Origins of American Racism Toward Latinos: Elizabethan England: Part I Historical Background

I believe that the origin of an American prejudice against Spanish speakers, racist in character, lies in Elizabethan England. During the Middle Ages England had a tense relationship with France, going back to the twelfth century, when the Angevin Empire, comprised of England and much of the western part of what is now modern France, kept a rump France at bay. As those French territories gradually became a part of France proper the English fought to keep the lands in English possession. The port of Calais remained the only English toehold on the continent until it too was lost under Mary I (r. 1553-1558), never again to return to English possession.  The so-called “Hundred Years War," fought intermittently between England and France from 1337 to 1453, was largely an effort to regain those English territories in France, to no avail.

Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603.                          Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547)

The tension with France meant that England leaned toward Spain, diplomatically, although relations with France were maintained. The first wife of Edward I (r. 1272-1307) was French while his second wife was Spanish.

As the Middle Ages morphed into the Renaissance things changed. Henry VII (r. 1483-1509) leaned more toward Spain, negotiating a Spanish marriage for his eldest son, Arthur. Catherine of Aragon was married to Arthur for less than a year when he died of what some scholars think was the sweating sickness. After languishing in England for years, Henry’s second son, who became Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547) married Catherine after he ascended to the throne. Catherine had a number of pregnancies but only one child, Mary, survived. Henry famously broke from Rome, divorced Catherine and married Anne Boleyn, with only one daughter, Elizabeth, surviving. Four wives later Henry had two daughters and a son, Edward, all of whom reigned over England, Elizabeth’s reign lasting the longest (1558-1603).

During Henry’s reign his court bounced between relations with Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the Hapsburg Charles V, and France, ruled by two monarchs during Henry’s reign. Henry would favor one or the other based on what he thought he could get out of either. It was never out of friendship.

Philip II (r. 1556-1598 Spain)

By the time Elizabeth I took the throne the relationship with Spain had soured considerably. Spain had built up an international empire in the New World and Asia under Charles’ son, Philip II, and England was jealous. During Elizabeth’s reign the first British Empire began to form. The major focus was on the New World. In the century since Columbus’ disastrous encounter with the peoples of South America and the Caribbean, Spain had dominated this region. Expeditions to this region under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh and others attempted to get a toehold on the American continents. Raleigh’s attempt to establish a colony on the Virginia (now North Carolina) coast at Roanoke in 1585 and again in 1587 failed. The tensions between Spain, partly over state-sanctioned piracy and partly over the execution of Mary Queen of Scots resulted in the massive attempt by Spain to conquer England. The Spanish Armada of 1588 failed miserably, and the English sat on the edge of their collective seats for the next decade expecting that the Spanish might try again. There were small incursions but nothing on the scale of the Spanish Armada.

One of the factors in the English animosity toward Philip and Spain was that he had been co-regent with his wife, Mary I of England, who briefly returned England to Catholicism. Many in England did not like the idea of a Spanish king.

The English case against the Spanish revolved around several issues. First, they were Catholic, and wanted to overthrow Elizabeth, a Protestant. Second, they were cruel, in English estimation, as I will discuss in my next post.

The Real Traffic Laws of Connecticut

These are the real rules of the road for driving in Connecticut. Forget what’s written in state law. This is the real deal.If you have any suggested additions I'd be happy to hear them!

Drivers may run red lights if the light was green when the driver first saw it. It used to be green.

The first driver in line when a light turns green may sit at the light texting.

For yellow lights, speed up so as to make it through while the light is still yellow.

Pedestrians never have the right of way.

Speed limits are optional, although the driver may consider slowing down in the presence of a police cruiser.

In no passing zones, drivers may pass without a turn signal when theywish to. Crossing yellow lines or solid white lines is not only allowed but encouraged.

The "right turn on red" law equates the red light to a green arrow; no need to slow, or stop and look prior to the turn.

The "No Turn on Red" or "Right Turn on Red from Right Lane Only" (when there are 2 right turn lanes) signs only apply to people who are not in a hurry, or not self-important. All others should disregard these signs. 

Slow lanes on interstate highways are intended for passing on the right at high speed

Yield signs are there just for decoration.

At stop signs, rolling stops are acceptable. If the driver doesn’t feel like slowing down that’s ok too.

With the use of turn signals, they are totally optional. When a driver in the right lane signals that he/she wants to move over to the center lane, the closest driver to the left must speed up so that the driver to the right cannot move over. This move may be repeated as often as necessary.

Cell phone use and texting is only prohibited in the presence of a police officer. Otherwise it is permitted.

The Disease of Individualism and Gun Ownership

It’s happened again. Four times in the last week a shooter armed to the teeth invaded a public place where people were innocently enjoying food and music or shopping. Trump will send out tweets with “thoughts and prayers,” Republican congressional representatives will show their piety with their “thoughts and prayers,” and not a blasted thing will be done. People will still be able to buy military style rifles with large capacity cartridges so they will be able to get off the maximum amount of shots before being taken down by law enforcement. This time around, perhaps the Democratically led House will introduce legislation related to a ban on assault weapons but we’ll see. For myself, I plan to call my representative and two senators tomorrow.

Our nation is sick. Sick unto death. The illness that has crippled us is a complex wad of fear and hatred, not unlike a cancerous tumor with a variety of DNA in it and none of it is good. In the public arena people call for a “national conversation” on the issue of gun violence. There’s already plenty of conversation, or at times talking at one another, going on now. In my view there is only one place, in two rooms, where that conversation will happen in a meaningful way. It is the House of Representatives and the Senate. Add onto that public hearings scheduled by both houses of Congress and we’ve got the beginnings of a national conversation. Nothing short of that will have any effect. The amount of money that supports the fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment is the elephant in the room.

So what do we do? I’m between jobs right now so I don’t have a pulpit, but I do have my blog so I am using it as my pulpit.

The nature of our sickness, that ball of malicious DNA, has one component, individualism, which seems to control the conversation. Allow me to illustrate. The day of the Sandy Hook shooting I went to a Christmas party at a friend’s house. It was one of those parties you don’t want to miss, as it took over the whole first floor of a Victorian home and included several dozen interesting people. One doctor came, and somehow we ended up in conversation. He was a gun collector, with a variety of modern weapons, and he was deeply torn over the issue of his ability to own an assault weapon, which he did, and the same right of the shooter’s mother at Sandy Hook. What held him back from agreeing that nobody should have access to such weapons was individualism. If he wouldn’t hurt anyone with an assault rifle shouldn’t he be able to buy one? I tried to help him understand the importance of a societal covenant that because of the deadly nature of such weapons nobody, including law abiding citizens, should be able to own them. It didn’t work.

Each of us has an awareness of being an individual. I make my own choices, you make your own choices, and hopefully we won’t make bad choices that hurt others. But that right of individual choice does not extend indefinitely. I cannot choose to take another person’s life, for instance, and expect that society would be ok with it. I cannot choose to drive my car recklessly, under the influence of alcohol, and take the risk of killing another person if not myself as well. Society would not be ok with that. There are legal limits on individual choice. I would argue that our society needs to extend the limitation on individualism to cover assault or military style weapons. Nobody needs them. My right to go out and buy one (which I have no intention of doing) does not trump another person’s right to live. Take a look at this good article from a recent issue of Psychology today:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/values-matter/201612/is-radical-individualism-destroying-our-moral-compass

Realistically, what is going to happen? One British journalist commented after Sandy Hook that the debate over gun control in the US was over, because it had become acceptable to slaughter children. Connecticut enacted some very strict gun laws, and that is very good. I hope the rest of the country will do the same after this horrible week.

The Meaning of a Signature

Recently I was standing in line at the local pharmacy to pick up a prescription. A couple of elderly women were in line in front of me. One was younger than the other so I assumed it was a mother and daughter. The daughter was helping her mother get around. The prescription was for the older woman, and the pharmacy tech asked her to sign the screen. She held up her hand and it had a cast on it, and she said she was right handed. The tech said it didn’t matter what the signature looked like, he just needed to sign for it. “But it won’t look like my real signature,” the woman said. “It doesn’t matter,” the tech said. “You could have her sign for it if you want.” The woman said she would try. She commented that it didn’t look like her signature.

The tech, who was young enough to be at least her grandson if not her great grandson, may not have understood what underlay the woman’s concern. She grew up in a world in which a signature meant something. When you signed a document you made sure it was an accurate representation of your signature. The more important the document, the more care you took with your signature. You might even pause for a second or two and soak in the significance  of your signature. I often do when I am signing a marriage license after I have officiated at a wedding. My signature certifies that the two people were legally married by me. The legal implications of my signature on that license are tremendous.

Now, it doesn’t matter if your electronic signature resembles anything other than the scrawl of a two year old trying out a crayon for the first time before eating it. In this vignette I was reminded of the vast difference between the two worlds of these two people. One just wanted her to sign the screen so she could take the medication. The other was concerned about the accuracy of her signature.

It may seem a small thing, and in and of itself it is, but the difference is striking. This highlights the overlap we still have of people who lived and worked before the digital age, and those who grew up with it and take it for granted, and at times get impatient with geezers like me who sometimes are confused by it.

I think about my parents’ generation, growing up, getting an education and raising a family all before the current advent of digital technology. At that time a signature meant something. Both my parents had beautiful copperplate signatures. My signature, on the other hand, is a train wreck. I’m a perfect candidate to sign the screen. Nobody can read it on paper either so why would it matter on screen?I remember moving to another state and applying for a drivers license, and I signed the form. The clerk complained that she couldn't read it. I said it was my signature. She replied that it wasn't my signature unless it was legible. I took the form back, printed my name in large block letters and handed it back to her. She was satisfied.

Signatures are an individual thing. Some signatures are famous for the documents that they appear on. John Hancock’s signature is still barely visible on the original Declaration of Independence, which has suffered abuse after abuse since it was signed 243 years ago, and as a shadow of its former self now sits enshrined in inert gas at the National Archive. Many of the signatures have either totally disappeared or have only traces remaining. We all know that Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin (among others) signed the document so does it matter if their signatures have disappeared? Does it make the document less valid? It’s a question to ponder.

For many historical figures the reproduction of a signature is one way to indicate the individual character of a famous person, along with a photograph or portrait. It’s their own rendering of their own name. What can be more individual than that? My handwritten version of John Hancock’s name would not be his signature. His, written with the comment that he wrote it large enough so that King George III could read it without his spectacles, is most assuredly his own name.

This is all in the background of the vignette I witnessed and the window that it is, a window into a world that is vanishing one death at a time. Are we entering an age when nothing means anything anymore? I wonder.

How to Talk Yankee to Get Your Point Across With an Economy of Words

Most people think of Maine or New Hampshire or Vermont when they hear the term “Yankee.” My wife tells me that her Oklahoma relatives think that she’s a Yankee. She grew up in Delaware. Nope. I grew up in Connecticut, which despite the incursion of people from New York and New Jersey, is still very much a part of New England. I was steeped in the economy of New England conversation.

When Calvin Coolidge, a native of Vermont, was President in the 1920's he was approached by a reporter who told him that he had made a bet with a coworker that he could make Coolidge say more than three words. Coolidge famously responded, "You lose." Coolidge was a past master of terse communication. Dorothy Sayers, when told that Coolidge had died, asked, "How could they tell?"

The key to talking Yankee is to use an economy of language. A single word, such as “Nope,” “Yep,” and “Ayuh,” can express an entire sentence. The inflection is important. Emphasize the final consonant. Stretch the word out a bit.

"Nope," for example, can translate into many different phrases or sentences. It can translate to, for example:
"I'm really not interested in talking to you"
"I don't believe a word you're saying"
"I'm busy"
"I don't want to talk about it"
"No. Please don't ask me again"

"Yep" can translate many ways as well:
"Yes, it's true that the car ran the red light and hit the family of turkeys crossing the road"
"Yes, I would love to go to the used book store with you"
"Yes, it's true that the beaver rebuilt his dam in front of the culvert for the third time"
"Yes, it's true that the farmer put up his hay wet and the barn burned from spontaneous combustion"

This form of communication is best used when you encounter someone you really don't want to talk to, or if a stranger approaches and your radar tells you that they're trying to sell you snake oil, or any other situation like that.

Ok, so here are a couple of examples. These conversations happened exactly as I describe.

Example One:

I’m in the register at Home Depot, buying about $50 worth of merchandise.

Cashier: Would you like to put this on your Home Depot credit card?

Me: Don’t have one.

Cashier: Would you like to sign up for one?

Me: Nope.

Cashier: Ok.

This really happened. It took only four words for me to indicate that I didn’t have their credit card and didn’t want one.



Here’s another example.

Example Two:

Someone knocks at the back door, and I go to see who it is. A TruGreen kid is there.

TruGreen kid: Hi! Many of your neighbors are hiring us to work with them on their lawns to improve them.

Me: That’s nice.

TruGreen kid: Hey, are those bonsai trees in your backyard?

Me: Yep.

TruGreen kid: Do you have plans set for your yard care this summer?

Me: Yep.

TruGreen kid: What is it?

Me: Mowing it.

TruGreen kid: Would you like to have us help you develop a plan for your lawn for this summer?

Me: Nope.

TruGreen kid: (realizing he wasn’t going to get anywhere with me) Ok. Have a nice day!


Again, the economy of words is the key. Don’t say any more than you need to. Fewer words get the point across with an air of finality.


I realize that in other parts of the country this would be considered incredibly rude. Not here!

Sacred Spaces are Mortal Like Us

The recent fire in Notre Dame cathedral in Paris has me thinking about the nature of sacred space. Every church I have served has worshiped in a building that was at least a century old. My present church worships in a meetinghouse that is 211 years old this year. In New England, church buildings of this age are fairly common.

I have been annoyed with reporting about the Notre Dame fire. What's irritating is that the cathedral is described as Paris' most popular tourist destination. Yes, it is that. But primarily it is a place of worship, first and foremost. Obviously, many tourists go there, but first and foremost it is a church. Referring to it simply as a "tourist destination" trivializes the significance of this church.

A church is not just a place where people go to see art and architecture. It embodies something for those who feel a strong connection to it. It is a place where people have brought their children to be baptized, to get married, and to say farewell to loved ones. I had a conversation once with an elderly parishoner an he said he was sure that the walls of the church absorbed the sound of singing, of preaching and the reading of scripture, and of children laughing. He said he could feel the presence of people from the past. I agreed.

Any sacred space, whether it's a storefront church in a poor city, a New England meetinghouse, or a cathedral such as Notre Dame, mediates a connection between us and God. Depending on our upbringing and aesthetic sensibilities, some sacred spaces will work for some but not for others. That's inevitable. It's important, though, to respect someone else's sacred space even if it doesn't speak to you.

Notre Dame is such a place for the people of France. Cynics will point out that the billionaires who have pledged large donations will get nice tax breaks. That's true, and I'm sure that the Church will happily take the donations. They'll need it. Apparently donations have topped 1 billion. That should do it. I made a donation to the black churches in Louisiana instead. The rich people will take care of Notre Dame.

The three churches in Louisiana? I'm sure that architecturally they are forgettable. But that doesn't matter. They are gathering places for people to worship God and to give thanks for God's blessings. They probably worship in a way that I would not find evocative. It doesn't matter. Those church buildings are just as important to their congregations as Notre Dame is to France. On top of that, the destruction of Notre Dame appears to have been the result of an accident related to renovations and restoration on the roof. Unfortunate, but not intentional. The destruction of the church buildings in Louisiana were the result of hatred. I can't abide by that. I do not accept it.

France's President Macron's promise to rebuild in five years is totally unrealistic. This isn't just a matter of setting up forms and pouring concrete and slapping a roof on it. It will take them five years to just thoroughly inspect the remaining structure and reinforce what needs support with appropriate materials, construct a temporary roof, do an archaeological dig in the cathedral to recover damaged material as evidence for the restoration, and come up with a plan. Long term, as one historian suggests, is that they will probably have to take down and rebuild the vaulted ceiling because, although most of it did not collapse, it undoubtedly was weakened by the fire. Fire stresses stone and weakens it. This building is made out of limestone, which is especially vulnerable to damage and cracking from high heat. The vaulting certainly did its job of protecting the interior from the worst of the damage from the fire above, but it may not be salvageable. Just because most of it is still in place does not mean it can be kept. I'm sure the engineers are on high alert with the vaulting to watch for any signs of a potential collapse. If they decide that it is strong enough to remain in place they may decide to put in temporary supports while the rebuilding of the damaged sections of the vaults can be done.

Then, there will be infighting between those who want to restore it to its appearance just before the fire, and those who want to include more contemporary features. That should be good for a year or two. If I had a say I would suggest to maintain the original structure, reproduce what is damaged beyond repair, but leave open the possibility of contemporary elements such as new stained glass windows if the original ones are not salvageable, and some contemporary elements in sculpture if stonework has to be replaced. And, if the side chapels are damaged and need to be rebuilt there is always the possibility of contemporary elements there. This could be done in a tasteful manner in keeping with the general appearance of the building. And, they could certainly replace the roof with one made out of a composite fireproof material, and make the supports out of something that is similarly fireproof and lightweight enough so as to not stress the stone structure. Wood is not out of the question, but it would most likely have to be laminated and treated wood with the lack of availability of trees of the size that would be needed. Wood can survive a fire depending on the temperature. The ancient wooden support structure didn't stand a chance because of its age and dryness.

Sacred spaces change with time. Not only do they age, but they also need repair. A building as old as Notre Dame has gone through many alterations and repairs, some to restore what was already there, and some to update the building to suit contemporary tastes and uses. New England churches go through this. Our church has a music room behind the organ, which is in the choir loft opposite the pulpit. Originally that room would have been open to the rest of the sanctuary, but at some point it was walled off when a pipe organ was installed. Similarly. the palladian window behind the pulpit, which is now walled in and contains quotes from the New Testament in Old English lettering, was originally a glass window. Buildings change and they age.

The engineers and architects in charge of the Notre Dame restoration will have to recruit and train the workers who will ultimately spend the rest of their lives working on the restoration. I would anticipate 20-30 years at least. All this will be to restore the church from the damage of a 12 hour period in a building that is 850 years old and took over a century to build. That's also the nature of sacred space. It is mortal, like we are. We hope and expect that buildings such as Notre Dame will abide forever so we can enjoy them, but they age and change just like we do.

The Land of Steady Habits

Some may wonder about the title of my blog, “The Land of Steady Habits.” It’s a phrase that everyone from Connecticut knows. It originated sometime in the early 1800’s to refer to Connecticut’s steady political views and stable economy. Nowadays, when people quote it it’s with their tongue in cheek, with a chuckle.

Connecticut isn’t what it used to be. The Gold Coast (Fairfield County) is still pretty prosperous, and is still one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

I come from the middle-class part of Connecticut. My hometown, Meriden, has definitely seen better days. In the early 70’s International Silver was broken up and sold, and the city lost its largest private employer. When I read posts on the Facebook page “You know you’re from Meriden if.....” many of the posts are nostalgic in nature. Who remembers Dave Clayton’s Army and Navy on West Main Street. Who went to Les’s soft serve ice cream. Who had a family member who worked at International. You can tell someone whose family has been in Meriden for a long time because if they see a piece of silverplate in a thrift store or antiques mall they turn the piece over to see who made it. Was it International or Reed and Barton?

Connecticut has taken a beating economically. General Electric left. Aetna has partly left. There seems to be a revolving door on the Massachusetts and New York borders, and mostly they’re leaving. For some, Connecticut is the state wedged between New York and Massachusetts that you blow through on I-84 and if you're unlucky you hit rush hour traffic in Hartford. It's like the northernmost county of New Jersey except the fall foliage is better. Connecticut? Is that really part of New England?

When Anita and I moved here almost four years ago I knew what I was coming back to. Really bad driving, economic stratification, and relatively mild winters. She had not lived in New England before we were in New Hampshire. The winters there, except for the minus 0 temperatures, are more like what I remember growing up here. She says the winters here sometimes resemble the winters in Delaware where she grew up. If it snows it's gone in a day or two. There are wineries here now. Wineries? Nobody had wineries when I was a kid. It was too cold in the winter.

I really struggled with looking for a church in Connecticut. I wasn't sure I wanted to move back to my home state. Having visited my parents and brother many times I knew full well what state my hometown was in. It’s my home state. My family has been here for nearly four centuries. My ancestors are buried here. Our blood is in the soil.

Prior to the Civil War people often referred to their home state as their "country." There wasn't yet as clear an identity as "American" as opposed to being from Connecticut, Virginia, or New York. In this sense, Connecticut is my country.

Yet, our state government seems inept no matter what party is running it. I have hopes for our current governor but we'll see. Meanwhile, the residents of Hartford suffer with expensive yet inadequate rental housing, and a city government that is more interested in building a stadium than meeting the needs of the immigrants who now call Hartford and Connecticut, this ancient place, their home.

Our illusions of grandeur can be summed up in the map that I have as a banner on my blog. It shows Connecticut’s pretensions to grandeur. Our colonial charter did not specify a western border. So, a cartographer named Abel Buell made a map in 1784 that showed the state with its rightful claim to a strip of territory straight across to the Mississippi River. What’s in-between? Notice that the northern border of Pennsylvania is in line with the border between Connecticut and Massachusetts. That part of Pennsylvania was settled by Connecticut people after the Revolutionary War, people who were looking for more land. Ayuh. This magical belt of land would now encompass parts of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Those areas were also settled by Connecticut people.

Despite our grand nostalgia, our collective memory of times past, and our present economic doldrums, Connecticut is still a great place and I am happy to be here. No, I don’t like the way people drive, but there are treasures here. Yale University. The Wadsworth Athenaeum in Hartford. UConn. Many others, too numerous to name. All treasures handed down from previous generations of people who worked their butts off to make the state what it was. Now it's up to us to decide what Connecticut will be in the near future. There are people who see our state as an economic outpost, a place to stake a claim and make a living. God bless them. I'll patronize them in a New York minute.

I sit here in my ca. 1794 house full of books, an outpost of learning in a sea of inanity. Don’t diss Connecticut or you’ll get my thumb in your eye. It’s my state. An ancestor of mine founded it in the 1630's. My people are buried here. Our blood is in the soil. My children have moved to different parts of the country, to Massachusetts, Virginia, and California, but their ancestors came from here. They know that.