That would be Garrison Keillor. And, yes, I love him. Not only do I love that one of the best and brightest liberals in America is a Norwegian-Minnesotan, but he brightens my Sunday mornings like no other. When I roll out of bed, I am immediately excited to grab the Op-Ed section of the Strib and turn to Garrison’s column. Yesterday’s was especially good. He wrote about the lessons of history- how in retrospect all of the mistakes people and governments made seem so silly and so obviously, well, mistaken. But of course, it’s never really that simple.
One of the examples Garrison gave was the Temperance Movement and the Prohibition Era. In 2007, it seems unfathomable, bizarre, and uber-Puritanical that alcohol was illegal in this country. But Garrison goes on and this is where it gets interesting. The Temperance movement was actually led by women who were also Suffragists. They were not the conservatives or the Puritans of their day. They were women who had experienced how other women, who had virtually no political power or economic control over their lives and were extremely dependant on their husbands’ incomes, could have their lives ruined by alcoholic and abusive men. At least in part, Prohibition came about due to women activists who believed that women’s lives would be vastly stabilized and improved if their husbands were sober and providing for their families.
This is fascinating to me. Maybe it’s old news to others, but despite 22.5 years of education, including AP U.S. History and several American Studies-type classes in high school and college, I have never learned about the Prohibition Era from this perspective.
I woke up on Sunday morning looking forward to sitting on my balcony in the April sunshine and reading the paper. I had no idea I was going to get a different perspective on a topic I didn’t even realize I was interested in.
This is the perfect time to start making a list of books/topics that I am going to read/study for fun once the bar exam is over: Connections between the Suffragist movement and the Temperance movement. (Maybe read about this while wearing an ERA button and drinking a lot of wine?)
Major props, G.K., major props.
4 comments:
Hey! I am now a reader of your blog.
I hate for my first comment ever to be super negative, but G.K. is pretty conservative when it comes to some other important issues. For example, the gays. He recently published an opinion piece that ran in the Star Tribune (I think) and on Salon.com in which he comes out against gay marriage and adoption. Why? Because the gays wear funny clothes, have silly little dogs, and must be the center of attention at all times (this often involves singing show tunes). Moreover, having same-sex parents (who will most likely divorce) will add too many new hyphenated relatives to the mix -- like “my dad's ex-boyfriend's mother-in-law,” for example.
You can read the article here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/14/keillor/
I find his nostalgic and superior tone in this piece (and almost always) to be disingenuous and insufferable. Hasn't he been married more than once and didn't he cheat on at least one of his wives? He's probably got a couple step-kids, too. Also, the stereotypes of gay men that he includes in the piece aren't even the worst part of his article. The most offensive thing is his assumption that in order for gay men to even maybe be decent parents they have to disavow stereotypically gay attributes. Swishes can be great parents.
Sadly, I think the views that he expresses here on the war, education, multiculturalism, and gay rights reflect the conflicting attitudes of many liberals or elusive middle of the road folk. Still, the title -- "Stating the Obvious” -- is pretty infuriating.
All that said, much love to you. I will be a better cyber friend and commenter in the future. But G.K. should be called out once in a while.
Cheers,
Jamie
since i always read the column, i did see that one from a few weeks ago. i found it unsettling, just as you and myriad other Strib readers did. the following sunday, almost the entire "letters to the editor" page was filled with rightful criticism, which is why i love the op-ed section and newspapers in general, but that's another story.
you know i heart the gays. maybe even more than i heart G.K. but not as much as i heart bill clinton. we all have our weaknesses, we all make mistakes and/or write stupid articles sometimes. i still like it when i get to learn AP US History at age 25.
Good to know that the Minnesotan's called him on it in the paper. It ran in Minneapolis a week after it did on salon.com (and a week after I was in MPLS for spring break), so I missed all those letters to the editor. I'm sure people were especially tough on him because, like you, they love him. And he's so often right on.
P.S. I heart the Clintons too. Especially Chelsea. She seems like someone you could have a beer with.
Hm. Maybe somebody here is having a hard time understanding the intricacies of the English language...?
And by "somebody" I mean Garrison Keilor. Of course.
Post a Comment