By Edwin Cooney
Okay! Let’s start from the very beginning.
Once upon a time there lived at the very eastern tip of present day Massachusetts, a colony of Anglican Church separatists whom we today call Pilgrims. They arrived in the New World on December 21st in the “year of our Lord” 1620. As every third grader knows, the Pilgrims suffered terribly during their first winter in the colony they called Plymouth.
By March 1621, their number had dwindled from 102 to 56. One of those lost was the wife of Governor William Bradford who, even before their little ship called the Mayflower landed, had drawn up the agreement they all promised to live under which we know as the Mayflower Compact.
Out of the forest that first spring came what seemed to be a gift from God. His name was Squanto and he was a member of the local Wampanoag Indian tribe. Miraculously, Squanto happened to speak English. (Note: Some believe he was an Indian named Tisquantum who had been captured by an English slave ship in 1615 while others think Squanto was an Indian named Tasquantum who had visited England as far back as 1605.) Even more miraculously, Squanto was eager to provide day in and day out assistance to the new arrivals. Still more wonderful, as well as practical, Squanto moved into Governor Bradford’s home where he remained -- providing invaluable advice and considerable labor -- for over a year until his death from a fever sometime in 1622.
Soon after moving in, Squanto introduced the new colonists to his local chief who was called Samoset. Samoset henceforth introduced Governor Bradford’s constituents to his Grand Chief Massasoit . (Actually, Massasoit, the name by which the Chief is most famous, is his title. His name was Wasamegin). Thus, throughout 1621 the new colonists were provided not only with plenty of assistance when it came to planting crops and hunting local fish, foul and game, but also with protection against possible attack by other potentially hostile Indian tribes.
By October 1621, the Pilgrims realized their first harvest and were ready to celebrate. Thus 92 Wampanoag Indians—which most certainly included Squanto and perhaps even Samoset and Massasoit—were invited to dinner.
It was quite a dinner! It lasted for three days. On the menu were lobster, clams, other fish, watercress, boiled pumpkin—there was no flour or butter so pumpkin pie, if it existed then, even in Europe, was out—corn, dried fruit, fresh plumbs venison and turkey.
Note—There is considerable debate as to whether or not wild turkey was actually served. Some sources say not and assert that turkey was another name for almost any wild foul. Thus it is likely that pheasant, goose and perhaps even duck were actually on the menu rather than turkey.
Though supposedly a good time was had by all at that very first Thanksgiving, there was no Thanksgiving celebration or harvest feast in 1622. However, in 1623, when a long drought was ended the day that followed a period of intensive prayer by the devout Pilgrims, Governor Bradford once again called for a Thanksgiving feast. Once again, a large delegation of Wampanoags was invited. That was the last Thanksgiving held by the colonists until June 1676.
By that time, the Plymouth colony of the separatists or “Pilgrims” had been absorbed by a more establishment-oriented religious group known as Puritans. The Puritans were more mainstream Anglican than had been the separatist Pilgrims. They had established, beginning in 1629, a much more secular state and one which had much greater favor with the establishment in Britain. (It should be noted that the Puritans under the great General Oliver Cromwell deposed Charles the First and ruled England during the 1650s). Thus, the Thanksgiving celebration in 1676 was a celebration of something much more traditional in Britain back then, a celebration of victory in war.
With the passing of William Bradford and the absorption of the original Pilgrim-separatists by the Puritans of Boston and points west in Massachusetts colony, more and more outbreaks of hostility occurred with regional Indian tribes. The most powerful of the Indian Chiefs was Metacom, the son of Massasoit, the great savior of the Pilgrims of 1620-21. By the 1670s, all of the potentially hostile New England tribes except the Wampanoags had been subdued and now it was time for the Puritans of Boston to complete Indian subjugation. Metacom, known by then as King Philip because of his European dress and manners, was hard to conquer — but ultimately the Puritans prevailed.
Thus the third Thanksgiving in colonial history was an expression to the Almighty of a distinctly different type of gratitude. The great Wampanoag chief was indeed present although this time only physically rather than spiritually. His physical attendance was as something of a decoration. His presence was his head atop a pole in downtown Boston.
A hundred and one years later, in October 1777, all thirteen colonies celebrated Thanksgiving together for the first time. As was the case in 1676, gratitude was expressed to the Almighty for victory in war as much as for any consumable bounty. Specifically, the colonists were celebrating their stunning victory over the British army at Saratoga.
In October 1789, President Washington proclaimed another Thanksgiving in celebration of the new nation, but it wasn’t particularly popular. Many Americans simply refused to be much excited about celebrating the triumph of New England colonists over hardship—since they felt that they’d had plenty of their own hardships. Thomas Jefferson is said to have actually scoffed at the idea of a day of national Thanksgiving. During the War of 1812, President James Madison reluctantly proclaimed a day of national Thanksgiving.
When all is said and done, the real founder of our traditional celebration of Thanksgiving is a Victorian New England widow named Sarah Josepha Hale. Mrs. Hale was born Sarah Josepha Buell on October 24th,1788 in Newport, New Hampshire, the daughter of Captain Gordon and Martha Whittlesay Buell. She was educated by her mother and her brother Horatio, who taught her much of what he’d learned at Dartmouth. Sarah married David Hale, a lawyer, in 1813. Following David Hale’s death in 1822, his Mason Lodge put up the funds for Sarah to start a magazine which she ultimately called the “American Ladies’ Magazine”. It consisted of her own poetry and editorials pushing her pet causes, especially educational and economic independence for women.
During the late 1830s when America was suffering from a severe depression, Sarah Hale’s “American Ladies’ Magazine” was purchased by Louis Antoine Godey who installed Sarah Hale as its Editor-in-Chief, a position she held for most of the rest of her life.
Ever since the mid-1820s, Sarah Hale had been petitioning American presidents on behalf of one of her favorite causes, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving. She finally succeeded in persuading President Abraham Lincoln to make such a proclamation in November 1863. Every president since has issued a Proclamation of Thanksgiving.
During the late 1930s, FDR sought to make the second to last Thursday of November Thanksgiving Day in order to maximize the time for shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas. This effort met with considerable resistance and so FDR moved Thanksgiving to the fourth Thursday of every November.
Congress finally made it all official in 1941. Since then the fourth Thursday in November has been our national day of gratitude to “nature’s God” for, among other blessings, the generous bounty of our national resources.
As you can readily see, if you accept the observations of this account, our celebration and the reasons for offering thanks have been inconsistent in their practice as well as in the purpose of our expressed gratitude.
The question then is: for what should we be most thankful?
I would suggest that in addition to our lives, our safety and our health, we ought to be most grateful for whatever wisdom we can muster as we progress along the road of civilization.
Life can be very fragile. However, in its very fragility we often discover its value. All of us have experienced too many instances when life has suddenly and irrevocably ceased to exist. Thus we’ve been separated from people whose knowledge, love and guidance we sorely need. Their absence brings in its wake a void of loneliness, pain, and even despair.
It seems to me that Sarah Josepha Hale, given her numerous socio/religious causes such as abolitionism and increased opportunities and responsibilities for women, came closest to the greatest human need required throughout the life of any truly great society
Therefore, I think we ought to be most thankful for wisdom. Because it appears in so many unpredictable moods and guises, wisdom isn’t easy to identify. It isn’t always easy to experience it once it’s offered. However, once it’s received and applied, wisdom, as God’s greatest blessing, is the fruit that surely nurtures this and all Thanksgivings to come!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 19, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
CONTROLLING HUMAN HATRED—OUR JOB, NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S
By Edwin Cooney
Really, I’m not much of a hater. Argumentative I can be indeed, but only occasionally am I ever really angry when I argue or -- if you prefer -- debate with someone.
I’m occasionally angered when provoked during a debate, however hate isn’t the result of either my frustration or my anger. If I hate anything at all (aside from asparagus, coconut baked into candy, cake, pie, and pudding (cookies excepted), maple flavoring in any food and thorns on any plant of any sort), the object of my hatred is usually attitudinal or ideological, but never personal.
I think it’s fair to observe that most people link the emotions of anger and hatred pretty closely together. However, President Richard Nixon once taught us that anger and hatred aren’t necessarily connected. The scene was the East Room of the White House. The situation was a rare 9:00 p.m. Friday night press conference in October 1973. The issues at hand had to do with the President’s involvement or non-involvement in various aspects of the Watergate scandal. The President was obviously (to say the very least) frustrated with the persistent press and media. Most everyone was already sure that President Nixon hated the press due to his perception that he was a lifelong victim of press and media contempt. However, that night he set us straight. When CBS reporter Robert Pierpoint asked about his anger toward the press, the President asserted that “…one can only be angry with those he respects.” Although President Nixon didn’t openly declare his hatred for the press that night, he made it abundantly clear how he really felt.
Okay Mr. President, so I now understand that I don’t even have to be angry with someone in order to hate them—WHAT A RELIEF! I’m also assured that people, very often, do indeed hate other people they’ve never met and will never meet.
The reason for that, I’m told, is because they’ve been taught to hate. I’m also assured that the most effective antidote of such hatred is “anti-hate crime legislation”.
Okay then, I hate “hate crimes,” too. However, I’m more than a little dubious as to the value of their designation in assisting law enforcement. As a matter of fact, my dubiousness as to the value of hate crime legislation is one of the few issues that I have in common with many of my Conservative friends.
My old dictionary defines hate as: “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from anger, fear, or a sense of injury…extreme dislike or antipathy.”
As for the question of whether fear rather than anger is the real basis of human hatred, that’s a most compelling topic for another time. As they used to say in the broadcast industry: “stay tuned”.
Since around 1990, the federal government and well over half of our states have passed “hate crime” laws. These laws make it an “add on” crime if you assault or murder anyone whom you hate because they’re black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or disabled — anyone who can be designated as belonging to a special category of people. Thus, most people think that a crime is even more heinous if it’s the result of racial, ethnic, or religious bias or prejudice.
Of course, I’m willing—like the best American politicians—to go on record as a despiser of racial prejudice, ethnic bias, sexual orientation, phobia or religious bigotry. What puzzles me, however, are some of the factors having to do with the establishment of “hate crimes”.
Call me naive or insensitive if you must, but I was raised to believe that committing a “crime” was hateful in itself—or, at the very least, blatantly selfish. Of course, one can’t be charged with a “hate crime” unless one is first guilty of an already established crime such as assault or murder. Not only are assaults and murder hateful enough in themselves, there is no universal agreement among the states as to which hatefully committed crimes ought to be specifically categorized as “hate crimes.”
Author Debbie Wright makes this point most emphatically in her December 2002 article on hate crimes in the International Encyclopedia of Justice Studies (see http://www.iejs.com/Law/Criminal_Law/Hate_Crimes.htm).
“On the night of February 19, 1999, in Sylacauga, Alabama, Steve Mullins asked his friend Charles Butler to help him kill an acquaintance named Billy Jack Gaither. Butler agreed and watched Mullins beat Gaither with an ax handle and burn his body on top of a pile of tires. Shortly after the crime, they turned themselves in to the police and admitted to the killing. Both men were convicted of capital murder and received life in prison without the possibility of parole. Although Mullins, a neo-Nazi skinhead, killed Gaither “cause he was a faggot,” the murder did not make the FBI hate crimes report.
Alabama’s hate crimes law does not apply to crimes motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.”
As Ms. Wright points out, “hate crimes” only reflect the values of the community which adopts them. Hence, just as no upstanding citizen in Alabama today would openly encourage anyone to commit murder, neither would anyone suggest that Mullins and Butler were given permission to murder Gaither by the absence of sexual orientation as a “hate crime” in Alabama. If there is an up side to the above story, it’s that Butler and Mullins had enough conscience to turn themselves in for their dastardly deed.
The fact that the adoption of hate crime legislation reflects state or regional mores raises a concern not addressed by Ms. Wright in the above article. If one type of attitude can be legislated, what about other types? If hate crime legislation is a positive element in our historical as well as present day struggle against crime, may we very soon look toward to the adoption of anti-love crime legislation?
With the likely exception of hate, what human emotion has been a greater motivator of crime than love – love which was misplaced, reckless or improper? Consider the following:
How many “love” relationships have ended in murder?
How many children live in poverty or subsist on welfare due to ill-considered “love relationships” that we call marriage?
How many children have been unwisely but lovingly denied access to cancer treatments that might have saved their lives due to deeply caring and religiously principled parents? How many abortions were performed in the last year because babies were conceived under the guise of urgent passion rather than as a true blue act of love within a “love relationship?”
Finally, since every politician seeks to provide relief to the taxpayer at all levels of government, does anyone not realize how much mismanaged love costs the sacred tax payer each year? If hate can be governed by law, why shouldn’t we expect that soon badly abused motives and practices of love won’t be codified by state governors or even by the signature of the President of the United States? There are already suggestions for proposals that only couples properly evaluated and licensed should be allowed to procreate.
The adoption and monitoring of hate crimes is, of course, a well-intentioned extension of the 1960s civil rights movement which is in many respects is hard to oppose. However -- and this is one aspect of the civil rights movement that is often misunderstood by both Conservatives and Liberals -- necessary and effective civil rights legislation didn’t seek to regulate attitudes . Effective civil rights legislation sought to regulate behavior. As Dr. King once observed: “The law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that’s pretty important.”
Effective civil rights legislation governs human activities as do many essential laws that govern everything from traffic management to the punishment of treason and capital murder. Reckless drivers, those who would commit treason, murderers – they may all be hateful people, but they must especially be managed because they’re dangerous to the peace and safety of us all. Does anyone believe that enough prison cells can or should exist to hold all of the people of the world with hate in their heart?
Standing in the East Room of the White House -- the same room from which he’d asserted that anger was an emotion applicable only to those one respects -- President Nixon, on the day his resignation from the presidency became effective, made one of the most powerful anti-hate observations I’ve ever heard:
“…always remember,” asserted the clearly saddened and humiliated Richard M. Nixon, “others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then, you destroy yourself.”
As for me, the non-hater, I take President Nixon’s leadership on the separation between hate and anger very seriously. I used to hate asparagus, coconut baked into candy, cake, pie and pudding (cookies excepted), maple flavoring in any food as well as thorns on plants of any sort. However, because these are respectable and desirable entities, I no longer hate them. I am simply mad at ‘em!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Really, I’m not much of a hater. Argumentative I can be indeed, but only occasionally am I ever really angry when I argue or -- if you prefer -- debate with someone.
I’m occasionally angered when provoked during a debate, however hate isn’t the result of either my frustration or my anger. If I hate anything at all (aside from asparagus, coconut baked into candy, cake, pie, and pudding (cookies excepted), maple flavoring in any food and thorns on any plant of any sort), the object of my hatred is usually attitudinal or ideological, but never personal.
I think it’s fair to observe that most people link the emotions of anger and hatred pretty closely together. However, President Richard Nixon once taught us that anger and hatred aren’t necessarily connected. The scene was the East Room of the White House. The situation was a rare 9:00 p.m. Friday night press conference in October 1973. The issues at hand had to do with the President’s involvement or non-involvement in various aspects of the Watergate scandal. The President was obviously (to say the very least) frustrated with the persistent press and media. Most everyone was already sure that President Nixon hated the press due to his perception that he was a lifelong victim of press and media contempt. However, that night he set us straight. When CBS reporter Robert Pierpoint asked about his anger toward the press, the President asserted that “…one can only be angry with those he respects.” Although President Nixon didn’t openly declare his hatred for the press that night, he made it abundantly clear how he really felt.
Okay Mr. President, so I now understand that I don’t even have to be angry with someone in order to hate them—WHAT A RELIEF! I’m also assured that people, very often, do indeed hate other people they’ve never met and will never meet.
The reason for that, I’m told, is because they’ve been taught to hate. I’m also assured that the most effective antidote of such hatred is “anti-hate crime legislation”.
Okay then, I hate “hate crimes,” too. However, I’m more than a little dubious as to the value of their designation in assisting law enforcement. As a matter of fact, my dubiousness as to the value of hate crime legislation is one of the few issues that I have in common with many of my Conservative friends.
My old dictionary defines hate as: “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from anger, fear, or a sense of injury…extreme dislike or antipathy.”
As for the question of whether fear rather than anger is the real basis of human hatred, that’s a most compelling topic for another time. As they used to say in the broadcast industry: “stay tuned”.
Since around 1990, the federal government and well over half of our states have passed “hate crime” laws. These laws make it an “add on” crime if you assault or murder anyone whom you hate because they’re black, white, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or disabled — anyone who can be designated as belonging to a special category of people. Thus, most people think that a crime is even more heinous if it’s the result of racial, ethnic, or religious bias or prejudice.
Of course, I’m willing—like the best American politicians—to go on record as a despiser of racial prejudice, ethnic bias, sexual orientation, phobia or religious bigotry. What puzzles me, however, are some of the factors having to do with the establishment of “hate crimes”.
Call me naive or insensitive if you must, but I was raised to believe that committing a “crime” was hateful in itself—or, at the very least, blatantly selfish. Of course, one can’t be charged with a “hate crime” unless one is first guilty of an already established crime such as assault or murder. Not only are assaults and murder hateful enough in themselves, there is no universal agreement among the states as to which hatefully committed crimes ought to be specifically categorized as “hate crimes.”
Author Debbie Wright makes this point most emphatically in her December 2002 article on hate crimes in the International Encyclopedia of Justice Studies (see http://www.iejs.com/Law/Criminal_Law/Hate_Crimes.htm).
“On the night of February 19, 1999, in Sylacauga, Alabama, Steve Mullins asked his friend Charles Butler to help him kill an acquaintance named Billy Jack Gaither. Butler agreed and watched Mullins beat Gaither with an ax handle and burn his body on top of a pile of tires. Shortly after the crime, they turned themselves in to the police and admitted to the killing. Both men were convicted of capital murder and received life in prison without the possibility of parole. Although Mullins, a neo-Nazi skinhead, killed Gaither “cause he was a faggot,” the murder did not make the FBI hate crimes report.
Alabama’s hate crimes law does not apply to crimes motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.”
As Ms. Wright points out, “hate crimes” only reflect the values of the community which adopts them. Hence, just as no upstanding citizen in Alabama today would openly encourage anyone to commit murder, neither would anyone suggest that Mullins and Butler were given permission to murder Gaither by the absence of sexual orientation as a “hate crime” in Alabama. If there is an up side to the above story, it’s that Butler and Mullins had enough conscience to turn themselves in for their dastardly deed.
The fact that the adoption of hate crime legislation reflects state or regional mores raises a concern not addressed by Ms. Wright in the above article. If one type of attitude can be legislated, what about other types? If hate crime legislation is a positive element in our historical as well as present day struggle against crime, may we very soon look toward to the adoption of anti-love crime legislation?
With the likely exception of hate, what human emotion has been a greater motivator of crime than love – love which was misplaced, reckless or improper? Consider the following:
How many “love” relationships have ended in murder?
How many children live in poverty or subsist on welfare due to ill-considered “love relationships” that we call marriage?
How many children have been unwisely but lovingly denied access to cancer treatments that might have saved their lives due to deeply caring and religiously principled parents? How many abortions were performed in the last year because babies were conceived under the guise of urgent passion rather than as a true blue act of love within a “love relationship?”
Finally, since every politician seeks to provide relief to the taxpayer at all levels of government, does anyone not realize how much mismanaged love costs the sacred tax payer each year? If hate can be governed by law, why shouldn’t we expect that soon badly abused motives and practices of love won’t be codified by state governors or even by the signature of the President of the United States? There are already suggestions for proposals that only couples properly evaluated and licensed should be allowed to procreate.
The adoption and monitoring of hate crimes is, of course, a well-intentioned extension of the 1960s civil rights movement which is in many respects is hard to oppose. However -- and this is one aspect of the civil rights movement that is often misunderstood by both Conservatives and Liberals -- necessary and effective civil rights legislation didn’t seek to regulate attitudes . Effective civil rights legislation sought to regulate behavior. As Dr. King once observed: “The law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that’s pretty important.”
Effective civil rights legislation governs human activities as do many essential laws that govern everything from traffic management to the punishment of treason and capital murder. Reckless drivers, those who would commit treason, murderers – they may all be hateful people, but they must especially be managed because they’re dangerous to the peace and safety of us all. Does anyone believe that enough prison cells can or should exist to hold all of the people of the world with hate in their heart?
Standing in the East Room of the White House -- the same room from which he’d asserted that anger was an emotion applicable only to those one respects -- President Nixon, on the day his resignation from the presidency became effective, made one of the most powerful anti-hate observations I’ve ever heard:
“…always remember,” asserted the clearly saddened and humiliated Richard M. Nixon, “others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them. And then, you destroy yourself.”
As for me, the non-hater, I take President Nixon’s leadership on the separation between hate and anger very seriously. I used to hate asparagus, coconut baked into candy, cake, pie and pudding (cookies excepted), maple flavoring in any food as well as thorns on plants of any sort. However, because these are respectable and desirable entities, I no longer hate them. I am simply mad at ‘em!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 5, 2007
FALL BACK, SPRING FORWARD—WHAT AN EXERCISE!
By Edwin Cooney
I don’t know about you, but I make a promise to myself every year when we’re given the instruction to fall back at the beginning of Standard Time. That promise is, of course, to take advantage of that extra hour of sleep so that I might be sufficiently energized to celebrate the coming holidays.
When I’m in this frame of mind, I picture myself snuggling down under the covers, conscience clear of all worries, thinking—for an instant--that I might just hibernate through the entire winter as do the woodchucks and the bears and other sensible denizens of the forest. As for what I do each spring when we receive the instruction to spring forward, stand by and I’ll let you know.
Of course springing forward or Daylight Saving Time is what’s at issue here, for as you may be able to tell from the tone of my writing so far, I don’t have a lot of emotional baggage wrapped up in either Daylight Saving or Standard Time. Therefore, I was quite surprised to learn what a controversial matter the development and enactment of Daylight Saving Time (or, if you prefer, DST) really has been historically.
What didn’t surprise me, however, as I did the research for this column, was the name of the gentleman who first advocated a form of Daylight Saving time to the people of Paris in 1784. His name was Benjamin Franklin and he was serving in his final months as America’s first Minister to the government of Louis XVI. Apparently, there was an energy or fuel shortage, or perhaps a money shortage, at the time. Hence, Ben Franklin suggested that the good citizens of Paris might fare better if the government woke them everyday at sunrise by firing cannons and ringing church bells. He suggested that if people got up early enough they’d save money on candles as well as on the cost of heating their dwellings late into the evening. It should be noted, however, that Ben Franklin didn’t specifically suggest the resetting of clocks -- but then, old Ben was already famous for his “early to bed and early to rise, healthy, wealthy and wise” lifestyle prescription.
Ninety-nine years passed between Ben Franklin’s 1784 commentary and the American and Canadian railroads adoption of what they called a standard time schedule for the convenience of the railroads, their freight customers and passengers alike. This was achieved by dividing the North American continent into four time zones; Eastern; Central; Mountain; and Pacific. However, it should be noted that time zones had nothing to do with Daylight Saving or Standard Time. What these two concepts—-time zones and time manipulation--do have in common are powerful voting constituencies.
Across the pond in England, an ambitious and dedicated builder (whom today we’d call a land developer) by the alliterative name of William Willett tried to advance the idea of Daylight Saving time during the summer season. The story has it that Willett got the idea one sunny summer morning in 1905 while riding through Petts Wood in Kent—today known as “The Garden Suburb of London.” During his ride, he noticed that the blinds were still drawn on so many homes even as “Old Sol” was shining so magnificently. People, he thought, ought to be up early—-perhaps playing golf (a game William Willett himself immensely enjoyed) or even better—-building homes.
Being an energetic as well as an enterprising gentleman, William Willett had a lot of political and socially prominent supporters. Among them were former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, a young member of Parliament David Lloyd George, and still another young M.P. by the name of Winston Churchill. Additionally, William Willett’s Royal Sovereign King Edward VII liked the idea of utilizing Daylight Saving Time by setting his clocks ahead in the summer season at his Sandringham estate.
However, there were powerful forces in opposition to Willett’s scheme. They included Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, William Christie, head of Britain’s Department of Astronomy, who held the imposing title of “Astronomer Royal,” George Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) who was an astronomer and mathematician, and Sir Napier Shaw, head of Britain’s Meteorological Office. As a result, not until 1916, a year after William Willett’s death, would Britain adopt Daylight Saving Time as a World War I measure to increase wartime industrial production.
Meanwhile, back in the States, it was our participation in World War I. that compelled us to adopt the Standard Time Act of March 1918. Thus, ironically, out of the “Standard Time” Act came Daylight Saving Time. Daylight Saving Time was utilized for seven months in 1918 and 1919 under the supervision of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was successfully repealed in 1919 largely due to its unpopularity in farm states. In addition to their common initials and alliterative names, William Willett and President Woodrow Wilson shared a love for the game of golf. Some have speculated it was golf that caused President Wilson twice to veto the repeal of Daylight Saving Time in 1919. As unlikely as that is, it should be noted that President Wilson’s first veto was sustained.
The repeal of the 1918 Standard Time act meant that the states could adopt Daylight Saving Time at their own discretion and so it remained until—you guessed it—World War II. From February 9th, 1942 until September 30th 1945, Daylight Saving was in effect throughout the entire country the year round.
Not until passage of the 1966 Uniform Time Act did the federal government take unto itself the prerogative of standardizing Daylight Saving and Standard time nationally each spring and fall during peace time. However, the 1966 act—which moved supervision of Daylight and Standard time from the Department of Commerce to the newly created Department of Transportation--did allow states to pass legislation exempting themselves from instituting Daylight Saving Time. It merely stipulated that all states choosing to utilize Daylight Saving Time in the spring and summer and Standard Time in the late fall and winter should make those shifts simultaneously at 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in April and the last Sunday in October.
On January 4th, 1974, President Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Daylight Saving Energy Conservation Act of 1973. That act required that clocks be set ahead beginning January 6th, 1974 to preserve energy due to the energy shortage created by the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. That act was amended by Congress in October 1974 to allow Standard Time to be instituted from October 27th,1974 to February 23rd, 1975. One of the factors in reinstituting Standard Time during winter months was the potential danger to school children while waiting for the school bus on dark DST cold winter mornings. Once the seventies energy crisis was considered over, Daylight Saving and Standard times resumed their proscribed annual visitations.
In 1986, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed an extension to the Uniform Time Act that shifted the beginning of Daylight Saving time from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April while leaving the beginning of Standard Time as the last Sunday in October.
Finally, in 2005, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act that stipulated that, beginning in 2007, Daylight Saving Time would begin the second Sunday in March and Standard Time would begin the first Sunday in November. It also stipulated that the old first Sunday in April and the last Sunday in October schedule could be resumed if it were determined that sufficient energy saving could not be realized under the new schedule. (It should also be noted that Arizona and Hawaii still do not utilize Daylight Saving Time and are not required to under the 2005 Energy Policy Act.)
There in a nutshell is the general history of Daylight Saving Time. As I asserted earlier, I have little at stake in its implementation or abandonment. However, were I a farmer, I’d object to DST because I wouldn’t be able to begin harvesting my crops until the dew was off the fields. DST would hinder rather than help my operation. I would also oppose Daylight Saving Time if I were a theater owner or an advertiser on prime time television because extra daylight traditionally keeps people away from their local movie theaters and television sets. If I were a farm worker or parks management worker suffering from Retinitis Pigmentosa, I might find the extra exposure to sunlight (as favorably prescribed by its advocates) personally offensive—because sun would be injurious to my eyesight. Finally, if I were sufficiently conservative, I wouldn’t want the “Feds”, my state governor, the mayor, or even the local Farm Bureau telling me what to do.
On the other hand, Daylight Saving is said to be advantageous for the sports person, the retailers who sell sporting and other equipment, restaurateurs, land developers and so many more. There are studies showing that DST prevents vehicle and pedestrian accidents, cuts down on crime, and -- of course -- saves energy. Conservationists, environmentalists and “do gooders” from all points on the political spectrum all have something to say about the folly or wisdom of Daylight Saving Time.
Well, whatever works, I’m for it. Just don’t argue about it on the first Saturday night in November because I’ll be trying to get some extra rest—unless of course I’m out somewhere entertaining myself.
Oh yah… what do I do when it comes time to “spring forward?” Very simple—the force of springing forward drives me to my knees and I start praying that the first Saturday of next November will come really fast.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I don’t know about you, but I make a promise to myself every year when we’re given the instruction to fall back at the beginning of Standard Time. That promise is, of course, to take advantage of that extra hour of sleep so that I might be sufficiently energized to celebrate the coming holidays.
When I’m in this frame of mind, I picture myself snuggling down under the covers, conscience clear of all worries, thinking—for an instant--that I might just hibernate through the entire winter as do the woodchucks and the bears and other sensible denizens of the forest. As for what I do each spring when we receive the instruction to spring forward, stand by and I’ll let you know.
Of course springing forward or Daylight Saving Time is what’s at issue here, for as you may be able to tell from the tone of my writing so far, I don’t have a lot of emotional baggage wrapped up in either Daylight Saving or Standard Time. Therefore, I was quite surprised to learn what a controversial matter the development and enactment of Daylight Saving Time (or, if you prefer, DST) really has been historically.
What didn’t surprise me, however, as I did the research for this column, was the name of the gentleman who first advocated a form of Daylight Saving time to the people of Paris in 1784. His name was Benjamin Franklin and he was serving in his final months as America’s first Minister to the government of Louis XVI. Apparently, there was an energy or fuel shortage, or perhaps a money shortage, at the time. Hence, Ben Franklin suggested that the good citizens of Paris might fare better if the government woke them everyday at sunrise by firing cannons and ringing church bells. He suggested that if people got up early enough they’d save money on candles as well as on the cost of heating their dwellings late into the evening. It should be noted, however, that Ben Franklin didn’t specifically suggest the resetting of clocks -- but then, old Ben was already famous for his “early to bed and early to rise, healthy, wealthy and wise” lifestyle prescription.
Ninety-nine years passed between Ben Franklin’s 1784 commentary and the American and Canadian railroads adoption of what they called a standard time schedule for the convenience of the railroads, their freight customers and passengers alike. This was achieved by dividing the North American continent into four time zones; Eastern; Central; Mountain; and Pacific. However, it should be noted that time zones had nothing to do with Daylight Saving or Standard Time. What these two concepts—-time zones and time manipulation--do have in common are powerful voting constituencies.
Across the pond in England, an ambitious and dedicated builder (whom today we’d call a land developer) by the alliterative name of William Willett tried to advance the idea of Daylight Saving time during the summer season. The story has it that Willett got the idea one sunny summer morning in 1905 while riding through Petts Wood in Kent—today known as “The Garden Suburb of London.” During his ride, he noticed that the blinds were still drawn on so many homes even as “Old Sol” was shining so magnificently. People, he thought, ought to be up early—-perhaps playing golf (a game William Willett himself immensely enjoyed) or even better—-building homes.
Being an energetic as well as an enterprising gentleman, William Willett had a lot of political and socially prominent supporters. Among them were former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, a young member of Parliament David Lloyd George, and still another young M.P. by the name of Winston Churchill. Additionally, William Willett’s Royal Sovereign King Edward VII liked the idea of utilizing Daylight Saving Time by setting his clocks ahead in the summer season at his Sandringham estate.
However, there were powerful forces in opposition to Willett’s scheme. They included Prime Minister Herbert Asquith, William Christie, head of Britain’s Department of Astronomy, who held the imposing title of “Astronomer Royal,” George Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) who was an astronomer and mathematician, and Sir Napier Shaw, head of Britain’s Meteorological Office. As a result, not until 1916, a year after William Willett’s death, would Britain adopt Daylight Saving Time as a World War I measure to increase wartime industrial production.
Meanwhile, back in the States, it was our participation in World War I. that compelled us to adopt the Standard Time Act of March 1918. Thus, ironically, out of the “Standard Time” Act came Daylight Saving Time. Daylight Saving Time was utilized for seven months in 1918 and 1919 under the supervision of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was successfully repealed in 1919 largely due to its unpopularity in farm states. In addition to their common initials and alliterative names, William Willett and President Woodrow Wilson shared a love for the game of golf. Some have speculated it was golf that caused President Wilson twice to veto the repeal of Daylight Saving Time in 1919. As unlikely as that is, it should be noted that President Wilson’s first veto was sustained.
The repeal of the 1918 Standard Time act meant that the states could adopt Daylight Saving Time at their own discretion and so it remained until—you guessed it—World War II. From February 9th, 1942 until September 30th 1945, Daylight Saving was in effect throughout the entire country the year round.
Not until passage of the 1966 Uniform Time Act did the federal government take unto itself the prerogative of standardizing Daylight Saving and Standard time nationally each spring and fall during peace time. However, the 1966 act—which moved supervision of Daylight and Standard time from the Department of Commerce to the newly created Department of Transportation--did allow states to pass legislation exempting themselves from instituting Daylight Saving Time. It merely stipulated that all states choosing to utilize Daylight Saving Time in the spring and summer and Standard Time in the late fall and winter should make those shifts simultaneously at 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in April and the last Sunday in October.
On January 4th, 1974, President Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Daylight Saving Energy Conservation Act of 1973. That act required that clocks be set ahead beginning January 6th, 1974 to preserve energy due to the energy shortage created by the 1973 OPEC oil embargo. That act was amended by Congress in October 1974 to allow Standard Time to be instituted from October 27th,1974 to February 23rd, 1975. One of the factors in reinstituting Standard Time during winter months was the potential danger to school children while waiting for the school bus on dark DST cold winter mornings. Once the seventies energy crisis was considered over, Daylight Saving and Standard times resumed their proscribed annual visitations.
In 1986, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed an extension to the Uniform Time Act that shifted the beginning of Daylight Saving time from the last Sunday in April to the first Sunday in April while leaving the beginning of Standard Time as the last Sunday in October.
Finally, in 2005, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act that stipulated that, beginning in 2007, Daylight Saving Time would begin the second Sunday in March and Standard Time would begin the first Sunday in November. It also stipulated that the old first Sunday in April and the last Sunday in October schedule could be resumed if it were determined that sufficient energy saving could not be realized under the new schedule. (It should also be noted that Arizona and Hawaii still do not utilize Daylight Saving Time and are not required to under the 2005 Energy Policy Act.)
There in a nutshell is the general history of Daylight Saving Time. As I asserted earlier, I have little at stake in its implementation or abandonment. However, were I a farmer, I’d object to DST because I wouldn’t be able to begin harvesting my crops until the dew was off the fields. DST would hinder rather than help my operation. I would also oppose Daylight Saving Time if I were a theater owner or an advertiser on prime time television because extra daylight traditionally keeps people away from their local movie theaters and television sets. If I were a farm worker or parks management worker suffering from Retinitis Pigmentosa, I might find the extra exposure to sunlight (as favorably prescribed by its advocates) personally offensive—because sun would be injurious to my eyesight. Finally, if I were sufficiently conservative, I wouldn’t want the “Feds”, my state governor, the mayor, or even the local Farm Bureau telling me what to do.
On the other hand, Daylight Saving is said to be advantageous for the sports person, the retailers who sell sporting and other equipment, restaurateurs, land developers and so many more. There are studies showing that DST prevents vehicle and pedestrian accidents, cuts down on crime, and -- of course -- saves energy. Conservationists, environmentalists and “do gooders” from all points on the political spectrum all have something to say about the folly or wisdom of Daylight Saving Time.
Well, whatever works, I’m for it. Just don’t argue about it on the first Saturday night in November because I’ll be trying to get some extra rest—unless of course I’m out somewhere entertaining myself.
Oh yah… what do I do when it comes time to “spring forward?” Very simple—the force of springing forward drives me to my knees and I start praying that the first Saturday of next November will come really fast.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)