What Will Replace Confederate Statues? The point is that erecting new statues to replace the ones that have fallen out of favor may not always be a quick and easy process, although perhaps it could become easier given the current momentum behind efforts to replace monuments to the Confederacy and others who sought to uphold white supremacy. by Christian K. Anderson

 

Ever since the University of South Carolina put up a statue of Richard T. Greener – who in 1873 became the school’s first Black professor – one of my favorite things to do has been to eat lunch on a bench nearby to watch how people interact with it.

Greener – who taught for four years when the university was desegregated during Reconstruction – went on to become a widely recognized lawyer, scholar, diplomat and activist for racial justice.

Some people come to the statue with a purpose, often to show it to others and take pictures. Others pass by and look at Greener’s likeness with curiosity. Usually when they read the plaque at the base, they pause with a look of surprise. I watch them read the plaque again and then walk around the statue as if to evaluate if this story could be true.

As a historian who examines the role that race played in the social and political structure of the South, especially as it relates to higher education, I know that not only is the story completely accurate, but I believe how the statue in honor of Greener came to be holds important lessons for today. This is a time when there is an intensified movement – particularly at America’s colleges and universities – to remove statues and names from buildings or organizations that pay homage to Confederate leaders and others with racist views.

As part of America’s reckoning with its oppressive past, the nation now faces the question not just of what statues and other images should be taken down, but what else – if anything – should be put up in their place. What should become of the empty pedestals where some of these statues once stood? Should they remain empty or be replaced with memorials that honor the victims of – and victors over – racism?

I believe the story of the Greener statue helps illuminate a way forward.

Harvard’s first Black graduate

The story begins in the fall of 2010, when Katherine Chaddock, a professor of higher education, mentioned during a graduate course she was teaching that she had seen a plaque near Harvard Square commemorating Greener as Harvard’s first Black graduate. A student then asked why he hadn’t heard of Greener and what there was on campus to commemorate and remember him.

A play about Greener’s life – and named for one of his essays, “The White Problem,” in which he took on the ideology of white supremecy – was commissioned and performed as part of the University of South Carolina’s bicentennial in 2001. But that play has not been performed since. There is a scholarship in memory of Greener given by the Black Alumni Council, and a portrait of Greener hangs in the president’s office, but these have a limited audience.

Chaddock started a dialogue with her graduate students and others from the Higher Education and Student Affairs program, along with me and Lydia Mattice Brandt, an art history professor.

Students, faculty, staff, alumni and community members all got involved. We ultimately decided that a statue was the best way to publicly honor Greener. That statue was unveiled on February 21, 2018.

During the unveiling ceremony, I pointed out how some people wanted to forget when the campus desegregated briefly during Reconstruction and hired its first Black professor.

For example, when white students returned to campus after it reopened as an all-white institution in 1880 – three years after its desegregated status from 1873 to 1877 came to an end – they ripped or blacked out pages from the ledgers of the debating societies that had been used by Black students during Reconstruction.

Who was Richard T. Greener?

Richard T. Greener was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy at the University of South Carolina in 1873. As a student at Harvard (class of 1870), he won both the Boylston Prize for elocution and the Bowdoin Prize for writing.

At the time of his appointment, the South Carolina legislature was majority Black, a radical change brought about by the revision of the state constitution in 1868 allowing for universal suffrage, meaning that for the first time all men, including Black men, in the state could vote.

In addition to teaching philosophy, Latin and Greek, Greener served as university librarian and reorganized and modernized the library’s catalog. He also recruited Black students throughout the state and developed a preparatory program to help them succeed. While on faculty, he earned a law degree. His diploma and law license were found in Chicago in 2012 and later obtained by the University of South Carolina.

After being forced out of South Carolina because the university was closed, Greener served as dean of the Howard University School of Law, as a U.S. diplomat in Vladivostok, Russia and as the chief administrator of the Grant Memorial Association. He also practiced law. His debates with Frederick Douglass about Black migration helped Douglass better understand the nature of the South. W.E.B. DuBois considered him part of the “talented tenth,” whom DuBois regarded as the leaders among African Americans.

Greener died in 1922 in Chicago, where he had gone to live with family and practice law after leaving Russia.

As Chaddock explains in her biography, “Uncompromising Activist: Richard Greener, First Black Graduate of Harvard College,” he was a complex man living in a complex time. Even though he lived only four years in the state, he always considered himself a South Carolinian, Rep. James Clyburn emphasized in his keynote address at the unveiling ceremony.

Why do we need new memorials?

Historian Eric Foner has argued that Americans should erect new statues because “our public monuments have not kept up.” With Greener’s statue, the University of South Carolina showed that it would recognize, seek to understand and celebrate forgotten parts of its past.

Political science professor Todd Shaw connected Greener’s pioneering legacy to his own in his remarks before the statue was officially unveiled. Shaw in 2017 became the first African American to chair the University of South Carolina’s political science department. “In each case, for varying reasons, both Greener and I were and are proud to serve though the road to our appointments were admittedly a long time in coming.”

The statue not only celebrates Greener’s contributions, it stands as a symbol of how we can reclaim and understand a lost, misunderstood or misrepresented history.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

Whom will your campus honor?

Making the statue a reality required a grassroots process that took more than seven years. The process involved identifying a site with the university architect, approvals from the Board of Trustees and fundraising. President Harris Pastides helped push it over the finish line and supported it as a means to help “build, not divide” the community.

The point is that erecting new statues to replace the ones that have fallen out of favor may not always be a quick and easy process, although perhaps it could become easier given the current momentum behind efforts to replace monuments to the Confederacy and others who sought to uphold white supremacy.

But regardless of how long it may take and who all gets involved, what is clear is that it all must start with two simple questions: Who is and isn’t recognized on our campus? And why?

The CDC Just Issued a Warning About Acute Flaccid Myelitis. What's That? The cornerstone of treatment in the initial phase is supportive care. by Jay Desai

 

I experienced déjà vu when I took care of a child with acute flaccid myelitis in 2014, one of the first cases of its kind at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in many years.

I had taken care of polio patients in India in 1990s and also participated in the pulse polio campaign that led to the country successfully eradicating the devastating disease. But that was almost two decades back, and I had not seen polio or anything like polio since moving to the U.S. back in the late 1990s.

Now, the U.S. and several other developed countries are seeing outbreaks of this polio-like disease, stumping public health researchers on the reasons why. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned on Aug. 4, 2020 of an outbreak this year and urged doctors and parents to be on the lookout for cases of the disease. A record number of cases, 238, were diagnosed in 2018 in the U.S. The cases have spiked in an every-other-year pattern, leading the CDC to issue the warning for 2020.

According to the CDC, there have been 633 confirmed cases of AFM in the U.S. since 2014. Most of them have involved young children. As of July 31, 2020, there have been 16 confirmed cases in the U.S., with 38 patients under investigation for possible illness, the CDC reports.

Acute flaccid myelitis, or AFM, a descriptive term for the clinical manifestations, can be caused by polio or several other related viruses. The term acute stands for the fact that the onset is sudden; flaccid denotes that there is a loss of tone in the limbs that become weak; and myelitis indicates that the spinal cord is involved and abnormal. Acute flaccid myelitis falls under a broader category called acute flaccid paralysis – a term that encompasses several other conditions such as botulism besides acute flaccid myelitis.

Misdiagnosis early in the illness is not uncommon, particularly since polio was eradicated a long time ago. There have been concerted efforts to raise awareness since the initial AFM cases were reported several years ago. But its comparative rarity and pattern of biennial increase can make it difficult to diagnose. And 2020 may turn out to be even more challenging because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Correct diagnosis early-on is key even though treatment at this point is essentially supportive. It will become even more important as definitive treatments emerge with ongoing research.

The U.S. has been polio-free since 1979. The AFM cases in the U.S. since 2014 are polio-like but not due to poliovirus. The cause has been definitely established only in a handful of these recent cases with detection of coxsackievirus A16, enterovirus (EV)-A71, or EV-D68 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). These three viruses are types of enteroviruses just like poliovirus is. Enteroviruses are viruses that typically enter through the intestinal tract.

Doctors have suspected that many of the recent AFM patients, in whom the spinal fluid did not identify a virus that caused AFM, may have been due to EV-D68. This is based on circumstantial evidence. At Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, where I practice and conduct research, my group has documented that EV-D68 was circulating in the respiratory fluid of children at a higher rate in 2016 when compared to 2015. This was associated with a higher rate of AFM in 2016 compared to 2015. According to the CDC, the spike in AFM cases in 2014 corresponded with a national outbreak of respiratory EV-D68. It is not known why only a handful of those who have the respiratory illness go on to develop AFM. Researchers hypothesize that genetic factors as well as unusual immune responses may be responsible.

AFM cases have typically occurred in a cyclical pattern in late summer and early fall, and “skipped” a year, with more cases reported in 2014, 2016 and 2018 compared to 2015 and 2017.

Manifestations

Many children have symptoms suggestive of an upper respiratory tract viral infection and fever. This is followed by the most dramatic manifestation of weakness of arm or leg due to nervous system involvement. Either one or all four limbs may be affected. This is accompanied by a loss of tone and deep tendon reflexes. Sometimes, there may also be facial weakness or swallowing disturbances. In extreme cases, respiratory muscles are involved, leading to a need for artificial breathing support. The ability of patients to feel sensations is usually preserved, but pain is often prominent.

Once the disease is suspected, it is important that the child quickly undergo magnetic resonance imaging of the spine which typically shows changes involving the gray matter of the spinal cord. In cases with symptoms suggestive of cranial nerve involvement in the brain, such as facial weakness, brain imaging shows changes involving the gray matter of corresponding regions. Spinal fluid may show an increase in number of cells from what is otherwise found in normal children. Doctors may order nerve conduction studies and they show abnormal nerve impulses. The overall scenario with AFM is distinct and relatively easy to differentiate from diseases with some overlapping manifestations such as transverse myelitis and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Treatment

A majority of interventions tried in the initial stages of the disease to date have had no success. Drugs that work in several other neuroimmunological illnesses, such as intravenous immunoglobulins, and corticosteroids, have mostly not been effective. Plasma exchange has been tried but has not shown definitive benefit. Antiviral medications have not worked well either. Fluoxetine – an antidepressant – was noted to have in vitro antiviral property and efficacy against EV-D68, and tried by neurologists at several centers around the country in 2015 and 2016, including at my hospital. However, fellow researchers from centers around the country and I, led by Children’s Hospital Colorado, recently published our collective experience, noting that fluoxetine was not effective in improving outcomes.

The cornerstone of treatment in the initial phase is supportive care. Those with less severe manifestations at the outset are likely to do better in the long term than those with more severe initial presentation. Experimental surgical interventions with nerve grafting, after the acute phase is over, has shown some success in several patients.

The CDC has constituted a task force to investigate AFM. It is collaborating with the AFM Working Group, consisting of clinicians and researchers from around the country, in building a consensus to streamline treatment, in looking into and fostering research, and in leading advocacy efforts.

If The Cold War Went Hot, This 1 Nation Was First On The Soviet Chopping Block Iceland. by Robert Beckhusen

 

Tom Clancy’s 1986 novel Red Storm Rising depicts a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It’s one of Clancy’s best books and, interesting for a story about a Third World War, doesn’t involve a nuclear apocalypse.

It does describe a ground war in Germany, naval and air battles in the North Atlantic and — central to the plot — an invasion of Iceland by a regiment of Soviet troops. Clancy, who died in 2013, was known for his realism and extreme attention to technical detail.

In Red Storm Rising, the Soviet troops overwhelm a U.S. Marine company in the Nordic island country after sneaking to shore inside the MV Yulius Fuchik, a civilian barge carrier loaded with hovercraft. Before the amphibious assault, Soviet missile target and destroy NATO’s F-15 fighters based at Naval Air Station Keflavik.

Iceland was an overlooked by highly strategic location in the Cold War. Were the Soviet Union’s attack submarines to break out into the Atlantic and threaten NATO shipping, neutralizing Iceland and penetrating the “GIUK gap” would be of vital importance.

But that doesn’t mean the Soviets really could’ve invaded Iceland … right?

For a possible answer, let’s consult The Northwestern TVD in Soviet Operational-Strategic Planning, a 2014 report by Phillip Petersen — an expert on the Soviet and now Russian militaries for the Potomac Foundation.

In December, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment made the report public and available on its website.

Petersen’s analysis is a revealing blueprint for how to defend Scandinavia from a Russian attack. Much of the report is comprised of military-oriented descriptions of remote rivers and sparsely-inhabited valleys — pictures included — which the word “obscure” can barely describe. Obscure, except in case of World War III.

“Faced with a predominantly sea-oriented NATO coalition dependent on control of the [sea lines of communication], there can be no question but that the Soviets would have liked to capture or at least neutralize Iceland,” Petersen wrote.

“Soviet operations against Iceland could have theoretically covered a wide spectrum of means, ranging from air and missile attacks to troop assaults.”

Supporting the theory that the USSR could have pulled off a Clancy-style surprise attack, the Soviet Union possessed the exact equipment in Red Storm Rising — reflecting Clancy’s attention to all-things hardware — suitable for landing troops in Iceland without the need for a major port.

In fact, the Soviets trained to use such repurposed “roll-on/roll-off” vessels like Yulius Fuchik for precisely those kinds of missions. Meanwhile, NATO kept its military presence in Iceland minimal because of the country’s heated political divisions over its participation in the alliance.

Iceland has not had a military since 1869.

Thus, in the event of a war breaking out, NATO would have to rush troops to the island and shore up its defenses to raise the costs of, and hopefully deter, a Soviet attack.

Iceland’s remote location and ruggedness — and the Soviet Navy’s comparative weakness — meant that a surprise attack by a small and relatively light force before the Western alliance could respond was Moscow’s only feasible strategy.

The Soviet military had experience with similar operations in World War II, including deploying small teams to Norway to spy on German troops. In 2014, Russia carried out an almost-bloodless surprise attack on Crimea which occurred too quickly for Ukraine to respond.

Iceland would’ve been a far more difficult target. For one, there was the problem of distance. The country is also windy and rough, making an airborne drop an exceedingly hazardous proposition. Paratroopers might have been swept away by winds and dashed into rocks, or broken their legs upon landing.

And any Soviet operation would have faced challenges at sea. The Kremlin would have to bet on basically perfect weather and skilled navigators to make it through Iceland’s narrow fjords and around its numerous reefs.

However, “even if the Soviets had attempted a lower-risk effort such as inserting a naval infantry company by submarine,” Petersen wrote, “such a force might have been sufficient to attack the Kevlavik airbase, while special-purpose (spetsnaz) forces, in teams of five to twelve men each, attacked outlying facilities like that at Hofn.”

Hofn was the site of a Cold War-era NATO radar station which tracked Soviet bombers heading south.

So the Soviets could’ve taken Iceland. Or at least caused a lot of chaos and disruption if the United States did not bolster the defenses beforehand.

But that would just be the beginning. A Soviet occupation force would probably face a NATO counter-attack, likely supported by at least one U.S. carrier battle group, without having Soviet warplanes backing them in comparable numbers — and little cover from NATO aircraft flying overhead.

Which is pretty much what happened in the fictional battle for Iceland in Red Storm Rising. NATO won.

The Beirut Explosion Was Exceptional, but the Events Leading up to It Were Not Beirut has shown us the kind of impact a port disaster can have on a city and its inhabitants. Lessons must be learned to make sure a tragedy like this does not happen again. by Scott Edwards and Christian Bueger

 

At the time of writing at least 100 people have lost their lives and a further 4,000 have been wounded following an explosion in the Port of Beirut. While the actual cause remains uncertain, the tragedy calls to attention the tremendous consequences of a lack of port security.

The explosion, on August 4, at around 6pm local time, appears to have been fuelled by 2,750 tons of the highly reactive chemical ammonium nitrate. The chemical had been the cargo on a ship, the the MV Rhosus, which entered the port at Beirut in 2013 due to a lack of seaworthiness and was prohibited from sailing. After the ship’s owner abandoned the vessel soon afterwards, the ammonium nitrate remained in a storage facility in Beirut’s port.

While the disaster itself was exceptional, the events leading up to it were not. Hazardous material is shipped across the world’s oceans on a daily basis. It is often mishandled or illegally traded. Abandoned containers of hazardous goods are found regularly in ports.

While maritime security tends to focus on preventing high-profile events such as piracy, terrorism or cyber-attacks, all too often it is daily mishandling that makes disasters possible. Part of preventing disasters such as what has happened in Beirut will mean strengthening port management and addressing crimes such as smuggling and corruption.

Abandoned Ships

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has recorded 97 cases of abandoned ships and crews since 2017. Ships are abandoned by their owners if a vessel is no longer lucrative to maintain, or perhaps if the ship has been stopped by authorities and fined. While the situation of the seafarers aboard these ships is often tragic, as they may receive little pay or even food for months, what happens to the load of the vessels is often unclear.

And the IMO number only reflects the cases of ships – we know little about how many containers stand abandoned in ports around the world.

A UN report indicates that this number may be large. Containers often lie abandoned within ports, sometimes even by design, fuelled by criminal activities such as waste smuggling and corruption. Despite some efforts to counter this, the issue remains widespread and there are continued obstacles to tackling it.

International Waste Trade

Shipping companies often sail to Asia with empty containers, as much of the flow of trade is from Asia to Europe. As a result, they are willing to take low-value and high-volume bookings on the initial leg.

This has facilitated a burgeoning waste trade and with it a smuggling sector, where illegal forms of waste such as unrecyclable plastics are shipped from western countries to countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia. Thousands of these containers lie abandoned once they reach the port.

Much of the waste is less dangerous than the ammonium nitrate that fuelled the Beirut explosion, but it can still have dreadful effects. Plastics, for example, can cause hazards if not properly disposed of. Much of it ends up in the ocean, fuelling the ocean plastic crisis.

In 2019, Sri Lankan authorities discovered more than 100 abandoned containers in the port of Colombo. They contained clinical waste, potentially including human remains, and were leaking fluids. The risk that the containers had contaminated the ground and surface water in the two years they had lay in port unnoticed fuelled public health concerns. Sri Lanka has been able to investigate this problem – but it is likely that, in many cases, abandonment goes undiscovered.

Prevention

The abandonment of dangerous containers in ports is not a new problem. Since the 2000s there have been significant efforts to increase security levels in ports through surveillance, training and safety protocols. In light of the continuing abandonment problem, we know that these measures – and their implementation – are insufficient.

First, we have to start seeing the smuggling of waste and the abandoning of ships and containers as major offences. They should be seen as important parts of the blue crime and maritime security agenda. Appropriate legislation is needed to criminalise them. An international database for such crimes is required, as is transnational cooperation to address them.

Second, corruption in ports plays a key part in ensuring that abandonment goes unnoticed. It needs to be addressed with a concerted international effort.

Finally, increased efforts in building the capacity of ports to deal with hazardous waste, to detect smuggling and to deal with abandonment cases are needed. In particular, this will be necessary for ports which have limited resources and are common destinations for abandoned containers, such as ports in Asia and Africa.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the International Maritime Organization and the European Union already conduct port security capacity building work, in particular in Africa. More of this kind of work is needed.

Beirut has shown us the kind of impact a port disaster can have on a city and its inhabitants. Lessons must be learned to make sure a tragedy like this does not happen again.

Beware of Latvians Bearing Gifts These countries should be enticing the French, British and Germans to help them, not Americans who have needs to tend to at home. by Harvey M. Sapolsky

 

Artis Pabriks, Latvia’s minister of defense and deputy prime minister, recently made an official offer to host and pay for some of the U.S. troops President Donald Trump has ordered be withdrawn from Germany in a dispute over Germany’s investment in its own defense. Trump had previously complained about Germans not paying enough for the maintenance of the nearly thirty-five thousand U.S. troops stationed in Germany. In June, Trump approved a plan to withdraw ninety-five hundred troops on the rationale that the Germans were not meeting their NATO obligation to devote at least two percent of their GDP to defense. Subsequently, the number to be withdrawn was raised to 11,900. Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security adviser, later said that these troops should be more forward-deployed to thwart possible Russian aggression.  

All of this is music to Latvian ears. Latvia is forward-deployed as it is one of the Baltic States, forcibly converted into Soviet republics from World War II until it regained its independence at the end of the Cold War. Offered NATO membership in 2004, Latvia and the other Baltic States are eager to meet the NATO budget standard even if it is ignored by most of the other member states. Currently, Latvia and the other Baltic States, all small in population, host rotational units from the larger NATO members, the United States included, to augment their own limited capabilities. It is not surprising that Latvia, upon learning that the United States intended to forward-station its forces, was quick to offer to pay some of the associated costs. Other countries are likely to follow with similar proposals. Poland has already made an overture.  

Moving U.S. troops forward instead of back to America would be a mistake. America should be behind, not in front of its allies. It is not good to be wedged between the allies and a bullying Russia, serving as a tripwire that would bring the United States into any war. To be sure, America willingly took that role during the Cold War, stationing more than three hundred thousand troops in Western Europe to help protect Europe from an expansionary Soviet Union. Devastated by World War II, the Europeans were too weak to stave off the Soviets without our forces standing between them and Soviet tank divisions. That strategy did work. The Cold War ended peacefully and the Europeans, with U.S. protection, grew prosperous.  

Today, Europe in the guise of the European Union, which includes the Baltic States and many former Warsaw Pact allies of the Soviets, has ten times the GDP and three and half times the population of Russia, the inheritor of the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons and its dictatorial ways. Latvia and the other Baltic States cannot alone hold off the Russians, but collectively the European Union easily can. That is it can unless we do it for them, subsidizing what are now rich Europeans by taking away their incentive to organize and pay for their own defense.  

America’s strategy of being behind its allies, not in front of them, worked well for it during World War I and World War II. In World War II, America’s European allies and the Soviet Union wore down the Germans before directly engaging them. Compared to all the other participants in World War II, the United States had a good experience (and a fairly good World War I, too). Holding the line against Russia now would be a much more doable task for the Europeans. 

There is no need for the United States to guard Europe against the Russians. The Europeans are rich, numerous, and fully capable of defending themselves. America must resist Latvians or Poles bearing gifts. These countries should be enticing the French, British and Germans to help them, not Americans who have needs to tend to at home. If U.S. troops leave Europe, as they should, then the Europeans will remain friends and allies of the United States because America is their best insurance given that it has saved the Europeans three times over the last century. This time, unless the United States is foolish, it need only watch from a distance.