A Hammock Publishing editor who reads this blog may kick me for posting the following on the rexblog before it gets published in the magazine she edits (I can say without any hesitation, this weblog and the magazine where it will appear have little cross-readership). However, because the blogosphere has lit up today with talk of U.S. Senator Jim Webb and his response to last night’s State of the Union Addrress, I thought I’d share the following review I wrote a month or so ago of his book, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America. By the way, I highly recommend the book to anyone wishing to understand the redneck, Jacksonian heritage I share with Senator Webb.

The review (in an unedited version from my files):

First published in 2004, the national best-selling Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America took decades of research to complete, according to author James H. (Jim) Webb. It’s worth noting that during those decades, Webb did plenty besides researching the book, including service as one of the most highly-decorated Marine officers in the Viet Nam War, earning a law degree from Georgetown, serving stints as Assistant Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Navy, authoring six best-selling novels and producing a blockbuster movie. With the success of Born Fighting under his belt, what has the author been up to lately? Making some history of his own: Last November, in an election so close it took days to officially call, Webb was elected to represent Virginia in the U.S. Senate.

As “historian” is rarely on the résumé of newly elected U.S. Senators, it’s worth looking anew at Born Fighting. Webb’s book is a thorough exploration and explanation of the impact on the development of the U.S. of several 18th century waves of immigrants from the Ulster “plantation” of Ireland, a region heavily populated by lowland Scots who migrated there during the 17th century. Despite its big scope, Webb’s skills as a novelist provide him the story-telling talent to weave together a fluid narrative from a frayed and fragmented set of historical threads. As with any book involving Scottish history, Webb is challenged by the need to pull together many twists and turns and ever-changing characters dating back centuries. Before following this band of hearty souls to the New World, the reader must grasp the nuanced conflicts among Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation, the lines of competing claimants to the English and Scottish thrones, the cultural gap between lowland and highland Scots and the different paths of Protestantism of the Calvinist-Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Anglican Church of England.

Webb’s solution is to use a broad brush in painting the big picture of Scottish history and a delicate fine brush in tracing the story of Scots-Irish immigration to the New World. Born Fighting is at times an intimate family history in which he explores his own Scots-Irish roots (he uses the “ethnically proper” term Scots-Irish, but notes how others, including certain groups of immigrants, have used the term Scotch-Irish). On another level, it is a sweeping look at the entirety of U.S. history as re-examined through the prism of a segment of the population who Webb argues effectively have been misunderstood, mischaracterized, often maligned – and greatly underappreciated.

One reason for the lack of appreciation: Most modern-day Americans who can trace their lineage to the Ulster Scots (and others who could, but have no knowledge of their ancestry) don’t think of themselves in terms of any ethnicity but American. Also, rather than a self-proclaimed definition or national origin, throughout much of past century, the term “Scots-Irish” has been one of derision. Used with contempt in the manner of the words “redneck” and “cracker,” the designation of “Scots-Irish” was intended to ridicule those who settled throughout the pioneering regions of the 18th century, notably Appalachia. Yet just as Jeff Foxworthy has turned “redneck” into a term of endearment and a valuable business franchise, Webb has recast the term “Scots-Irish” into a designation worthy of Marine-styled pride.

Indeed, as the title of the book indicates, there were several factors and characteristics of colonial-era Scots-Irish immigrants that led them to be among the earliest Marines and other military defenders of the rebel cause in the American Revolution. One factor was religious, says Webb: “Although the trained minds of New England’s Puritan culture and Virginia’s Cavalier aristocracy had shaped the finer intellectual points of the argument for political disunion, the true passion for individual rights emanated from the radical individualism of the Presbyterians, and, increasingly, Baptist pulpits.”

Another factor dated back to historic clashes between lowland Scots and the English. Webb, quoting the English historian James Anthony Froude, says, “England had no fiercer enemies than the grandsons and great grandsons of the Presbyterians who had held Ulster again Tyrconne.”

Perhaps most significant to their contribution to the colonial cause was the special skill Scots-Irish immigrants had developed through generations of fighting homeland conflicts – the ability to “combine family homesteads with military expertise and to adapt to a battlefield on which they and their families actually lived,” explains Webb. “Many of them were indeed great soldiers, but unlike in most other scenarios, their family unit itself had become a part of a warrior culture as well.”

The Revolutionary War-era Scots-Irish immigrant “expected to fight” and every able-bodied man was automatically a member of the local militia, writes Webb. Such a spirit and tradition has survived throughout the nation’s history, he explains in both a broad and personal way. Such a legacy, the reader assumes, is what led its author to attend the Naval Academy and serve bravely in the U.S. Marines.

And perhaps it was such legacy — along with the wisdom that comes from spending decades researching ones family history – that led Webb, against the conventional “expert” opinions of most political pundits, to seek election to the U.S. Senate against a popular incumbent, and win.

[This review will appear in the March-April issue of American Spirit Magazine that I strongly encourage you to subscribe so its editor won't be too mad at me. Also, the book link goes to an affiliate store of Amazon.com, all revenues from which (we're up to about $10) go to charity.]

Technorati Tags: books, jimwebb, scotsirish

Last November, I pointed to the use of a video sidebar by the New York Times as being a good example of how to integrate different media onto one web page for better story-telling or reporting. Today, the NYTimes.com has a great example of when integrating audio files onto a page can work well — it is an analysis of the State of the Union Address.

(However, Laura’s seven year old’s analysis is enough for me.)

Technorati Tags: video sidebar

This is a tough one. The way the headlines are written, “Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit“ and “Microsoft tried to doctor Wikipedia“, it sounds like a no-brainer to condemn Microsoft as “evil.” But upon reading more about the issue — and having to consider this issue myself in other contexts — I must ask, if markets are conversations (see Cluetrain), then we have to find the appropriate etiquette where the people who make up a company can have voices in conversations when they are being defined by, in some cases, their competitors. However, a dogma has developed on Wikipedia that suggests it is inappropriate for anyone to write about themselves or anything they are personally involved with, or may have some unique insight into. Indeed, the presumption seems to be that if an original source adds something to a Wikipedia entry, it must be false or spun or have some hidden agenda. Therefore, the resulting practice has become, it’s okay to get ones best friend to correct a Wikipedia entry, but don’t do it yourself. That way you’ll be able to say, “I have never edited my Wikipedia entry.” (Better yet, if you can say, “I never read my Wikipedia entry,” you’re even cooler on the geek scale.)

The irony of this convoluted etiquette can best be seen in this quote from one of the articles:

Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a “white paper” on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles’ discussion forums.

I am a fan of Jimmy Wales but there is a well-publicized history of his correcting his own Wikipedia entry in a somewhat more direct way than he is suggesting in that quote.

In the way that a high-profile individual (like Wales) who sees inaccuracies about their entry on Wikipedia is lambasted for correcting the entry, there has emerged some form of group-decision that has become translated to mean that those who work for a company shouldn’t be writing about it or the things it does directly on Wikipedia — but should construct some Rube Goldbergish trail of white papers and postings on external websites. This Wikipedia cultural nuance, while very likely evolving from well-reasoned intentions, has naturally led to the unintended consequence of a company like Microsoft looking for a “right” way to engage in the conversation, but stumbling miserably when that attempt is outed by those who believe it is better to have wrong content, than “corporate” content.

I love Wikipedia. However, the “white paper” suggestion is really crazy.

When interpreted as “Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit,” sure, it sounds evil. But if Wikipedia has become the platform of record for web-based knowledge, then having a voice there is going to be a requirement for corporate America. Wikipedia either needs to find an accepted “white hat” way for this to be done directly and transparently (and not some “in the discussions, off the website way), or dark-hat, Rube Goldberg solutions will naturally follow.

Prediction: In the future (like a week from now), in addition to “SEO” (search engine optimization) and “SMO” (social media optimization) expect to see the term “WO” (wikipedia optimization) added to the “lexicon of expertise” of certain online marketing consulting firms.

Prediction: I will have much more to say about this in the future.

Bonus links: