Tuesday, December 27, 2022

The Peddler and the Pedagogue


On a sweltering day in 1911, the two men who would change the course of black education in the South met for the first time at the newly-built Blackstone Hotel in Chicago overlooking the shore of Lake Michigan. 

Julius Rosenwald, a former peddler of dry goods, had seized an opportunity to join a thriving retail business, Sears, Roebuck and Company, and had propelled it to unimaginable heights. Approaching fifty, he was gregarious and energetic, with a reputation for honesty and generosity that had made him an influential figure in his community and beyond. (Deutsch, pp. 3-4)

Booker T. Washington, born a slave, had risen from his humble origins to become not only an impressive pedagogue but a nationally-known representative and spokesperson for his race. He appeared older than his fifty-six years. He had endured personal heartbreak, decades of overwork, and two sides of fame: acclaim for his accomplishments coupled with criticism and disparagement from fellow blacks for his emphasis on vocational education and his failure to speak out more aggressively against racial prejudice and oppression. Yet he persevered, traveling incessantly, talking to strangers, always on the lookout for a potential benefactor -- like Julius Rosenwald. (Deutsch. p. 4)

There was little evidence in Julius Rosenwald's early years to suggest that by midlife he would be a man of great wealth, a notable philanthropist, and an invaluable friend to a deprived black population.

In an article he co-authored with Elias Tobenkin in the January 5th, 1929 edition of the Saturday Evening Post, he expressed surprise at having found himself in the class of multimillionaire at the age of forty with the capacity to give away large sums of money. (Ascoli, p. 316)

In view of the straitened financial circumstances he and his wife Gussie labored under during the first decade of their marriage, which she described in her correspondence, Rosenwald's biographer cautions readers to regard as apocryphal an oft-repeated remark he is reputed to have made to his friend Mo Newborg around that time: "The aim of my life is to have an income of $15,000 a year -- $5,000 to be used for my personal expense, $5,000 to be laid aside, and $5,000 to go to charity." (Ascoli, p. 54)

Who can say what determines a man's course in life: genetics, destiny, temperament, intellect, will power, mentoring, or just plain luck? Most likely, as in the case of Julius Rosenwald, it's some combination of these traits. 

He grew up in a family of shopkeepers. His father Samuel immigrated to Baltimore from Westphalia in Germany in 1854, and, after peddling for two years along the Winchester Trail in Virginia and West Virginia, went to work for the Hammerslough Brothers in their Baltimore-based clothing business. Within months he fell in love with and married the sister of his employers, who immediately dispatched the newlyweds west on a circuitous journey that landed them in Springfield, Illinois. There, while Samuel's dry goods store flourished selling uniforms to Union soldiers and earned him enough to purchase it from the brothers, son Julius was born in 1862, one block from the home of Abraham Lincoln. (Ascoli, pp. 1-3)

At the age of sixteen, Julius decided to drop out of high school and accept a job offer from his Hammerslough uncles, who had moved to New York City and appended to their retail stores a booming men's clothing manufacturing operation. Julius worked as a stock clerk and road salesman for five years; securing a loan from his father Samuel, he then recruited his brother Morris and cousin Julius Weil as partners in their own men's shop, called "J. Rosenwald and Brother." Their strategy of locating a few doors down from the industry leader, Brokaw Brothers, proved to be ill-conceived, as sales were hard to come by. (Ascoli, pp. 6-7)

When a salesman for one of Rosenwald's suppliers showed him sixty orders for men's lightweight clothing that the company was unable to fulfill, Rosenwald saw an opportunity, and acted on it. In spite of his recent failure, he convinced his father to invest $2000 (which was matched by Julius Weil's father) in a men's summer clothing manufacturing venture. (Ascoli, pp. 8-9) 

To avoid competing with his Hammerslough uncles, he planted it in Chicago, which had recovered from its disastrous 1871 fire and was now the country's second most populous city. (Deutsch, p. 37)

The fledgling business, Rosenwald & Weil, struggled at the outset. Rosenwald worked long hours, and spent many weeks on the road, traveling to places like St. Louis, Colorado Springs, and Phoenix to display his wares and take orders. He made frequent trips to New York to purchase fabrics and consult with his uncles. Nevertheless, four years after moving to Chicago, in 1890, he found time to fall in love and marry Augusta "Gussie" Nusbaum, herself the daughter of a clothier. (Deutsch, pp. 39-40)

After a brief period of prosperity, Rosenwald & Weil barely survived the Panic of 1893. Rosenwald's old friend from his New York days, Mo Newborg, was a partner in a firm specializing in the manufacture of cheap clothing. Its success inspired Rosenwald to establish a Chicago branch, Rosenwald & Co., fifty percent of which was owned by Rosenwald & Weil and fifty percent by the parent. (Ascoli, pp. 21-22)

While young Rosenwald (he was thirty-two by now) was embarking on a number of false starts, another Chicago entrepreneur was experiencing his own growing pains. In 1886, Richard Sears, a Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad stationmaster in North Redwood Falls, Minnesota, made his first sale by mail when he purchased a canceled order of watches, drafted and distributed a description of the lot to fellow station agents, and delivered them for resale at a steep discount. Subsequent orders sold rapidly, especially after he shifted to newspaper advertising. In March 1887, Sears moved his fledgling business to Chicago, hired a watch expert, Alvah P. Roebuck, and expanded his line to include watch chains, general jewelry, and even diamonds sold on the installment plan. (Ascoli, pp. 22-23)

Sears had a mercurial personality. Between March 1889 and August 1891, he was in and out of the watch business three times before reuniting with Roebuck in the A. C. Roebuck Company, later Sears, Roebuck & Company, of which he ended up with half ownership. He brought with him the practice of issuing catalogs, which grew from thirty-one pages in 1891, when the company added sewing machines, to 322 in 1894. A broad array of products filled those pages: furniture, dishes, wagons, buggies, shoes, baby carriages, medical instruments, and men and boy's clothing. Sears labored tirelessly, writing all the copy himself. (Ascoli, pp. 23-24)


Roebuck, however, was not in good health, and was wilting under the stress of a business that, while growing, was deeply in debt in a time of economic uncertainty and whose model -- mail order -- was unproven in the long run. He was uncomfortable with Sears's "constantly changing and evolving schemes." He demanded to be bought out, which compelled Sears to seek not only his replacement but a partner with the wherewithal to provide additional capital. (Ascoli, pp. 24-25)

Early in the summer of 1895, Aaron Nusbaum, Julius Rosenwald's brother-in-law, walked into Richard Sears's office to show him some pneumatic tubes, devices used to speed orders between floors in large stores. Nusbaum was flush with cash; he had recently pocketed $150,000 selling flavored soda water at the World's Columbian Exposition, a concession granted him by department store magnate, Marshall Field, as a reward for locating a trainload of stolen merchandise. "Sears was not interested in the tubes, but he liked the enterprising salesman, and he was looking for an investor." On August 7th, he offered Nusbaum a half interest in the company for $75,000. (Ascoli. p. 25)

Nusbaum was intrigued, but he was reluctant to commit such a large sum. Rejected by one brother-in-law, he went to Julius and asked him if would like a quarter ownership in Sears. (Deutsch, p. 48)

Rosenwald believed that mail order was a concept with a future. He realized that rural customers had few options other than country stores with meager selection and high prices. He saw new products coming to market every day. He witnessed Montgomery Ward's thriving mail order business, which catered to farmers and the members of their fraternal order, the Grange. Finally, he knew his cash requirements would be minimized by the amount Sears currently owed Rosenwald & Co. and its parent for shipments of men's suits. (Deutsch, p. 49)

On August 13, 1895, Sears, Nusbaum, and Rosenwald signed the agreement that made them partners, and, more importantly, brought Julius Rosenwald into company management. (Deutsch, p. 49)

It was an opportune time to be entering this embryonic field of retail. The next twelve years would see the American economy booming. Farmers were flourishing, and willing to spend freely on goods, implements, clothing, and luxuries. The telegraph and a vast railroad network enabled Sears, Roebuck to order, receive, and ship its products swiftly and at a low cost; service to even the most isolated house was now available through Congress's enactment of rural free delivery. (Ascoli, pp. 28-29)

Sears was a brilliant marketer. Harry Goldman characterized him as a "mail-order Barnum" who "could sell a breath of air." His carefully crafted persuasive descriptions, his incredibly low prices, and his imaginative ad campaigns and promotional gimmicks churned out thousands of orders, which doubled from 1895 to 1896. If the volume was enviable, it also overwhelmed Sears's abysmal administration skills. (Ascoli, p. 29; Deutsch, p. 85)


The company's office was hopelessly disorganized. According to an early account, "Kitchen chairs were the seats; dry goods boxes the tables . . . Only two telephones were available; there were no electric lights . . . When Rosenwald came to work in the morning, he would find Sears at his desk in a large room bulging with scattered heaps of merchandise . . . The orders poured in faster than the factories could supply the goods, faster than they could be cleared through warehouses and shipping rooms." (Ascoli, p. 30)

Naturally, such chaotic conditions resulted in hundreds of botched orders and incorrect shipments and numerous returns. A popular joke among employees featured a Sears clerk boasting to his counterpart at the better-established Montgomery Ward, "Heck, we get more goods returned than you folks ship out." As the piles of returned goods rose as high as those ready to be dispatched, bankruptcy seemed a distinct possibility. (Deutsch, p. 76; Ascoli, p. 31)

Rosenwald supplied the discipline necessary to tame Sears's impetuosity and exuberance. Wrote historian Cecil Hoge: "Rosenwald had a feel for internal efficiency as superlative as Sears had for sales." He viewed "business as less a results-driven game than a process of establishing trust -- trust between himself and his staff and between the company and its customers. He did want more orders than he could reliably, accurately fill." It is doubtful Sears, Roebuck would have survived without Rosenwald's focus on operational improvement. (Ascoli, p. 30; Deutsch, pp. 77-78)

While Sears and Rosenwald often clashed over ideology and tactics, their unwieldy partnership continued to thrive. In 1900, sales totaled $10 million ($350 million in 2022 dollars) and surpassed those of its veteran competitor, Montgomery, Ward, whose founders were retiring and whose stodgy ad copy suffered by comparison with Richard Sears's enticing verbiage. (Ascoli, pp. 31-32)

The third partner, Rosenwald's brother-in-law, Aaron Nusbaum, may have been a good administrator, but he possessed an arrogance and ruthlessness that ultimately the other two could not abide. It's unclear who engineered their severance, but it was a stormy one. In May 1901, Sears and Rosenwald offered Nusbaum $1 million for the stock he had purchased six years earlier for $37,500. He accepted, but when the day came to consummate the deal, he demanded $250,000 more. Furious at the betrayal, the buyers had no choice other than to comply. In spite of Gussie Rosenwald's repeated attempts to reconcile her brother and husband, the two never spoke again. (Ascoli, p. 32; Deutsch, pp. 78-79)

With company lawyer Alfred Loeb replacing Nusbaum as head of administrative affairs, Rosenwald overseeing finances, merchandising, facilities, and quality control, and Sears still in charge of marketing, the stage was set for a period of explosive growth. From 1900 to 1905, sales increased at a rate of thirty percent per year, reaching $38 million but exposing and exacerbating two structural problems. (Ascoli, p. 41)

The first was lack of space. Between 1896 and 1901, by relocating and constructing two additions, the company quadrupled its capacity, yet still found it necessary to lease every available foot of warehousing in a six-block radius, which itself proved to be insufficient within a short period of time. (Ascoli, p. 37)

In 1904, Rosenwald and Sears purchased a forty-acre tract about five miles west of Downtown Chicago; in just over a year, five sleek, modern structures sprung from the prairie. The massive administration building housed a restaurant, a hospital, a library, and a savings bank, and provided ample space for manager O. C. Doering to reorganize the company's enormous mail-order operation, which would soon be processing 27,000 pieces per hour. Also on site were a proprietary power plant, a railroad depot, and a facility for printing and mailing catalogs. (Ascoli, p. 38; Deutsch, p. 82)


Naturally, the cost of the expansion intensified the company's unquenchable thirst for working capital. In the spring of 1906, Rosenwald and Sears journeyed to New York to obtain a loan from Goldman, Sachs. Harry Goldman, senior partner, stunned them by suggesting that they sell stock on the open market, an unusual maneuver as few mercantile establishments up to that time had chosen to become public companies. By midsummer the partners had agreed to the idea. Each of the them received $10 million of preferred stock and $4.5 million in cash for the sale of their private shares, which raised in total $30 million. Overnight the two became multimillionaires. (Ascoli, p. 41)

Richard Sears and Julius Rosenwald were men of contrasting character and temperament. As described by Cecil Hoge: "Sears was an opportunist and immediate benefit tactician. Rosenwald was a strategist with a long-term plan." Sears maintained that absent a constant barrage of new promotions the business would collapse under the weight of consumer indifference. Rosenwald was convinced that mail order was a fixture in retailing and that Sears's schemes could be counterproductive and too costly. (Ascoli, pp. 44, 49)

Matters came to a head in 1907 when, in the midst of a nationwide recession, Sears, Roebuck's sales declined for the first time in its history. Sears insisted that the already bloated advertising budget be inflated even more, while Rosenwald preferred to focus on cost cutting and price stability. Sears felt constrained by Rosenwald's constant presence and pressured by his criticism. In the fall of 1908, after a two-hour conference between the two, Sears left the premises of the company he had founded, returning only once for a board meeting in November, where he formally resigned as president. He sold his stock to Harry Goldman. After dabbling in a number of businesses, he died six years later at the age of fifty. (Deutsch, p. 85; Ascoli, pp. 48-49)


Julius Rosenwald was poised to lead the company through a period of tremendous growth. During the first five years of his tenure as president, from 1908 to 1913, sales doubled, reaching $90 million with a ten percent profit margin. During the same period, as the possessor of enormous resources, he would launch a secondary career that would almost overshadow the first.

In the late 1890's, Rosenwald and his wife had joined the Reform Temple Sinai, and had immediately come under the influence of its rabbi, Emil Hirsch.


Hirsch believed that Judaism could be reduced to an ethical and moral system. While he adhered to the notion of inalienable individual rights, he maintained those rights should never take precedence over the rights of society. He expanded the Jewish notion of tsadakah, which equates charity with justice, by declaring: "Charity is not a voluntary concession on the part of the well-situated. It is a right to which the less fortunate are entitled in justice." (Ascoli, pp. 51, 53-54)

Emil Hirsch was the guiding force behind Julius Rosenwald's emergence as a philanthropist. Rosenwald made his first significant gift in 1904; it was $6782 (equivalent to $200,000 today) to the University of Chicago -- where Hirsch held a professorship in Hebrew studies -- for the purchase of a private library for the German Department. Other major contributions through 1908 which were likely at the behest of Hirsch included $4000 to the Associated Jewish Charities of Chicago, $35,000 over three years to the Michael Reese German Jewish Hospital, and a mortgage loan (eventually forgiven) for the purchase of a building by the Hebrew Institute. (Ascoli, pp. 54-61)

Julius Rosenwald's attitude toward blacks -- who constituted only two percent of Chicago's population in 1910 and were confined to a ghetto south and west of its downtown loop -- most likely mirrored the prejudices of the day, which regarded them as lacking in motivation, intelligence, and trustworthiness. Then he read a book, An American Citizen: The Life of William Henry Baldwin, Jr., which may have been as impactful in the development of his humanitarianism as his relationship with Hirsch. (Ascoli, pp. 78-79)

The president of Southern Railway, Baldwin aspired to succeed as a businessman without sacrificing personal morality and idealism and to promote the general welfare of his workers. He advocated for unions, donated money for libraries on the rail lines, and fostered the YMCA movement. He "led a life" which "is to my liking" and which "I shall endeavor to imitate or follow as nearly as I can," wrote Rosenwald in a letter to his daughters. "He was a good friend to Booker T. Washington," served on the board of Washington's Tuskegee Institute, and had "made a study of the Negro problem along common sense, helpful lines." (Ascoli, p. 79)

Rosenwald's own interest in the YMCA had been evolving since 1904; ultimately, it was his entree into the realm of black philanthropy. Having met L. Wilbur Messer, general secretary of the Chicago branch of the YMCA and the driving force behind the state-of-the-art facility that had opened in 1893, Rosenwald became so enamored of the organization that through Sears, Roebuck he essentially underwrote fifty percent of the cost of a branch near its new plant, which included dormitories for three hundred employees as well as recreational space. "No philanthropy in Chicago is a greater power for good, or accomplishes better results than the YMCA," said Rosenwald at a 1910 fiftieth anniversary fund drive." (Ascoli, pp. 77-78; Deutsch, pp. 91-92)

Yet in YMCA's in Chicago and other segregated cities across the country, north and south, blacks were not welcome. As of 1900, there were twenty-one black chartered YMCA's, but only five owned their own buildings; the rest operated in private homes or rented rooms. When Rosenwald expressed to a solicitor his interest in contributing to "a YMCA building for Negroes in Chicago," Messer wasted no time in contacting him. In a meeting at the Sears office which included William Parker, the Chicago YMCA business manager, and black minister, Jesse Moorland, the national coordinator of black YMCA's, Messer asked Rosenwald if he would consider a grant of $25,000 to the project. Rosenwald astounded his visitors by offering to donate that amount to any YMCA in any major city that could raise an additional $75,000. (Ascoli, p. 80; Deutsch, p. 92).


Years later Wilbur Messer would claim credit for introducing Rosenwald to Booker T. Washington. In a chance encounter on a train, said Messner, Washington asked him to name a prominent white Chicagoan for the Tuskegee board of trustees. Messer not only proposed Rosenwald, he invited Washington to speak at the Chicago YMCA's fifty-third anniversary dinner, May 18, 1911, and he persuaded Rosenwald to host a luncheon for forty-five civic leaders the same afternoon at the elegant new Blackstone Hotel. The honored guest, Booker T. Washington, would be the first of his race to dine at the hotel. (Ascoli, p. 87; Deutsch, p. 97)

Introducing Washington, Rosenwald called him a "wise, statesmanlike leader" who "is helping his own race to attain the high art of self-help and self-dependence . . . and the white race to learn that opportunity and obligation go hand in hand." (Deutsch, p. 96)


Born in 1856 on a farm near the town of Hale's Ford just east of Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains, the property of James Burroughs, Booker T. Washington wrote that he never knew his father's name, only that he had "heard reports to the effect he was a white man who lived on one of the nearby plantations . . . Whoever he was," he said, "I never heard of his taking the least interest in me or providing in any way for my rearing." That task fell to his mother Jane, who had to scrounge for scraps of bread, meat, and corn to feed her half sister and three children, even though she was her owner's family cook. (Norrell, pp. 17-21)

After emancipation, Jane took her family on a two-hundred-mile trek to Malden, West Virginia, where her putative husband, Wash Ferguson, a troublesome slave from a neighboring farm, had decided to settle, having previously been sent there by his owner to labor in the salt works. Ferguson immediately put Booker and his older brother John to work alongside him (and keep their pay), first in the salt furnace and later in the coal mine that supplied its fuel. (Norrell, p. 22)

Ferguson resisted Booker's pleas for an education, not wanting to forgo his earnings, but finally allowed him to attend the local school for blacks, provided he continue working in the mine. To conform with his classmates, who all had surnames, Booker rejected the "Taliaferro" proposed by his mother (although he kept it as a middle name), and spontaneously seized upon "Washington," thus crafting the image he would thereafter present to the predominantly white, outside world. (Norrell, pp. 23-24)

Booker's real educational advancement occurred during the four years he was houseboy to Viola Ruffner, a white woman from New England whose husband Lewis owned the salt works. Mrs. Ruffner taught Booker how to keep her house clean and orderly, how to tend her garden, how to account for every penny received at market for her fruits and vegetables -- in short, "how to understand what a white person wanted from him and how to deliver it." She instilled in him the values of the Protestant ethic, which, she said, were the foundation of success in a capitalist society: industry, sobriety, frugality, self-reliance, and piety. (Norrell, pp. 25-26)

Having overheard two miners talking about "a great school for coloured people somewhere in Virginia," at the age of sixteen Booker set off on a three-hundred mile journey by foot, rail, and stagecoach to Hampton Institute on the shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Upon arrival, he was asked by the principal, Mary Mackie, to sweep the recitation room, a task he performed three times as well as dusting the furnishings, thereby gaining admission and a job as janitor. (Deutsch, pp. 13-16)


"The greatest person I ever knew," Booker T. Washington would say about the school's white founder, General Samuel Chapman Armstrong, the son of a Christian missionary, graduate of Williams College, commander of a unit of black soldiers during the Civil War, and veteran of the Freedmen's Bureau. Armstrong was intent on guiding students toward a proper lifestyle. Their first lessons focused on personal hygiene and grooming. "Be thrifty and industrious," ordered the general. "Command the respect of your neighbors by a good record and a good character." (Deutsch, p. 16; Norrell, p. 32)

For Booker T. Washington, Armstrong was an heroic role model, another white person investing in his success. Armstrong named him co-valedictorian of his graduating class, where, rising to speak, he looked, according to a female classmate, like "a conqueror who had won a great victory." (Norrell, p. 36; Deutsch, p. 17)

Booker returned to Malden in 1875 as administrator of the black school there. He taught ninety children during the day and equal number of adults at night, supplementing their book learning with lectures on thrift, hard work, and cleanliness. Fours years later, after delivering the commencement address at Hampton, which he titled "The Force that Wins," he was invited by Armstrong to join the faculty. (Norrell, pp. 36, 39)

In 1881, Armstrong received a letter asking him to recommend "a well-qualified white man" to organize a black teachers' college in Tuskegee, Alabama. He replied that he knew of no good white candidates, but had "a very competent, capable, clear-headed modest mulatto, sensible, polite, and thorough teacher and superior man, the best we ever had here. I know of no white man who could do better." The inquirers telegraphed back: "Booker T. Washington will suit us. Send him at once." (Deutsch, p. 19; Norrell, pp. 40, 42)

Tuskegee Institute was the brainchild of an influential local black merchant named Lewis Adams, who traded his support of two Democratic state senate candidates for a commitment from the governor and legislature to create and fund a black teachers' college. Booker was enthused about the thirty "earnest and willing" young men and women who showed up on opening day, July 4, 1881, less so about the church building where they met; it was so dilapidated that he had to have a student hold an umbrella over his head when it rained. Three months later he purchased as a permanent site a one-hundred-acre farm consisting of a stable, a kitchen, and a hen house, all needing repair; since the state's annual $2000 appropriation could only be used to pay teachers' salaries, he had to borrow the $200 down payment from J. F. B. Marshall, the Hampton treasurer. (Deutsch, pp. 20-21)


Booker realized from the moment of his arrival that the students would have to build Tuskegee Institute themselves. Not only would they be saving the school money, they would "learn the best methods of labor firsthand . . . prove to blacks that they could accomplish a large, complex task, and demonstrate to whites that blacks were capable of running a sizable enterprise." (Norrell, pp. 61-62)

In the fall of 1882, thanks to a $3000 contribution from New York banker Alfred Porter, the three-story, all-purpose academic edifice, Porter Hall, was completed. It was followed in quick succession by two dormitories, three teachers' cottages, and a foundry and blacksmith. During the same seven-year period, enrollment grew to 400 students, Booker acquired 500 more acres of forest and farmland, and a brick works was established, but only after three kiln failures and Booker apocryphally pawning his watch to pay for the fourth attempt. (Norrell, pp. 62-70)

By 1895, Tuskegee owned 1,810 acres, and was home to 800 students, which represented the highest enrollment among institutions of higher education in Alabama and perhaps in the South. Its growth can be attributed to two factors. First, Booker T. Washington was a relentless fundraiser. He crisscrossed the Northeast speaking night after night and knocking on doors to obtain ten and fifteen dollar checks which he rushed into the mail to Tuskegee to cover pressing operating costs. By 1889, he was receiving gifts of $1000 and more from wealthy industrialists, their heirs, and special funds committed to the cause of black education. (Norrell, pp. 67, 93-95)

One of these, the Slater Fund, tied its support to those colleges whose curricula emphasized education in the trades. Quick to adapt to this requirement, Washington became convinced that "donations from the north in the future are going to be more largely than ever devoted to industrial education." Having worked for ten years to prepare teachers to educate blacks, he now foresaw a burgeoning demand for skilled workers in an industrialized, urban economy and opportunities for entrepreneurial blacks to establish their own businesses using the skills they could acquire at industrial schools. By 1890, students were taking classes in fourteen trades including brick making, plastering, painting, carpentry, printing, and shoe making. (Norrell, pp. 96-97)

While good things were happening at Tuskegee, as the nineteenth century gave way to the twentieth, conditions for blacks Americans were deteriorating. Southern states rewrote their constitutions, and prevented blacks from voting by imposing such restrictive measures as literacy tests, poll taxes, property requirements, and grandfather clauses. The U.S. Supreme Court essentially codified the social inferiority of blacks, and affirmed the right of states to enforce by law the separation of the races in public places. The Alabama Apportionment Act allowed white-controlled school boards to direct tax receipts disproportionately to the education of white children. Racial violence -- in the form of brutal lynchings and the destruction of black homes and farms -- swept across the South, as whites sought to demonize, intimidate, and subjugate, if not eradicate, those whom they perceived as threats to their social order and economic security. (Deutsch, pp. 56-57; Norrell, pp. 112-113, 115-116)

Could a black man defend his race and still gain the respect of whites? Washington's testimony before a House of Representatives committee in support of funding for a black exhibit at the Atlanta Cotton States Exposition earned him an invitation to speak at the Exposition's opening ceremony. The diverse audience would include sympathetic white northerners, suspicious white southerners unwavering in their prejudices, and hopeful blacks seeking a leader and spokesperson. (Deutsch, p. 50; Norrell, p. 122)


Though only five minutes, Washington's speech of September 18, 1895, is the most famous of the hundreds he delivered in his lifetime. It represented his attempt to articulate a solution to the Negro Problem different from that espoused by many whites -- removal or erasure. He recalled the parable of the sailors lost at sea and out of drinking water. Hailing a passing ship and instructed to "Cast down your bucket where you are," they found themselves in the midst of huge, flowing, fresh-water river. With that one metaphor, Booker was telling blacks that the opportunities for bettering their living conditions were in America, their home, rather than in some distant colony, and he was reminding white capitalists that their best source of labor was not immigrants but the native blacks who have "tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your railroads and cities, and brought forth treasures from the earth." (Norrell, pp. 124-126)

To counter the notion that free blacks had declined in character and morality since the end of slavery, Booker emphasized their achievements, and predicted greater progress provided racial animosities could be mitigated. He "described blacks as faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful," belying the contemporary opinion that "they were idle, criminal, immoral, and hostile to whites." To allay the anxieties of whites, he conceded that black enfranchisement had been a mistake, and disavowed any claim to social equality. Instead he called for "education of head, hand, and heart" that would yield material progress for both races. (Hoffschwelle, p. 12; Norrell, pp. 124-126)

Employing another vivid image, he raised his hand with his fingers spread wide apart, and, referring to black and white southerners, exclaimed: "In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet as one in all things essential to mutual progress." Then he dramatically closed his hand into a fist. (Deutsch, p. 52; Norrell, pp. 124-126)

"The speech made Washington an instant national celebrity." A black teacher from Tennessee, William J. Cansler, writing to Washington, called him "our Moses destined to lead our race out of the difficulties and dangers which beset our pathways and surround us on all sides." Frederick Douglass had died six months earlier, and Cansler concluded by asserting, "Upon you has fallen the mantle of the illustrious Douglas[s]." Prominent black journalist, T. Thomas Fortune, editor of the New York Age echoed that sentiment in his own letter. "You are the best equipped of the lot of us to be the single figure ahead of the procession," he wrote. (Norrell, pp. 130, 134; Deutsch, p. 53)

The accolades were not universal. "Bishop Henry Turner predicted that whites would use Washington's statement disclaiming social equality as evidence that blacks willingly accepted inequality," that they would assent to second-class citizenship in return for schools and jobs. Calvin Chase, editor of the Washington Bee, accused Washington of taking positions that were death to blacks and elevating to whites. He called the speech an apology for southern outrages, a claim that would be seconded by W. E. B. Du Bois, who labeled it the Atlanta Compromise. (Norrell, p. 134; Deutsch, p. 53. Hoffschelle, p. 12)

Booker T. Washington intuited that his only real power as a racial leader emanated from the bully pulpit. He was a remarkably effective public speaker. "He carefully attuned his speeches to the moment. He delivered them conversationally . . . usually with no podium . . . and only a note card in his pocket." He offered his pro-black perspective with humility, sincerity, and a dose of humor and rustic storytelling reminiscent of Abraham Lincoln. He spoke out against the separation of school funds, the humiliations of railroad travel for blacks, and the demeaning coverage of the Negro in the press. He continued to exude optimism, telling dignitaries at a Harvard commencement in 1896: "We are coming," by means of hard work in industrial shops and on farms, study in colleges and industrial schools, and habits of thrift and economy. (Norrell, pp. 136-148)


As violence escalated across the South -- epitomized by the Wilmington riot of 1898 during which as many as 300 blacks were killed by whites intent on regaining a voting majority and the emasculation and live burning of accused killer and rapist Sam Hose -- Washington was compelled to tread a fine line between angering whites for protesting too strongly and exasperating blacks for not speaking loudly enough. Subjected to intense criticism from both groups, he struggled to craft a forceful, credible, encouraging message. In late 1899, he told the Memphis Commercial Appeal that he believed in time that blacks would earn and receive full equality in American life. In defiance of recent tragedies, he concluded, "I do not think we have any reason to despair." (Norrell, pp. 163, 170-171, 181-182)

Washington's quandary was typified in his response to Alabama's constitutional convention, which convened in May 1901 with the primary purpose of disenfranchising blacks. Other than drafting a petition "warning of bad consequences for the wrong decision," there was little he could do but watch white men deploy every tactic they knew to remove blacks from politics: the poll tax; a test for the prospective voter on his knowledge of the constitution; an assessment of the applicant's character by a county board of registrars; and the grandfather clause, which exempted a prospective voter from any and all qualifications if his grandfather had fought in the war. (Norrell, pp. 204, 206)

Accepting the futility of trying to defeat it, he stayed out of the ratification campaign, which ultimately erased ninety-eight percent of blacks from the voting rolls. "His silence came at the cost of his being viewed as weak or even tacitly condoning the injustice." (Norrell, pp. 205, 208)

With the political avenue a dead end, Washington turned to the power of the pen to reverse the downward course of black morale, to stem the rising tide of white antipathy to blacks, to address the vicious images of blacks. He issued press releases emphasizing positive news about himself and other African Americans. He submitted editorials, often as a ghost writer, decrying the shameful treatment and erroneous depiction of blacks. He composed magazine articles -- "The Awakening of the Negro"; "The Case of the Negro"; "Signs of Progress of the Negro" -- highlighting black achievement and promoting industrial education. And he authored three books -- The Future of the American Negro; The Story of My Life and Work; Up From Slavery -- narratives of black progress in both philosophical and personal terms. (Norrell, pp. 210-217)


In Up From Slavery, Washington used simple prose and a straightforward style to tell the story of his life, omitting drama, metaphor, and vivid description. In order to attract white readers, he acknowledged that slavery had enabled blacks to learn utilitarian skills, the English language, and the tenets of Christianity. These were hardly sufficient, however, to counter its bleak legacy: blacks deprived of a stable family unit, education, meaningful work, and the capacity for self-rule. While acquiescing in the popular view that Reconstruction and black voting at the time had been a mistake, he indicted white reactionary groups like the Ku Klux Klan for gratuitous violence, and defended black officeholders and carpetbaggers as useful and honorable. He refused to compromise his optimism, pointing to his own trajectory and "blacks' emerging self-mastery" as evidence "that the race is constantly making slow but sure progress materially, educationally, and morally." (Norrell, pp. 218-220)

Selling 30,000 copies in its first year, Booker T. Washington's autobiography was an instant success, and has never been out of print since its publication. It enjoyed a wide audience, but had a special appeal to wealthy men who saw in the author a mirror image of themselves: self-made, from humble beginnings, hard-working, single-minded, and successful. It became a perpetual fundraising machine for Tuskegee Institute, eliciting generous checks from financiers, industrialists, and their heirs. "Give the man a library," said Andrew Carnegie to his assistant upon reading the book, and a neoclassical edifice sprung from the ground, inaugurating the steel magnate's largess to the school; it eventually grew to over one million dollars. (Deutsch, p. 65; Norrell, pp. 222-223, 274)

One of the most controversial episodes in Washington's career was his dinner with Theodore Roosevelt and his family at the White House by invitation on October 16, 1901, barely one month after the president had succeeded to the office upon the assassination of his predecessor, William McKinley. While Roosevelt denounced lynching, objected to the political exploitation of race by white nationalists, and believed that educated blacks should vote, he never entirely shed his mantle of bigotry. In his self-congratulatory memoir of the Spanish-American War, The Rough Riders, he accused black soldiers (falsely, it turned out) of panicking and fleeing the battlefield. He thought Washington could be useful in garnering support for the Republican Party by recommending candidates for patronage appointments who, if not black, might be sympathetic to the plight of the black man. (Norrell, pp. 240-241)


Predictably, the ploy backfired, as a firestorm of hysteria blazed across the south, where many were incensed by the thought (and sight) of these two powerful men violating entrenched rules of social behavior which forbade race mixing. "The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any citizen of the United States," scolded the Memphis Scimitar. The editor of the Richmond Times interpreted the dinner as the president's condoning "Negroes mingling freely with whites in the social circle and white women receiving attentions from Negro men." Perhaps the most vitriolic curse was that pronounced by Senator Ben Tillman of South Carolina: "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they learn their place again." (Deutsch, pp. 66-67)

If Washington had lost control of his image among whites, he continued to forge ahead with the purpose that had taken him to the White House in the first place: the naming of federal appointments in the South. His influence reached a point where his approval became a prerequisite for selection by Roosevelt. Washington enmeshed himself in Republican politics because he had concluded that, disenfranchised, their primitive schools stripped of public funds, blacks had no other means of participating in the American democracy. (Norrell, pp. 252-255)

Washington's patronage activities and public prominence raised the hackles of some northern blacks. William Monroe Trotter, a Harvard graduate and founder of the Boston Guardian, accused him of belittling blacks, of exaggerating their shortcomings to curry white favor, and of promoting the appointment of white men to office in place of blacks. When Washington's daughter Portia failed to return to Wellesley College for her second year, Trotter attributed it to a "genetic defect" and to her father's "well-known antipathy" to academia. (Norrell, pp. 265-26)

                                                  

On a different plane but equally damning was the critique of Washington by sociologist and intellectual W. E. B. Du Bois, "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others," which he included among his collection of essays, The Souls of Black Folk, published in 1903. Du Bois said Washington had won the favor of whites by encouraging blacks to surrender political power, civil rights, and higher education in exchange for economic opportunities. Washington's program, he wrote, "practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro race," absolves whites of any responsibility for the Negro problem, and places the burden of blacks' progress entirely on their own shoulders. Washington's resistance to higher education demeaned blacks by condemning them to a "servile caste" of manual laborers and artisans and denying "bolder and brighter minds . . . the key to knowledge." (Deutsch, p. 68; Norrell, pp. 277-279)


Unbeknownst to his black critics, Washington's quiet efforts to advance the cause of black equality belied their disparaging accusations. He funded attorney Wilford Smith's five lawsuits on behalf of black Alabamian Jackson Giles claiming that provisions in the 1901 state constitution denied Giles the right to register and vote and violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. An order by federal judge Thomas G. Jones, whom Washington had sponsored, enabled the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court; it faltered, however, when Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that the Court could not enforce a judgment against the state of Alabama and that relief could come only from its legislature or the U.S. Congress. (Deutsch, p. 69; Norrell, pp. 261, 297)

Smith and Washington did achieve a victory when the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a black man on the grounds that the jury of his "peers" included no qualified blacks and sent it back to Alabama for a retrial. Washington was also vindicated when, in January 1905 following Roosevelt's reelection, the Senate confirmed his choice for revenue collector for the Port of Charleston, a black physician named William Crum. The nomination had been bitterly opposed by the Southern press and Senator Tillman, who warned, "We still have guns and ropes in the South, and if the policy of appointing Negroes to office is insisted upon, we know how to use them." (Deutsch, p. 69; Norrell, pp. 257, 307)

The year 1905 marked a turning point in Booker T. Washington's career, as a series of events converged to tarnish his image as the leader of the race. In July, Du Bois and Trotter convened at Niagara Falls twenty-nine black professionals from New England and Midwest whom they deemed the "Talented Tenth." In a blatant attempt to co-opt Washington, they issued a manifesto basically reiterating the principles articulated at a similar gathering held eighteen months earlier in New York City when Du Bois and Washington had supposedly reconciled: affirmation of the right to vote; lifting of racial restrictions in public venues; and support for academic and industrial training. Where the Niagara Movement openly challenged Washington was in its call for vocal protest: "Through helplessness they may submit, but the voice of ten million Americans must never cease to assail the ears of their fellows, so long as America is unjust." (Norrell, pp. 321, 356)


At the same moment white-nationalist propagandist Tom Watson took aim at Washington in his Magazine. In the most widely-quoted of his many vituperative editorials, responding to Washington's plaudits for rising black literacy rates (which he said were higher than those in European countries), he refuted those statistics as excluding "all the ignorant blacks in Africa and the Caribbean." When Europeans were building a civilization, wrote Watson, "your people were running about in the woods, naked, eating raw meat . . . steeped in ignorance, vice and superstition, with an occasional lapse into human sacrifice and cannibalism." (Norrell, pp. 323-324)


In August, the Saturday Evening Post printed a devastating article by Thomas Dixon that summarized the white-nationalist case against Washington. Dixon was the author of two popular novels, The Leopard's Spots and The Clansman, both "anti-Negro melodramas of Reconstruction with a strong emphasis on black soldiers' and freedmen's lust for white women." In his essay he reiterated the sentiments expressed by his fictional characters. "Booker T. Washington's educational mission was a subterfuge for racial equality and amalgamation." He was training blacks to be independent, to own and operate their own businesses and farms, to compete with whites in an industrial economy rather than work for them. This path would end in tragedy, wrote Dixon, since before the white man would allow the black man to be his master, he would kill him. (Norrell, pp. 325-326)


Later that year, Washington's trusted confidant and adviser, William Henry Baldwin, Jr. -- the man whose biography had captivated Julius Rosenwald -- died at the age of forty-two. A member of Tuskegee's board of trustees since the late 1890's, Baldwin had contributed not only his financial and managerial acumen but also access to America's wealthiest men, many of whom he personally solicited. His own attitude toward blacks had evolved from a paternalistic acceptance of their inferior social status to a deeper understanding of the ferocious hostility they faced from southern whites intent on suppressing their basic civil rights. He lamented the neglected state of their public schools, and suggested federal assistance as a remedy. The loss of Baldwin's counsel would impair Washington's fundraising efforts and handicap his decision making in the future. (Deutsch, p.73; Norrell, pp. 156, 312-313)

In September 1906, reacting to spate of black-on-white rape allegations that had roiled the city for over a month, a white mob gathered in downtown Atlanta, and invaded first the black saloon district and later the middle-class neighborhood of Brownsville. When blacks mobilized to defend themselves, the state militia was called in to restore order; after three days of violence, the death toll stood at thirty blacks and two whites. Although Washington immediately traveled to Atlanta, where he facilitated conciliatory meetings between black and white leaders who pledged fair treatment for blacks, he was made a scapegoat for the riot's horror and ugliness. Harshly criticized for recommending against retaliation with force and for refusing to demand federal intervention, he not only energized his enemies, he disappointed his supporters. (Norrell, pp. 340-345)

On November 7, acting on instructions from President Roosevelt, Secretary of War William Howard Taft dismissed 167 black soldiers from their infantry regiment at Fort Brown, Texas. Three months earlier, shots fired in the nearby town had killed a bartender and injured a policeman. The soldiers, who had been threatened, beaten, and accused of assaulting a white woman since their arrival at the fort, immediately came under suspicion. Despite uniform denial by the soldiers and the presence of purely circumstantial evidence, probably planted, the U.S. Inspector General, a South Carolinian, after investigating the matter, alleged a conspiracy of silence among the soldiers, pronounced them guilty without a trial, and recommended that they all be discharged. (Norrell, pp. 346-347)


Summoned to a meeting at the White House on October 30, Washington pleaded with Roosevelt to postpone any action until he could conduct his own investigation, but was ignored, which served to reinforce his previous inference that the president was a latent racial bigot. While the affair won Roosevelt new respect in the white South, it ignited the wrath of blacks across the country and of their defenders in the northern press; Oscar Garrison Villard, editor of the New York Evening Post, wrote that "the dismissal of the troops renounced blacks' patriotism and the rights that flowed from it." As for Washington, in what may have been the worst mistake of his public career, he refused to disavow the president's decision, most likely out of loyalty for past favors. It was a misplaced loyalty, however; in the eyes of black Americans and their white liberal advocates, Roosevelt would forever be tainted by what one historian has deemed a "gross miscarriage of justice," and Washington, his ally and adviser, could not evade the stain. (Norrell, pp. 346-351)

In August 1908, disgruntled whites became enraged at the removal of two black men -- one charged with rape, the other with murder -- from a Springfield, Illinois jail. A mob lynched two black merchants, destroyed at least forty black homes and several black-owned businesses, and ransacked countless more. Washington issued a condemnation of the riot, but "violence against blacks anywhere in the United States undermined his leadership position." (Norrell, pp. 380-381)

Nine months later, prompted by three reform-minded social workers, Oscar Villard assembled a group of settlement-house workers, professors, lawyers, journalists, and clergymen -- among whom were Washington critics W. E. B. Du Bois and William M. Trotter -- for the inaugural meeting of what would eventually be called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In the months and years ahead, determined to displace him, the organizers of the NAACP would relentlessly impugn Washington for his political activism and allegiance to the Republican Party and, in the words of Du Bois, for his policy of "non-resistance, giving up agitation, and acquiescence in semi-serfdom." (Norrell, pp. 386-389)

Washington's reputation was further sullied as the result of a bizarre incident that occurred on the evening of March 19, 1911, when he was assaulted on West 63rd Street in New York City. A man named Henry Ulrich, who lived in an apartment there with his girl friend, Laura Alvarez, observed Washington enter and leave the lobby three times, accosted him, slugged him, chased him down the street, and struck him with a bystander's walking stick before the police intervened. Ms. Alvarez accused Washington of making a lewd remark to her -- "Hello, Sweetheart" -- which he denied, claiming he was attempting to meet an accountant at the building. Washington filed charges against Ulrich, but in the subsequent trial, two judges ruled for acquittal on the grounds that Ulrich's motive was not proved. Washington was never able to explain his presence at the scene to the satisfaction of his white or black enemies, one of whom, William Trotter, wrote that the affair and its attendant "charges of drunkenness and seeking after white women . . . does great injury to the entire colored race." (Norrell, pp. 394-398)


Persevering under a relentless barrage of defamation, Washington's advocacy of black education never faltered. In vain, he pleaded with the white northern press to publicize its pitiable state. "The average white child in the South had at least three times as much spent on him as the typical black child, and in the Black Belts of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana the ratios were usually much higher . . . Most rural black education took place in ramshackle frame structures, often old churches. The pittance provided for teachers made it difficult for schools to stay open more than a few months." Washington sent evidence of the widening disparity to Oscar Villard in July 1905: "You will note in the enclosed letter this man says the in his district $15 per capita is allowed every white child and 35 cents per capita for every Negro child." (Norrell, pp. 271, 313)

It took six years, but in 1911 Washington encountered the man who would become his champion: Julius Rosenwald. After their luncheon at the Blackstone Hotel, they adjourned to a lengthy dinner at the Auditorium honoring the founding of the YMCA and attended by four hundred guests. Washington assured the audience that "any inferiority in blacks was not intrinsic but the result of two hundred fifty years of slavery . . . and could be overcome." He foreshadowed the model that would launch a white philanthropist and a thousand black communities on a school-building mission when he compared blacks' financial support for their own YMCA buildings to that for their churches. "We inherited no church houses since we became a free people," he said. "Within forty-five years we have erected 35,000 churches and in 90% of cases the money . . . has come out of our pockets." (Deutsch, p. 97)

Rosenwald responded "that he was particularly gratified by the work he had been able to do with the YMCA because 'it has the tendency toward bringing together the two races which have to live side by side. And in my opinion there is no problem which faces the American people that has more importance than this problem of how to have these two races live congenially and try to uplift each other.'" (Deutsch, p. 98)

The stage was set for a momentous partnership. For the peddler and the pedagogue were two men who, as their life stories revealed, understood that, while words could motivate minds, action could transform lives.

REFERENCES

Ascoli, Peter M. Julius Rosenwald: The Man Who Built Sears, Roebuck and Advanced the Cause of Black Education in the American South. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2006. 

Deutsch, Stephanie. You Need a Schoolhouse: Booker T. Washington, Julius Rosenwald, and the Building of Schools for the Segregated South. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2011.

Hoffschwelle, Mary S. The Rosenwald Schools of the American South. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2006.

Norrell, Robert J. Up from History: The Life of Booker T. Washington. Cambridge: the Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2009.





 






 

 



Thursday, April 7, 2022

The House That Built Me

Having succumbed after fifty-eight years of needless denial to what a friend exquisitely characterized as "the most benign of vices" -- particularly the Starbucks variety: tall, bold, no room -- and embraced the pleasures of coffee with an enthusiasm bordering on the addictive, I should hardly be surprised by another recently acquired taste, although my readers' reaction will most likely echo that of my dental technician, whose skeptical response to my water-boarded expostulation featured a heavy emphasis on the personal pronoun: "You like country music?"

 Well, I wouldn't buy an i-pod or go out of my way to listen to it -- or any kind of music for that matter -- but, dismayed by the news, which is not very interesting these days and never good, except for a mysteriously ascendant stock market, disgusted by the caustic commentary of Messrs. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al., whose entertainment value I find severely diminished by the resolution of the health care and tax cut controversies, and disenchanted with sports talk, to which only Dan Patrick's measured, resonant voice on Fox between 9:00 AM and 12 Noon lends any credibility, I now have my XM Satellite radio locked onto Channel 16, The Highway, for the majority of the long hours I spend motoring to the far reaches of the Schewel Furniture mini-empire. 
 
Although some may question whether jettisoning my former favorites, Love and The Blend and their soporific repertoires of 60's, 70's and 80's soft rock and going Country represents progress, at least, in the words of my son Matthew, "It's new music you're listening to, not oldies." 
 
Unlike my stumbling upon coffee in a desperate attempt to stay awake during the tedious afternoon hours of an all-day Randolph-Macon Woman's College board meeting, this discovery wasn't entirely accidental. When a sixty-year-old male suitor (or one of any age) is seeking to garner the affection of an elusive female and she says she likes country music, he suppresses his sophisticated prejudices and changes the channel. And when I saw "that black dress hit the floor" in Chris Young's sultry video of the song "Gettin You Home," I was hooked. 
 
Contrary to my own general perception that this is an industry defined by the youth market -- each generation wistful for the genres and artists of its adolescence -- country music, or at least what I like -- organic power ballads and pop, as opposed to bluegrass, honky-tonk, or rockabilly -- seems to appeal to one's adult sensibilities and evoke the rock-and-roll sounds of my past. While including in this category current chart-toppers like "The Breath You Take," (George Strait) "Anything Like Me," (Brad Paisley) "Need You Now," (Lady Antebellum) and "She Won't Be Lonely Long," (Clay Walker) I must also confess a grudging admiration for the mindless redneck jingles "Farmer's Daughter," (Rodney Atkins) "Big Green Tractor," (Jason Aldean) and "Pretty Good at Drinkin' Beer." (Billy Currington) 
 
Lately I've been captivated by a haunting, melancholy tale of disillusionment and longing, the smash hit, "The House That Built Me," by Miranda Lambert. The soulful Texas soprano -- having pursued her dreams in some far-off place, perhaps north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and suffered a psyche-shattering setback -- journeys to her childhood home seeking renewal, even as she laments: "I know they say you can't go home again. I just had to come back one last time." Announcing herself to the new owner, she opens her heart to share poignant memories of a simpler time and the persistent despair of a troubled present in four minutes of searing melody and artful language. She sings:
 
Ma'am, I know you don't know me from Adam,
But these hand prints on the front steps are mine. 
And up those stairs in that little back bedroom 
Is where I did my homework and learned to play guitar. 
And I bet you didn't know under that live oak 
My favorite dog is buried in the yard.
 
Independence, maturity, and wanderlust have not been kind to the weary traveler. 
 
You leave home, you move on, 
And you do the best you can.
I got lost in this whole world 
And forgot who I am.
 
But her old house offers an anchor in the storm and and hope for the future, as she gives voice to a universal nostalgia. 
 
If I could walk around I swear I'll leave, 
Won't take nothing but a memory
From the house that built me.
 
A few weeks ago I went back to the house that built me. Since I'm a provincial, lifelong resident of Lynchburg -- where I was born and grew up -- it wasn't far from where I live now, at least in distance, about three miles. In appearance, however, thanks to the current owner's architectural eye, hefty pocketbook (or good credit), and Lambert-like yearning to return to her hometown, it's come a long way from the matchbox my father, a newlywed World War II veteran entering his family's fifty-year-old furniture business, purchased in 1946. 
 
My mother says it was not their first choice, which was located in the City, not in Bedford County, as this one was -- oh, how my life would have been different -- but, as Jews, they were barred from the neighborhood. My father says at $12,000 it was a steal, costing less than the swimming pool he installed in its successor twenty-five years later. It was a basic two-story brick Cape Cod with green shutters planted at 1226 Greenway Court, a charming circular street which loops off Boonsboro Road. Heading west, one turned right at the second entrance opposite the Cosby property, later the site of the Church of the Covenant and Camp Kum-Ba-Yah, and coasted downhill to the first house on the right. 
 
While the structure was minimalist by today's standards, the lot was grand, a veritable playground. Bordered by a deserted intersecting street, Greenway Place, the north side yard fell off sharply to a second level which, while roomy enough for a swing set, presented a topographical invitation to roll, jump, slide, hide, and crawl. Behind that, on the eastern edge, stood a decrepit, unattached garage, never destined to shelter either of my parents' two cars, but quite serviceable as a glorified playhouse. How tempting it was to emulate my favorite television superhero, George Reeve's Superman, and take a flying leap from its steeply-pitched roof, trusting in my red and blue tights, flowing cape, and outstretched arms to propel me to greater heights and then guide me gently back to earth. 
 
Even more enticing was the forbidden territory that surrounded us on two sides, its boundaries defined by post-and-rail fencing and dense foliage, behind which I glimpsed secret gardens, a shaded pool, and the commanding white house fronting Boonsboro Road, occupied by the mysterious Kaiser family, or so I assumed, since I never saw anyone come or go. 
 
While not a cul-de-sac, Greenway Court -- bisected by Greenway Place -- was, for the most part, a road infrequently traveled and thus an ideal bicycle course, and its downhills an even better sledding run on those glorious days when I reveled in the six-inch snowfalls I now despise. Once old enough to master the more congested Boonsboro Road I could cross over to Spottswood Place where two of my friends lived. A small universe it was for this preschooler (unless one counts two years at Randolph-Macon's Nursery School, beginning at three, succeeded by the First Presbyterian Kindergarten -- an ominous foreshadowing of instablity) yet expansive enough to accommodate his preliterate lust for adventure. 
 
Across the street, in a fanciful, brown-and-white European-style villa perched on a hill, lived my best friend, Jerry W., whose family unit mirrored my own -- father, mother, boy, girl, two years younger -- and with whom I laughed, wept, slept, masqueraded, and matched wits and arm strength. It was a union we both thought would last forever until his Catholic parents dispatched him to parochial school for first grade. (Tragically, his father, only in his forties, collapsed and died from a heart attack one morning after having come to our house the night before.) 
 
I learned another lesson in the vagaries of friendship when about the same time I suffered a thorough whipping at the hands of another neighbor, whom I later of course reconciled with. He was younger but somehow tougher, more skilled at brawling, and impervious to pain -- his and mine. Perhaps he had picked up a few pointers from the local "hood," a bully named Hobart H., who lived between the two of us and whose fearsome reputation made my parents' warnings totally unnecessary. Skulking home, I determined henceforth to seek conflict resolution through discussion and negotiation rather than violence as if, weakling that I was, I had any choice. 
 
I realize that there are millions of people who never want to look back to where they came from, but for me entering my old house was like reconnecting to a college friend after a forty-year hiatus. Time compressed, and the memories flooded me like a rising tide. Approaching the front door that wintry evening conjured up a decades-old photograph of father, mother, and child standing before me bundled in long, woolen overcoats against a similar chill. 
 
While the house has metamorphosed like a living organism -- most recently with the current owner's addition of a first floor master bedroom on the north side (swallowing up my old playground) and a modern kitchen on the opposite side -- its original configuration is easily discernible. In a world of abundant space, not only in my own home but in almost every other one I visit -- multiple bedrooms, walk-in closets and bathrooms, dining rooms, living rooms, great rooms, porches, libraries, family rooms, hallways, and, of course, grand circular kitchens with center islands, counter tops, a surfeit of cabinets, and bar seating (all of which need, thank heavens, furniture) -- I was struck at once by the overwhelming smallness of the place. 
 
The original house probably had no more than 1500 sq. ft. on two floors. An entrance hall divided the living room and the dining room, and led back to a kitchen barely large enough for a stove and refrigerator, much less four occupants. Upstairs were two bedrooms, one for me, one for my parents, and a bathroom. When my sister came along in 1950 two years after me, my parents added a second bedroom atop a screened-in porch (I guess that saved money) and a half bathroom under the stairs on the first floor. That is the house I remember. 
 
Of course even in this country, the richest in the world, millions of families live in squalid conditions and one-room apartments much smaller than the 1800 sq. ft. (after the addition) I so cavalierly dismiss, embarrassed by my own elitism. But to those of us accustomed to interior vastness -- like the friend who said, in response to my question, "It's 10,000 sq. ft., but we use every inch" -- it's remarkable how well four persons functioned in those confined quarters and how happy they were, at least in the jaundiced view of an eight-year-old. (My father may have found those walls too claustrophobic for comfort; he spent many long hours at work, including evenings and weekends -- although the pattern didn't change much when we moved to a larger house.) 
 
The 13x22 living room was aptly named; it was where the entire family congregated when we weren't eating or sleeping -- although I suspect I may have retreated to my bedroom when reading became my favorite avocation. The only piece of furniture I remember was a large overstuffed ottoman upholstered in gray vinyl, which one would jump on or turn on its side and ride like a cowboy on a horse. Since our Schewel store sold them, I assume we always had a television, in front of which my sister and I camped out every Saturday morning to watch four hours of kids' programming: The Cisco Kid, Sky King, Lassie, Fury, My Friend Flicka. And once tv dinners were invented -- those metallic trays neatly divided into three sections, one each for turkey with gravy, mashed potatoes, and green beans -- if my parents were going out (most likely to Oakwood Country Club, the only place one could get a drink, provided he brought his own bottle ) we were accorded a special treat of setting them up on folding tables and justifying their name. 
 
My upstairs bedroom had a dormer window, from which I gazed out in shock and awe during the most frightening night I ever spent in that house, huddled in terror with my sister in October 1954 as Hurricane Hazel, an alliterative avenger, tore through Virginia. In more quiet times, it was my refuge during childhood attacks of chicken pox and measles. Warm weather lured us out to the back porch -- it's now a glass-enclosed den -- where I practiced my entrepreneurship in marathon Monopoly games spread out on the floor and luxuriated in stacks of comic books while rocking away lazy afternoons in a rope hammock. Even during the hottest days it was always the coolest place, since the only air-conditioned room in the house was my parents' bedroom and that was off limits. 
 
A pleasant neighborhood, a model household, plenty of friends nearby, a stay-at-home mother (when she wasn't on the golf course) on call to transport me anywhere I needed to go in her wood-sided Country Squire station wagon -- it was all so '50's idyllic, saccharine, and typical, even the smoke from my parents' Lucky Strikes and Pall Malls wafted harmlessly overhead. 
 
A minor problem pricked this tranquil bubble when I entered the first grade. Since 1226 Greenway Court was in Bedford County, I was consigned to Boonsboro Elementary School, even though, at five miles, it was further from my house than two city schools, a journey my protective mother made twice a day, loath to subject me to the beastly school bus and its raucous riders. After six weeks, however, my intellectual precocity had apparently outstripped both the capabilities of my peers and the imagination of my teacher; I came home complaining of boredom. 
 
After rejecting the only private school option, the Catholic one where my former running mate was enrolled and where the catechism was part of the curriculum, my panic-stricken parents turned to the Lynchburg City Schools to offer me a more a challenging education. As county residents they could pay tuition and send me to a school that had an opening. How that was determined I have no idea; every classroom seemed to bulge at the seams. Nevertheless, I was allocated a desk at the old Garland-Rodes School on Rivermont Avenue -- another two-a-day five-mile trek in the opposite direction and, ironically, directly across the street from where my grandparents were living. An early mid-season transfer, I was summarily uprooted and replanted. 
 
The operative word here is "opening." Just because Garland-Rodes had one that year, when I was a first-grader, didn't mean it would have one the next year. Like an army brat moving with his father to a new post or the Queen of Spades in a game of Hearts being handed off, I was shuffled over to Peakland Elementary School on Oak Lane, long ago torn down and now the site of Centra Health child care.
 
It was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, shouldn't I have welcomed the opportunity to meet all the "03" kids in the city (in the days before there was an "03")? On the other, being the new kid in town can be a little disturbing; just about the time I had a made a few "best friends," I had to say good-by and start all over again. And being tagged as one of the smartest -- but least athletically inclined -- kids in the class didn't help. For the third grade, deja vu, I was passed back to Garland-Rodes; at least I didn't have to break new ground, only renew old acquaintances. 
 
The next year the Baby Boom struck with a vengeance; there was no City School opening for this juvenile nomad. My parents knew the fourth grade teacher at Boonsboro Elementary School, and deemed her professional enough to stretch the scholars without neglecting the laggards. Her imperious manner struck fear in the hearts of all her students, and silenced any rebels even when they weren't occupied solving her endless stream of multiplication grids. Either exhausted or prescient and probably anticipating another one-year station, I shirked my socialization duties and preferred to associate with a Jewish friend who was one-year ahead of me and a Boonsboro veteran. During recess he would tutor me in advanced academics, an exercise which was to bear fruition in good time. 
 
As it turned out, my Boonsboro stay ran true to form, but this time I had lots of company. In 1958 the City of Lynchburg annexed a huge swath of Bedford County including the house that built me. To accommodate this new population -- I for one knew there were no "openings" in the existing schools -- it built Bedford Hills Elementary School; it was only one mile from Greenway Court and a boon for my frenzied mother after all those years of shuttling me to my designated school. How delighted I was to recognize some my old Peakland cronies among my fifth-grade classmates -- for about six weeks. No, I didn't transfer; I skipped, as in the hopscotch games I used to play on the street in front of the house. 
 
Apparently, a standardized test buttressed by my near perfect report cards confirmed reading and mathematical skills at least one grade above my age-appropriate level, and the educational authorities decided to accelerate me -- after, I'm sure, a consultation with my parents. For someone who hadn't settled in one school long enough to put down roots, another transplant was hardly novel. But looking back, I wouldn't recommend grade skipping, no matter how brilliant the child is. (In fact, I believe the practice has been largely discontinued.) No doubt I was academically and intellectually qualified to succeed among students one year my senior, and I did, continuing to earn straight A's in every subject but Phys. Ed. Socially, however, demotion to a lower grade would have better suited this cerebral, insecure introvert. 
 
Miranda Lambert's home has another meaning for her, which brings me to a postscript. She sings: "
 
Mama cut out pictures of houses for years 
From Better Homes and Gardens Magazines. 
Plans were drawn, concrete poured, 
And nail by nail and board by board 
Daddy gave life to Mama's dream. 
 
It was a bittersweet sight that I'll never forget, juxtaposing the excitement of moving to a new place with bidding farewell to an old friend and to the attendant memories: the huge tractor trailer grinding to a halt, the side doors opening, the ramp laid down, two burly men making their way up the front walkway, later emerging with chairs and tables strapped to their backs. 
 
Because 1226 Greenway Court wasn't my mother's dream house. That came later, in 1958, when with the birth of my brother my parents decided they had outgrown that starter, bought a half-acre lot at the corner of Elk Street and Belfield Place off Langhorne Road, and built a 3000 sq. ft. 1960's ranch -- replete with four bedrooms, living room, dining room, den, modern kitchen, and a half-finished basement with utility and family rooms. 
 
With the help of her architect, my mother paid attention to every detail, "nail by nail and board by board," while I suspect my father was mostly oblivious to the construction process. Other than requiring a few basic amenities, I don't think he really cared where he lived, as long as it wasn't too far from his beloved Downtown Store and Oakwood Country Club, both of which, incidentally, this new house was closer to. It wasn't very close to Bedford Hills Elementary School; in fact, it was in a different district altogether, necessitating, of course, my enrolling in another school for the seventh grade. At least it was one I was familiar with -- Peakland -- although my former second-grade friends were now a year behind me. 
 
But my peripatetic education wasn't over. Back then, before desegregation and the re-engineering of the school system, all white eighth graders in the city attended the old Robert E. Lee High School on Park Avenue. For the select four hundred it was a glorious year; we had the whole place to ourselves, free of any obnoxious underclassmen or overbearing superiors before advancing to four years at E. C. Glass, which would become my eighth different institution in eight years. 
 
Ultimately, who can say what determines our development as human beings? The factors that influence character and personality are so numerous and varied -- genes, parents, teachers, coaches, peers, socioeconomic status, opportunity, luck -- that no single one can be assigned primacy. Would I have been different had I grown up in another town, in another house, in a classroom in which my mates were not passing me by like commuters on a highway? Surely. Because whenever I think about it, I cannot avoid the conclusion that in some demonstrable way I am the product of the house that built me.

Saturday, January 29, 2022

The Dreaded Pink Parallels


On December 28th, 2021, I self-tested positive for Covid-19.

Aside from the possibility (or probability?) of bad news, the experience itself is frankly nauseating, a claim which elicited a reprimand from a friend that I should act more like the seventy-three-year-old grandfather I am rather than his four-year-old grandson. 

Even opening the pouch containing the test card makes me scowl, as it's sealed tighter than cereal wrap and requires me to deploy the 9" forged steel Italian scissors bequeathed to me by my father thirty years ago. 

At this point, step four, I'm suddenly fearful of failure (these tests are in short supply and not be wasted), having overlooked one, two, and three: read the instructions prior to starting; wear gloves; wash and dry your hands. Now I'm warned in bright pink letters: do not touch any parts of the card on the inside; handle only by the edges.

I've got the card open flat on the table. I detach the dropper bottle from its plastic frame, remove the cap, and holding it straight up (not at an angle), squeeze six drops into the top hole, careful not to touch the card with the tip. That's the easy part.

Just so I don't contemplate any cowardly short cuts, there are three depictions of how far the soft tip of the swab is to be thrust up my nose (3/4 of an inch) and, once there, how it is to be manipulated: rubbed against the inside walls of the nostril in five big circles for about fifteen seconds. And then repeated in the other one.

At least the next insertion is only into the card: through the bottom hole until the swab is visible in the top hole, where it is turned (three times to the right) so the nostril and test fluids are mixed. I close the card, seal it with adhesive, start the timer on my trusty ten-year-old Timex runner's watch, and wait with bated breath.

After twenty minutes (and safely within the fifteen to thirty minute window), I swivel my chair around, bend over the credenza behind my desk, and peer at the card. Staring back at me are two horizontal pink parallels: the sample line matches the control line, which indicates "positive." Oh no! Oh yes!

Thus the scratchy throat, cough, and congestion that have been worsening for the past twelve hours are not just a recurrence of the cold I had off and on for three weeks after Thanksgiving. When it first came on, of course I tested for Covid, exhaling a sigh of relief at the sight of a single line, as I was scheduled to attend a dinner party with seven other persons that night. I knew its origin: five hours in the car with my sniffling son, his wife, and children en route to a family gathering at the Omni Hotel in Bedford Springs, Pennsylvania, where, incidentally, more germs were rampant.

Covid is stalking me, however. I visit my internist for my annual check-up. After verifying a normal temperature, the gatekeeper at the entrance directs me toward the waiting area, whence, after registration, I am ushered to an examination room. During our interview the nurse asks me if I would like a flu shot. "Sure," I say, inhaling gravelly through my nasal passage, "but I don't know if I should take it while I have this cold." 

"Let me check with the doctor," she says. Five minutes later she rushes back with a panic-stricken look on her face, exclaims "You can't be in here," and shoos me out like a pesky fly. The doctor calls me while I'm sitting in my car, and tells me that, in order for him to examine me, I need to take a Covid test. "Fine," I say, until he informs me that I won't get the result for two hours. "I don't have Covid and I can't wait two hours," I retort. "I'll come back when my cold is better."

My doctor, whom I adore (everyone does), then attempts to persuade me to take the test, questioning the reliability of the at-home antigen version and suggesting I could be putting others at risk -- specifically, my ninety-six-year-old mother -- by my refusal. It's a guilt trip I'm not buying, although the conversation comes back to haunt me a scant two weeks later.

Like millions of other Americans in the same moment, I am now the embodiment of all the absurdities, ironies, frustrations, and contradictions that have defined the pandemic since the virus emerged two years ago.  

I distanced, physically, socially, emotionally, at first begrudgingly, then with the restrained eagerness of a long-suffering introvert realizing the fulfillment of his most repressed desire. Because my business qualified as an essential one, I didn't have to lock it down, which was fortuitous, as demand for home furnishings soared while the restaurant and travel industries imploded. I remember when masks were a novelty, then a nuisance, finally a requirement, accumulating drawer fulls, at home, at my office, in my car, yet never having one at hand when I needed it. I watched endless hours of cable news, read a thousand articles, weighed the words of hundreds of politicians, pundits, and professors, and concluded that the more they talked, the less they knew. Given my general good health, my commitment to fitness, and my observance of most safety measures, I categorized myself as low-risk, while cases and deaths mounted, including among the latter two employees, a close childhood friend, and a college roommate. With the swift advent of the vaccine -- nothing short of miraculous, considering the biology of  coronavirus -- after three inoculations I assumed a certain invulnerability and the imminent demise of the plague. 

If sadly mistaken, I was in good company. 

I couldn't suppress a smidgen of sympathy for poor, pitiful Joe, whose July 4th celebration of the country's "independence from the pandemic" recalled another president's ill-timed declaration of victory. Just as George W. Bush proudly proclaimed on May 1, 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and its allies have prevailed," so too did Mr. Biden prematurely announce to 1000 supporters on the White House lawn, "We are emerging from the darkness . . . [ending] a year of . . . isolation . . . fear and heartbreaking loss."


His grounds for confidence were certainly reasonable. With hardly a nod to his predecessor for warp speeding the vaccine into existence, he heralded his own administration's adherence to science and the competence with which it would govern, thereby implying that not only would it facilitate the availability of vaccine, any and all resistance would be expeditiously overcome by the presumed facts and the power of persuasion.

But there was also a basis for skepticism. Unlike traditional vaccines, which release a weakened or inactivated germ into the body, the Moderna and Pfizer products are messenger (m)RNA vaccines. Entering the arm muscle, the mRNA instructs the cells there to manufacture the spike protein found on the surface of the virus that causes Covid-19. Recognizing the protein as alien, the body's immune system creates antibodies which remain active to combat future infection.

Not only were these mRNA vaccines the first ever of their kind developed for widespread human usage, the three phases of the clinical trial process -- in which the number of persons inoculated is gradually expanded from small groups to thousands -- were conducted simultaneously rather than consecutively, thereby significantly reducing the time necessary for approval. 

Couple these factors with the ongoing politicization of the pandemic, the ranting of conspiracy theorists, the failure of past mitigation efforts to moderate much less subdue the disease, and the eruption of breakthrough infections immediately on the heels of the Moderna/Pfizer (and J&J) rollout, is it any wonder that the vaccination's purported efficacy might be suspect?

Confronted by a portion of the population stubbornly obtuse to cajolery, pleading, shaming, intimidation, and death warnings, the administration raised its heavy hand, and laid yet another onerous ordinance on small (and large) businesses: all employees must either be vaccinated, submit to a weekly testing regimen, or be terminated, with non-compliance punishable by five-figure fines per incident.

Aside from the matter of legality, the mandate raises issues of fairness, practicality, and utility, some of which were invoked in the Supreme Court's recent decision preventing OSHA from implementing the regulations. 

While I strongly encourage everyone to take the Covid vaccination to protect himself from the severity of the disease, I resent being ordered by the government to serve as its policing agent, especially when the so-called policy experts drafting the rules have no conception of how my business operates. They take it for granted that, since my company is above the one hundred head count threshold that would exempt it from the mandate, it has the resources at hand to monitor both vaccination and testing compliance, not realizing that its five-hundred-seventy-five employees are dispersed among fifty-two locations, with some having as few as eight at the site. 

Further, in the current climate, recruiting and retaining employees is difficult at best, and the competition is fierce. Not only am I reluctant to accede to a directive that, regardless of the health benefits, might compel me to fire some of them, I am disturbed by the thought that another small furniture store a mile up the road might be looking for a really good salesperson who does not have to be vaccinated.

Even if one accepts a personal statement or document as valid, the question arises: what satisfies the definition of "fully vaccinated"? One, two, or three shots? And at one point does a fourth become necessary?

I will concede that, given a choice between those shots and sticking a swab up the nose every week, a vaccination holdout might surrender to the lesser of two evils (in my opinion). As an employer, I would certainly hope so because, as I understand it, I'm required to have every test witnessed by a supervisor or co-worker and entered into a log just in case an OSHA representative drops by for an inspection. And remember, these tests take fifteen minutes, cost twelve dollars each, and, incidentally, during this ongoing distraction we've got to wait on customers, finalize sales in our credit office, and deliver merchandise.

The Supreme Court hung its 6-3 ruling on the contention that, because Covid is a hazard that exists outside the workplace, it does not meet the standard of "grave danger" that OSHA is permitted by federal law to act upon to protect workers; the dissenters countered that no such limitation is found in the statute, nor has it bound OSHA in the past. Regardless of whom is correct, it's clearly evident that the vaccination neither prevents one from contracting Covid nor from spreading it to others, that the "grave danger" presented by the disease applies solely to the person who chooses to spurn the vaccination, and that any obligation I have to an employee who foolishly refuses to act in his own self-interest collapses under the weight of the burden imposed on my business in fulfilling it.

According to Holman Jenkins, writing in the Wall Street Journal (January 12, 2022), the workplace mandate would have had "a negligible, almost invisible, impact on either vaccination rates or the unfolding of the pandemic . . . A large majority of the U.S. population has already been vaccinated. The mandate targets only . . . the private workforce, most of whom have already received the shot . . . At least half have also likely been infected and acquired natural immunity."

Nevertheless, the authorities persevere, moving after social distancing, lock downs, deep cleaning, masking, targeted closures, and vaccinations to Act Seven of this protracted melodrama: universal testing, another surefire remedy in their futile quest to tame the capriciousness of nature. Predictably, it's a gesture that just fuels the frenzy, as thousands in perfect health rush from drug stores to walk-in clinics and line up for hours to find out if perhaps they've been victimized by a stealth attack. And to what end? So they can come back the next day for another swab, and the day after that, ad nauseam, just to make sure nothing's changed?

Five hundred million tests promised in December to arrive in two weeks (paid by insurers, no less) have yet to materialize, just another $5 billion (among trillions) wasted on the pandemic, as by that time, either the panic will have subsided or the Omicron variant will have run its course.

I tested myself because I had symptoms; otherwise I wouldn't bother. Am I surprised at the result? I shouldn't be; after all, to quote an interviewee on cable news, the virus is now "ubiquitous," although when I would idly comment to friends and acquaintances that "We're all going to get it," I was only half-serious. Now I'm a believer.

One's first thought is "Have I exposed anyone else?" followed by "Where did I get it?"

As for the latter, I initially lay the blame on a gathering at Jacquie's house on December 26th which included her three children plus another family of five, all of whom have come from out of town. When neither symptoms nor a positive test surfaces from this group, I shift the culprit to a party we attended on the 23rd; there were about one hundred guests, many of whom I would, at my age, classify as "youngsters," that is, in their late twenties to mid-thirties, and also non-residents. I'm told later that at least two other persons tested positive for Covid, which is not a large number considering the crowd and makes my case that much more mysterious.


The day before my diagnosis I played duplicate bridge at the Templeton Senior Center with about thirty other folks, most over seventy and certainly when at a table for four sitting closer together than six feet. I could sense a cough and congestion coming on, so I took the precaution of wearing a mask, which put me in a definite minority. I'm supposed to play the next evening, Wednesday, but I'm somewhat apprehensive about breaking the news to my partner, much less the entire club. If I call him today, Tuesday, might he not think I was already sick yesterday and by coming to the club knowingly put the other players at risk? As much as I denied its legitimacy a few weeks ago in my encounter with my doctor, guilt has crept into my consciousness.

I procrastinate twenty-four hours, and text Phil early Wednesday morning. He expresses his sympathy, and I'm relieved to have that behind me until my phone blows up. Well, not really: there are only two calls, one from a woman who has a dental appointment the next day and wants to know what she should tell her dentist, the other from my Monday partner, who's not concerned about Covid and just wants to know if I'll be able to play with him again Friday as scheduled. It's a moot point, as Phil has done what I should have done: called the club president. By 1:00 PM the decision has been made and transmitted by email that the games Wednesday evening and Friday morning are cancelled due to a member (me obviously) testing positive for Covid.

My level of distress edges up a notch. I draft an email explaining that I thought my early symptoms were the resurgence of a lingering cold, that I had worn a mask on Monday, that I am experiencing only mild discomfort, that I do not recommend a test unless symptoms are present, and that I am sorry this happened and hopeful the illness will be confined to only one person. I forward it to the club president, and ask him to distribute it to the membership. Either he doesn't receive it or ignores my request, as it never appears on my phone, for which in retrospect I am most grateful.

While no one wants to be responsible for infecting another person, we've reached a point in the pandemic where apologies are irrelevant and guilt is baseless. They may have had some credibility in the early days when social distancing and masks were society's most effective mitigation tools and mortality loomed as a genuine threat to segments of the population, but in today's environment, where the virus is uncontrollable and protection is easily accessible, they serve no purpose.

Most people accept that they can fall prey to this disease at any time and any place and that it's no more than a random unfortunate occurrence -- or perhaps fortunate if one aspires to greater immunity. Several of my fellow bridge players inquire about my health during my illness; they all welcome me back enthusiastically when I return to the club on January 10th, where I learn much to my surprise that another member tested positive around the same time I did. He hadn't played the Monday two weeks ago when I thought I might be a spreader, but we had both played the Wednesday night prior. After all my anxiety, is it possible that he's patient zero, not I? Such are the vagaries of Covid-19. 

And the hits keep coming. My daughter calls from St. Maarten, where she, her husband, her two children, and her mother-in-law are vacationing for the holidays. All but her husband have tested positive, and they're frantically navigating the island and airline regulations to determine when they will be able to fly home.

I'm now under quarantine, at least for only five days rather than ten, according to the just-released CDC guidelines, which of course are subject to revision or reinterpretation at any moment. While there's never a good time to be shut-in, this week seems as suitable as any. It's winter, although the weather has been unseasonably warm. While I'll miss the New Year in Paris Celebration at Oakwood Country Club (it's rung in at 6:00 PM -- midnight Paris time -- so all the old folks can make a speedy getaway and be safely in bed before the real festivities begin), I didn't think that would deter Jacquie and the two other couples who were joining us from carrying on without me, but they decide to bail; I never knew I was the life of the party.

Some other friends have exhibited extraordinary foresight and already cancelled their wonderful New Year's Day Traditional Dinner (barbecued ribs, stewed tomatoes, collard greens, and black-eyed peas). When I received the notification, I suggested some alternatives: February 6th, Chinese New Year; March 20th, Iranian New Year; April 14th, Tamil New Year; and of course October 2nd, Jewish New Year. 

On her last visit to Lynchburg, my eight-year-old granddaughter Lia (not seeing anyone else around) asked me if I lived by myself. "I do," I answered. "And do you know what that means? I can do whatever I want whenever I want."

So, being home alone shouldn't bother me, provided I don't get too sick. Tuesday, the day I test, isn't too bad, but Wednesday and Thursday, I'm pretty miserable, coughing and sniffling constantly. I escape the other common symptoms -- loss of taste and smell, fever, fatigue, headache -- but develop an abnormality, mouth ulcers, which I haven't had for years since my periodontist recommended a supplement that I take daily, L-Lysine. A little googling reveals that, yes, other patients have reported a similar condition. 

I'm able to sleep five or six hours the first two nights, which is not much less than what's now normal for me. Jacquie brings me some chicken soup which is as good for the soul as advertised. A piddling annoyance is dehydration, which makes me abandon coffee for a couple of days and substitute tea, which I drink as a last resort. Other than that, I'm in good shape by Friday, except for throat congestion, which lingers for almost two weeks.

Sworn to full disclosure, I admit that I breach my quarantine seven times: one trip each to the library and the grocery store to collect a few provisions and five six-mile walks to the Blackwater Creek Bike Trail and back. Needless to say I don't wear a mask during my exercise excursions, and thus am embarrassed to encounter a close friend on an outing with his son and grandson. Whereas he wants to stop and chat, my priority is avoiding close contact. I nod, smile, put my head down, and pick up my pace as if I'm on a mission, which I'm sure he shrugs off as just another instance of my habitual rudeness.

Among those who know me, it's no secret that I like to read books; I've got fifteen sitting on a shelf just waiting for an opportunity like this one. But even I can't read for six or seven hours a day for a solid week. So in between naps, snacks, and wandering aimlessly through my house, sooner or later I plant myself in my well-worn maroon La-Z-Boy recliner in what I call the tv room, and pick up my remote. I rarely watch television, and when I do, it's mostly news, so my 21" screen is really sufficient for viewing talking heads that are swollen enough without magnification.

A few years ago my step son-in-law set me up as a signer on his Netflix account; it's the only app available to me other than MLB, for which I purchase a subscription every season to follow my beloved Oakland A's. I've watched The Queen's Gambit and a three episodes of Bridgerton, but other than those, the menu of shows is as foreign to me as a Chinese newspaper. I consult the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and decide that Money Heist, The Kominsky Method (also recommended by a friend), The Crown, and Ozark look inviting. I click on the last one but nothing happens. I click on the other three one by one; again nothing. I try a few movies -- I can't remember what they were -- but have no luck with them either. I disconnect and reattach the HD converter box to no avail. It appears that, if I'm going to watch television, it's going to be the old-fashioned way: scrolling through a hundred or so cable channels.

It's the time of the year for bowl games, and there are at least three every day until New Year's. That doesn't do me much good, since I detest football. Nevertheless, I check out the schedule, and conclude that some slick salesmen are convincing some big companies to write fat checks to paste their brands on football games between mediocre teams which I can't imagine very many people are watching, namely, Quick Lane, ServPro, Autozone, Guaranteed Rate, Valero, Cheez-It, Duke's Mayo, Taxslayer, Chick-fil-A, and Tony the Tiger. Looking back, if I'd had any interest, I could have suffered through (or rejoiced at, depending on my affiliation, which I'm not revealing) Maryland's shellacking of Virginia Tech, a fate which that other Virginia college adroitly avoided when its contest was cancelled.

The one channel that might have appealed to me, Turner Classic Movies, was stricken from my Comcast line-up about a year ago, and now demands a premium. As much as I try, I just can't generate an appetite for any of films, reality shows, documentaries, serials, and reruns that pop up at the flick of a finger. I'm snagged for a bit by TV Land, whose afternoon fare alternates between two classics of my generation, Gunsmoke (more violent than I remembered) and The Andy Griffith Show (Opie steals every scene), but thirty minutes each of James Arness's booming baritone and Don Knotts's squeaky soprano is about all I can take.

Sooner or later anyone randomly surfing during the late afternoon or early evening will hit on the two of the highest-rated game shows in America: Jeopardy! and Family Feud. I just happen to tune in to the former two days before Amy Schneider sets the record for the most consecutive wins by a woman, twenty-one. (By Friday, January 21st, she has extended her winning streak to thirty-eight, tied for the second longest, and upped her earnings to $1,307,200, good for fourth place.) I actually recollect her Final Jeopardy answer (at least the gist of it before I looked up the exact language on the J! Archive web site) -- "In 1955 Peter Hall directed the first production of this play in English 'without having the foggiest idea of what some of it means'" -- and the question, which I guessed because it was the only contemporary play I could think of: Waiting for Godot.


Jeopardy!
has been on the air since 1984. I submit that its longevity is attributable to two factors: first, the contestants come from all backgrounds and look to be no different from and no smarter than ourselves or people we know; second, the questions (or answers) are challenging but not extremely difficult, and for viewers the solutions are always on the tip of the tongue, just out of reach, but, alas, most of the time, unable to be retrieved in the few seconds allotted. It's a game we can all play but not nearly as well as someone like Amy Schneider, or the current host and all-time champion Ken Jennings. Whether Jennings will continue in the position is of course up to the producers, but in my opinion he lacks the personality to engage the audience at the level of his long-time predecessor, Alex Trebek.

As for Family Feud, which pits two families of five against each other in a contest to win cash by answering survey questions, all the show's energy flows from the host, Steve Harvey. The fourth to fill the role since 1976, he increased Nielsen ratings significantly when he took over in 2010, and has now surpassed the other three in tenure. Harvey struggled for a number of years making ends meet, but broke through as a stand-up comedian in 1990. He has hosted a weekday morning radio program since 2000, had major parts in at least five films, and in 2009 published a New York Times best selling book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man.


With his athletic height and physique, shiny silk suits, resonant voice, quick wit, infectious charm, and broad, beaming smile, Harvey dominates the stage. Many survey questions prompt the most outlandish responses, which present Harvey with numerous opportunities to crack jokes, stare at the audience with looks of disbelief, and then announce with the certainty that the contestant is about to be hilariously humiliated: "Survey says!" It's all in fun, and he revels in it when Lucifer is selected as "a character Steve might play in the Bible" and a penis is offered as "something of her husband's an estranged wife might give to her brother."

With the recent premiere of Judge Steve Harvey on ABC, Harvey has vaulted into the courtroom, where he'll be employing his brash humor to adjudicate real-life conflicts in unscripted one-hour weekly sessions.

Another host with similar star power is Guy Fieri, who's been cruising across America in his red Camaro visiting Diner, Drive-Ins, and Dives since 2007. For someone who doesn't cook, I'm drawn to this food orgy like a homeless man to Golden Corral, and I'm not alone; according to YouGovAmerica, it's the second most popular contemporary reality show after MythBusters. I thought I'd gone to a World Series game when my stepdaughter took me to the crowded Cast Iron Kitchen in Wilmington, NC one Sunday morning several months ago and I saw Guy's picture on the wall. Most of the eight hundred restaurants that have been highlighted on the show have reported dramatic increases in sales as a result. One of those, Donatelli's, in White Bear Lake, MN said its appearance saved it from going out of business.


The afternoon I tune in, Guy hopscotches from Chehalis, WA to Houston, TX to Nashville, TN where he observes the preparation of and savors in turn a meatloaf panini sandwich (at Once Upon a Thyme), a pair of brisket tacos (at The Pit Room), and Spicy Pork Bulgogi (at Soy Bistro). They're all mouthwatering to look at, a sensation reinforced by the customer testimonials Guy evokes as he saunters through the seating areas. 

As I watch though, from a critical perspective, the shine may be wearing off the apple. Like Steve, Guy is the engine that drives his show. He's a superb performer; in repartee with the chefs, the contrast between himself and his two guests -- his son and Lee Majors -- is striking. His curiosity about the recipes and enthusiasm for the process never wane; his delight in the final products is always genuine. After a while, however, the repetitiveness is too blatant to ignore. How many ways are there to express just how good something tastes? In spite of the variety emerging from their boilers, fryers, grills, and ovens, all the kitchens are mirror images of each other, especially in their impressive immaculateness. For each fabulous concoction the same ingredients -- onions, ginger, sugar, sea salt, chili powder, garlic, cilantro, ground pepper -- are sliced, diced, pureed, and then thrown together with numbing monotony. 

Guy's not slowing down. Besides franchising his own chain of fast food chicken restaurants, he recently completed a four-part series for the Discovery Channel (part of a three-year $80 million deal) which follows him, his wife, his two sons, and a nephew on a twenty day journey exploring Hawaii and enjoying its food, culture, and sporting activities.

On New Year's Eve I stumble upon the SYFY channel's Twilight Zone marathon -- 104 out of 156 episodes in forty-eight hours -- an annual event, I understand. Is this the piece de resistance that might actually command my attention longer than a brief sampling? If the two entrees served up are any indication, I may be in for the long haul.

I'm five minutes into the third scariest show in the series, "Living Doll." A svelte young (but already bald) Telly Savalas plays Erich Streator, who, unable to bear children with her mother Annabelle, transfers his frustration to his stepdaughter Christie. Annabelle buys Christie a wind-up doll named Talky Tina, who mouths such niceties as "I love you very much" -- until Erich gives the key a twist and Tina starts spewing vitriol, like "I don't like you . . . I hate you" and ultimately "I'm going to kill you." Erich stuffs the doll in a trash can under a weighted lid; when she escapes he tries to destroy her using a vise, a blowtorch, and a saw, all for naught.


Accused by Erich of playing tricks on him, Annabelle threatens to leave, but reconsiders when he returns the doll to Christie. Later that night Erich hears strange noises. As he takes his first step down the stairs to have a look, he trips and falls to his death. When Annabelle finds his body, lying beside it is Tina, who opens her eyes and says, "My name is Talky Tina, and you better be nice to me!"

"Dolls can't really talk, and they certainly can't commit murder," intones producer Rod Serling, except "in the misty region of the Twilight Zone."

If that isn't spooky enough, next up is the famous "Time Enough at Last," which stars a barely recognizable Burgess Meredith as Henry Bemis, a bespectacled bank clerk who loves books. In the opening scene he shortchanges a customer because he's so engrossed in the novel David Copperfield. Duly chastised by his boss, Henry returns home that night to a nagging wife who berates him for wasting so much time reading and shoves a book in his face in which she has blacked out the text. 


The next day while taking his lunch break in the bank vault where he can read undisturbed, Henry is knocked unconscious by an enormous explosion. After retrieving his glasses, Henry emerges from the vault to find the city razed, indeed the planet devastated, by a nuclear war. In despair at being the sole survivor, Henry raises a revolver and is about to shoot himself when he spies a public library in the distance. Venturing closer, he sees all the books he could ever hope for still intact, and comprehends he has time enough at last to read without interruption.

But as he leans over to pick up the first gem, his glasses fall from his face and shatter, leaving him virtually blind, surrounded by books he can now never read. "Just a part of a smashed landscape, just a piece of the rubble, just a fragment of what man has deeded to himself, Henry Bemis in the Twilight Zone" bursts into tears.

Cited by Rod Serling as one of his top two favorites (the other was "The Invaders"), "Time Enough at Last" polled as the most remembered episode in the series by readers of Twilight Zone Magazine. It ranked twenty-fifth in TV Land's presentation of TV Guide's "100 Most Memorable Moments in Television."

Any normal compulsive reader ought to be intimidated by the fate of Henry Bemis. I hang around for a few snippets of a quiet suburban neighborhood disrupted by the sighting of a spaceship and a businessman whose sense of reality is ruptured when he discovers that he's on a tv set rather than in his office. But the sweetness of the printed word is too tempting to resist, and I've got three delicacies waiting to be plucked.

The late Philip Kerr was a British author who achieved a modicum of fame for three mysteries published in 1989-1991 (later collated as the trilogy Berlin Noir) featuring Bernie Gunther, a hard-boiled police detective plying his trade during the Nazi regime. Fifteen years and nine standalone novels later he resurrected Bernie, crafted eleven more clever cliffhangers that leapfrog his protagonist from wartime Germany to postwar South America, and left as a legacy an antihero unique in the annals of crime fiction.

Bernie's perpetual dilemma is that he despises the Nazis yet must obey his masters in order to survive. Trapped in a world where horror abounds, morality is inverted, and the truth illusory, he maintains his sanity through brutal self-examination, trenchant cynicism, sardonic humor, and irreverent outbursts of sarcasm and ridicule that border on insubordination yet are indulged by his superiors because his sleuthing talents are undeniable and useful.

Bernie's exploits are grounded in actual events and peopled with historical figures, most of whom are placeholders in the Nazi hierarchy. Kerr's research is impeccable, and readers learn as much if not more about the period from his fabrications as they would from an authoritative work. In Prague Fatale, Bernie is summoned to a palatial estate in Bohemia-Moravia where the diabolical Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Reich Security Police and architect of the "Final Solution," is perplexed by the locked room murder of an adjutant. In A Man Without Breath, Propaganda Minister and Hitler henchman Joseph Goebbels dispatches Bernie to Smolensk, charging him with exhuming evidence that the 4000 dead Polish officers found in a mass grave were massacred by Russian soldiers.


Next in sequence, the one I'm reading, is The Lady from Zagreb; she's Dalia Dresner, a beautiful actress, Yugoslavian by birth, who's refusing Goebbels's entreaties to star in his new film unless he can recruit a detective capable of tracking down and delivering a letter to her father, a former Roman Catholic priest missing somewhere in war-torn Croatia.

Goebbels volunteers Bernie for the task, which lands him in a ravaged country where communist partisans and royalists battle the Ustase, the ruling fascist militia whose barbarism and cruelty may have exceeded that of the SS. Dalia's father is no longer a priest; he's a Commandant at the notorious Jasenovic concentration camp, where one hundred thousand Jews, Serbs, and Gypsies have been brutally murdered. On the walls of his villa Bernie grimaces at the "framed photographs of decapitations -- men and women . . . having their heads cut off with knives, axes, and . . . a crosscut saw."

Returning to Berlin, Bernie is informed by Goebbels that he now must follow Dalia to Zurich, where she has fled to rejoin her husband, and that, incidentally he must marry the woman with whom he has a passing acquaintance in order to be allowed back into Germany. 

In Zurich the plot becomes labyrinthine. Bernie has a torrid love affair with Dalia. Mistaken for Walter Schellenberg, head of the SS foreign intelligence, he's kidnapped by American agents and interrogated by Allen Dulles. Apprehended by the Gestapo, he's accused of smuggling when gold is discovered in the undercarriage of the Mercedes he was ordered to drive to Switzerland; he escapes by spewing alcohol at one of the officer's cigarette lighter. He solves the murder of a physician who was threatening to divulge a business deal whereby Swiss industrialists were supplying the Germans concentration camp barracks. He makes common cause with Schellenberg, who arranges for a bogus Swiss defense report to be conveyed to Hitler to thwart his plan to violate that country's neutrality. Two shocking revelations dictate the permanent banishment of Dalia to Switzerland and prohibit Bernie from ever seeing her again, except years later on the screen of a darkened theater in Marseilles.

Amidst all these escapades and reversals of fortune, Bernie shares some philosophical musings with Swiss author Paul Meyer-Schwertenbach. "I just don't think life has very much meaning," he says. "Good people are never as good as you probably think they are, and the bad ones aren't as bad. Not half as bad. On different days we're all good. On other days, we're evil. That's the story of my life. That's the story of everyone's life."

A person who might subscribe to the ambiguity of human nature but would surely hold a more sanguine view of life's meaning is Guido Brunetti, the thoughtful, compassionate, and persistent police commissioner who's been patrolling the canals and alleys of Venice since 1992. Two years prior to that Donna Leon, an English literature teacher living in the city, was joking with a friend about how a reputable but very much unloved and recently deceased opera conductor might have been murdered in his dressing room. She composed a manuscript, Death at La Fenice, but left it in a drawer until her friend convinced her to submit it to a writing contest. It won, got published, and thirty more followed in annual progression.

There's always a crime, and Brunetti never fails to get his man (or woman). But the plots are mere skeletons; what makes these slender volumes (under three hundred pages) full-bodied are the author's familiarity with the setting, her appreciation for the native culture, and her long-term investment in her ensemble of characters.

Guido is a "surprisingly neat man" who relaxes by reading Greek and Roman history; he always comes home for a delightful lunch with his wife and two teenagers, but may step out occasionally to enjoy a prosecco, brioche, or caffe at a nearby bar. He's happily married to Paola, herself an English professor, an excellent cook, and a confidant for her husband as he strives to unravel the twisted threads of his current case. 

Guido gets no support from his boss, Vice-Questor Patta, who's vain, lazy, pompous, and an expert at shifting blame or claiming credit depending on circumstances. More helpful are Patta's glamorous secretary, Signorina Elettra, whose vast network of contacts and exceptional computer dexterity enable her to unearth the deepest secrets; the reliable Sergeant Vianello, honest, clever, and adept at earning the trust of witnesses and suspects; and Commissario Griffoni, a willowy blonde Neopolitan, whose integrity, insight, and willingness to challenge Brunetti's assumptions make her an invaluable partner.


The latest entry in the series, Transient Desires, starts slowly, but illustrates Brunetti's insistence that any mishap, no matter the purported explanation, deserves a full airing. Two injured American women are deposited at the hospital dock by two men, Berto and Marcello, who are filmed speeding away, intent on remaining anonymous. Identified and ordered to the Questura for questioning, they admit to a collision aboard a boat borrowed from Marcello's uncle, Pietro Borgato, the owner of a transport business. Brunetti learns from a sanitation worker that Borgato has equipped two of his boats with oversized motors.

Signorina Elettra's sources ferret out Borgato's checkered past; as a youth he ran afoul of the police and lost his job, then left the city for ten years, inexplicably returning with enough money to buy a warehouse and two boats. A contact in the Carabinieri tells Brunetti a horrid story about a group of young girls from Nigeria who were thrown overboard when the boat smuggling them was spotted by the authorities; only one survived. Brunetti collars Berto again and obtains one more confession: Marcello was a member of the crew when the mass drowning occurred. The human trafficking scheme is exposed, the centuries-old systematic exploitation by the strong and wealthy of the weak and poor, who become, Brunetti laments, "field hands, sex toys, even organ donors, each step stripping successive layers of humanity from their persons and from the souls . . . of their owners." At least Borgato's run is over, as Brunetti and the Guardia Costiera corner him in the midst of another transfer.

In Brunetti's Italy, corruption and bribery abound. "Torn between his ideals and the insults to mind, body, and spirit that he witnesses everyday," he perseveres, drawing "constant balm from his family, his friends, a perfect risotto, a glass of fine wine, and always, outside his door, the breathtaking city." (Neil Nyren, "Donna Leon," Crime Reads, June 25, 2021)

To finish out the week, I'm switching to nonfiction: Facing the Mountain: A True Story of Japanese American Heroes in World War II, by Daniel James Brown. He's the author of the highly acclaimed The Boys in the Boat, which chronicles the University of Washington rowing team's improbable capture of the Olympic Gold Medal in 1936. Seven years have intervened between the publication of the two books, a testament to the monumental research involved in the newer one, which included scouring voluminous oral histories, letters, and battle accounts and conducting hundreds of interviews with surviving soldiers and family members.


Brown ingeniously juxtaposes the more familiar (at least to me) war tragedy in which 120,000 Issei (first-generation Japanese immigrants) were summarily stripped of their possessions and confined to "relocation centers" and the lesser known history of the US 442nd Infantry Regiment, in which 18,000 Nisei (American-born Japanese Americans) served and received a higher proportionate number of Medals of Honor than any other unit.

For the evacuees, the facilities at the Colorado River Relocation Center in Poston, Arizona were typical. "Row upon row of black tar-paper-clad barracks stretched for three miles end to end on a vast expanse of raw, sun baked sand . . . A fine gray dust settled over everything . . . From time to time a gust of hot, dry wind stirred the dust up, but the wind was searing and offered no relief." New arrivals stuffed empty sacks with straw so they would have something to sleep on. They built shelving, tables, and chairs out of scrap lumber. They whittled chopsticks out of desert ironwood and mesquite. Only fifty cents' worth of rations per day per person was provided, and most of it was army surplus: cheap canned meat, soggy vegetables, old potatoes, and evaporated milk.

But like the inhabitants of their adopted country, these Japanese Americans were resilient. "They undertook an ambitious program to build a complete infrastructure to meet their needs." Using adobe bricks they made from mud and and straw, they erected schools. "They turned spare barracks into Christian and Buddhist churches." They set up poultry and hog farms to supply fresh meat and eggs. They irrigated the surrounding desert, planted crops, and harvested fresh produce. They cleared the ground of sagebrush, marked off baseball diamonds and football fields, and formed teams. They organized police and fire departments, ran health clinics, beauty shops, and newspapers, and initiated a wide variety of clubs and social activities.

While the Issei endured the travails of incarceration, their sons went to war, but not until 1943 after President Roosevelt signed a memo rich in unintended irony. It read, in part, "Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry. A good American is one who is loyal to his country and our creed of liberty and democracy. Every loyal American should be given the opportunity to serve this country." What was omitted from those noble words was any acknowledgement of the military's racial segregation policy. 

Brown recounts the tortuous journey of three Nisei determined to assert their patriotism and the ordeal of one who chose to protest the unjust treatment of the Japanese Americans and their being denied due process of law. 

Expelled from the Territorial Guard because of his ethnicity, Hawaiian Kats Miho goes to work building naval air barracks after Pearl Harbor until he becomes eligible for the U.S. armed forces. Sent to the Poston Relocation Center with his parents, Rudi Tokiwa of Salinas, California, exhorts his fellow Nisei to join the ranks with him in order to be able "to stand up afterwards and say, 'I did my share.'" Fred Shiosaki of Spokane, Washington, walks into the Selective Service office where six months prior he was called an enemy alien, and enlists, provoking an outburst of anger from his father unlike any he has ever seen. On June 1st, after refusing three times to sign the proper registration form, Gordon Hirabayashi, the last Japanese American living in Spokane, is arraigned on violating Civilian Exclusion Order No. 57 and the 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. curfew and consigned to the King County Jail to await trial.

The recruits are sent to Camp Shelby near Hattiesburg, Mississippi, for basic training that goes beyond the purely military. At the Union Station train depot, encountering men's rooms and drinking fountains marked "white" and "colored," Kats asks a white officer which he should use. The officer scratches his head, equally baffled, before grumbling, "Aw hell. You ain't either, exactly. Use the white one."

As the summer progresses, the new soldiers acquire a host of uncommon skills: how to repair tanks; how to fire heavy machine guns; how to lay and conceal land mines; how to blow up bridges and rebuild them in hours; how to winch 37-millimeter antitank guns across rivers; how to traverse the wet lowlands of southern Mississippi, evading alligators and snakes, thrashing brush thickets and tangled kudzu, and tolerating the painful attacks of ticks and chiggers. Most important, in spite of differences in language and culture that early on led to arguments, insults, and fisticuffs, the Hawaiian Buddaheads and the mainland kotunks learn to live and labor together and to wage war as a team.

They will need all the strength and unity they can muster. They are about to be sent to one of the deadliest places on earth.

In gripping and realistic prose, Brown describes the murderous combat between the 442nd Regiment and the Germans during the summer of 1944 as the Americans claw their way mile by mile up the Ligurian Coast from the Anzio beachhead into the hilly terrain of Northern Italy. Kats's Artillery Battalion toils in two shifts firing its guns around the clock; running a gauntlet of "exploding mortars, hissing bullets, and shrieking shells," Rudy's K Company conquers Hill 140; the same force wrests towns like Luciana from the enemy building by building, blasting through doors and windows with machine guns, bazookas, and grenades. 

The young men of the 442nd emerge from the crucible transformed, bound together by the certain knowledge that, before this is over, many will die and that it's "up to each of them now to watch out for the others, to take any risk, to bear any burden for one another."

The 442nd's stellar performance earns it another assignment: to anchor the southern tip of the American Seventh Army in its attack on the German Siegfried Line in the fall of 1944. For seven days and nights the soldiers battle their way though dense forests, continuous rain, impenetrable mud, and barricades laced with mines and booby traps, and drive the Germans from the French towns of Bruyeres, Belmont, and Biffontaine. Their reward: an order to rescue the Lost Battalion of the Texas Division's 141st Regiment, whose arrogant and incompetent commander, John E. Dahlquist, has foolishly allowed it to be surrounded and entrapped in the Vosges Mountains.

It's a suicidal mission. After two days advancing through more woods, rain, fog, mud, and intense firepower, K and I Companies are at an impasse. To reach the stranded battalion, they must cross a ridge and scale a steep slope through heavily fortified emplacements under a constant enemy barrage. "I want you guys to charge!" yells Dahlquist to Regimental Lt. Col. Alfred Pursall. Compelled to obey, "the men one by one, then en masse, rise and storm up the hill . .  . shooting blind through the tangle of trees looming above . . . A torrent of steel and lead descends upon them. Mortar shells plunge down among them with terrifying randomness. Machine-gun fire rips them apart."

Amazingly the assault is a success; the Germans retreat from their positions. The next day the remnants of the two companies break through the encirclement and link up with the besieged Texans. Once again the 442nd regiment has triumphed against overwhelming odds, but this time the cost is horrific. "Of the roughly 360 men who marched into the Vosges three days before, fewer than two dozen in K Company are still alive and able to walk out of the woods; in I Company there are even fewer" -- all of them sacrificed to rescue 200 comrades.

Back home, rather than congratulatory, the reception accorded the surviving Japanese Americans is insensitive, insolent, and demeaning. "Millions of employers refuse to hire them. What jobs are available are mostly low paying and menial." They are greeted with slurs and slights wherever they go. The dissident Gordon Hirabayashi loses his case, appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, which rules against him, and spends most of the war in prison. In 1987 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will overturn his conviction.

Nothing summarizes the remarkable story of the soldiers of 442nd Regiment better than the inscription on the "Go For Broke" memorial monument that rises in middle of Los Angeles's Little Tokyo neighborhood: "Looked upon with suspicion, set apart and deprived of their constitutional rights, they nevertheless remained steadfast and served with indomitable spirit and uncommon valor, for theirs was a fight to prove loyalty."

And so too is the book a fitting coda to my illness and quarantine. One's minor ailments pale in comparison to such courage and heroism, particular when significant benefits may ensue. The medical consensus is that, having recovered from Covid and been thrice vaccinated, I'm now the possessor of super immunity -- at least until the next variant crawls out of a cave. And once I obtain a confirming document from my physician, I'm free to travel internationally without fear of consequences should I test positive. As I'm leaving soon for ten days in Patagonia, I may find myself in a situation where both those propositions become problematic.

Let's hope not. Otherwise I will be obliged to subject my faithful readers to an exhaustive sequel.