcovers and $5 paperbacks at the conference, much better than some who try to give you only the illusion of a deal (I’m looking at you, Ashgate, with your 50% off a $100 book). Anyway, the books were Richard Miles’ Carthage Must be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization and Diarmaid MacCulloch’s Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. Not being an ancient historian but often finding myself teaching the ancient world history course, I’m always looking for ways to build my knowledge about the ancient past and the scholarship that underpins it, to better communicate that to my students. These should do nicely.

I also picked up Jo Guldi’s Roads to Power: Britain Invents the Infrastructure State, which tickles my urban and spatial history funny bone, and also a book for my wife, The Beats: A Graphic History by Harvey Pekar, Ed Piskor, Paul Buhle, and a bunch of others. Being a poet, my wife has a lifelong fascination with the Beats, so when I saw this, I knew I had to get it for her.

And that’s it. Amazing, isn’t it? Normally I walk away from this conference wondering what clothes I need to ditch in order to fit all my books in my luggage. Restraint, thy name is poverty.

Fin

Other than that, the rest of my conference experience was trying to eat through jaw pain at all the cool restaurants we stumbled upon; doing a little retail therapy on Saturday (including my annual conference comic book shop excursion, this time hitting Graham Cracker Comics’ Chicago Loop location just off Michigan Ave south of the Chicago River); and playing “Historian or Homeless” while wandering around the conference hotels.

Next year’s conference will be in New Orleans, Louisiana, so that should be a kick ass time as well – minus the dental torture hopefully.

Posted in History | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Big Pimping: New at Play the Past…Me!

After getting my feet wet by writing my guest post on “Experimenting with Playful Historical Thinking in the Classroom” last September, I agreed a few weeks ago to join Play the Past, a group blog exploring the intersection of cultural heritage and meaningful play, as a regular author. This should be a lot of fun and get me going again on some sustained writing.

At least initially, I will be focusing on cultural heritage in tabletop role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. In fact, to be somewhat twee, I have branded the series of posts I will be writing as Historical Hit Points. The introductory post to this free-form series dropped today, and you can find it here: “Historical Hit Points: An Introduction of Sorts“. Go check it out and tell me what you think, either here or over there at Play the Past.

Posted in Books & Writing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Belated Blog Post Pimping: Playful Historical Thinking

Talk about dropping the ball on this. Earlier this fall, I wrote a guest blog post at the Play the Past group blog on an experiment I’m conducting in a couple of my European civilizations courses this semester. It’s entitled “Experimenting with Playful Historical Thinking in the Classroom” and is worth your time to check out, I think. The post went live more than a month ago, and I twittered the crap out of it, to be sure, but didn’t remember to post a link here (partly because my blogging here dropped off as the semester ramped up…).

Well, now I have. Enjoy.

Posted in Teaching | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Link of the Day for August 23rd: Hub-and-Spoke Blogging

This is what you should be looking at today:

Posted in Delicious | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Personal Kitsch: My 7th Grade Michigan Leaves Report

While poking through some boxes my mom had yanked out of one of her giant walk-in closets the other day, I stumbled across an amusing piece of historical kitsch from my life: a tree leaves report I did for my 7th grade science class (way back in 1987).

Looking at it, I’m amused to see quirks of my personality today in evidence that far back (e.g. the obsessive attention to pretentious detail that is the credits page at the beginning, like I actually was writing a book or something). The Wife was also tickled by this, but, being the English instructor she is, basically accused my 12 year old ass of plagiarism (does this sound like language a 12 year would use naturally: “It prefers rich, well-drained, loamy soils. … It is an important timber tree; also used for street and ornamental planting.” I say maybe…).

But my next thought, after looking at it, was: “Hey, I should put this on the internet.” Because that’s how I roll.

So here it is, in all its embedded pdf glory (give it a moment to load; it’s a big pdf). Enjoy the kitschiness of it all:

Posted in Personal Shizz | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Summer of Fitness 10: My Kingdom for a Coke!

Last week was the 4th of July, so there was no SoF post, although let’s be honest, detailing progress is not what these are about any more, yeah? On with it then…

I am in Day 11 of my soda pop challenge, and I hate you all. I have not had a sugared pop since June 30, and every fiber of my being screams “This is wrong!” Such is life, I guess. I was forced to make one change to the requirements of the challenge, a necessary one lest you find me in the corner choking kittens or something. I have had a few diet pops during this time (Coke Zero mainly). I broke down on the sugared vs. diet distinction mainly because I didn’t want to suffer the agony of caffeine withdrawal along with my own mental sugar demons. Doing so has made me less irritable to those around me, and this is a good thing.

One interesting behavioral tic I have manifested since I started this hell is the fact that without some sort of distraction, I spend a lot of mental energy wishing I had a Coke. The answer to that, which I developed these eleven days without actually realizing it, has been my aggressive playing of video games lately (bouncing mostly between Assassin’s Creed II and Europa Universalis III w/ the Divine Wind expansion). I am not, for the most part, an addictive personality (ha!), so this sort of behavior is interesting to me, like mixing a random gaming binge (which I have had from time to time, but always walked away from) with a diet plan. So bizarre.

Whether this has any demonstrable health benefit remains to be seen (e.g. weight loss), but it’s still early, and the longer I go, the less acute the sugared pop craving gets. Pushing on…

————

So, Andrew, what about that whole Summer of Fitness thing? Losing any weight?

Nope. Still trapped in the plateau upper range of where I started a couple of months ago. It’s largely a function of lack of discipline at key moments killing momentum. In other words, I still eat too much crap food. Getting hurt a few weeks ago really messed up my back, which ground the exercise regimen to a halt, and the pop thing weakened my resolve for resisting other bad choices. Here’s the stats:

  • Today’s Weigh-In: 248.6 lbs
  • Last Weigh-In: 247.6 lbs
  • Weight Change: +1 lb
  • Overall SoF Weigh Change after 10 Weeks: -3 lbs
  • Average Calories Eaten per Day: 3267

Here’s the visual progress (or lack thereof):

Regardless, I plan to keep struggling with this and documenting it. I feel pretty good about July going forward, my back is relatively healed again, and the pop cravings are slowly shrinking. Hopefully next week will see some better progress.

But hey, at least I haven’t gained weight over where I started. I mean, fuck…

Posted in Fitness | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Summer of Fitness 8: Coke Will Be the Death of Me

Okay, first things first. You’re probably asking yourself: “SoF 8? What in the Blue Hell happened to SoF 7?” I have no easy answer for this. It’s a complex mix of annoyance, lack of time, and shame over what I thought was going to be a really bad weigh-in last week. In the end, I decided to skip the weigh-in altogether, which meant I really had nothing to write about it. Such is life. But here we are, back again. Let’s dispense with the perfunctory first.

Much to my surprise, the stats this week are not atrocious, so perhaps I have weathered the storm of shit eating these last two weeks.

  • Today’s Weigh-In: 247.6 lbs
  • Last Weigh-In: 248.4 lbs
  • Weight Change: -0.8 lb
  • Overall SoF Weigh Change after 8 Weeks: -4 lbs
  • Average Calories Eaten per Day: 3264

Here’s the visual progress (or lack thereof):

Something needs to give here. Either I get my calorie intake back under control or I should just give up now. In the end, I have decided to give the Summer of Fitness a radical jolt, a challenge of will power and self-discipline that can focus my energies on something other than obsessing over daily calorie intake.

Starting this Friday, July 1, 2011, I will be taking a challenge. What is it? To give up soda pop (regular and diet) and caffeine for the month of July (a thirty-one day challenge). My main Achilles Heel throughout my fitness endeavors in the last few years has been my inability to curtail or cut out pop from my diet. I have sucked down Coke, Mountain Dew, and Mello Yello my whole life. It’s encoded in my DNA as my drink of choice (don’t care for coffee, tea, alcohol, and so on). If anything is going to give me diabetes and kill me, it will be fucking Coca-Cola. Time to do something about that then.

This challenge will be rather difficult for me, especially the caffeine withdrawal. Anyone who comes in contact with me in meatspace or cyberspace next week, I apologize in advance because I’m going to be one irritable, obnoxious motherfucker.

If I make it through the challenge month, what happens after that depends on how I feel about the whole experience. Since it’s only a challenge, if I so choose to suck on the soda teat again, I can. Perhaps I won’t want to? Who knows? Let’s see what next week is like, shall we?

Posted in Fitness | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment