Introduction: this is an undergraduate paper I wrote back in May of 2000 for a survey class on Asian Politics at Calvin College. I was very interested in the Japanese student movement, but I struggled to find decent sources. There is, unfortunately, a lack of accessible English sources available on the Japanese student movement in general, and perhaps in particular at the small Christian liberal arts college library where I was studying. By going through every book the library had on Japan, I was just barely able to scrap enough information together to make a decent paper. (If you look in the bibliography at the end of this paper, you can see just how thin a lot of my sources were.)
Also back in 2000, there was very little information available on the Internet about the Japanese Student Movement. This has changed for the better, so that now a simple search can turn up any number of sources. Obviously if I had written this paper now, it would read a lot differently. Also among the books I've read in the years since, I can recommend Fire Across the Sea: The Vietnam War and Japan by Thomas Havens and "Blood and Rage: the story of the Japanese Red Army” by William Farrell as being useful sources of information. Anyone who knows of any other useful books or articles on this topic, please feel free to add it to the comments section.
Nevertheless, for whatever it may be worth, here is my original paper.
Also, bonus, Youtube videos of me talking about this paper--video 1, video 2.
May 10, 2000
The 1960s were a time of student revolution and discontent all over the globe, and Japan was no exception. The New Left in Japan began to be active in 1960, and would remain so until the 1970s. To understand the Japanese New Left, it is useful to look at student protests, various results of the new left, and a brief analysis of the character of the New Left.
Student Protesters
Massive student protests began in Japan in 1960. The movement wielded together two different causes. The first was opposition to the renewal of the Security Treaty with the United States. The left feared that this would draw Japan into the foreign wars of the United States. The second reason for protesting was Nobusuke Kishi becoming prime minister in 1957. Since Kishi had been the vice minister of munitions under Tojo, the left saw both of these events as signs that Japan was giving up on its post war ideals of democracy and demilitarization.1
When Kishi left Tokyo to sign the security treaty on January 16, 1960, the airport had to be cleared of 700 students, members of the All-Japan Federation of Student Self Government Associations (or Zengakuren for short, in Japanese), who had occupied and vandalized it the night before. The same group clashed with police four times that year as they attempted to enter the Diet Compound. They also succeeded twice in entering the Prime Minister’s residence and burning police cars. When the treaty was passed, left-wing demonstrations increased. On the night of June 15, 1960, a massive demonstration occurred in which 236 students along with 570 police were injured and one female student, Michiko Kamba, was killed. Although the demonstrators were never successful in overturning the treaty, they were able to force Kishi to resign from his post as prime minister.2
After these demonstrations Japan had relative quiet until the end of the 1960s, when the whole globe erupted in student movements. However the experience of that first year in 1960 was a radicalizing one for the Japanese students involved, and it would sow the seeds for many of them to become active again later. It is also believed that these first demonstrations in Japan had an influence on American student radicals. Clark Kerr, the administrator at Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement, is on record as saying that given what was happening in Japan, it was inevitable student unrest would eventually spread to America.
Japanese student protest in the late 60s, as in America, were largely fueled by opposition to the Vietnam War. Because of the security treaty between Japan and America, and because of the many US military bases on Japan, the Japanese students felt that Japan bore some responsibility for the Vietnam War. Also the Japanese government officially supported US policy in Vietnam. Thus in 1967, when Prime Minister Sato attempted to visit South Vietnam, rioters blockaded the approaches to Tokyo National Airport and burned police vehicles. They were ultimately unsuccessful in stopping the visit.3
Another issue of discontent in the late 1960s was the students' demand for campus reforms. In 1968 almost 100 incidents of protest occurred in Japanese Universities. At Tokyo University, medical students objected to the medical practitioners' law and began a year long strike. The police were finally called in on June 17 to evict students who were barricaded in the administration building. Students boycotted all classes in response, and ultimately the president, dean of the faculty of medicine, and the director of the university hospital were forced to resign. The following January 400 students were arrested at Tokyo University when they occupied Yasuda Hall. The police were able to clear the students out only after two days of “pitched battles.”4 In another Tokyo protest in 1968, to mark the anniversary of the death of a student protester the year before, 140 students were arrested and 110 policemen injured. Students also protested against tuition increases, and pressed the University to become more democratic, sometimes even asking for a vote in choosing the university president.
By 1969, United States occupation of Okinawa was becoming an issue in the student movement. The Vietnam War had made the United States military presence in Japan even more unpopular. 6000 people were arrested for protesting in the first half of 1969. On Okinawa Day, April 28, Students took over the trains in Tokyo and brought them to a halt. Student organizations such as the anti-war youth committee and the Peace-For-Vietnam Committee were active student groups that always had riot police surrounding their meetings. On International Antiwar Day, October 21, police arrested more than 1,400 students from these organizations.
Images of students battling riot police became increasingly common, and in some cases students even fire bombed university buildings. The government reacted to the increasing social unrest by legislating a bill to restore order. It included a greater concentration of power in the hands of the University administration, severe penalties for disruptive students, staff and faculty, and even a provision for dissolution of the universities in cases of prolonged trouble.
The Liberal Democratic Party was able to pass this bill through the Diet despite intense opposition. Once it passed, college presidents all over Japan resigned in protest. In Kyoto University, students reacted so adversely to this bill that 2,000 riot police were used to clear student barricades and arrest radical students. When classes finally began again, they did so under police guard. 5
The Results of the New Left
As in Europe, some of the more radical student groups of the 1960s turned to terrorism in Japan. The most famous of these was the Red Army Faction. The Red Army Faction was responsible for hijacking a Japan Airlines plane to North Korea in March of 1970. The Red Army also hijacked a Japan Airlines plane in Libya in 1973, and in 1974 blew up an oil storage tank in Singapore. Their most famous action was an attack on Lod Airport in Israel, in which 26 people were killed. Yet perhaps the greatest enemy the Red Army Faction ever had was itself. Factional fighting almost tore it apart, and in 1972 fourteen members of the group were killed by more radical elements. These fourteen included five women, and several of them were killed by being tied naked to trees and left to freeze to death.6
Another event at the end of the student movement was the Narita Airport incident. Although opposition to the proposed airport began as soon as it was announced in 1966, most of the fighting took place in the 1970s. The plans for the Narita Airport generated opposition from farmers who would lose their land. The student radicals were able to give ideological justification to the farmers' opposition, and at the same time enjoyed the public sympathy for the farmers. There was also fear among the left that, because of the size of the proposed airport, it could be used to land U.S. military planes. 7
Throughout the 1970s, students opposed to the airport constructed forts, towers, tunnels and underground bunkers as they battled the police. In the end two students were killed as well as four riot police. (Three of the riot police were killed by the Red Army Faction, which used Bamboo spears). The airport was completed in 1978. 8
Comments on the Students
Many of the same remarks that have been made on the 1960s movement in Europe and in the United States can also be made about Japan. There was a generation gap between the old left in Japan and the new left. The old communist left had focused on sacrifice and misery, enduring torture and imprisonment in the 1930s. The new student left focused on joy, hedonism, excitement and happiness. The old left was dogmatically Marxist, while the new left showed a high interest in Marx, but also borrowed heavily from humanist and existentialist thinkers. In fact the student protests in 1960 were significant because they were the first leftist protests in Japan not controlled by the Communist party. 10
Also similar to Europe and America, many of the student organizations resisted the urge to organize themselves into well structured hierarchies despite large public support. A minimalist approach to structure was adopted, with an egalitarian emphasis. Visible leaders were discouraged. The Peace-in-Vietnam committee is an excellent example of this. 11
However despite all the efforts of the students, the movement had little success in affecting the firmly entrenched power of the Liberal Democratic Party. The student movement died out due to the end of an American presence in Vietnam, continuing national prosperity, and a negative public reaction as the student radicals turned violent. 12
Bibliography
Burks, Adrath. Japan. New York: Americana Corporation. 1969
–. Japan. New York: Americana Corporation. 1970.
Dower, John. Peace and Democracy in Two Systems: External Policy and Internal Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1993.
Hayes, Louis. Introduction to Japanese Politics. Missoula: University of Montana. 1992
Koschmann, Victor. Intellectuals and Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1993.
Kublin, Hyman. Japan. New York: Americana Corporation. 1968.
Milieu, Its and Kazuko Tsurumi. “The Japanese Student Movement.” Japan Quarterly: Oct-Dec. 1968.
Seligmann, Albert. Japan. New York: Americana Corporation. 1968.
Tsurumi, Kazuko. Student Movements in 1960 and 1969: Continuity and Change. Tokyo: tokyo Press. 1975.
White, James. Dynamics of Political Opposition. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1993.
Footnotes
1. John Dower, Peace and Democracy in Two Systems: External Policy and Internal Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 21
2. Albert Seligmann, Japan (New York: Americana Corporation, 1968) 396
3. Hyman Kublin, Japan (New York: Americana Corporation, 1968) 378
4. Adrath Burks, Japan (New York: Americana Corporation, 1969) 384
5. Adrath Burks, Japan (Americana Corporation: New York, 1970) 389
6. Louis D. Hayes, Introduction to Japanese Politics (Missoula: University of Montana, 1992) 120
7. James White, Dynamics of Political Opposition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 440
8. Hayes 120
9. Kazuko Tsurumi, Student Movements in 1960 and 1969: Continuity and Change (Tokyo: Tokyo Press 1975) 202
10. Its Milieu and Kazuko Tsurumi, The Japanese Student Movement (Japan Quarterly: Oct-Dec 1968) 431
11. J Victor Koschmann, Intellectuals and Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 414
12. Hayes 120.
Professor's Comments: Well done. A good summary and Evaluation
Grade: A-
Showing posts with label History class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History class. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The Formation of the Chinese Communist Party
May 1, 1998
China’s civilization is one of the two oldest in the world. It has a rich history stretching back thousands of years, and a well-established culture which is thick with tradition. This leads into the question: why did China become fascinated with communism, a Western philosophy? One key to solving this puzzle is to look at the formation of the Chinese Communist Party, and determine whether it was the result of forces within China, or the result of outside influence, more specifically the Soviet Union and the Third Communist International. In the end we might find that either position is to be avoided. By looking at the intellectual history of Marxism in China, the theories of Chen Duxiu, party founder, and the actual formation of the party itself, the influence of both internal and external forces can be seen.
History of Marxism in China
Marxism in China does not have a deep historical legacy. Although Karl Marx wrote his famous “Communist Manifesto” in 1848, the first references to Marxism in China were not until the beginning of the twentieth century, by reformers Kang Yu Wei and Liang Qichao. But these were brief references, and nobody seemed to have cared much about them (Ladany 4).
Marx’s influence had not increased ten years later, even though plenty of other things in China had. The 1911 Revolution, and the resulting chaos it brought with it, had sparked new modes of thought in China. On September 15, 1915, in Shanghai, Chen Duxiu began his publication of “New Youth” (Chang 41). The Magazine’s impact on the youth of China was immense. New Youth “had a devoted following that took its every editorial pronouncement as an article of faith” (Bianco 35). Because the magazine was written in the vernacular language, instead of the formal writing style, Chang Kuo-t’ao, one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party, was later to write that the magazine “was to thought and scholarship what the abolition of bound feet was to women. Hu Shih called it ‘the birth of a living literature’ and Chen Duxiu hoisted high the banner of the literary revolution. Thus began the debate between new and old Literatures” (Chang 41). Although Chen originally wrote New Youth himself, he was soon joined by many of the most brilliant minds in China’s intellectual sphere (Bianco 34).
Yet despite this revolution in thought, the question in 1915 was not why was Marxism so prevalent, but rather why was it lacking? New Youth featured articles on just about every Western thinker imaginable except Marx. The reason for this absence was certainly not fear of radicalism. The thinkers of the time could not seem to get radical enough. Rather, the explanation is that Marxism did not apply to China. Marx expected capitalism to crumble at its most advanced point, Western Europe. China was still largely under a feudal system at the time, and could not participate in the revolution (Schwartz 7).
The May Fourth movement in 1919 soon joined the literary revolution of 1915, and that was when things really began to happen in China. It is not surprising that the Chinese Communist historians see this as the beginning of the modern China era, and not the 1911 Revolution (Bianco 26). The May Fourth movement contained many radical ideas. Because it was a mass movement though, extreme radicals never grew to more than a little clique (Bianco 31). Within the May Fourth movement, many different streams of thought were contained, and it became the intellectual base of both the Communists and the Kuomintang (Bianco 43).
“The May Fourth Movement had united all the ‘new intellectuals’ around such vague or general concepts as democracy, science, humanitarianism, liberalism, and reason, and even more around a common desire for destruction. Success having been won–and so swiftly!–it was inevitable that differences should arise” (Bianco 45). Division soon occurred within New Youth itself. One one side were the liberals: Hu Shih and Lu Hsun, on the other, the Radicals: Chen Duxiu and Li Ta-Chao. Chen and Li founded the “Weekly Critic” in 1918, in an effort to build up more support fo their increasingly Marxist beliefs. Hu, meanwhile, attacked all “systems of thought with universal claims or appeal, notably Communism and Socialism” (Bianco 45).
It was the Russian Revolution that brought Marxism to the attention of China. Lenin’s twisting of Marx now allowed the theory to be applied to pre-industrial nations, and his writings on imperialism appealed to the Chinese, who were victims of imperialism. More importantly, the Chinese were impressed by the policies of the new Soviet Union (Schwartz 7-8). On July 25, 1919, the Soviet Union formally announced its plan to return the Chinese Eastern Railroad to the Chinese people, as well as giving up any concessions enjoyed by the Czarist government. The Soviets also pledged to help the Chinese in their struggle for freedom. Within less than a month, over thirty important Chinese organizations expressed thanks to the Soviet Union (Houn 16). In contrast, at the same time the Chinese experienced continued exploitation by the rest of the Western powers, most evident at the Paris Peace Conference. This caused many Chinese to become disillusioned with the capitalist powers (Houn 15).
As a result of the Soviet Union, interest in Marxism exploded. In May 1919, New Youth devoted a special section to Marxism, edited by Li Ta-Chao. By the fall of the same year, a large number of Socialist Study groups were organized among intellectuals. By December, the Society for the Study of Socialism was founded at the National Peking University, containing Chen Duxiu, Li Ta-Chao, Mao Zedong, and over 100 others. In May 1920, the Communist Manifesto was published for the first time in Chinese. It enjoyed great success (Houn 15-17).
By the fall of 1920, the pragmatism of Hu-Shih and Lu Hsun could no longer be reconciled with the growing radicalism of Chen Duxiu and Li Ta-Chao. Hu and Lu quite the magazine, and New Youth became a Communist publication (Bianco 45).
Chen Duxiu
Before going into the history of the Chinese Communist Party, it is worthwhile to spend some time looking at its founder, Chen Duxiu. Chen was born in 1879 to a wealthy family. Instead of training for the examinations, Chen opted for a Western education. Chen, like many of his generation, was pro-Western and looked down on Chinese things. He even refused to join Sun Yatsen’s Revolutionary alliance because he considered it too nationalistic (Bianco 34). Shortly after beginning New Youth in 1915, Chen was appointed dean of Faculty of Letters of Peking University in 1918. At thirty eight, Chen was simultaneously one of the oldest and most influential figures in the May Fourth Movement (Bianco 36).
Chen Duxiu’s changing ideologies reflected the turbulent times he lived in. After being attracted to anarchism as a youth, Chen later became a staunch believer in what he believed were the twin pillars of Western Civilization: democracy and science (Schwartz 8). So dedicated was he to the concept of democracy, that Chen was initially unfazed by the revolution in Russia that affected so many others of the time (Schwartz 14). Rather, it was the growing interest that his students exhibited in Lenin that caused Chen to start studying him (Schwartz 18-19).
In 1919, John Dewey came to Peking University as a sort of visiting professor. His impact on Chen was profound. Dewey’s speeches on democracy caused Chen to come to the conclusion that the reason democracy had failed to take root in China was because it had been imposed from above, instead of being organized by the people. Dewey also raised questions in Chen’s mind about economic democracy, something Chen had given little thought to before. Although this began to open Chen’s mind to class oppression, as late as December 1919, he still advocated that capitalism was good for China (Schwartz 19-20).
By February of 1920, Chen was beginning to become committed to socialism. At about the same time, he converted to Christianity, inspired by the Christian socialism practiced by idealistic young Koreans. This conversion is perhaps not all that surprising, given that both were aspects of Chen’s love affair with the West. Chen claimed that Christianity was originally a doctrine of the poor. His conversion to Christianity helped to quicken his transition to communism. However, as influential as this phase was, his Christian phase proved to be extremely short lived (Feigon 144).
Chen advocated a synthesis between socialism and democracy for a brief period, but by September 1920, he had made a total conversion to Marxism-Leninism. The lateness of this conversion is astonishing, considering Chen founded the Chinese Communist Party in May of the next year (Schwartz 23). However, there remained several differences between Lenin and Chen.
Lenin’s influence on Chen should not be underestimated. Not only did Lenin turn Chen’s attention to the problem of the proletariat, but Lenin’s adaptation of Marx’s theory allowed for “backwards nations” to be included. However, it is questionable if Lenin would have approved of Chen stretching his theories to apply to China. Russia may not have been an industrial nation, but capitalism had made its impact. China, by contrast, fell in Lenin’s category of “semi-colonial”. Although Lenin’s writings are somewhat open to interpretation, it seems he would have thought a proletariat revolution impossible in such a state (Schwartz 30).
Beyond this, Chen also differed from Lenin in his concept of party organization. Lenin’s party was based on seizing power, but Chen was more concerned with what would happen once power was seized. Chen was also worried about the way Sun Yatsen had initially dominated the Koumintang, and instead of a strong chief he wanted a party general secretary elected by the committee heads and held responsible to the party. A final, but significant difference between Chen and Lenin is that Chen’s qualifications for party membership were quite different from the strictness of Lenin. Although government officials were excluded from membership, anyone else who was vaguely sympathetic to Marxist ideas was allowed membership (Feigon 153).
The Formation of the Party
The Chinese radicals were there; all they needed was organization. The Soviets realized this, and their visits began in the summer of 1919 to Li Ta-Chao. Two Russian Communists, N. Burtman and A.A. Muller made contact with Li and worked to promote Marxist ideas, as well as strengthen ties between workers and student groups. Other Russian visitors followed, and in late 1919 official representatives of the Third Communist International (Comintern) approached Li. Comintern wanted to establish a Chinese Communist party, but Li did not think that China was ready. Instead, Li referred Comintern to Chen Duxiu, writing in a letter that Chen was the only one who could establish a communist party in China (Feigon 163-164).
In the Spring of 1920, Chen met in Shanghai with Gregory Voitinski, the head of the Department for Eastern Affairs of the Communist International. Chen introduced Voitinski to various revolutionaries, who included Anarchists, Socialists, Marxists, and some Koumingtang members. At a secret meeting in May 1920, these diverse revolutionaries formed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). A Communist Youth League was established in August (Houn 17).
In addition, Voitinski and Chen also established a Russian News Agency and a Foreign Language school in Shanghai. The Russian News Agency was supposed to function as a propaganda medium. The language school was to be a disguised training center for communists, and included those sent to Russia for further training. Two publications for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) were formed as well, the Labor Circle and The Communist. At the same time, Chen paid close attention to the labor movement, which was going on in Shanghai at the time, hoping to forge links with the working class (Houn 17).
Inspired by Chen’s accomplishments in Shanghai, other communist groups started appearing throughout China. Li Ta-Chao organized a group in Peking, while Mao Zedong, who was an elementary school teacher at the time, started a group in Changsha. With the help of Comintern, groups appeared in Wuhan, Hangchow, Tsinan, Tientsin, and even among Chinese students studying in Japan and France (Houn 17).
In its earliest stage, the members of this fledgling Communist party were far from orthodox Marxists. In fact, in 1920 the CCP was made up largely of anarchists, who were very suspicious of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (Feigon 154, 192). The Communist Youth League, when it was founded, consisted of Marxists, anarchists, and anti-Confucists (Schwartz 31). The party was vague enough to accommodate these differing ideologies in its early stages (Feigon 163).
It is unknown why Voitinski showed such un-Leninist toleration in allowing such diverse views into the party. It has been suggested that he either hoped he could turn the young radicals into communists, or that his limited Chinese made him unable to distinguish between the various factions among Chinese radicals (Schwartz 32).
In September 1920 another meeting was called. At this meeting, they discussed what steps could be taken to produce a more orthodox party. The process of eliminating non-communist from the ranks began, most notably the anarchists. For the next year, most of Chen’s writings were directed against the anarchists, who refused to buy into the essential communist tenet that “coercion could be used for good in the proper hands” (Chen as quoted by Schwartz 33). By May of 1921, Chen had become so frustrated with anarchists that he accused them of not subscribing to Western thought at all, but rather a revival of Taoism. In the atmosphere of the May Fourth Movement, this was no light accusation (Schwartz 33). The attraction anarchism held for the Chinese at the time should not be underestimated. Chen himself used to be an anarchist, as well as Mao Zedong and many of the Chinese intellectuals in France (Schwartz 26). In a famous debate, Chen defended the “dictatorship of the proletariat” against a group of anarchists, which included his two oldest sons (Feigon 154).
The party had its official birth on July 1, 1921, at the First National Congress. The Congress took place at a girls school in a French Concession in Shanghai. The participants were therefore safely out of the reach of Chinese law. Although Chen himself was unable to attend, being busy in Canton at the time, twelve delegates, representing about fifty members each, were present, as well as two representatives from Comintern. Fearing surveillance by concession police, the delegates cut off the meeting on the fourth day. They went to South Lake in Chekiang province “where they hired a boat, brought food and wine, and carried through the work of the Congress under the pretense of having a quiet respectable outing” (North in Houn 18).
Although no records of the meeting exist, the delegates decided to base the party strictly on Marxist-Leninist philosophy, restricting all those who were not genuine Communists from party membership. A party constitution was formed, as well as a Central Committee to which Chen was elected to General Secretary in his absence (Houn 17). Other than that, there was little agreement among the delegates. Chen Duxiu’s goal of eventually having a people’s government led by the Chinese Communist Party was considered to radical by some in attendance. A suggestion was made by one of the delegates, Li Han-chun, to send delegates to Russia and Germany and compare the merits of each Revolution. This proposal received some support. The question of joining Comintern never even came up (Schwartz 34).
Although Chen had made some steps towards the formation of a Communist Party before the arrival of the Comintern, their help was invaluable to him. However, despite his agreement to associate with the Comintern and listen to their advice, Chen was worried about the initial attempts of Comintern to dominate the party. He even went as far as to refuse financial adid from Comintern (Feigon 167). The new Comintern representative, a Dutch Communist called Maring, whose real name was Hendricus Sneevliet, was rather untactful in his dealings with the Chinese. Not only did he strike them as unbearable arrogant, but his attempt to gain control of the party by offering financial help from Comintern was seen by Chen for the blatant bribe that it was (Chang 161-165). However, idealism soon gave way to necessity, as Chen realized how important money was in keeping the party afloat. He reluctantly accepted Comintern aid (Feigon 168). Fear of Comintern domination turned many nationalists away from the Communist party such as Tai Chi-t’ao (Schwartz 32).
Although it would be almost thirty years before the CCP would gain control of China, the idealism and motivation that would contribute to their eventual success was present early on. When one considers how small the party was at its conception, it is amazing how quickly support for it grew, making the CCP one of the most successful parties in modern history.
Conclusion
After looking at the history of Marxism in China, the ideologies of Chen Duxiu and the formation of the Chinese Communist Party, we can see how the party was formed both as a result of internal forces within China, and the external influence of the Soviet Union and Comintern. Without the atmosphere of the May Fourth Movement, or Chinese figures like Chen Duxiu, the CCP would never have come into being. Likewise, without the example of the Soviet Union and the help of Comintern, the CCP would also never have been created. Both internal and external forces combined to produce the entity of the Chinese Communist Party.
Bibliography
Bianco, Lucien. Origins of the Chinese Revolution. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 1971. (Translated by Muriel Bell).
Chang Kuo-t’ao. The Rise of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921-1927. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence. 1971.
Ch’en Kung-Po. The Communist Movement in China. Octagon Books, Incorporated. New York. 1966.
Feigon, Lee. Chen Duxiu: Founder of the Chinese Communist Party. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 1983
Fitzgerald, C.P. The Birth of Communist China. Penguin Books. Hammondsworth. 1964.
Han Suyin. The Morning Deluge: Mao TseTung and the Chinese Revolution, 1893-1954. Little Brown and Company. Boston. 1972.
Houn, Franklin W. A Short History of Chinese Communist. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. 1967.
Ladany, Laszlo. The Communist Party of China and Marxism, 1921-1985. Hoover Institution Press. 1988.
Levine, Marylin A. The Found Generation: Chinese Communists in Europe during the Twenties. University of Washington. Seattle. 1993.
Price, Don C. Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution, 1896-1911. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. 1974.
Scwartz, Benjamin I. Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. 1961.
Professor’s Comments: Good clear paper based on a good number of sources–but not the most influential recent study of this very question, Arif Dirlik’s Origins of Chinese Communism. I think I mentioned this work to you. Well written
Grade: A-, 92%
China’s civilization is one of the two oldest in the world. It has a rich history stretching back thousands of years, and a well-established culture which is thick with tradition. This leads into the question: why did China become fascinated with communism, a Western philosophy? One key to solving this puzzle is to look at the formation of the Chinese Communist Party, and determine whether it was the result of forces within China, or the result of outside influence, more specifically the Soviet Union and the Third Communist International. In the end we might find that either position is to be avoided. By looking at the intellectual history of Marxism in China, the theories of Chen Duxiu, party founder, and the actual formation of the party itself, the influence of both internal and external forces can be seen.
History of Marxism in China
Marxism in China does not have a deep historical legacy. Although Karl Marx wrote his famous “Communist Manifesto” in 1848, the first references to Marxism in China were not until the beginning of the twentieth century, by reformers Kang Yu Wei and Liang Qichao. But these were brief references, and nobody seemed to have cared much about them (Ladany 4).
Marx’s influence had not increased ten years later, even though plenty of other things in China had. The 1911 Revolution, and the resulting chaos it brought with it, had sparked new modes of thought in China. On September 15, 1915, in Shanghai, Chen Duxiu began his publication of “New Youth” (Chang 41). The Magazine’s impact on the youth of China was immense. New Youth “had a devoted following that took its every editorial pronouncement as an article of faith” (Bianco 35). Because the magazine was written in the vernacular language, instead of the formal writing style, Chang Kuo-t’ao, one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party, was later to write that the magazine “was to thought and scholarship what the abolition of bound feet was to women. Hu Shih called it ‘the birth of a living literature’ and Chen Duxiu hoisted high the banner of the literary revolution. Thus began the debate between new and old Literatures” (Chang 41). Although Chen originally wrote New Youth himself, he was soon joined by many of the most brilliant minds in China’s intellectual sphere (Bianco 34).
Yet despite this revolution in thought, the question in 1915 was not why was Marxism so prevalent, but rather why was it lacking? New Youth featured articles on just about every Western thinker imaginable except Marx. The reason for this absence was certainly not fear of radicalism. The thinkers of the time could not seem to get radical enough. Rather, the explanation is that Marxism did not apply to China. Marx expected capitalism to crumble at its most advanced point, Western Europe. China was still largely under a feudal system at the time, and could not participate in the revolution (Schwartz 7).
The May Fourth movement in 1919 soon joined the literary revolution of 1915, and that was when things really began to happen in China. It is not surprising that the Chinese Communist historians see this as the beginning of the modern China era, and not the 1911 Revolution (Bianco 26). The May Fourth movement contained many radical ideas. Because it was a mass movement though, extreme radicals never grew to more than a little clique (Bianco 31). Within the May Fourth movement, many different streams of thought were contained, and it became the intellectual base of both the Communists and the Kuomintang (Bianco 43).
“The May Fourth Movement had united all the ‘new intellectuals’ around such vague or general concepts as democracy, science, humanitarianism, liberalism, and reason, and even more around a common desire for destruction. Success having been won–and so swiftly!–it was inevitable that differences should arise” (Bianco 45). Division soon occurred within New Youth itself. One one side were the liberals: Hu Shih and Lu Hsun, on the other, the Radicals: Chen Duxiu and Li Ta-Chao. Chen and Li founded the “Weekly Critic” in 1918, in an effort to build up more support fo their increasingly Marxist beliefs. Hu, meanwhile, attacked all “systems of thought with universal claims or appeal, notably Communism and Socialism” (Bianco 45).
It was the Russian Revolution that brought Marxism to the attention of China. Lenin’s twisting of Marx now allowed the theory to be applied to pre-industrial nations, and his writings on imperialism appealed to the Chinese, who were victims of imperialism. More importantly, the Chinese were impressed by the policies of the new Soviet Union (Schwartz 7-8). On July 25, 1919, the Soviet Union formally announced its plan to return the Chinese Eastern Railroad to the Chinese people, as well as giving up any concessions enjoyed by the Czarist government. The Soviets also pledged to help the Chinese in their struggle for freedom. Within less than a month, over thirty important Chinese organizations expressed thanks to the Soviet Union (Houn 16). In contrast, at the same time the Chinese experienced continued exploitation by the rest of the Western powers, most evident at the Paris Peace Conference. This caused many Chinese to become disillusioned with the capitalist powers (Houn 15).
As a result of the Soviet Union, interest in Marxism exploded. In May 1919, New Youth devoted a special section to Marxism, edited by Li Ta-Chao. By the fall of the same year, a large number of Socialist Study groups were organized among intellectuals. By December, the Society for the Study of Socialism was founded at the National Peking University, containing Chen Duxiu, Li Ta-Chao, Mao Zedong, and over 100 others. In May 1920, the Communist Manifesto was published for the first time in Chinese. It enjoyed great success (Houn 15-17).
By the fall of 1920, the pragmatism of Hu-Shih and Lu Hsun could no longer be reconciled with the growing radicalism of Chen Duxiu and Li Ta-Chao. Hu and Lu quite the magazine, and New Youth became a Communist publication (Bianco 45).
Chen Duxiu
Before going into the history of the Chinese Communist Party, it is worthwhile to spend some time looking at its founder, Chen Duxiu. Chen was born in 1879 to a wealthy family. Instead of training for the examinations, Chen opted for a Western education. Chen, like many of his generation, was pro-Western and looked down on Chinese things. He even refused to join Sun Yatsen’s Revolutionary alliance because he considered it too nationalistic (Bianco 34). Shortly after beginning New Youth in 1915, Chen was appointed dean of Faculty of Letters of Peking University in 1918. At thirty eight, Chen was simultaneously one of the oldest and most influential figures in the May Fourth Movement (Bianco 36).
Chen Duxiu’s changing ideologies reflected the turbulent times he lived in. After being attracted to anarchism as a youth, Chen later became a staunch believer in what he believed were the twin pillars of Western Civilization: democracy and science (Schwartz 8). So dedicated was he to the concept of democracy, that Chen was initially unfazed by the revolution in Russia that affected so many others of the time (Schwartz 14). Rather, it was the growing interest that his students exhibited in Lenin that caused Chen to start studying him (Schwartz 18-19).
In 1919, John Dewey came to Peking University as a sort of visiting professor. His impact on Chen was profound. Dewey’s speeches on democracy caused Chen to come to the conclusion that the reason democracy had failed to take root in China was because it had been imposed from above, instead of being organized by the people. Dewey also raised questions in Chen’s mind about economic democracy, something Chen had given little thought to before. Although this began to open Chen’s mind to class oppression, as late as December 1919, he still advocated that capitalism was good for China (Schwartz 19-20).
By February of 1920, Chen was beginning to become committed to socialism. At about the same time, he converted to Christianity, inspired by the Christian socialism practiced by idealistic young Koreans. This conversion is perhaps not all that surprising, given that both were aspects of Chen’s love affair with the West. Chen claimed that Christianity was originally a doctrine of the poor. His conversion to Christianity helped to quicken his transition to communism. However, as influential as this phase was, his Christian phase proved to be extremely short lived (Feigon 144).
Chen advocated a synthesis between socialism and democracy for a brief period, but by September 1920, he had made a total conversion to Marxism-Leninism. The lateness of this conversion is astonishing, considering Chen founded the Chinese Communist Party in May of the next year (Schwartz 23). However, there remained several differences between Lenin and Chen.
Lenin’s influence on Chen should not be underestimated. Not only did Lenin turn Chen’s attention to the problem of the proletariat, but Lenin’s adaptation of Marx’s theory allowed for “backwards nations” to be included. However, it is questionable if Lenin would have approved of Chen stretching his theories to apply to China. Russia may not have been an industrial nation, but capitalism had made its impact. China, by contrast, fell in Lenin’s category of “semi-colonial”. Although Lenin’s writings are somewhat open to interpretation, it seems he would have thought a proletariat revolution impossible in such a state (Schwartz 30).
Beyond this, Chen also differed from Lenin in his concept of party organization. Lenin’s party was based on seizing power, but Chen was more concerned with what would happen once power was seized. Chen was also worried about the way Sun Yatsen had initially dominated the Koumintang, and instead of a strong chief he wanted a party general secretary elected by the committee heads and held responsible to the party. A final, but significant difference between Chen and Lenin is that Chen’s qualifications for party membership were quite different from the strictness of Lenin. Although government officials were excluded from membership, anyone else who was vaguely sympathetic to Marxist ideas was allowed membership (Feigon 153).
The Formation of the Party
The Chinese radicals were there; all they needed was organization. The Soviets realized this, and their visits began in the summer of 1919 to Li Ta-Chao. Two Russian Communists, N. Burtman and A.A. Muller made contact with Li and worked to promote Marxist ideas, as well as strengthen ties between workers and student groups. Other Russian visitors followed, and in late 1919 official representatives of the Third Communist International (Comintern) approached Li. Comintern wanted to establish a Chinese Communist party, but Li did not think that China was ready. Instead, Li referred Comintern to Chen Duxiu, writing in a letter that Chen was the only one who could establish a communist party in China (Feigon 163-164).
In the Spring of 1920, Chen met in Shanghai with Gregory Voitinski, the head of the Department for Eastern Affairs of the Communist International. Chen introduced Voitinski to various revolutionaries, who included Anarchists, Socialists, Marxists, and some Koumingtang members. At a secret meeting in May 1920, these diverse revolutionaries formed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). A Communist Youth League was established in August (Houn 17).
In addition, Voitinski and Chen also established a Russian News Agency and a Foreign Language school in Shanghai. The Russian News Agency was supposed to function as a propaganda medium. The language school was to be a disguised training center for communists, and included those sent to Russia for further training. Two publications for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) were formed as well, the Labor Circle and The Communist. At the same time, Chen paid close attention to the labor movement, which was going on in Shanghai at the time, hoping to forge links with the working class (Houn 17).
Inspired by Chen’s accomplishments in Shanghai, other communist groups started appearing throughout China. Li Ta-Chao organized a group in Peking, while Mao Zedong, who was an elementary school teacher at the time, started a group in Changsha. With the help of Comintern, groups appeared in Wuhan, Hangchow, Tsinan, Tientsin, and even among Chinese students studying in Japan and France (Houn 17).
In its earliest stage, the members of this fledgling Communist party were far from orthodox Marxists. In fact, in 1920 the CCP was made up largely of anarchists, who were very suspicious of the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (Feigon 154, 192). The Communist Youth League, when it was founded, consisted of Marxists, anarchists, and anti-Confucists (Schwartz 31). The party was vague enough to accommodate these differing ideologies in its early stages (Feigon 163).
It is unknown why Voitinski showed such un-Leninist toleration in allowing such diverse views into the party. It has been suggested that he either hoped he could turn the young radicals into communists, or that his limited Chinese made him unable to distinguish between the various factions among Chinese radicals (Schwartz 32).
In September 1920 another meeting was called. At this meeting, they discussed what steps could be taken to produce a more orthodox party. The process of eliminating non-communist from the ranks began, most notably the anarchists. For the next year, most of Chen’s writings were directed against the anarchists, who refused to buy into the essential communist tenet that “coercion could be used for good in the proper hands” (Chen as quoted by Schwartz 33). By May of 1921, Chen had become so frustrated with anarchists that he accused them of not subscribing to Western thought at all, but rather a revival of Taoism. In the atmosphere of the May Fourth Movement, this was no light accusation (Schwartz 33). The attraction anarchism held for the Chinese at the time should not be underestimated. Chen himself used to be an anarchist, as well as Mao Zedong and many of the Chinese intellectuals in France (Schwartz 26). In a famous debate, Chen defended the “dictatorship of the proletariat” against a group of anarchists, which included his two oldest sons (Feigon 154).
The party had its official birth on July 1, 1921, at the First National Congress. The Congress took place at a girls school in a French Concession in Shanghai. The participants were therefore safely out of the reach of Chinese law. Although Chen himself was unable to attend, being busy in Canton at the time, twelve delegates, representing about fifty members each, were present, as well as two representatives from Comintern. Fearing surveillance by concession police, the delegates cut off the meeting on the fourth day. They went to South Lake in Chekiang province “where they hired a boat, brought food and wine, and carried through the work of the Congress under the pretense of having a quiet respectable outing” (North in Houn 18).
Although no records of the meeting exist, the delegates decided to base the party strictly on Marxist-Leninist philosophy, restricting all those who were not genuine Communists from party membership. A party constitution was formed, as well as a Central Committee to which Chen was elected to General Secretary in his absence (Houn 17). Other than that, there was little agreement among the delegates. Chen Duxiu’s goal of eventually having a people’s government led by the Chinese Communist Party was considered to radical by some in attendance. A suggestion was made by one of the delegates, Li Han-chun, to send delegates to Russia and Germany and compare the merits of each Revolution. This proposal received some support. The question of joining Comintern never even came up (Schwartz 34).
Although Chen had made some steps towards the formation of a Communist Party before the arrival of the Comintern, their help was invaluable to him. However, despite his agreement to associate with the Comintern and listen to their advice, Chen was worried about the initial attempts of Comintern to dominate the party. He even went as far as to refuse financial adid from Comintern (Feigon 167). The new Comintern representative, a Dutch Communist called Maring, whose real name was Hendricus Sneevliet, was rather untactful in his dealings with the Chinese. Not only did he strike them as unbearable arrogant, but his attempt to gain control of the party by offering financial help from Comintern was seen by Chen for the blatant bribe that it was (Chang 161-165). However, idealism soon gave way to necessity, as Chen realized how important money was in keeping the party afloat. He reluctantly accepted Comintern aid (Feigon 168). Fear of Comintern domination turned many nationalists away from the Communist party such as Tai Chi-t’ao (Schwartz 32).
Although it would be almost thirty years before the CCP would gain control of China, the idealism and motivation that would contribute to their eventual success was present early on. When one considers how small the party was at its conception, it is amazing how quickly support for it grew, making the CCP one of the most successful parties in modern history.
Conclusion
After looking at the history of Marxism in China, the ideologies of Chen Duxiu and the formation of the Chinese Communist Party, we can see how the party was formed both as a result of internal forces within China, and the external influence of the Soviet Union and Comintern. Without the atmosphere of the May Fourth Movement, or Chinese figures like Chen Duxiu, the CCP would never have come into being. Likewise, without the example of the Soviet Union and the help of Comintern, the CCP would also never have been created. Both internal and external forces combined to produce the entity of the Chinese Communist Party.
Bibliography
Bianco, Lucien. Origins of the Chinese Revolution. Stanford University Press. Stanford. 1971. (Translated by Muriel Bell).
Chang Kuo-t’ao. The Rise of the Chinese Communist Party, 1921-1927. University Press of Kansas. Lawrence. 1971.
Ch’en Kung-Po. The Communist Movement in China. Octagon Books, Incorporated. New York. 1966.
Feigon, Lee. Chen Duxiu: Founder of the Chinese Communist Party. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 1983
Fitzgerald, C.P. The Birth of Communist China. Penguin Books. Hammondsworth. 1964.
Han Suyin. The Morning Deluge: Mao TseTung and the Chinese Revolution, 1893-1954. Little Brown and Company. Boston. 1972.
Houn, Franklin W. A Short History of Chinese Communist. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. 1967.
Ladany, Laszlo. The Communist Party of China and Marxism, 1921-1985. Hoover Institution Press. 1988.
Levine, Marylin A. The Found Generation: Chinese Communists in Europe during the Twenties. University of Washington. Seattle. 1993.
Price, Don C. Russia and the Roots of the Chinese Revolution, 1896-1911. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. 1974.
Scwartz, Benjamin I. Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. 1961.
Professor’s Comments: Good clear paper based on a good number of sources–but not the most influential recent study of this very question, Arif Dirlik’s Origins of Chinese Communism. I think I mentioned this work to you. Well written
Grade: A-, 92%
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Organized Gang Warfare in the Late Republic
December 9, 1998
His exploits caused the forum to be soaked with blood, and led to armed conflict in the streets as a part of daily life in ancient Rome. To a Republican government that was already outdated, Clodius helped deliver the final deathblow. His actions showed the flaws of the Roman Republic, and ultimately necessitated the rise of dictators such as Pompey and Caesar who could restore order.
Mob violence had always played an important role in the Republic. In the late Republic it was much more evident. Demagogues such as the Gracchi and Saturninus based their power on the support of the Roman Proletariat, which was politically emasculated but physically a force to deal with. However, the organized gangs that Clodius and his opponent Milo used were unprecedented. We can see the significance of these gangs by looking briefly at the history of Clodius himself, the nature of the coalition he assembled, and at the reign of violence he brought to the city of Rome, and its effects.
Born Publius Pulcher Claudius, Clodius changed his last name to make it less respectable. Clodius’s early political career is known only in fragments. Surprisingly he, like many of the young nobles who would later join him, was from an optimate family (Rome’s conservative party) (Huzar 25). Clodius’s father was one of Sulla’s patrician officers and was killed at the Colline Gate in 82 BCE (Weigal 93), leaving Clodius to be raised by his older brother Appius Pulcher Claudius (Gruen 59). In 70 BCE Clodius joined his brother-in-law Lucullus (Weigal 93) as an officer in Lucullus’s army against Mithridates. Here, Clodius started a mutiny from the headquarters of the army. Declaring himself the “soldier’s friend”, Clodius successfully encouraged the soldiers to rebel by contrasting Lucullus’s tightness with the spoils to Pompey’s generosity. Lucullus was unable to continue the war on account of his brother-in-law, and Clodius soon found himself unwelcome (Kahn 115). Clodius transferred to the army of his other brother in law, and had many adventures (such as joining the Syrian army against the Arabs, or being captured by pirates) before returning to Rome in 65 BCE (Weigal 93).
Clodius became the leader of what Cicero described as a “gang of young incorrigibles” (as qouted in Huzar 24). These youths from powerful families were involved in drinking and playing dice. They seemed almost to desire that their actions would shock respectable Rome. Among Clodius’s gang were Mark Antony and Curio, who would later become rising political stars on their own.
Although Clodius and his company loved to shock their fellow citizens, Clodius was unprepared for the backlash that followed his most outrageous stunt. Clodius disguised himself as a woman and attended the Bona Dea (good goddess) festival. For a man to attend this fextival was a sacrilege that the Romans were terrified would upset the Pax Deorum. When Clodius was found out, he was attacked by a mob of furious women and barely made his escape. Since Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus at the time, the festival had been held at his house. It was rumored that Clodius was having an affair with Caesar’s wife. Caesar divorced his wife because of this, but appears to have held no grudge against Clodius (Ward 205-209).
Clodius was brought to trial for his sacrilege, but insisted he was innocent since he had been in Interama on the day in question, fifty miles away from Rome. Cicero destroyed Clodius’s alibi by revealing that Clodius had visited him on that same day. Clodius was acquitted, but he never forgave Cicero (Weigal 95).
Desirous of increased political power, Clodius wanted to get elected into the Tribune of Plebs. However, since he was a patrician, he was ineligible. With the help of Julius Caesar, acting as Pontifex Maximus, Clodius arranged to have himself adopted into a Plebeian family (Kahn 203). Clodius was elected as a Tribune, just as he desired. Clodius made it clear he was out to get Cicero from his new position of power. During the Catiline conspiracy, Cicero as Consul had put to death Roman citizens without a trial. Clodius hoped to condemn him for this. Without waiting to see what Clodius would do to him, Cicero fled into voluntary exile (Furhmann 94-96).
As a Tribune, Clodius worked to increase his power base. He succeeded in passing two bills, one of which reconstituted the collegia, previously outlawed in 64 BCE, and allowed the formation of new collegia. The second bill provided free grain to all citizens, dramatically increasing Clodius’s support with the urban poor. Despite optimate criticism, Clodius opened up the temple of Castor to registration in the new collegia (Kahn214, 215).
“Despite his adventurism and the instability of the coalition he assembled, Clodius represented Caesar’s most effective ally,” (Kahn 214). However, regardless of how useful Clodius was, Caesar was soon to regret the support he had lent to him. “Whilst it is true that each of the triumvirate at various times hoped to use Clodius for his own ends, the fact remains that the tribune’s program was of his own construction to suit his own ambition for dominance,” (Shotter 71). Once Caesar left for Gaul, Clodius was unleashed.
Pompey and Caesar were both becoming unpopular, and Clodius saw this as a chance to switch his allegiance. Clodius picked apart some of Caesar’s legislation, but as the self-declared champion of the people, his primary target was Pompey. Pompey and Crassus were competing with each other. Clodius supported Crassus in this competition in return for interest-free loans from the richest man in Rome (Huzar 25). Clodius undermined Pompey’s treaties in the East, attacked him verbally, and even had his roughs assault Pompey in public. Soon, Pompey would not even leave his house because of Clodius (Gruen 99).
The worst insult of all concerned the son of Tigranes, who was a hostage Pompey had brought back from the East. He was kept captive in the house of Praetor Lucius Flavius. Clodius liberated the captive, and when Flavius tried to recapture him, a battle was fought outside the city gates. Clodius was ultimately successful, but not without heavy losses on both sides (Greenhalgh 11-13).
In retaliation, Pompey gave his support to Titus Annius Milo, an impoverished nobleman who would soon become Clodius’s worst enemy (Heaton 71). Milo formed his own gang to counteract that of Clodius, and thereafter, until the death of Clodius in 52 BCE, the streets of Rome were filled with blood as the two rival gangs battled each other for control.
Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to examine the nature of Clodius’s support, as well as that of Milo’s. Clodius’s supporters were mostly the urban poor, recruited through the collegia and organized either by profession (guilds) or district (Lintott 193). Clodius’s gang consisted largely of slaves, but included a large number of freemen and urban poor. Of the latter, many were down and out, but many were also skilled men with trades who felt exploited by those who strived to maintain the status quo (Lintott 196-197). Clodius had several other gang leaders to help him keep his men organized. Their names are given to us by Cicero, but little other information remains of them (Lintott 83).
The tactics of Clodius were unique to his time. Outside of the city lay proconsular armies that could crush Clodius and his gang. However, as long as the law was observed and these armies could not enter Rome, Clodius was more than a force to be reckoned with. His gang was equivalent to a miniature army. Futhermore, Clodius was not interested in votes outside of the city of Rome, as both the Gracchi and Saturninus had been. Clodius “pursued urban political power as an end to itself,” (Lintott 196).
Under these circumstances, the only way Clodius could have been opposed was by a man like Milo. Milo’s gang consisted not of dedicated volunteers like that of Clodius, but mostly gladiators he had bought. His success against Clodius’s forces “showed that a small group of professionals could be as satisfactory as Clodius’s mass movement where violence alone was required” (Lintott 85). Also, whereas Clodius only relied on the City for support, Milo had men outside of Rome he could call in for support when he needed to.
Because the activities of these gangs were legally defensible if it could be proved that the other gang had struck first, they were largely immune to the courts, although gang leaders were occasionally brought to trial (Lintott 29).
With two rival gangs now in place, the violence increased dramatically. Sympathy turned against Clodius, and many began to wish taht Cicero was back in Rome to make trouble for him. When the question of Cicero’s recall was discussed in 57 BCE, Clodius and his forces attacked the assembly, killing many. Cicero’s brother, Quintus Cicero, escaped the slaughter only by hiding under a pile of corpses. The senate continued to deliberate the question of Cicero, and when Clodius tried to stop them, Milo retaliated in kind. By midsummer, Clodius’s forces were worn out, and the vote was Cicero’s recall (Heaton 72).
Cicero returned and attached himself to Milo for support against Clodius. Since Cicero returned a hero, he was able to convince the Senate to restore his house (which Clodius and his gang had destroyed) at public expense (Fuhrmann 96). Clodius and his company drove away the workers from Cicero’s house, and destroyed what was already there. Clodius also burned Quintus Cicero’s house, and then went to storm Milo’s property. After doing battle with Milo’s forces, Clodius succeeded in setting fire to his house, but not before losing many of his men (Gruen 294).
Often, Clodius attacked Cicero directly with his gang, doing battle with Cicero’s bodyguards. In one of these encounters, Clodius apparently got himself into a position were he was at the mercy of Cicero, but Cicero gave his bodyguard the signal to let Clodius go (Furhmann 119).
Clodius ran for Aedile in 56 BCE. Although Milo as a tribune tried to postpone the elections, he was unsuccessful. Clodius attempted to bring Milo to trial for using gladiators to defend himself, even though Clodius was guilty of this as well. Pompey tried to speak in Milo’s defense, but he was constantly interrupted by personal abuse from Clodius. Clodius acted like a cheerleader with the crowd, shouting out, “Who is starving the people to death? Who wanted to be sent to Alexandria? Who is the dissolute general? Who scratches his head with one finger?” After each question the crowd would shout out “Pompeius!” Clodius than asked, “Whom do you want to go to Alexandria?” and the crowd replied, “Crassus!” Pompey was forced to listen to these insults until Milo and his men rushed forward chasing Clodius off the rostra (Seager 119).
Clodius continued his hostility toward Pompey, even going to the extent of plotting against his life. Pompey was irritated by Clodius, and summoned more men from the country for his defense. The Senate did not like Clodius, but they like Pompey even less, and so Clodius was allowed to continue his antics (Heaton 76).
Clodius’s positions were always changing though, making it hard for both his friends and enemies to know where he stood. “Clodius’s explosive political strands were combined with dramatic transfers of allegiance” (Gruen 59). By 54 BCE, Clodius shifted his alliance back to the Triumvirs, and reconciled himself to Pompey. The reasons for this drastic change of position are not clear. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Pompey’s son married Clodius’s niece (the daughter of Appius Claudius) (Rawson 139).
Despite his reconciliation to Pompey, Clodius and Milo remained bitter enemies. This had the effect of straining Pompey’s relationship with Milo. Milo asked Pompey for more support, but Pompey promised him nothing, and increasingly began to distance himself from Milo (Gruen 150). Pompey also claimed to have reconciled Cicero to Clodius, but the fact that relationships remained poor between the two cast doubts on the validity of this reconciliation (Rawson 136).
Also in 54 BCE, one of Caesar’s henchmen, Publius Vatinius was put on trial for violence through the collegia and corruption. Cicero had by this point submitted to the Triumvirs in return for their protection, and agreed to defend Vatinius. Clodius also came to Vatinius’s aid, ascending the tribunal and scattering the lots for jurors. Vatinius was acquitted (Heaton 80).
In 53 BCE, Clodius decided to become a candidate for praetorship. In the same year, Milo ran for consul, feeling that the current chaos Rome was in would allow him to win despite his unorthodox methods. Clodius was terrified of the idea of his enemy obtaining the most powerful political position in Rome, and supported Hypsaeus as an opponent candidate to Milo. Clodius used all the violence and murder for which he was famous to try and stop Milo. Pompey may have even helped Clodius gather rustics and slaves from the Apennines. Clodius openly declared that Milo was going to be killed.
Milo had already demonstrated he was able to play the same game, however. The two gangs continually fought it out in the streets of Rome, with elections being postponed repeatedly until it was necessary to appoint an interregna (Gruen 300).
In one of these battles in the Forum, Mark Antony, having long since left Clodius’s gang, attacked his former leader with a sword. Clodius escaped only by barricading himself in the stairs of a nearby bookstore. Why Mark Antony did this is a mystery. Since Antony was without question Caesar’s man at this point, it is hypothesized that Caesar, realizing that Clodius had once again gotten out of control, ordered his death. However it was unlike Caesar to order an execution in the Forum in broad daylight. Another possibility is that Antony was acting on his own impulse in what he thought was Caesar’s best interest. A third possibility is that Antony had a personal vendetta against Clodius. Clodius had accused Antony of having an affair with Clodius’s wife Fulvia (who would in fact later marry Mark Antony, after the death of both Clodius and her second husband Curio), and if this is true, then perhaps Antony wanted Clodius out of the way. In any case, Antony was soon to see what good luck it was to fail, for if he had been responsible for the death of Clodius, it would certainly have ended his political career (Huzar 37).
On January 18, 52 BCE, Clodius and Milo met on the Appian Way, and Clodius was killed as a result. Exactly how it happened was never quite clear. Cicero claimed that Clodius was waiting in ambush for Milo, and when Milo and his escort passed through, Clodius and his roughs attacked them. In the course of the fight, Clodius was wounded and carried by some of his men into a nearby inn. Cicero claims that Milo, once he realized what happened to Clodius, was unsure of what to do. However, when realizing that he would be blamed for the murder either way, he sent his men into the inn to drag Clodius out. When they went into the inn, Clodius was already dead from his wounds, and so Milo was saved from his guilt.
Other stories were not quite as sympathetic to Milo. Some claimed that Milo initiated the battle. When Clodius was injured, Milo’s men went into the inn, killed the innkeeper, dragged Clodius out, stabbed him several times, and left his corpse on the road. Another version is that Clodius and Milo passed each other with their escort without incident. Then, one of Milo’s men managed to slip into Clodius’s gang, and after following Clodius for a while, stabbed him in the back (Kahn 280).
Clodius’s widow, Fulvia, sent runner throughout the city to alert the people of his death. That same night, a large crowd gathered outside of Clodius’s house, and Fulvia’s lamentation excited the crowd. After the multitudes were further riled up by two tribunes, Titus Munatius Plancus, and Quintus Pompeius Rufus, the city was soon to see how much the people valued their champion. A huge crowd carried Clodius’s body through the streets and into the Senate house, naked so as to show his wounds. Then, the whole Senate house was burned down as a funeral pyre for Clodius (Kahn 281).
Anarchy reigned in Rome following the death of Clodius. Many optimates were murdered, as well as any well dressed person foolish enough to be caught walking in the streets (Weigal 132-133). “The commoners ranged through the city beating and murdering all whom they suspected of sympathy with their hero’s murderer, and wreaked their fury on the rich, attacking especially those who wore fine clothes and gold rings” (Kahn 281). Milo was prudent enough to stay hidden for most of the ordeal, but when he was convinced to make a speech in his defense, a riot ensued. Milo escaped only by disguising himself as a slave. Lepidus’s house was besieged, and his family saved only by Milo’s gladiators. Clodius’s relative, Sextus Clodius, assumed leadership of the gang. He led them on an attack of Milo’s house, but they were driven off by arrows from Milo’s defenders.
The Senate, in desperation, decided to vote Pompey an unprecedented and illegal sole consulship, with power to raise troops and restore order. Because of the circumstances, even strict constitutionalists, such as Cato, approved the measure. Although other consuls were later appointed, Pompey was to retain this power in fact if not in name until the civil war with Caesar. In an effort to maintain order, Pompey implemented many laws that were thought by Caesar’s allies to be indirectly against Caesar, and this helped to hasten the civil war (Greenham 83).
Cicero undertook the defense of Milo. Despite Pompey’s soldiers, Cicero was so intimidated by the howling crowd that he probably would not have been able to deliver his speech even if the crowd had let him speak. There was often violence between the crowd and Pompey’s soldiers, and many of the crowd was killed. In the end, Milo was ultimately condemned and exiled (Heaton 81).
Clodius’s politics were far from orthodox, and the rules of his game were much different than the rules of Caesar and Pompey, but for a period of time it can be said that he was the most powerful man in Rome. That Clodius’s methods could be so successful demonstrates the frustration of the urban poor in Rome, and should be taken as a sign that the Republic was on its way out. Clodius hastened this departure. The anarchy he created in the city was only restored by giving Pompey sole power, which was one of the factors leading to civil war and Caesar’s eventual dictatorship. Also, the reign of violence he unleashed on the city of Rome caused both rich and poor to wish for law and order as opposed to freedom under the republic. Clodius is certainly one of history’s most colorful characters. He took mob violence to an extreme no one had done before him, and his effects on history remain visible.
Bibliography
Furhmann, Manfred. Cicero and the Roman Republic. Blackwell. Cambridge. 1990
Greenhalgh, Peter. Pompey: The Republican Prince. University of Missouri Press. Columbia. 1982
Gruen, Erich. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1974
Heaton, J.W. Mob Violence in the Late Roman Republic: 133-49 B.C. University of Illinois. Urbana. 1939.
Huzar, Eleanor. Mark Antony. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 1978
Kahn, Arthur. The Education of Julius Caesar. Shocken Books. New York. 1986.
Lintott, A.W. Violence in Republican Rome. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1968.
Rawson, Beryl. The Politics of Friendship: Pompey and Cicero. Sydney University Press. Forest Grove. 1978.
Seager, Robin. Pompey: A Political Biography. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1979.
Shotter, David. The Fall of the Roman Republic. Routledge. New York. 1994.
Ward, Allen. Marcus Crassus and the Late Republic. University of Missouri Press. Columbia. 1977.
Weigal, Arthur. The Life and Times of Mark Antony. Garden City Publishing Company. 1931
Professor's comments: Generally well done, if somewhat rough around the edges. The most serious flaw is the lack of adequate explanation at certain points (see comments throughout). [Editor's note: I have not duplicated margin comments throughout].
Grade: B
Video Version HERE
His exploits caused the forum to be soaked with blood, and led to armed conflict in the streets as a part of daily life in ancient Rome. To a Republican government that was already outdated, Clodius helped deliver the final deathblow. His actions showed the flaws of the Roman Republic, and ultimately necessitated the rise of dictators such as Pompey and Caesar who could restore order.
Mob violence had always played an important role in the Republic. In the late Republic it was much more evident. Demagogues such as the Gracchi and Saturninus based their power on the support of the Roman Proletariat, which was politically emasculated but physically a force to deal with. However, the organized gangs that Clodius and his opponent Milo used were unprecedented. We can see the significance of these gangs by looking briefly at the history of Clodius himself, the nature of the coalition he assembled, and at the reign of violence he brought to the city of Rome, and its effects.
Born Publius Pulcher Claudius, Clodius changed his last name to make it less respectable. Clodius’s early political career is known only in fragments. Surprisingly he, like many of the young nobles who would later join him, was from an optimate family (Rome’s conservative party) (Huzar 25). Clodius’s father was one of Sulla’s patrician officers and was killed at the Colline Gate in 82 BCE (Weigal 93), leaving Clodius to be raised by his older brother Appius Pulcher Claudius (Gruen 59). In 70 BCE Clodius joined his brother-in-law Lucullus (Weigal 93) as an officer in Lucullus’s army against Mithridates. Here, Clodius started a mutiny from the headquarters of the army. Declaring himself the “soldier’s friend”, Clodius successfully encouraged the soldiers to rebel by contrasting Lucullus’s tightness with the spoils to Pompey’s generosity. Lucullus was unable to continue the war on account of his brother-in-law, and Clodius soon found himself unwelcome (Kahn 115). Clodius transferred to the army of his other brother in law, and had many adventures (such as joining the Syrian army against the Arabs, or being captured by pirates) before returning to Rome in 65 BCE (Weigal 93).
Clodius became the leader of what Cicero described as a “gang of young incorrigibles” (as qouted in Huzar 24). These youths from powerful families were involved in drinking and playing dice. They seemed almost to desire that their actions would shock respectable Rome. Among Clodius’s gang were Mark Antony and Curio, who would later become rising political stars on their own.
Although Clodius and his company loved to shock their fellow citizens, Clodius was unprepared for the backlash that followed his most outrageous stunt. Clodius disguised himself as a woman and attended the Bona Dea (good goddess) festival. For a man to attend this fextival was a sacrilege that the Romans were terrified would upset the Pax Deorum. When Clodius was found out, he was attacked by a mob of furious women and barely made his escape. Since Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus at the time, the festival had been held at his house. It was rumored that Clodius was having an affair with Caesar’s wife. Caesar divorced his wife because of this, but appears to have held no grudge against Clodius (Ward 205-209).
Clodius was brought to trial for his sacrilege, but insisted he was innocent since he had been in Interama on the day in question, fifty miles away from Rome. Cicero destroyed Clodius’s alibi by revealing that Clodius had visited him on that same day. Clodius was acquitted, but he never forgave Cicero (Weigal 95).
Desirous of increased political power, Clodius wanted to get elected into the Tribune of Plebs. However, since he was a patrician, he was ineligible. With the help of Julius Caesar, acting as Pontifex Maximus, Clodius arranged to have himself adopted into a Plebeian family (Kahn 203). Clodius was elected as a Tribune, just as he desired. Clodius made it clear he was out to get Cicero from his new position of power. During the Catiline conspiracy, Cicero as Consul had put to death Roman citizens without a trial. Clodius hoped to condemn him for this. Without waiting to see what Clodius would do to him, Cicero fled into voluntary exile (Furhmann 94-96).
As a Tribune, Clodius worked to increase his power base. He succeeded in passing two bills, one of which reconstituted the collegia, previously outlawed in 64 BCE, and allowed the formation of new collegia. The second bill provided free grain to all citizens, dramatically increasing Clodius’s support with the urban poor. Despite optimate criticism, Clodius opened up the temple of Castor to registration in the new collegia (Kahn214, 215).
“Despite his adventurism and the instability of the coalition he assembled, Clodius represented Caesar’s most effective ally,” (Kahn 214). However, regardless of how useful Clodius was, Caesar was soon to regret the support he had lent to him. “Whilst it is true that each of the triumvirate at various times hoped to use Clodius for his own ends, the fact remains that the tribune’s program was of his own construction to suit his own ambition for dominance,” (Shotter 71). Once Caesar left for Gaul, Clodius was unleashed.
Pompey and Caesar were both becoming unpopular, and Clodius saw this as a chance to switch his allegiance. Clodius picked apart some of Caesar’s legislation, but as the self-declared champion of the people, his primary target was Pompey. Pompey and Crassus were competing with each other. Clodius supported Crassus in this competition in return for interest-free loans from the richest man in Rome (Huzar 25). Clodius undermined Pompey’s treaties in the East, attacked him verbally, and even had his roughs assault Pompey in public. Soon, Pompey would not even leave his house because of Clodius (Gruen 99).
The worst insult of all concerned the son of Tigranes, who was a hostage Pompey had brought back from the East. He was kept captive in the house of Praetor Lucius Flavius. Clodius liberated the captive, and when Flavius tried to recapture him, a battle was fought outside the city gates. Clodius was ultimately successful, but not without heavy losses on both sides (Greenhalgh 11-13).
In retaliation, Pompey gave his support to Titus Annius Milo, an impoverished nobleman who would soon become Clodius’s worst enemy (Heaton 71). Milo formed his own gang to counteract that of Clodius, and thereafter, until the death of Clodius in 52 BCE, the streets of Rome were filled with blood as the two rival gangs battled each other for control.
Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to examine the nature of Clodius’s support, as well as that of Milo’s. Clodius’s supporters were mostly the urban poor, recruited through the collegia and organized either by profession (guilds) or district (Lintott 193). Clodius’s gang consisted largely of slaves, but included a large number of freemen and urban poor. Of the latter, many were down and out, but many were also skilled men with trades who felt exploited by those who strived to maintain the status quo (Lintott 196-197). Clodius had several other gang leaders to help him keep his men organized. Their names are given to us by Cicero, but little other information remains of them (Lintott 83).
The tactics of Clodius were unique to his time. Outside of the city lay proconsular armies that could crush Clodius and his gang. However, as long as the law was observed and these armies could not enter Rome, Clodius was more than a force to be reckoned with. His gang was equivalent to a miniature army. Futhermore, Clodius was not interested in votes outside of the city of Rome, as both the Gracchi and Saturninus had been. Clodius “pursued urban political power as an end to itself,” (Lintott 196).
Under these circumstances, the only way Clodius could have been opposed was by a man like Milo. Milo’s gang consisted not of dedicated volunteers like that of Clodius, but mostly gladiators he had bought. His success against Clodius’s forces “showed that a small group of professionals could be as satisfactory as Clodius’s mass movement where violence alone was required” (Lintott 85). Also, whereas Clodius only relied on the City for support, Milo had men outside of Rome he could call in for support when he needed to.
Because the activities of these gangs were legally defensible if it could be proved that the other gang had struck first, they were largely immune to the courts, although gang leaders were occasionally brought to trial (Lintott 29).
With two rival gangs now in place, the violence increased dramatically. Sympathy turned against Clodius, and many began to wish taht Cicero was back in Rome to make trouble for him. When the question of Cicero’s recall was discussed in 57 BCE, Clodius and his forces attacked the assembly, killing many. Cicero’s brother, Quintus Cicero, escaped the slaughter only by hiding under a pile of corpses. The senate continued to deliberate the question of Cicero, and when Clodius tried to stop them, Milo retaliated in kind. By midsummer, Clodius’s forces were worn out, and the vote was Cicero’s recall (Heaton 72).
Cicero returned and attached himself to Milo for support against Clodius. Since Cicero returned a hero, he was able to convince the Senate to restore his house (which Clodius and his gang had destroyed) at public expense (Fuhrmann 96). Clodius and his company drove away the workers from Cicero’s house, and destroyed what was already there. Clodius also burned Quintus Cicero’s house, and then went to storm Milo’s property. After doing battle with Milo’s forces, Clodius succeeded in setting fire to his house, but not before losing many of his men (Gruen 294).
Often, Clodius attacked Cicero directly with his gang, doing battle with Cicero’s bodyguards. In one of these encounters, Clodius apparently got himself into a position were he was at the mercy of Cicero, but Cicero gave his bodyguard the signal to let Clodius go (Furhmann 119).
Clodius ran for Aedile in 56 BCE. Although Milo as a tribune tried to postpone the elections, he was unsuccessful. Clodius attempted to bring Milo to trial for using gladiators to defend himself, even though Clodius was guilty of this as well. Pompey tried to speak in Milo’s defense, but he was constantly interrupted by personal abuse from Clodius. Clodius acted like a cheerleader with the crowd, shouting out, “Who is starving the people to death? Who wanted to be sent to Alexandria? Who is the dissolute general? Who scratches his head with one finger?” After each question the crowd would shout out “Pompeius!” Clodius than asked, “Whom do you want to go to Alexandria?” and the crowd replied, “Crassus!” Pompey was forced to listen to these insults until Milo and his men rushed forward chasing Clodius off the rostra (Seager 119).
Clodius continued his hostility toward Pompey, even going to the extent of plotting against his life. Pompey was irritated by Clodius, and summoned more men from the country for his defense. The Senate did not like Clodius, but they like Pompey even less, and so Clodius was allowed to continue his antics (Heaton 76).
Clodius’s positions were always changing though, making it hard for both his friends and enemies to know where he stood. “Clodius’s explosive political strands were combined with dramatic transfers of allegiance” (Gruen 59). By 54 BCE, Clodius shifted his alliance back to the Triumvirs, and reconciled himself to Pompey. The reasons for this drastic change of position are not clear. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Pompey’s son married Clodius’s niece (the daughter of Appius Claudius) (Rawson 139).
Despite his reconciliation to Pompey, Clodius and Milo remained bitter enemies. This had the effect of straining Pompey’s relationship with Milo. Milo asked Pompey for more support, but Pompey promised him nothing, and increasingly began to distance himself from Milo (Gruen 150). Pompey also claimed to have reconciled Cicero to Clodius, but the fact that relationships remained poor between the two cast doubts on the validity of this reconciliation (Rawson 136).
Also in 54 BCE, one of Caesar’s henchmen, Publius Vatinius was put on trial for violence through the collegia and corruption. Cicero had by this point submitted to the Triumvirs in return for their protection, and agreed to defend Vatinius. Clodius also came to Vatinius’s aid, ascending the tribunal and scattering the lots for jurors. Vatinius was acquitted (Heaton 80).
In 53 BCE, Clodius decided to become a candidate for praetorship. In the same year, Milo ran for consul, feeling that the current chaos Rome was in would allow him to win despite his unorthodox methods. Clodius was terrified of the idea of his enemy obtaining the most powerful political position in Rome, and supported Hypsaeus as an opponent candidate to Milo. Clodius used all the violence and murder for which he was famous to try and stop Milo. Pompey may have even helped Clodius gather rustics and slaves from the Apennines. Clodius openly declared that Milo was going to be killed.
Milo had already demonstrated he was able to play the same game, however. The two gangs continually fought it out in the streets of Rome, with elections being postponed repeatedly until it was necessary to appoint an interregna (Gruen 300).
In one of these battles in the Forum, Mark Antony, having long since left Clodius’s gang, attacked his former leader with a sword. Clodius escaped only by barricading himself in the stairs of a nearby bookstore. Why Mark Antony did this is a mystery. Since Antony was without question Caesar’s man at this point, it is hypothesized that Caesar, realizing that Clodius had once again gotten out of control, ordered his death. However it was unlike Caesar to order an execution in the Forum in broad daylight. Another possibility is that Antony was acting on his own impulse in what he thought was Caesar’s best interest. A third possibility is that Antony had a personal vendetta against Clodius. Clodius had accused Antony of having an affair with Clodius’s wife Fulvia (who would in fact later marry Mark Antony, after the death of both Clodius and her second husband Curio), and if this is true, then perhaps Antony wanted Clodius out of the way. In any case, Antony was soon to see what good luck it was to fail, for if he had been responsible for the death of Clodius, it would certainly have ended his political career (Huzar 37).
On January 18, 52 BCE, Clodius and Milo met on the Appian Way, and Clodius was killed as a result. Exactly how it happened was never quite clear. Cicero claimed that Clodius was waiting in ambush for Milo, and when Milo and his escort passed through, Clodius and his roughs attacked them. In the course of the fight, Clodius was wounded and carried by some of his men into a nearby inn. Cicero claims that Milo, once he realized what happened to Clodius, was unsure of what to do. However, when realizing that he would be blamed for the murder either way, he sent his men into the inn to drag Clodius out. When they went into the inn, Clodius was already dead from his wounds, and so Milo was saved from his guilt.
Other stories were not quite as sympathetic to Milo. Some claimed that Milo initiated the battle. When Clodius was injured, Milo’s men went into the inn, killed the innkeeper, dragged Clodius out, stabbed him several times, and left his corpse on the road. Another version is that Clodius and Milo passed each other with their escort without incident. Then, one of Milo’s men managed to slip into Clodius’s gang, and after following Clodius for a while, stabbed him in the back (Kahn 280).
Clodius’s widow, Fulvia, sent runner throughout the city to alert the people of his death. That same night, a large crowd gathered outside of Clodius’s house, and Fulvia’s lamentation excited the crowd. After the multitudes were further riled up by two tribunes, Titus Munatius Plancus, and Quintus Pompeius Rufus, the city was soon to see how much the people valued their champion. A huge crowd carried Clodius’s body through the streets and into the Senate house, naked so as to show his wounds. Then, the whole Senate house was burned down as a funeral pyre for Clodius (Kahn 281).
Anarchy reigned in Rome following the death of Clodius. Many optimates were murdered, as well as any well dressed person foolish enough to be caught walking in the streets (Weigal 132-133). “The commoners ranged through the city beating and murdering all whom they suspected of sympathy with their hero’s murderer, and wreaked their fury on the rich, attacking especially those who wore fine clothes and gold rings” (Kahn 281). Milo was prudent enough to stay hidden for most of the ordeal, but when he was convinced to make a speech in his defense, a riot ensued. Milo escaped only by disguising himself as a slave. Lepidus’s house was besieged, and his family saved only by Milo’s gladiators. Clodius’s relative, Sextus Clodius, assumed leadership of the gang. He led them on an attack of Milo’s house, but they were driven off by arrows from Milo’s defenders.
The Senate, in desperation, decided to vote Pompey an unprecedented and illegal sole consulship, with power to raise troops and restore order. Because of the circumstances, even strict constitutionalists, such as Cato, approved the measure. Although other consuls were later appointed, Pompey was to retain this power in fact if not in name until the civil war with Caesar. In an effort to maintain order, Pompey implemented many laws that were thought by Caesar’s allies to be indirectly against Caesar, and this helped to hasten the civil war (Greenham 83).
Cicero undertook the defense of Milo. Despite Pompey’s soldiers, Cicero was so intimidated by the howling crowd that he probably would not have been able to deliver his speech even if the crowd had let him speak. There was often violence between the crowd and Pompey’s soldiers, and many of the crowd was killed. In the end, Milo was ultimately condemned and exiled (Heaton 81).
Clodius’s politics were far from orthodox, and the rules of his game were much different than the rules of Caesar and Pompey, but for a period of time it can be said that he was the most powerful man in Rome. That Clodius’s methods could be so successful demonstrates the frustration of the urban poor in Rome, and should be taken as a sign that the Republic was on its way out. Clodius hastened this departure. The anarchy he created in the city was only restored by giving Pompey sole power, which was one of the factors leading to civil war and Caesar’s eventual dictatorship. Also, the reign of violence he unleashed on the city of Rome caused both rich and poor to wish for law and order as opposed to freedom under the republic. Clodius is certainly one of history’s most colorful characters. He took mob violence to an extreme no one had done before him, and his effects on history remain visible.
Bibliography
Furhmann, Manfred. Cicero and the Roman Republic. Blackwell. Cambridge. 1990
Greenhalgh, Peter. Pompey: The Republican Prince. University of Missouri Press. Columbia. 1982
Gruen, Erich. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1974
Heaton, J.W. Mob Violence in the Late Roman Republic: 133-49 B.C. University of Illinois. Urbana. 1939.
Huzar, Eleanor. Mark Antony. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 1978
Kahn, Arthur. The Education of Julius Caesar. Shocken Books. New York. 1986.
Lintott, A.W. Violence in Republican Rome. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1968.
Rawson, Beryl. The Politics of Friendship: Pompey and Cicero. Sydney University Press. Forest Grove. 1978.
Seager, Robin. Pompey: A Political Biography. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1979.
Shotter, David. The Fall of the Roman Republic. Routledge. New York. 1994.
Ward, Allen. Marcus Crassus and the Late Republic. University of Missouri Press. Columbia. 1977.
Weigal, Arthur. The Life and Times of Mark Antony. Garden City Publishing Company. 1931
Professor's comments: Generally well done, if somewhat rough around the edges. The most serious flaw is the lack of adequate explanation at certain points (see comments throughout). [Editor's note: I have not duplicated margin comments throughout].
Grade: B
Video Version HERE
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
The Conditions Leading Up to the Berkeley Free Speech Movement
May 10, 1999
The Berkeley Free Speech movement was one of the most important events of the 1960s. It represented the birth of the New Left. Student support for the movement was overwhelming, and the movement’s victory was total. Never again would students be as successful as they had been at Berkeley. Columbia was a stunning example of the defeat of the New Left. What was it about Berkeley that inspired the Free Speech Movement and what were the conditions that caused it to be so successful?
The Free Speech Movement occurred when Clark Kerr attempted to ban all political activity on campus. When political activity continued, the police arrested Jack Weinberg. Thousands of students surrounded the police car, and refused to let it drive off. A Free Speech Committee was formed, which included representatives from all of the affected organizations. An agreement was worked out with the administration, but when the administration attempted to go back on its part of the deal, enraged students occupied a University building. When they were forcibly cleared by policeman, students used tactics of non-violent resistance that they had learned during the civil rights movement. Faculty, student, and public sympathy for the Free Speech Movement became overwhelming, and the administration had no choice but to concede to the students demands.
When writing about the Free Speech Movement, Alexander Worst asserts, "If there was going to be a student rebellion, then certainly Berkeley, California was a logical place for it to start" (Worst 276). Clark Kerr, the administrator unfortunate enough to be in charge during this turbulent time, later said
What was it about San Francisco and Berkeley that caused this attitude?
Mario Savio, one of the leaders of the Free Speech Movement, wrote:
Berkeley was located right on the San Francisco Bay, only a short distance away from San Francisco (Worst 276). San Francisco had long been a haven of radicalism: "From the time of Jack London, the Bay Area has tolerated all shades of political radicalism" (Bacciocco 149). Compared to the rest of the nation, San Francisco had a relatively strong Communist presence (Unger 82). Mario Savio, called the Bay Area "one of the few places left in the United States where a history of personal involvement in radical politics was not a form of leprosy" (Savio 2).
Both Berkeley and San Francisco had been favorite hangouts of the Beat poets. Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and Neal Cassady all lived in Berkeley for a period (Gitlin 46). David Steigerwald described Berkeley as the "mecca of the Beats" (Steigerwald 132). When Allen Ginsberg arrived in Berkeley, he encountered, "a kaleidoscope of poets, dedicated feverishly to their work" (Worst 68). Ginsberg wrote back to New York that in Berkeley "there are a few hidden and excellent poets -- a kind of buddhist influenced post Pound post Williams classicism full of independence and humor AND gift of gab, native word-slinging" (Ginsberg in Worst 68).
Berkeley, along with Greenwich Village, had become the nation’s post-bohemian center. Described as "quick to the point of faddishness in responding to the times" (Worst 276), in the years following the Free Speech Movement, Berkeley would become home to hippies, psychedelics and acid rock. Like its neighboring San Francisco, Berkeley was no stranger to leftist movements. "FSM's [Free Speech Movement’s] appearance at Berkeley, though spontaneous, was not accidental. Leftist students had been organizing there for years" ( Steigerwald 132).
Even though Berkeley had a strong leftist presence, it was no stranger to communist repression. In an effort to squash campus communists, who were organizing at Berkeley in the 1930s, the administration banned all forms of politics (Steigerwald 132). This was the issue over which the Free Speech Movement would be fought. During the height of McCarthyism, Berkeley joined in the fray. It required a loyalty oath of its entire faculty that they were not, nor ever had been, members of the Communist party. Twenty-six members of the faculty were terminated for refusing to take the oath, an additional thirty-seven members resigned in protest; forty-seven outside scholars turned down job offers, causing fifty-five courses to be eliminated. Although the court later reinstated the faculty dismissed, the episode caused a tremendous amount of bitterness. Also put in place was a ban on Communist speakers on Berkeley’s campus. This was removed in 1963 after "a long series of student protests, rallies, polls, ASUC [student government] and club petitions, and other pressures organized against the ban after 1960 in Berkeley" (Draper 8). The ban had proven to be counter-productive, causing sympathy for the communists and increasing their off-campus audiences. The most publicized example occurred in 1963 when Communist party writer Herbert Aptheker was denied permission to speak at Berkeley after being invited by the history department to give a strictly academic talk on African-American history.
One of the first student organizations to refuse to subscribe to anti-communism was SLATE. The pre-cursor to the Berkeley New Left, SLATE was formed in 1958 and originally named Toward an Active Student Community. SLATE was a loosely structured organization of leftists which won the first student election the following year in 1959. SLATE fiercely championed Civil Rights and academic freedom, but what antagonized the administration the most was its refusal to add an anticommunist disclaimer to its charter.
The school year of 1959/1960 proved to be chaotic for Berkeley. It began when a 17 year-old student, the son of an Air Force colonel, was expelled for conducting a seven-day fast in protest of compulsory ROTC (Worst 168). Another event of consequence was the execution of Caryl Chessman on May 2, 1960. Chessman was young, came from an impoverished family, and had been in jail since 1948 for a 20 day crime spree which included 17 felonies (eight counts of robbery, four counts of kidnapping, two counts of sex perversion, one attempted robbery, one attempted rape, and one auto theft) but no murder victim. Chessman had taken advantage of his prison time to study law and generally educate himself, as well as write an autobiography. Students believed the Chessman case represented how little the courts cared for the life of a poor man. On the eve of his execution, students from all over the bay area gathered at San Quentin to hold a silent vigil through the hour of his death. It was a radicalizing experience for many (Bacciocco 25). Controversy also arouse when the Board of Regents apologized to right-wing organizations for allowing a mild criticism of the FBI in a university document. The student newspaper, the Daily Californian, wrote an editorial comparing the FBI to the Gestapo (Worst 168).
Then in May of 1960, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) came to San Francisco to question witnesses about alleged Communist party activities in the Bay Area. The traditional adult opponents of HUAC were there to emphasize the damage HUAC had done in the past, but there was also a group of student protestors. Although many of the older adult radicals were surprised to see such a large student population, they should not have been. Berkeley students were affected by HUAC since twenty-five percent of those subpoenaed by HUAC were Berkeley faculty, and even one Berkeley student was subpoenaed. Leaders of the Bay Area’s civil rights organizations were also summoned. Carl Wertherman, a reporter, classified the students who protested into four major groups: former leaders of the now inactive Student Civil Liberties Union, SLATE, Young Peoples Socialist League, and unorganized graduate students who had previously been apolitical. The changing attitudes in the graduate students showed that politics was becoming increasingly important for Berkeley students.
A picket line formed outside of city hall, but students were not allowed at the hearings. Wheeler, the Committee investigator, said, "there were about 150 passes. I issued them to individuals – to keep the Commies from stacking the meeting. We wanted some decent people in there" (Wheeler in Huberman and Prickett). After student leaders met with Berkeley Sheriff William Carberry, he agreed to let people in on a first-come first serve basis. The next day, however, the pass system was again in effect. Police Inspector Michael McGuire was admitting white-card holders (those with a pass), when he noticed a number of students filing in. He grabbed one roughly, but when the student angrily shouted, "I’ve got a white card!" McGuire let him go. McGuire seized another student, who shoved a camera into his face and hit the flash. While McGuire recovered, several students slipped into the Chambers.
The rest of the students attempted to climb the barricades and gain entrance into the hearings while those already inside disrupted the hearings by singing "The Star Spangled Banner." McGuire opened the fire hose on the demonstrators inside city hall. Witness and reporter Fred Haines described the scene:
The students who had been knocked over by the hoses simply returned to their seats, singing "We Shall Not Be Moved." The police came in swinging their clubs wildly. Having cleared the area of most demonstrators, the police proceeded to throw those remaining down the stairs. "Bodies cascaded over the stone and blood mixed with the water" (Worst 170). Sixty-three students were arrested on May 13, 1960, a day that became known as "Black Friday" in Berkeley legend. The students were beaten, but not defeated. As a result of the publicity Black Friday received, they returned eight thousand strong the following day.
That summer, HUAC released Operation Abolition, a movie that documented the demonstrations. Operation Abolition "scrambled footage and invented facts to present the committee as the victim of a Communist-run campaign" (Gitlin 82). The film was clumsily done (including obviously fake backgrounds), overly melodramatic, and filled with verbal cliches. The film was shown on college campuses throughout the nation, but did not have the intended effect. Young people saw other young people being clubbed by policemen as they non-violently protested. Former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) President Todd Gitlin called it "a recruiting film for a New Left that barely existed." Young people eager to become more radical came to Berkeley, and the political climate of the city went even further to the left.
The film Operation Abolition was also shown on Berkeley’s campus. After the film, SLATE turned on a record, "Sounds of Protests" as a reply. Because this violated Berkeley’s strict laws on political activity, SLATE eventually lost its status as an on-campus organization (Draper 7).
Student radicals were increasingly attracted to Berkeley and student radicalism had one important issue in the early 60s: civil rights. Civil rights had been the dominant issue on the left in northern California for some time before this, but it spread quickly to Berkeley following 1960. Students actively raised money and recruited workers for the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE). There were not many African-Americans in Berkeley (although Oakland was not far away), however the students had no lack of racist targets.
In 1960, the civil rights movement hit the Bay Area when the National Student Association began picketing Woolworth and Kress, imitating the style of Southern sit-ins. At the time, NAACP and CORE numbered just over 100 people on Berkeley’s campus.
During the academic school year of 1963-64, hundreds of students picketed the racist hiring policies of local businesses. Many of these students had spent the summer in the South working as volunteers for SNCC or CORE and they returned to Berkeley energized. The first target ws the restaurant chain Mel’s Drive –In. Campus CORE refused to participate on the grounds that it was politically motivated since one of Mel’s owners was a candidate for Mayor of San Francisco, and it lacked monitors to prevent violence. Ninety-three demonstrators were arrested, 37 of whom were students at Berkeley. By November Mel’s gave in to the students’ demands and they moved on to other targets (Bacciocco 150).
By this time there were several student groups working for civil rights in Berkeley including SLATE and the recently organized W.E.B. Du Bois club which was affiliated with the Young Communists. All of these groups combined their forces in the Direct Action Committee which coordinated civil rights protests. Of these groups, only campus CORE and Friends of SNCC were technically university clubs, but the members of almost all of them were predominately students. At Lucky food stores they held "shop-ins." Students filled carts with food, unloaded them at the checkout line and left in front of shocked clerks. Lucky food stores were told the "shop-ins" would continue until African-Americans were employed at the store. The company soon gave in. The protests reached a peak in March as students picketed the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. Thousands of students showed up on three successive nights. Before the hotel signed a minority hiring agreement, 767 students were arrested (Worst 283).
Intoxicated by success, the Direct Action Committee allied itself with CORE and the NAACP. Their next attack was on car dealers along San Francisco’s "Automobile Row." Three hundred students were arrested in the protests that followed. The tactics that the Berkeley students had learned in these civil rights campaign would later be used in the Free Speech Movement.
It was during the civil rights campaign that the students made a powerful enemy: William P. Knowland. Knowland was a right-wing former supporter of Joe McCarthy. "Knowland’s redeeming quality was that, like most American right-wingers, he was a blunderer. Even when the wind is blowing their way, right-wing politicians manage to turn around when they have to spit" (Conlin 115). Knowland had a secure seat in the Senate when he bullied incumbent Republican Governor Goodwin Knight, into swapping nominations. Knowland ran for Governor while Knight ran for the Senate. It was too much for California voters and both were defeated, sweeping liberal democrats into power two years before Kennedy became president. Knowland was the editor of the Oakland Tribune and
Students picketed the Tribune’s office regularly.
The situation was not helped over the summer. While the student population moved increasingly Left, the California Republican Party shifted to the Right. Since World War II, California had been in the hands of liberal Republicans. The party had been gradually moving away from liberalism and in 1964 Barry Goldwater won the Republican Presidential Primary over the more liberal Nelson Rockefeller. At the same time, the control of the state party switched to conservative Republicans, followers of Ronald Reagan. "For the first time within man’s memory, the Berkeley campus became a hotbed of political activity not only by radicals but also by conservative students" (Draper 11). Various anti-Goldwater demonstrations took place, as conservative students championed the more moderate republicans: Lodge, Scranton, and Rockefeller.
At the Republican National Convention in San Francisco in July, party moderates desperately turned to Berkeley "to recruit an army of demonstrators" (Worst 284). Despite marches through San Francisco, Goldwater won, and the conservatives took power. The conservatives had always eyed Berkeley with suspicion, now after the anti-Goldwater protests, they were determined to do something about the campus.
The civil rights issue had not been dormant over the summer. The courts were still jammed with cases from the previous school year, and in June campus CORE sponsored a sit-in at the U.S. District Attorney’s office to protest inaction on the Mississippi murders. The demonstrators were removed by force. Bay Area CORE even began organizing against the Bank of America. It was during this time that the Direct Action Committee launched a picket line against Knowland’s Oakland Tribune. The timing could have been better. With the rising tide of conservatism, Knowland was not about to roll over and let the students win.
Knowland found his solution to the students. His reporters discovered that the Bancroft Strip (also known as Sproul Plaza) on which the civil rights groups did most of their recruiting, was technically on university property and therefor violated the campus-wide ban on political activity. "It was universally assumed, even by the U.C. administration, that Sproul Plaza was city property. … In fact this was not so. Sproul Plaza was university property. … But for reasons lost as irretrievably as Leviticus’s pork taboo, the university administration never interfered with political activity there" (Conlin 117).
The Oakland Tribune called for an end to political activity on Bancroft Strip. Under pressure from Knowland and the Oakland Tribune, as well as from the Bank of America, the Berkeley administration announced that the Bancroft Strip could no longer be used for political recruiting. The students had been energized in the civil rights movement and had learned the principles of non-violent confrontation, as well as how to win. And so, on October 1, 1964, when police arrested Jack Weinberg for recruiting for CORE, and two thousand students surrounded the police car, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement began.
Clark Kerr was right when he realized that Berkeley was bound to be trouble at some point given the nature of the campus. The rising radicalism within Berkeley and the growing conservatism in California was an explosive mix, and both factors provoked the Free Speech Movement. The Free Speech Movement was also a result of a radical tradition in Berkeley and the bay area, which both created and attracted student radicals. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement was a result of previously existing conditions in Berkeley and in the bay area.
Bibliography
Anderson, Terry. The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in America from Greensboro to Wounded Knee. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995.
Bacciocco, Edward. The New Left in America: Reform to Revolution 1956-1970. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. 1974.
Conlin, Joseph. The Troubles: A Jaundiced Glance Back at the Movement of the Sixties. New York: Franklin Watts. 1982.
Draper, Hal. Berkeley: The New Student Revolt. Berkeley. The Center for Socialist Studies. 1965
Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books. 1987.
Steigerwald, David. The Sixties and the End of Modern America. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1995.
Unger, Irwin, Debi Unger. Turning Point: 1968. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1988.
Savio, Mario. Introduction to Berkeley: the New Student Revolt. Berkeley. The Center for Socialist Studies. 1965
Worst, Milton. Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1979.
Professor's Comments: This is a solid description of events leading up to the Free Speech Movement. Can you put it in a larger context--especially can you indicate what it has to do with the West?
Grade: B+
The Berkeley Free Speech movement was one of the most important events of the 1960s. It represented the birth of the New Left. Student support for the movement was overwhelming, and the movement’s victory was total. Never again would students be as successful as they had been at Berkeley. Columbia was a stunning example of the defeat of the New Left. What was it about Berkeley that inspired the Free Speech Movement and what were the conditions that caused it to be so successful?
The Free Speech Movement occurred when Clark Kerr attempted to ban all political activity on campus. When political activity continued, the police arrested Jack Weinberg. Thousands of students surrounded the police car, and refused to let it drive off. A Free Speech Committee was formed, which included representatives from all of the affected organizations. An agreement was worked out with the administration, but when the administration attempted to go back on its part of the deal, enraged students occupied a University building. When they were forcibly cleared by policeman, students used tactics of non-violent resistance that they had learned during the civil rights movement. Faculty, student, and public sympathy for the Free Speech Movement became overwhelming, and the administration had no choice but to concede to the students demands.
When writing about the Free Speech Movement, Alexander Worst asserts, "If there was going to be a student rebellion, then certainly Berkeley, California was a logical place for it to start" (Worst 276). Clark Kerr, the administrator unfortunate enough to be in charge during this turbulent time, later said
As an avant-garde campus, Berkeley was going to be in trouble at
some point. It didn't have to be at that time over this issue. But given the
nature of San Francisco and the tradition of the Berkeley campus and what was
going on around the world, in Japan in 1960 and the movement of the blacks,
Berkeley was going to be in trouble at some time (Kerr in Worst).
What was it about San Francisco and Berkeley that caused this attitude?
Mario Savio, one of the leaders of the Free Speech Movement, wrote:
The Berkeley campus is very close to the urban problems of Oakland
and San Francisco, but not in either city. On campus it is virtually impossible
for the thoughtful to banish social problems from active consideration. Many
students find it impossible not to be in some sense engage. The shame of urban
America (just south of campus or across the bay) forces itself upon the
conscience of the community (Savio 2).
Berkeley was located right on the San Francisco Bay, only a short distance away from San Francisco (Worst 276). San Francisco had long been a haven of radicalism: "From the time of Jack London, the Bay Area has tolerated all shades of political radicalism" (Bacciocco 149). Compared to the rest of the nation, San Francisco had a relatively strong Communist presence (Unger 82). Mario Savio, called the Bay Area "one of the few places left in the United States where a history of personal involvement in radical politics was not a form of leprosy" (Savio 2).
Both Berkeley and San Francisco had been favorite hangouts of the Beat poets. Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg, and Neal Cassady all lived in Berkeley for a period (Gitlin 46). David Steigerwald described Berkeley as the "mecca of the Beats" (Steigerwald 132). When Allen Ginsberg arrived in Berkeley, he encountered, "a kaleidoscope of poets, dedicated feverishly to their work" (Worst 68). Ginsberg wrote back to New York that in Berkeley "there are a few hidden and excellent poets -- a kind of buddhist influenced post Pound post Williams classicism full of independence and humor AND gift of gab, native word-slinging" (Ginsberg in Worst 68).
Berkeley, along with Greenwich Village, had become the nation’s post-bohemian center. Described as "quick to the point of faddishness in responding to the times" (Worst 276), in the years following the Free Speech Movement, Berkeley would become home to hippies, psychedelics and acid rock. Like its neighboring San Francisco, Berkeley was no stranger to leftist movements. "FSM's [Free Speech Movement’s] appearance at Berkeley, though spontaneous, was not accidental. Leftist students had been organizing there for years" ( Steigerwald 132).
Even though Berkeley had a strong leftist presence, it was no stranger to communist repression. In an effort to squash campus communists, who were organizing at Berkeley in the 1930s, the administration banned all forms of politics (Steigerwald 132). This was the issue over which the Free Speech Movement would be fought. During the height of McCarthyism, Berkeley joined in the fray. It required a loyalty oath of its entire faculty that they were not, nor ever had been, members of the Communist party. Twenty-six members of the faculty were terminated for refusing to take the oath, an additional thirty-seven members resigned in protest; forty-seven outside scholars turned down job offers, causing fifty-five courses to be eliminated. Although the court later reinstated the faculty dismissed, the episode caused a tremendous amount of bitterness. Also put in place was a ban on Communist speakers on Berkeley’s campus. This was removed in 1963 after "a long series of student protests, rallies, polls, ASUC [student government] and club petitions, and other pressures organized against the ban after 1960 in Berkeley" (Draper 8). The ban had proven to be counter-productive, causing sympathy for the communists and increasing their off-campus audiences. The most publicized example occurred in 1963 when Communist party writer Herbert Aptheker was denied permission to speak at Berkeley after being invited by the history department to give a strictly academic talk on African-American history.
One of the first student organizations to refuse to subscribe to anti-communism was SLATE. The pre-cursor to the Berkeley New Left, SLATE was formed in 1958 and originally named Toward an Active Student Community. SLATE was a loosely structured organization of leftists which won the first student election the following year in 1959. SLATE fiercely championed Civil Rights and academic freedom, but what antagonized the administration the most was its refusal to add an anticommunist disclaimer to its charter.
The school year of 1959/1960 proved to be chaotic for Berkeley. It began when a 17 year-old student, the son of an Air Force colonel, was expelled for conducting a seven-day fast in protest of compulsory ROTC (Worst 168). Another event of consequence was the execution of Caryl Chessman on May 2, 1960. Chessman was young, came from an impoverished family, and had been in jail since 1948 for a 20 day crime spree which included 17 felonies (eight counts of robbery, four counts of kidnapping, two counts of sex perversion, one attempted robbery, one attempted rape, and one auto theft) but no murder victim. Chessman had taken advantage of his prison time to study law and generally educate himself, as well as write an autobiography. Students believed the Chessman case represented how little the courts cared for the life of a poor man. On the eve of his execution, students from all over the bay area gathered at San Quentin to hold a silent vigil through the hour of his death. It was a radicalizing experience for many (Bacciocco 25). Controversy also arouse when the Board of Regents apologized to right-wing organizations for allowing a mild criticism of the FBI in a university document. The student newspaper, the Daily Californian, wrote an editorial comparing the FBI to the Gestapo (Worst 168).
Then in May of 1960, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) came to San Francisco to question witnesses about alleged Communist party activities in the Bay Area. The traditional adult opponents of HUAC were there to emphasize the damage HUAC had done in the past, but there was also a group of student protestors. Although many of the older adult radicals were surprised to see such a large student population, they should not have been. Berkeley students were affected by HUAC since twenty-five percent of those subpoenaed by HUAC were Berkeley faculty, and even one Berkeley student was subpoenaed. Leaders of the Bay Area’s civil rights organizations were also summoned. Carl Wertherman, a reporter, classified the students who protested into four major groups: former leaders of the now inactive Student Civil Liberties Union, SLATE, Young Peoples Socialist League, and unorganized graduate students who had previously been apolitical. The changing attitudes in the graduate students showed that politics was becoming increasingly important for Berkeley students.
A picket line formed outside of city hall, but students were not allowed at the hearings. Wheeler, the Committee investigator, said, "there were about 150 passes. I issued them to individuals – to keep the Commies from stacking the meeting. We wanted some decent people in there" (Wheeler in Huberman and Prickett). After student leaders met with Berkeley Sheriff William Carberry, he agreed to let people in on a first-come first serve basis. The next day, however, the pass system was again in effect. Police Inspector Michael McGuire was admitting white-card holders (those with a pass), when he noticed a number of students filing in. He grabbed one roughly, but when the student angrily shouted, "I’ve got a white card!" McGuire let him go. McGuire seized another student, who shoved a camera into his face and hit the flash. While McGuire recovered, several students slipped into the Chambers.
The rest of the students attempted to climb the barricades and gain entrance into the hearings while those already inside disrupted the hearings by singing "The Star Spangled Banner." McGuire opened the fire hose on the demonstrators inside city hall. Witness and reporter Fred Haines described the scene:
The singing broke up into one gigantic horrified scream. People
fled past me as I ran forward, trying to see what was going on; … For the first
time I had a moment to think, to take stock of the situation … during the past
few minutes they’d dumped thousands of gallons of water inside a public
building, causing several thousand dollars worthy of damage (not counting
whatever human injury there had been). And they had accomplished nothing.
Perhaps 50 people of the 200 had fled … now they had 150 people wet, angry, and
injured, most of whom were rooted to the spot and determined to make as much
noise as ever before (Haines in Huberman and Prickett 4-5).
The students who had been knocked over by the hoses simply returned to their seats, singing "We Shall Not Be Moved." The police came in swinging their clubs wildly. Having cleared the area of most demonstrators, the police proceeded to throw those remaining down the stairs. "Bodies cascaded over the stone and blood mixed with the water" (Worst 170). Sixty-three students were arrested on May 13, 1960, a day that became known as "Black Friday" in Berkeley legend. The students were beaten, but not defeated. As a result of the publicity Black Friday received, they returned eight thousand strong the following day.
That summer, HUAC released Operation Abolition, a movie that documented the demonstrations. Operation Abolition "scrambled footage and invented facts to present the committee as the victim of a Communist-run campaign" (Gitlin 82). The film was clumsily done (including obviously fake backgrounds), overly melodramatic, and filled with verbal cliches. The film was shown on college campuses throughout the nation, but did not have the intended effect. Young people saw other young people being clubbed by policemen as they non-violently protested. Former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) President Todd Gitlin called it "a recruiting film for a New Left that barely existed." Young people eager to become more radical came to Berkeley, and the political climate of the city went even further to the left.
The film Operation Abolition was also shown on Berkeley’s campus. After the film, SLATE turned on a record, "Sounds of Protests" as a reply. Because this violated Berkeley’s strict laws on political activity, SLATE eventually lost its status as an on-campus organization (Draper 7).
Student radicals were increasingly attracted to Berkeley and student radicalism had one important issue in the early 60s: civil rights. Civil rights had been the dominant issue on the left in northern California for some time before this, but it spread quickly to Berkeley following 1960. Students actively raised money and recruited workers for the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE). There were not many African-Americans in Berkeley (although Oakland was not far away), however the students had no lack of racist targets.
In 1960, the civil rights movement hit the Bay Area when the National Student Association began picketing Woolworth and Kress, imitating the style of Southern sit-ins. At the time, NAACP and CORE numbered just over 100 people on Berkeley’s campus.
During the academic school year of 1963-64, hundreds of students picketed the racist hiring policies of local businesses. Many of these students had spent the summer in the South working as volunteers for SNCC or CORE and they returned to Berkeley energized. The first target ws the restaurant chain Mel’s Drive –In. Campus CORE refused to participate on the grounds that it was politically motivated since one of Mel’s owners was a candidate for Mayor of San Francisco, and it lacked monitors to prevent violence. Ninety-three demonstrators were arrested, 37 of whom were students at Berkeley. By November Mel’s gave in to the students’ demands and they moved on to other targets (Bacciocco 150).
By this time there were several student groups working for civil rights in Berkeley including SLATE and the recently organized W.E.B. Du Bois club which was affiliated with the Young Communists. All of these groups combined their forces in the Direct Action Committee which coordinated civil rights protests. Of these groups, only campus CORE and Friends of SNCC were technically university clubs, but the members of almost all of them were predominately students. At Lucky food stores they held "shop-ins." Students filled carts with food, unloaded them at the checkout line and left in front of shocked clerks. Lucky food stores were told the "shop-ins" would continue until African-Americans were employed at the store. The company soon gave in. The protests reached a peak in March as students picketed the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. Thousands of students showed up on three successive nights. Before the hotel signed a minority hiring agreement, 767 students were arrested (Worst 283).
Intoxicated by success, the Direct Action Committee allied itself with CORE and the NAACP. Their next attack was on car dealers along San Francisco’s "Automobile Row." Three hundred students were arrested in the protests that followed. The tactics that the Berkeley students had learned in these civil rights campaign would later be used in the Free Speech Movement.
It was during the civil rights campaign that the students made a powerful enemy: William P. Knowland. Knowland was a right-wing former supporter of Joe McCarthy. "Knowland’s redeeming quality was that, like most American right-wingers, he was a blunderer. Even when the wind is blowing their way, right-wing politicians manage to turn around when they have to spit" (Conlin 115). Knowland had a secure seat in the Senate when he bullied incumbent Republican Governor Goodwin Knight, into swapping nominations. Knowland ran for Governor while Knight ran for the Senate. It was too much for California voters and both were defeated, sweeping liberal democrats into power two years before Kennedy became president. Knowland was the editor of the Oakland Tribune and
took to railing against subversives in every corner. He was a
dependable screamer in the HUAC fracas and took one of the frankest
prosegregationist stands to be found outside the South. He smeared King and
other civil rights leaders as, at best, dupes of the Kremlin" (Conlin
116).
Students picketed the Tribune’s office regularly.
The situation was not helped over the summer. While the student population moved increasingly Left, the California Republican Party shifted to the Right. Since World War II, California had been in the hands of liberal Republicans. The party had been gradually moving away from liberalism and in 1964 Barry Goldwater won the Republican Presidential Primary over the more liberal Nelson Rockefeller. At the same time, the control of the state party switched to conservative Republicans, followers of Ronald Reagan. "For the first time within man’s memory, the Berkeley campus became a hotbed of political activity not only by radicals but also by conservative students" (Draper 11). Various anti-Goldwater demonstrations took place, as conservative students championed the more moderate republicans: Lodge, Scranton, and Rockefeller.
At the Republican National Convention in San Francisco in July, party moderates desperately turned to Berkeley "to recruit an army of demonstrators" (Worst 284). Despite marches through San Francisco, Goldwater won, and the conservatives took power. The conservatives had always eyed Berkeley with suspicion, now after the anti-Goldwater protests, they were determined to do something about the campus.
The civil rights issue had not been dormant over the summer. The courts were still jammed with cases from the previous school year, and in June campus CORE sponsored a sit-in at the U.S. District Attorney’s office to protest inaction on the Mississippi murders. The demonstrators were removed by force. Bay Area CORE even began organizing against the Bank of America. It was during this time that the Direct Action Committee launched a picket line against Knowland’s Oakland Tribune. The timing could have been better. With the rising tide of conservatism, Knowland was not about to roll over and let the students win.
Knowland found his solution to the students. His reporters discovered that the Bancroft Strip (also known as Sproul Plaza) on which the civil rights groups did most of their recruiting, was technically on university property and therefor violated the campus-wide ban on political activity. "It was universally assumed, even by the U.C. administration, that Sproul Plaza was city property. … In fact this was not so. Sproul Plaza was university property. … But for reasons lost as irretrievably as Leviticus’s pork taboo, the university administration never interfered with political activity there" (Conlin 117).
The Oakland Tribune called for an end to political activity on Bancroft Strip. Under pressure from Knowland and the Oakland Tribune, as well as from the Bank of America, the Berkeley administration announced that the Bancroft Strip could no longer be used for political recruiting. The students had been energized in the civil rights movement and had learned the principles of non-violent confrontation, as well as how to win. And so, on October 1, 1964, when police arrested Jack Weinberg for recruiting for CORE, and two thousand students surrounded the police car, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement began.
Clark Kerr was right when he realized that Berkeley was bound to be trouble at some point given the nature of the campus. The rising radicalism within Berkeley and the growing conservatism in California was an explosive mix, and both factors provoked the Free Speech Movement. The Free Speech Movement was also a result of a radical tradition in Berkeley and the bay area, which both created and attracted student radicals. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement was a result of previously existing conditions in Berkeley and in the bay area.
Bibliography
Anderson, Terry. The Movement and the Sixties: Protest in America from Greensboro to Wounded Knee. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995.
Bacciocco, Edward. The New Left in America: Reform to Revolution 1956-1970. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. 1974.
Conlin, Joseph. The Troubles: A Jaundiced Glance Back at the Movement of the Sixties. New York: Franklin Watts. 1982.
Draper, Hal. Berkeley: The New Student Revolt. Berkeley. The Center for Socialist Studies. 1965
Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books. 1987.
Steigerwald, David. The Sixties and the End of Modern America. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1995.
Unger, Irwin, Debi Unger. Turning Point: 1968. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1988.
Savio, Mario. Introduction to Berkeley: the New Student Revolt. Berkeley. The Center for Socialist Studies. 1965
Worst, Milton. Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1979.
Professor's Comments: This is a solid description of events leading up to the Free Speech Movement. Can you put it in a larger context--especially can you indicate what it has to do with the West?
Grade: B+
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
The Sandinista Revolution in Christian Periodicals
Google: drive, docs, pub
Video 1, Video 2, Playlist
Introduction
Events in Nicaragua have long been absent from the public eye in America. However, the Sandinista revolution made Nicaragua impossible to ignore. The issue of Nicaragua was one that was polarizing for the Christian Community, and was an issue that Christians were on both sides of. On one hand, most of the support in the United States for the Sandinista government came from Protestant churches. On the other hand, the Christian right vehemently opposed the Sandinista government, and supported Reagan’s efforts to overthrow it. How did Christian publications deal with the events in Nicaragua during the 1980s? To answer this question, let us look at two Christian Protestant periodicals, one conservative (Christianity Today), and one liberal (Christian Century). By examining Christianity Today and Christian Century from 1978 through 1990, we can better answer this question. In this paper, we will first look at a general history of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Then we will look more in depth at Protestant periodicals, and Christianity Today and Christian Century in general. Next we will look at the feedback each magazine received from its readers. Afterwards, we will examine one article in detail, before examining the two magazines year by year, and finally we will draw some conclusions.1
In looking at the United States attitude towards the Sandinistas, Christian periodicals are of interest because Christians were heavily involved on both sides of the debate.
Many Protestant churches were pro-Sandinista. In fact, Protestant groups such as Witness for Peace traveled in Nicaragua to try find out what was really happening down there and contrast it to the reports the Reagan administration was giving. These people believed that the Sandinistas were a truly great form of government. They thought that the Sandinistas were Christian democratic socialists. Because of their support for the Sandinistas, and because they traveled Nicaragua in Sandals, they were called "Sandalistas" by the Nicaraguans.2 On the other side was the Christian right. They believed the Sandinistas were a totalitarian communist government, which was actively violating human rights and suppressing the church. Pat Robertson, who prayed on television that God would help those in Nicaragua who are fighting against communism, and raised money through his television show for the Contras, was an example of this.
The Nicaraguan Revolution
To fully understand the history of Nicaragua, it is necessary to go back to 1893, when Jose Santos Zelaya of the liberal party was elected President of Nicaragua. Zelaya ensured Nicaraguan sovereignty by taking Nicaraguan’s Bluefields and the Miskito Coast back from the British. Zelaya also attempted to stop the growth of United States (U.S.) influence on Nicaragua. He accepted U.S. aid to get the British off the Caribbean coast, but refused to grant the United States the right to build a canal, and imposed restrictions on American investors. The United States grew upset with Zelaya, and attempted to remove him from power. Diplomatic and eventually military support went to Nicaragua’s Conservative Party, which overthrew Zelaya and established a government more acceptable to U.S. interests. However, the conservative government proved ineffective. Social and political unrest grew, and a young liberal, Benjamin Zeledon, formed a rebellion. Because United States investors would be in serious jeopardy if Zeledon won, the U.S. sent the Marines into Nicaragua to help put down the Rebellion in 1912. The conservative government of Nicaragua accepted the United States Marines, and the economy was placed under the control of the New York banks. The presence of United States troops, however, only served to increase the resentment felt by the Nicaraguan people against the conservative government. When the Marines tried to leave in 1926, the Conservative Government faced armed resistance, and the Marines returned. The United States attempted to work out a compromise between the Conservative Government and the Liberal Resistance. However the Liberals, led by Augusto Sandino refused to lay down their arms. Sandino’s tactics of guerilla warfare prompted the U.S. to create a National Guard out of the indigenous population. Anastasio Somoza Garcia, who had lived in the United States as a car dealer, was made the head of the National Guard.
The United States troops withdrew in 1933, leaving Somoza in charge of the National Guard. Somoza entered into negotiations with Sandino, and when Sandino came to negotiate he was ambushed and killed by Somoza’s National Guard. This was followed by massacres of hundreds of men, woman, and children who lived in former guerrilla territory. Somoza encouraged his men to be corrupt and to engage in various forms of exploitative activity. This isolated them from the people, and made them more dependent on Somoza. In 1936, Somoza overthrew the elected president, and had himself inaugurated president.
Somoza and his National Guard were in control of Nicaragua. Somoza’s National Guard acted as a kind of legalized Mafia, where citizens wishing to engage in any legal or non-legal activity had to make sure to give the National Guard kickbacks. However, Somoza retained United States support by having his regime consistently back United States foreign policy. Somoza was entertained repeatedly at the White House.
In 1956 a young poet named Rigoberto Lopez Perez infiltrated a party given in honor of Somoza, and shot Somoza five times. Although Somoza died a few days later, his sons Luis and Anastasio became leaders. Luis died in 1967, and Anastasio became President until 1979. In 1972, an earthquake destroyed much of Managua, the capital city of Nicaragua. International relief poured in for the rebuilding of this city, but much of that relief money ended up in Somoza’s own pocket. This incident caused many Nicaraguans to be convinced of Somoza’s depravity, and increased the opposition to include a mixture of every class. In 1974, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) stepped up its attacks. Martial law was imposed, causing businessmen and Church leaders to speak out even more against Somoza. Somoza’s human rights were so bad that the Carter administration cut off aid to Nicaragua. (However, Carter would later praise Somoza for improving his human rights record, angering the Sandinistas). In January 1978, Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, leader of the moderate opposition to Somoza, was assassinated. Although the identity of his assassins was never established, most of Nicaragua blamed Somoza. In September of 1978, the FSLN was able to set off a massive popular uprising against Somoza. In desperation Somoza used planes and tanks against his own people, killing more than 2000. Somoza would often use airplanes to bomb cities the Sandinistas occupied then send in his troops to mop up. His troops would usually kill any young men who had the misfortune of being of fighting age. However, despite Somoza’s efforts on July 19, 1979, FSLN entered Managua triumphant.3
The Sandinista revolution worked out so well because all classes were able to unite against Somoza. Once the common enemy was gone, the problems began to appear. Somoza had looted the national treasury before he left, leaving Nicaragua with a huge debt and little resources to pay it off. The business community withdrew their representatives from the new government. Although many priests had fought beside, or in some cases even led the Sandinistas, tension developed between the Sandinistas and the Catholic Church. The United States was fearful that the Sandinistas would turn out to be a Marxist government and align themselves with the Soviet bloc. Although the United States, under Jimmy Carter, initially extended them economic aid, Ronald Reagan, who claimed that Nicaragua was shipping weapons to the leftist guerrillas in El Salvador, cut off this aid. Instead, the Reagan administration began direct military assistance to the exiled units of Somoza’s National Guard. It was determined that it was illegal for the United States to help the Contras because that was getting involved in another country’s civil war, which violated the United States constitution. However, the United States gave humanitarian aid to the Contras. It has been frequently argued that the food and medical supplies the United States supplied the Contras with enabled the Contras to spend more money on weapons.
Although the Sandinistas enjoyed aid from Cuba and the Soviet bloc, and they enjoyed popular support, they clashed with the organized business community, the Catholic church, Communist trade unions, Miskito Indians, and La Prensa (the leading newspaper). Furthermore, United States backed counterrevolutionaries (Contras) carried out acts of terrorism, economic sabotage, and raids inside Nicaragua’s boarders.
The two conflicts that received the most attention in the United States were the Catholic Church and the Miskito Indians.
The Catholic Church had supported the Sandinistas during the revolution. In many cases Catholic priests had fought side by side with the Sandinistas. In some instances, Catholic priests even led Sandinista units. Tomas Borge, the only surviving founder of the Sandinistas by 1979, was openly Christian. However, tension began to appear. The Sandinistas tried to make the People’s Church, a pro-revolution church created by the Sandinistas, into the official state church. The Catholic Church was skeptical of this, and refused to support the People’s Church. Reports began coming out of Nicaragua of mistreatment of Catholic priests, and some members of the Catholic church became openly vocal in their opposition to the Sandinistas.4
The Miskito Indians, on the other hand, were ethnic Indians who considered themselves Miskito’s first, Nicaraguans second if at all. The Miskito homeland was split right in two by the Nicaraguan/ Honduras border, but the Miskitos often disregarded this border. They were largely unaware of national politics, and when the Sandinistas showed up proudly declaring themselves as their liberators, the Miskitos thought they were just another group of foreign imperialists. The Sandinistas, not understanding the Miskitos, interpreted their resistance to Sandinista rule as counter-revolutionary activity. The Sandinistas also wished to protect the environment that the Miskitos were living in. They tried to stop the Miskitos from cutting down trees. Misunderstandings on both sides led to sometimes violent encounters. The most shocking were cases where Miskito villages were burned and the inhabitants massacred. This was never Sandinista policy, and the Sandinista government officially condemned the acts, but they were done by Sandinista soldiers.5
On November 4, 1984, the Sandinistas held their first election. Although the United States did its best to undermine the elections, more than four fifths of Nicaragua’s electorate voted, and the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega, won two thirds of the vote. Every international observer outside of the United States declared the elections valid. However, the Reagan administration refused to recognize the election, and continued efforts to undermine the Nicaraguan government.
In 1985, the Reagan administration embargoed all United States-Nicaraguan trade, and increased the military pressure. Nicaragua declared a state of emergency. However, the Contras made little headway, and opposition in the United States was increasing to Reagan’s policies. In 1987, the president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, proposed a peace plan. According to the peace plan, the Contras would disarm and internal democracy would be restored in Nicaragua. Both Reagan and the Contra leaders rejected the plan. However, when the United States congress cut off Contra aid, the Contras were forced to enter negotiation. Peace was eventually reached.
The height of United States media attention occurred in 1986 when it was revealed that the United States government sold weapons to Iran in hopes that the Iranian government would be able to help free U.S. citizens being held hostage in Lebanon. The money made from this sale went to help the Contras. Since this was an illegal act by the United States government that many believe was overseen by the president himself, it received much media attention.
In 1990, the next elections were held in Nicaragua. Although almost all involved parties expected the Sandinistas to win, many Nicaraguans were afraid of continued pressure from the United States if the Sandinistas remained in power. Instead, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro (widow of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro) of the National Opposition Union won with United States backing. She was sworn in as President in April of 1990.
Protestant Periodicals
Before looking closely at Christian Century and Christianity Today it is worth making some general comments about Protestant periodicals, and Christian periodicals in general.
Religious periodicals have a long history in the United States. In fact they rank among the earliest of the periodicals published in the English Colonies that later became the United States and have been popular ever since.6 Religious periodicals also serve an important function. Charles Austin, a Lutheran pastor, wrote that religious periodicals are vital because secular media often will ignore religious events, or is inept at reporting them. Religious periodicals also serve as an alternative source of media in which current events are looked at from a perspective of faith.7
Richard Ostling, news editor for Christianity Today in the 1960s once said, "All to many church periodicals are slow or sluggish in responding to the issues of the day".8 Ostling brings up an important dilemma faced by the editors of Christian magazines. Editors are often cautious about commenting too strongly on current day issues for fear they will offend their readers. However, if the magazine gets too bland, readers will turn away.9 This dilemma is clearly seen in the Nicaragua crisis.
For the purposes of this paper we will look at two Protestant periodicals, Christianity Today and Christian Century.
Christian Century can trace its history all the way back to 1884, when it was known as Christian Oracle. "The Century, characterized by its outspoken opinions on every aspect of contemporary life, grew to be one of the most influential religious periodicals in the United States".10 The Century has sought to be the voice of Christian liberalism throughout its publication. Over the course of its run, it has moved from dogmatism to developing a greater appreciation for the complexity of the human predicament.11
In 1972 James Wall became editor of the magazine, and has remained so all the way to the present. Although Christian Century is famous for its strong positions on contemporary issues, this became somewhat diminished under Wall (although it did not disappear completely). It was replaced by a "complex, pluralistic voice".12 Also under Wall, the Century turned its interest more to the third world, and gives high priority to matters of social justice.
Christian Century has a high level of readership. Its circulation since the 1920s has remained at between 35,000 and 40,000. Because of the large number of libraries that subscribe to it, readership is probably much higher. By 1963, the Christian Century was the only religious magazine among the 20 most requested periodicals at libraries.13 Although a liberal Protestant magazine, it has among its readers and contributors Catholics, Jews, and Evangelicals. The typical subscriber to Christian Century is generally a religious professional, either in a teacher at a college or seminary or a worker in the parish setting.14
Christianity Today, the other magazine, was founded in 1956 as the conservative response to the Protestant liberalism found in Christian Century. Its first editor, Carl Henry, described its founding as an attempt to give Christian Century "a run for its biases".15 Kenneth Dole wrote in the Washington Post and Times Herald that the magazine was "to conservative, fundamentalist, orthodox Protestants what the Christian Century is to more liberal believers".16 Described as neo-evangelical, the magazine has sought to write about American life from a conservative, evangelical stance. Billy Graham himself co-founded the magazine with his father-in-law L. Nelson Bell.
In 1978, when the Sandinista revolution came into the focus in American media, Kenneth S. Kantzer was editor of the magazine. Kantzer was interested in increasing the sophistication of the theology in the magazine. However, Kantzer was concerned about nurturing the community of evangelicals, and not causing dissension. Kantzer promised not to "condone any departure from biblical authority" but also said, "no personal vendetta will be carried out against those who may not disagree with us".17 V. Gilbert Beers was editor of the magazine from 1982 to 1985. Although Beers was not editor long enough to make an impact on the magazine, he continued the course set by Kantzer, and "steered the magazine into even calmer waters".18 In 1985, Christianity Today went through a structural change as former publisher and President Harold L. Myra became "publisher and executive editor". Myra led a committee of senior editors, which included former editors Beers and Kantzer. Described as "more of a businessman/ journalist than a theologian,"19 Myra successfully moved Christianity Today into an increasingly sophisticated market place.
Although the magazine began with a readership of intellectually sophisticated pastors and professors, it has moved to a mass audience over the years. This is reflected in the increasingly simple language used by the magazine. There has also been a shift in the authors of the magazine. Between 1959 to 1983, academics went from writing 58% of the material for Christianity Today to 36%.20
Feedback
One thing of interest is the letters readers will write back to the magazine. This shows not only what kind of audience the magazine has, but how much the audience supports the direction the magazine is taking. In 1979, when Christianity Today published its first few articles on the Sandinistas, not one reader response was printed. Christian Century did not print any reader response to its articles on Nicaragua either. Let us take three years in the 1980s where both magazines had articles on Nicaragua: 1981, 1985, and 1989. In 1981 Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua, and printed zero responses from readers. In 1985 Christianity Today published five articles on Nicaragua, and not one reader response was printed. In 1989 Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua, and again it printed zero reader responses. Since both magazines reserve for themselves the right to decide which letters will and will not be published, we should be careful about making the assumption that since no letters were published, that means no readers wrote in. Although both magazines frequently publish letters that are critical of the magazine itself or articles that appear in the magazine, nevertheless a selection process does occur. Since the criteria for selection is not known, no substantial conclusions can be drawn from the above data.
However, we may hypothesize that the lack of printed letters in Christianity Today could indicate the possibility that no readers responded. If this was the case (and as already stated we can not say for certain that it was) then we may conclude that the readers of Christianity Today were either not informed enough on Nicaragua to contest the articles in the magazine, agreed with the articles, or did not care. Since Christianity Today is pitched to a mass audience, perhaps the audience of the magazine was largely uniformed enough to contest the opinions of the magazine.
By contrast Christian Century contained two articles about Nicaragua in 1981, and printed one letter written in response. In 1985, Christian Century published twelve articles about Nicaragua and printed seven letters in response. In 1989, Christian Century published three articles on Nicaragua and printed one letter in response.
Many of the readers who wrote back to Christian Century were informed about the topic themselves. For instance, Paul Jeffery, who wrote a letter in 1981 in response to an article by Joseph Cassidy, would later write several of his own articles about Nicaragua in Christian Century. In 1985, Penn Keble and Michael Novak wrote to Christian Century representing the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). (Novak is also a well known rightist who has published several books and journal articles in addition to serving as a United States ambassador, a delegate for the United States, an advisor to the White House from 1974-1980, and a member of the faculty at Harvard and Notre Dame.)21 Charles W. Bare also wrote in 1985, representing the Ecumenical Services Association. In 1989, Alan Wisdom wrote in representing the IRD.
Since, the subscribers to Christian Century are generally religious professionals, often teachers at Colleges and Seminaries, it should be no surprise that some of them are informed enough to respond on the Nicaraguan issue.
Article in Detail
By examining one article in more detail, it may be helpful to gain a broader understanding of what goes into an article in general. In the October second issue in 1987 of Christianity Today Stephen Wykstra, a philosophy professor at Calvin College had an article published on the situation in Nicaragua. I had the privilege of talking to Dr. Wykstra on November 15, 1999.
Wykstra said the article was written at a time when he was pro-Sandinista. Wykstra was trying to oppose the institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), which, he believed, was trying to portray an untrue picture of the Sandinistas. Wykstra believed the media did not accurately represent what was going on in Nicaragua. After doing an intensive media analysis, Wykstra concluded that although the Contras were routinely butchering civilians, their atrocities never received much media attention. However, the Sandinista atrocities certainly caught the attention of the media.
The article is written in the style of objective journalism. That means, Wykstra said, that he quoted both sides without saying which side he thought was right. A reader, Wykstra said, reading an objective journalism article would not know what the opinion of the author was. The article quotes the accusations of the IRD are, and then includes a response to them by Ron Sider. Wykstra asserted he had to be careful in this article because of the conservative nature of Christianity Today’s audience.
The article is about Gustavo Parajon, whom Wykstra actually met in 1984. Parajon was head of the Evangelical Committee for Aid and Development (CEPAD). Because CEPAD was sympathetic to the Sandinistas, it had been under attack by the IRD. Wykstra used Ron Sider to reply to IRD’s accusations, because Ron Sider would have been well known to Christianity Today readers. Only a few months before Wykstra’s article, Christianity Today published an article in its July 10 issue entitled, "A talk with Ron Sider."
Wykstra thought his article was balanced. People thought he was a little extreme in those days, so it helped to have his article published in a mainline publication like Christianity Today. He got a good response to it, although he doesn’t remember any specific feedback. In fact, the only letter Christianity Today printed about Wykstra’s article appeared in the December 11 issue, and was by a professor from Fullerton College named Derry Seaton. Seaton was upset about another article Christianity Today had printed, and said it "typifies a too-common trait of assuming a single Christian perspective on current issues." Seaton said that, "The next article by Steve Wykstra on Gustavo Parajon is an example of better journalism".
Wykstra, on a trip to Washington, actually met the staff of Christianity Today, including Beth Spring. Their fairness and objectivity impressed him, as well as their commitment to the truth. Wykstra noted that Christianity Today was often caught in the middle between very pro-Sandinista groups like Sojourners, and anti-Sandinista groups like the IRD.
Year by Year
For the research involved in this paper, I have gone through and examined every article concerning Nicaragua in both Christianity Today and Christian Century from 1978 to 1990, with the intent of discovering what kind of coverage each magazine gave to events in Nicaragua, and how this changed over time. My findings are summarized below.
Before I began my reading the periodicals, I had certain expectations. I expected Christian Century to follow the trend of liberal Protestantism at the time and to be in support of the Sandinistas. Conversely, I expected Christianity Today to attack the Sandinistas.
In my readings I discovered that many of the articles in Christian Century and all of the articles in Christianity Today are written in the objective style of journalism. This means that the author will quote from both sides of the issue, and not let the reader know how he or she feels himself or herself. If objective journalism is done right, the reader will not know what the biases of the author are. However, there are methods that I employed to try and find the bias of a certain author. The events that the author chooses to focus on or not focus on are key. Also of note is how much proportional space each side received. If one side received much more space than the other, that is a sign that the author was biased towards that side. Finally, which side received the last word is also of interest. (Obviously, someone has to have the last word, so one can not read too much into this. However, taken into account with other factors this can sometimes be illuminating.)
One of the interesting things is the complete lack of coverage of Nicaragua in these periodicals before the Sandinistas. Take for example four different religious periodical indexes. There is the Index of Religious periodicals, which covers the period from 1948-1958 and indexes 15 different Christian journals. Also there is the Religion Index, which goes from 1949 to the present, and indexes 100 Christian journals. Next is the Christian Periodical Index, which contains 20 Christian journals, and covers the period from 1956 to the present. Finally, Guide to Religious and Semi-Religious Periodicals, which indexes 75 Christian Journals, and goes from 1965 to the present.
These indexes indicate that there were only 13 articles published about Nicaragua in any religious magazine before 1979. Of these, six were about the Earthquake that occurred in Managua on December 23, 1972. However, the earliest article of these six was not until March of 1973. The rest of the articles deal with the church and mission efforts in Nicaragua.
The Sandinistas were formed on July 23, 1960. They did not obtain much press coverage in the United States at first. Joshua Muravchik asserted that the heavy media coverage of the Nicaraguan civil war and the Sandinista movement became overwhelming in July of 1978.22 In the September 8, 1979 issue of Human Events, Evan Stanton wrote "Scarcely a day goes by, so it seems, without some breathless news dispatch from Nicaragua extolling the virtues of the Sandinista revolution".23 However Christianity Today would not have an article on the Nicaraguan revolution until August 17, 1979. Christian Century’s first reference to the revolution occurred in September of 1978.
Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua prior to the outbreak of United States media attention, one was in the December 21, 1973, and reported on the Managua earthquake, the other was on December 19, 1975, and reported on a religious revival in Managua following the earthquake. Nevertheless, Christianity Today was slower in responding to the crisis. Coverage started in July 1978, but their first article did not appear until August 17, 1979. This is consistent with Richard Ostling’s above view that religious periodicals are slow in responding to current issues.
1978In September of 1978, Christian Century featured an article that referred to the events in Nicaragua, while the focus of the article was actually on the Catholic Church in Central America. The article was not sympathetic to Somoza and mentions that his forces brutally beat a group of Catholic priests and then used them as shields. However, the article identified the teenage guerrillas as communists (the name Sandinista was not even used), and quoted a Catholic nun who said, "Communism is not what I want. I tell the young people that the communists do not respect individual liberty in any country they control".
One month later, in November, an article was published on seventeen hunger strikers in Paraguay. The article asserted that events in Nicaragua had monopolized the headlines, so that "the silent protest of 17 Paraguayan political prisoners hadn’t a chance of being heard". The article only had one sentence in describing Nicaragua, but it was a vivid one. "Teen-agers were standing off soldiers in hand-to-hand combat, refugees were streaming out of cities, a Red Cross ambulance and its occupants were riddled by machine-gun fire." An article in December of 1978 made a passing reference to Ernesto Cardenal, "a poet of stature in his native Nicaragua as well as one of the country’s most vociferous social critics".
An article on December 27, 1978, was the first full article by either magazine on the situation in Nicaragua. The article was very anti-Somoza, and quoted Daniel Aguirre of La Prensa, who said, "You must understand, everyone here is in the opposition". Although this was the first article by Christian Century to mention the Sandinistas by name, it said surprisingly little about them, preferring to focus on the conditions of Nicaragua instead.
1979
Most media coverage of the Sandinistas was favorable at first. Christianity Today was no exception. Despite the conservative leanings of the magazine, the first article published about the Sandinistas, in August of 1979 by Stephen Sywulka, did not come down as hard on the Sandinistas as it could have done. Although the article did mention that many were ambivalent because of "the communist influence in the Sandinista camp" it also mentioned that many evangelicals sympathized with the rebels.
The ambivalence continued two issues later as Sywulka described the new Sandinista government. Sywulka mentioned that "Somoza and his allies looted the treasury before they left", but for the most part he laid the blame for damage caused by the civil war on both sides. "Much of the industry around Managua is in ruins, having been bombed, looted, or burned by forces from both sides." Here Sywulka’s wording was misleading, for it implied the Sandinistas had participated in the bombing. However, the Sandinistas did not have the capability to bomb at that point, although aerial bombardment had clearly been one of Somoza’s favorite techniques.24
Sywulka mentioned that some pastors supported Somoza on the basis of Romans 13, but that many young Christians joined the Sandinistas. Sywulka included a quote by one church leader who said that believers should get ready to testify to a communist government, but also said that the Roman Catholic Church supported the Sandinistas, although "in recent weeks the Catholic church has disengaged itself, at least partially, from Sandinista politics".
It had been almost a year since reference was made to Nicaragua in Christian Century. The next reference was only in passing. In his article on El Salvador, Patrick Lacefield mentioned the Nicaraguan revolution, and how it had inspired hope in the people of El Salvador that El Salvador would be next. This implied that the revolution in Nicaragua was a positive thing. There was an article by Barbara Brown on hunger, which referred to the poverty in Nicaragua on October 10, 1979. In November, Robert Longman used Somoza as one of the few examples of a case where a government was so corrupt that it had been obvious to everyone. In December, the Nicaraguan revolution was mentioned as one of the top stories of 1979. Interestingly, the only facts given about he revolution were that it had overthrown Dictator Anastasio Somoza and several Catholic priests had been given prominent government positions.
1980
It was two days short of a year before Christianity Today published their next article on Nicaragua, on September 19, 1980. The author had changed, Paul Pretiz wrote instead of Sywulka. Paul Pretiz was much more optimistic concerning the Sandinistas, and he included several pro-Christianity quotes by Sandinista co-founder Tomas Borge. "As long as Sandinismo exist in Nicaragua, Christianity will continue to exist" and "You have heard us say, 'Sandinismo today, Sandinismo yesterday, Sandinismo forever' let me add, 'Jesus Christ today, Jesus Christ yesterday, Jesus Christ forever!'" The story is also told how Borge had forgiven the National Guard soldiers of Somoza who had castrated him, had killed his wife, and had forced him to watch while seventeen men gang raped and then killed his daughter. The article mentioned the Sandinistas literacy campaign, and how Christians were taking part of it. It also said "Despite recent fears that the Nicaraguan revolution would be taking a Cuban-style Communistic direction, the governing Junta appears to be demonstrating a desire to gain broad popular support among both Roman Catholics and Protestants". This article could hardly have been more pro-Sandinista.
The only reference to Nicaragua in Christian Century in 1980 was in the "News and Events" section, and was about how the pope had ordered six priests in the Sandinista government to step down so that they could meet the spiritual needs of people. The pope said lay Christians could take over their posts just as effectively.
1981
The March 27 issue of Christianity Today contained an article by Ronald Frase, a former missionary to Latin America who had recently visited Nicaragua. Frase’s article was strongly in favor of the Sandinistas. It contained quotes from two Americans living in Nicaragua who were upset because they thought things under the new Sandinista government were much more positive than the United States media had portrayed them. The article also interviewed Carlos Chamorro Coronel, part of the new government who, while he was not a Sandinista, supported their cause. Chamorro asserted that the revolution had not been a Marxist one, but a Christian one. The article also interviewed CEPAD director Gilberto Aguirre, who supported the Sandinistas as well. The article made no negative comments about the Sandinistas, nor included any quotations by anyone who opposed the Sandinistas. It is interesting, however, that the Editor of Christianity Today (Kenneth Kantzer) found it necessary to insert into Frase’s article that "Nicaragua’s Sandinista leadership has been closely linked to the flow of arms to Salvadoran guerillas". This seems to imply Kantzer was not quite as optimistic about the Sandinistas as Frase was.
The next article was in May, and was also extremely positive. Written by John Maust, this article mentioned that Tomas Borge (co-founder of the Sandinistas) had requested the Bibles. Much was made of the fact that Borge was a Christian, and the article also mentioned that Borge denounced and apologized for the murder of Somocistas by Sandinistas. Borge was quoted as saying revenge and murder were not Sandinista policy. The article said the Sandinistas have given full religious freedom to the church, and they had built a pool in prison for prisoners to be baptized. The article did mention, however, that in addition to many Christian literacy workers, there were many Marxist ones. The church leaders wanted to pump religious literature in to keep pace with the Marxist literature.
Christian Century in March detailed the conflict between the Sandinistas and the ethnic Indians of Nicaragua. An article by Joseph Cassidy on October 21 talked about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Sandinistas. Cassidy asserted that the Sandinistas wanted to form a close relationship with the Catholic Church, even though the Church was ambivalent about the Sandinista movement. Cassidy mentioned the same fact found in an earlier news and events section of Christian Century where six priests had been ordered to stand down from the government by the Pope. Cassidy said that this had been later revealed by Managuan newspapers to be a rumor, and that the truth had actually been that the Priests were allowed to keep their positions in the government, but could no longer exercise their priestly roles in public. Cassidy’s article was critical of the Sandinistas, however, and suggested that the Sandinistas wanted to twist Christianity to meet their ideal of revolutionary socialism. It was for this view that Paul Jeffrey harshly criticized him in a letter on December 16. Jeffrey said that the Catholic Church had long been out of touch with the Nicaraguan people. Furthermore, Jeffrey accused Cassidy of only using biased sources in his article, like "the reactionary La Prensa".
1982
In 1982 Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua. Edward Plowman published the first of these on February 5. It consisted of an interview with Archbishop Obando Y Bravo, who was an outspoken critic of the Sandinista regime. The Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) was responsible for publicizing the interview. Obando claimed in the interview that it was at that time a crime to criticize the government. Obando also said that the activities of the church have currently been regulated to the religious realm only. Furthermore the opposition paper, La Prensa had been shut down by the government.
The second article appeared on October 8. It contained a report by the Whitmer missionaries. In this report the Sandinistas had herded the Miskito Indians into a concentration camp. Many of them had been forced to dig their own graves before being riddled by bullets. This article did obviously not reflect well on the Sandinistas. However, the introduction to the article blamed the United States foreign policy on causing the tensions between the Sandinistas and the Miskitos, by supplying military aid to counter revolutionaries who lived near the Miskito land. The article pointed out that the United States neutrality laws were being applied in Haiti, where the people were struggling against a right wing government, but not in Nicaragua.
Christian Century had eleven articles, letters, and news briefs on Nicaragua. On January 6-13, Margaret Wilde had an article on the Sandinistas, in which she claimed there are all sorts of false rumors circulating about the Sandinistas relationship to the church and to the Miskitos. The way Wilde described the Miskito conflict is an interesting understatement. "There have been serious misunderstandings – some of them fatal – between the government and native ethnic groups on the East Coast". However, Wilde alleged, the Sandinistas have been working to improve their relationships with both the church and the Miskitos, and were becoming better all the time.
On February 24, Jan Black wrote a very pro-Sandinista article, which detailed all the good things that the Sandinistas have done since they came into power. Kenneth Garcia had a letter published on March 31, which thanked Black for the article. A news brief on April 7 contained one of the few negative things said about the Sandinistas. It said they had expelled eighteen Jehovah’s witnesses for counter-revolutionary activity. (That left only two Jehovah’s witnesses in Nicaragua).
On April 28, Wilde had another article on the Sandinista conflict with the Miskitos. Wilde blamed the disaster once again on United States policy. Wilde said the Sandinista atrocities were often exaggerated or made up. She acknowledged they did happen, but claimed that for the most part the Sandinistas treated the Miskitos humanely. In contrast to the Whitmer’s article in Christianity Today, Wilde emphasized that the Miskitos had not been kept in a concentration camp.
On December 1, an article on Church and State relations in Nicaragua by James Wall appeared. Wall took a very critical view of both Obando and the IRD. Wall argued that there was indeed religious freedom in Nicaragua. "This country is not yet a Marxist state. Marxist governments generally do not permit Roman Catholic prelates to talk to foreign visitors or to write a weekly column in an opposition newspaper, as Obando does." Wall also expressed a concern that the United States government had plans to overthrow the Sandinistas. On December 8, Wall continued his article. He claimed that Obando’s complaints represented conflict between Church and State, not oppression of the Church by the State. Wall contended that there was no religious oppression in Nicaragua.
A news brief on December 8 contained a call from the National Council of Churches for the "United States government to reverse its policy of seeking military solutions to problems in Nicaragua."
1983
Christianity Today only had one article about Nicaragua in 1983, but it was very positive about the Sandinista government. Written by news editor Tom Minnery, the tittle, "Why the Gospel Grows in Socialist Nicaragua: the Revolution turned against Capitalism but not Christianity", pretty much says it all. It had very little negative to say about the Sandinistas. It mentioned the conflict the Sandinista government had with the ethnic Indians, and with Protestants, but even here showed the Sandinistas in a sympathetic light.
Christian Century had much more to say about Nicaragua. In 39 issues, Christian Century had 22 articles or news briefs on Nicaragua, not counting other articles that made mention of Nicaragua. The editor, James Wall, began the year with a number of predictions, one of which was that Nicaragua would "slip further into Marxist orbit" and join Cuba and the Soviet Union. However, Wall was not attacking the Sandinistas so much as he was attacking Reagan’s policy, which he credited as forcing the Sandinistas into the arms of the Soviet Block. This theme would pop up through out the year in Christian Century articles about Nicaragua.
A reader, T.D. Reeves wrote in to attack Wall’s two articles the previous year. Reeves said Wall had been twisting the facts in order to present the Sandinistas in a favorable light. "More than anything else I have read in recent months, it represents biased, politically motivated, distorted and dishonest reporting" Reeves wrote. However, one month later Margaret Wilde wrote in a letter defending Wall’s articles. Reeves letter, she claimed, had been based on misinformation from the United States’ State Department.
Christian Century included a favorable report about the Sandinistas from a delegation that visited there. There was an article about a Reaganite who had visited Nicaragua, and had left it disillusioned with Reagan. There was an Article by James Wall on April 20, which compared the United States intervention in Nicaragua to the United States exploitation of Cuba before the communist revolution. There was a news brief that educators from seven different Universities had been coming out publicly in favor of the Sandinistas, and condemning the United States foreign policy in Nicaragua. Another news brief claimed eight members of the world Council of Churches were convinced that Nicaragua had complete religious freedom under the Sandinistas. There was an editorial by James Wall, which condemned the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction of Nicaraguan oil. (A reader wrote in on December 14, and praised Wall for this editorial). In news briefs it was mentioned that churches had opposed aid to Contras. It was also mentioned in passing in another news brief that there has been tension between the Sandinista government and the church. Wall criticized the United States’ government ban of Tomas Borge from the United States.
Both magazines were pro-Sandinista in 1983. Christianity Today is hard to judge, because it only has one article in April, and the attitude of the magazine may have changed by October. However, that article was written by the News Editor, and was very clearly in favor of the Sandinistas. Christian Century had only two negative things to say about the Sandinistas over the course of a whole year, and one of them was a letter by a reader. James Wall, the editor of the magazine, dedicated six of his 39 editorials that year to defend the Sandinistas. The other big writer was Margaret Wilde, who wrote five articles.
1984
In 1984, Christianity Today only had two articles on Nicaragua. One of them was written in January about Witness for Peace, a Christian group involved in Nicaragua that had protested Reagan’s policies, the United States involvement, and the activity of the Contras. However, Witness for Peace was quoted as saying they did not want to look like they supported the Sandinistas either. The second article was written in September by Beth Spring, the Washington correspondent for the newspaper. The article took the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) and Sojourners, and compared their attitudes towards Nicaragua. The IRD was very critical of the Sandinistas, the Sojourners were very supportive, but both sides were quoted equally.
Christian Century had seventeen segments about Nicaragua, counting News briefs, articles, and letters from readers. An article by Pope Liston in January condemned Reagan's involvement in Nicaragua. Liston gave several quotes by Tomas Borge, in which Borge had indicated plans of the CIA to assassinate prominent religious opposition in Nicaragua and blame it on the Sandinistas. Richard Deats gave a Witness for Peace report, in which he mistakenly credited the Sandinistas for having abolished the death penalty. A news brief talked about Ernesto Cardenal, who had been a Marxist priest in the Sandinista government. Ernesto Cardenal explained why he did not see a contradiction between Marxism and Christianity. Another news brief mentioned the World Court ruling in favor of Nicaragua and against the U.S. Further news briefs include reports from Baptist convention of Nicaragua, which criticized U.S. policy. Also a challenge made to Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that there was no religious oppression in Nicaragua, and then on the same page a different brief mentioned that ten foreign priests had been expelled from Nicaragua. The priests had been supporters of Archbishop Obando y Bravo, a critic of the Sandinista government. In September an article by Gregory Bergman included a quote by an Archbishop, who said that Nicaragua was influencing Cuba in terms of having increased religious freedom in Cuba more than Cuba was influencing Nicaragua. An article by Balfour Brickner condemned United States intervention in Nicaragua, which was supported by a letter from a reader on November 21. James Wall attacked the IRD, and essentially said that they were a tool for Reagan’s propaganda. An article came out supporting the validity of Nicaragua’s elections, and another news brief articulated that several church leaders have planned massive civil disobedience if the United States invaded Nicaragua.
In Christianity Today, there was much more of a move to the middle ground. Of the two articles published, one quoted from both sides of the debate. The other, while criticizing United States policy, clearly did not side with the Sandinistas either. Christian Century maintained a positive view of the Sandinistas, however.
1985
In 1985, Christianity Today had six articles on Nicaragua. The first of these appeared on April 5, by Beth Spring. It told of Evangelical leaders who were planning to visit pastors in Nicaragua. The trip was apolitical, and the participants acknowledged their were widely discrepant views of what had been going on down in Nicaragua. On April 19, Beth Spring had another article. The article dealt with Reagan’s policy on Nicaragua. Spring said that his position "has pitted Reagan against Christian groups that are sympathetic to the Sandinistas". IRD and the Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) planned a joint trip in the article, one group that favored the Sandinistas, and one group that did not. A follow up article to this one appeared on September 6. This article told about how IRD had cancelled the trip, for fear it would have intimidated the Nicaraguan evangelicals, and called increased government attention to their activities. ESA rejected IRD’s reason, and gave a quote implying that IRD had backed out because they were afraid the trip would be more politically advantageous to ESA then it would have been to them.
Also on September 6 was another article by Beth Spring. This is a follow up to her April 5 article. It mentions that the Sandinistas were losing popularity. The article was also very critical of the People’s Church, a church that had been started by the Sandinistas, which Spring described as "a mix of Marxism and Christianity". The article is critical of the Sandinistas, and praised their opponents, with such phrases as: "The traditional Catholic Church, led by Obando Y Bravo, has stood firm against Sandinista attempts to dictate to the Church." Also, the article opened up with a passage that indicated that Spring was very critical of the Sandinistas. "Evangelicals have found themselves caught in the middle. The have tried to reconcile reports of thriving churches, increased literacy and other improvements, with equally compelling accounts of repression, censorship, and manipulation of Christians by the Nicaraguan Government."
On November 8, Assistant News Editor Randall Frame had an article on Pat Robertson raising money for the Contras through his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). In having done this, Frame was simply repeating allegations first made by another Christian magazine, Sojourners. A quote was included by Tom Hawk, former World Relief Coordinator in Honduras, that Hawk had been "very disappointed in CBN’s reporting on Central America…. It’s very, very one sided. The situation is so complex that you can go down and prove just about any story you want."
Beth Spring had an article on December 13. This article was reporting on the disruption of Civil Liberties in Nicaragua. The article said that the government had been cracking down of Christian activity from both Protestants and Catholics. The article quoted both IRD and ESA, but much more of the quotes came from IRD. The last words in the article were: "The Reagan administration views the Sandinistas as a Marxist government. Christian leaders are unwilling to endorse a ruler who systematically disrupts civil liberties." However, the article never said why civil liberties had been suspended.
Christian Century had 27 articles, letters, and news briefs on Nicaragua in 1985. In January, James Wall mentioned Daniel Ortega’s election in 1984 as one of the signs of hope for the new year. His reason for this was that Ortega had been willing to meet with the Catholic church.
On January 2-9, IRD responded to criticism that they have received in Christian Century by James Wall. They claimed that CEPAD was a Sandinista propaganda machine, and yet Wall supported CEPAD. They refuted Wall’s claim that IRD is just Reagan propaganda, and said that one did not need to be part of the Reagan administration to have been concerned about what was going on in Nicaragua. Finally they said that the evidence Wall used to link IRD to the Reagan administration was faulty.
On February 20, there was an article by Kinsler and Evans that defended the 1984 elections in Nicaragua. Also on February 20, Wall in an editorial lamented the fact that he had been often categorized as pro-Sandinista simply because he had been anti-Reagan. In the same issue, an excerpt was included from a CIA manufactured Contra pamphlet. In the pamphlet, the CIA told the Contras to call themselves a Christian movement, and to open and close each meeting with prayer, in hopes that they would gain support from the populace.
The rest of the year has reoccurring themes. The Contra atrocities are documented. The magazine in general, but especially Wall’s editorials, condemn Contra funding by the United States. Several articles alluded to the fact that the Sandinista Government was not as bad as it looked. Pat Robertson was also condemned. In fact, in May 8, an editorial by Dean Peerman described Robertson’s charity as, "Tithing for terrorism".
1986
By 1986, it was apparent that both magazines had different views of what was going on. Christianity Today had two articles on Nicaragua, on in February, one in April. Both articles were written by Beth Spring, the Washington Correspondent. The article in February concerned the harsh treatment of evangelicals in Nicaragua. Jimmy Haasan described his experience. The tone had obviously moved to a tone harshly critical of the Sandinistas. "Incidents of harassment against Catholics and groups such as the Miskito Indians have cast serious doubt on the Sandinistas’ tolerance for anyone who answers to a higher authority than the ruling junta".
On his visit to Nicaragua, Dr. Steven Wykstra had an opportunity to visit the evangelicals who were harassed. He found that the United States media had largely exaggerated the whole story. Another interesting thing Dr. Wykstra brought to light was the issue of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funding. Hassan, in the article, reported that the Sandinistas had asked him how much the CIA paid him. It was presented in Beth Spring’s article as a ridiculous question. However, Wykstra revealed that the CIA did in fact pay money to Humberto Belli for his anti-Sandinista book "Breaking Faith".
In her second article for the year, Beth Spring increased her anti-Sandinista bias. She took for granted that the Sandinistas were totalitarian, and included a quote from the Washington Post to reinforce it. "Virtually all observers say the Sandinistas are running a totalitarian state". Spring mentioned that there was a Christian Left who believed in the goodness of the Sandinistas. Spring described an encounter Republican Paul Henry had with these individuals. Henry concluded that they were either political naive or held strongly to their leftist viewpoints. He said that the Sandinistas had informed them and that the Sandinista government had only told them what it had wanted them to hear. Beth Spring concluded by saying that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for shaping the views of the Christian Left. No letters were published in response.
Christian Century had eighteen articles, letters, and news briefs on Nicaragua. Robert Brown, one of Christian Century’s editors at large, wrote an article reflecting on his trip to Nicaragua. It was strongly pro-Sandinista. The sickening details of the contra atrocities on a local village were given. "11 year-old Helena, whose hands are horribly mutilated because the contras used them for target practice; her older sister, who was gang-raped on the floor of their tiny house; Carmen Alvira, whose three teen-age sons were kidnapped while cultivating their little plot of land, and have not been heard of since". Steven Wykstra said he was amazed by how little coverage the Contra atrocities had received in the United States media, compared with how much coverage Sandinista atrocities had received. Brown maintained that "embassy officials in Managua tell Washington what Washington wants to hear, so that Washington can act on the basis of what it has heard from Managua". In this way, Brown said it was the Christian right, not the Christian left that was misinformed about what was going on. Brown even went on say that Obando y Bravo, a bishop critic of the Sandinistas, has acted as he did because he was on the side of the rich. Christian Century got two letters back because of Brown’s article. One was strongly in favor of it, one was furious, but the author was upset at Brown’s attack on Catholicism, not his support of the Sandinistas. A couple of news briefs alluded to religious oppression in Nicaragua, everything else was in support of the Sandinistas, right up until December when Jerome Nilssen described how he has become increasingly disillusioned with the Sandinistas. Originally in support of them, each time he made a trip to Nicaragua he had become more and more upset with what was going on. He finally admitted in this article that he would have liked to see the Sandinistas just leave Nicaragua.
1987
Christianity Today had three articles on Nicaragua in 1987. The first of these was by Beth Spring, and was about an interview with Sergio Ramirez, Vice President of Nicaragua. Spring included only a couple statements by Ramirez, and then the rest of the article was about his critics. Although written in the objective style, more space by far was given to the critics (this included the coveted end of the article). Jimmy Carter was among the critics. In the article it was stated: "Jimmy Carter said human-rights abuses under the Sandinistas have equaled or exceeded Somoza’s". The other two articles were more favorable to the Sandinistas.
Christian Century had 19 articles, news briefs, and letters concerning Nicaragua. There were two letters in response to Jerome Nilssen’s ambivalent article the year before. One of the letters was a fierce defense of the Sandinistas, saying that Nilssen had an unrealistic ideal, possible only in heaven. Compared to most other countries, the letter asserted, (which included the United States), Nicaragua was not doing badly at all. The other article was from someone else who had also visited Nicaragua, and shared Nilssen’s ambivalence. In April 29, Jospeph Mulligan defended the Sandinistas human rights record. A reader later challenged him, and mentioned Humberto Belli’s book: "Breaking Faith".
In 1987, Christian Century had become more and more aware of the conflict between the Sandinistas and the church, and included more news briefs about this. Most of the editorials were still anti-Contra, but the tone of support for the Sandinistas, while still present, had decreased.
1988
Christianity Today had two articles on the Sandinistas. Both were by Randell Frame, and both were optimistic about chances for peace in Nicaragua. Both articles were written in the objective style, and had plenty of quotes from both sides.
By 1988, the Century’s support for the Sandinistas was waning, but they were vehemently anti-contra. On January 20, Penny Lennoux asserted in her article that the Ethnic Indians in Nicaragua had not joined the Contras willingly, but were forced into their camp. Lennoux said the Indians hated the Contras as much as they hated the Sandinistas. On January 27, editor at large Dean Peerman claimed that the other Latin American countries looked on the Contras as agents of destruction, and did not believe the Contras were helping anything. Robert Brown wrote an article on February 24, and said that the United States had destroyed Nicaragua through its funding of the Contras. Brown argued that: "The concept is simple: since the United States, through its aid to the contras, has spent seven years and millions of dollars contributing to Nicaragua’s destruction, the U.S. is now obligated to allocate equal time and money for its rebuilding".
1989
Christianity Today had two articles published on Nicaragua in 1989. The first of these articles was an interview with Gustavo Parajon, the founder of CEPAD, which appeared in March. Parajon had been a defender of the Sandinistas over the years, and he supported them in this article as well. The questions asked to him were often pointed questions, directed against the Sandinistas. (For example: "Critics charge that freedom has not increased with the lessening of conflict. Do you share these concerns?"). However, Parajon was always able to give an answer that defended his position. When asked about civil liberties, he responded he did not know, however, "What I do know for sure is that the limbs of more than 2,500 Nicaraguans have been blown off by mines… eight of my co-workers have been murdered by the contras".
The second article was by Randall Frame. It essentially interviewed Alberto Mottesi, an Argentinean Evangelist who had recently prayed with Daniel Ortega. Mottesi emphasized in the interview the tensions between Marxism and the gospel, however the article was written in an objective style.
Christian Century had nine articles, news briefs, and letters about Nicaragua in 1989. In March a news brief reported that the Church of the Brethren had called on the United States to end the embargo on Nicaragua, and to end aid to the Contras. In May, a news brief reported that a delegation of pastors asked for an end to Contra aid. An article about Fred Morris made predictions about what George Bush would do in Central America. In the article, Morris implied the Nicaraguans wanted to be left alone by the United States, and were happy under the Sandinistas. Morris included data to back up his argument. In July, Alan Wisdom, from the IRD, wrote a letter challenging Morris’ statistics, and made an argument that Nicaraguans would be much happier without the Sandinistas.
Also in May, a news brief was given about Pat Roberston’s visit to Nicaragua. Robertson, the brief said, had been contributing millions of dollars to the Contras. In July, Michael Rivage-Seul wrote an article in which he alleged that the United States had purposely undermined the Sandinista regime. The Sandinista had to spend 40 % of their Gross National Product on defense against the U.S. armed contras, which left little for the social programs on which the success of the revolution had been based. Rivage-Seul predicted (falsely) that the Sandinistas’ would win the battle, but it would be a hard fought battle. In August, Margaret Wilde did an article on the Miskito Indian refugees. A news brief reported that it had been revealed that the United States Embassy had been giving out free aid to conservative pastors in Nicaragua. Poorer, more liberal pastors received none. There was a news briefs about the sufferings of the Miskito Indians.
Christianity Today, of its two articles, contained one more sympathetic to the Sandinistas, and one more skeptical. Both were written objectively. Christian Century was, once again, very sympathetic to the Sandinistas. It was increasingly aware of the Miskito plight, and had a couple of articles about them, but even in these articles they did not come down hard on the Sandinistas.
1990
Christianity Today did not have any article on Nicaragua in 1990, where as Christian Century had fourteen articles, letters, and news briefs. In general, Christian Century was optimistic about Violeta Chamorro, although many of the articles did lament the passing of the Sandinistas. One such article in support of the Sandinistas appeared on March 14, by William Fore. It was harshly criticized in a later letter by Michael Novak (from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research). Novak ended his letter by saying, "Yet I am glad that Fore has presented us with such important documentary evidence of the self-delusions of the Sandinistas international supporters, as well as of the Sandinista government itself." Christian Century also documented continued Contra atrocities in the year 1990.
Post 1990
In 1991 neither magazine would feature an article about Nicaragua. In fact, using the indexes listed above no Christian periodicals had any articles on Nicaragua. Once the Sandinistas were out of power, American interest in Nicaragua vanished as well.
ConclusionsIt is worth noting the coverage of the media in general about the Sandinista government before drawing conclusions about Christianity Today and Christian Century. During the actual revolution itself, and the first few years afterwards, Media coverage of the Sandinistas was very favorable.25 There were a few voices on the right wing, such as the periodical Human Events that advocated Somoza’s dictatorship was better then a Marxist government (which they condemned the Sandinistas as being).26 Opinion gradually changed as the Sandinistas atrocities with the Miskito Indians came to light, as well as the conflict with the Catholic Church.
As is evidenced by the above pages, it is hard to track down what bias or viewpoint either periodical takes. One reason for this of course is that many of the articles (especially those written for Christianity Today) were in the style of objective journalism, and objective journalism, if done right, makes it impossible for the reader to determine the bias of the author. (Fortunately, the bias does often show through anyway however).
Secondly, and more importantly, each magazine was composed of many different writers that worked for it, and each writer had his or her own viewpoint. For instance, although both Beth Spring and Randell Frame wrote for Christianity Today, they might not have seen eye to eye on things, and an article by Beth Spring might have taken a different view of the Sandinistas then an article by Randell Frame would take.
There are a few ways of getting around this. One is to take notice of what position the writer has on the staff of the Magazine. For instance, Christianity Today frequently had articles on Nicaragua written by people who were not affiliated with the magazine itself. These articles, although not discounted entirely, are of less important then articles written by Beth Spring, the magazine’s Washington Correspondent, or articles written by Randell Frame, the magazine’s Associate News Editor. Christian Century had almost all of its articles on Nicaragua written by staff writers. The Editor himself, James Wall, wrote many of the editorials concerning Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Another point that should be made is that caution should be taken before comparing these magazines to each other. Because of the sheer number of articles on Nicaragua Christian Century had in most years, compared to the relatively few number of articles Christianity Today had, Christian Century touches on all sorts of events Christianity Today never even mentions.
With the above criteria in mind, and speaking in broad, general terms based on the above evidence, it can safely be said that Christianity Today began in 1979 with a cautious ambivalence regarding the Sandinistas (with articles written by staff writer Stephen Sywulka). After the Sandinista revolution succeeded, the articles in 1980 and 1981 were full of optimism. A number of different writers are represented in this period. A gradual shift was made to a more critical view of the Sandinistas. Beth Spring, who wrote eight articles about the Sandinistas between November of 1984, and January of 1987, dominated the magazine's view of the Sandinistas for these two and some years. Although Spring’s articles were always written in the objective style of journalism, she quoted heavily from those critical of the Sandinistas, and sparingly from their supporters. Critics were often given the last word, and a few times Spring interjected her own view of the Sandinistas into the article as a critic of the Sandinistas. Randall Frame, the other big writer on Nicaragua for this magazine during the 1980s, had four articles between 1985 and 1989. Frame’s articles were more critical of United States policy towards Nicaragua, although they never endorsed the Sandinistas.
Christian Century had, as mentioned above, much more articles on Nicaragua. From this we can deduce that the staff of Christian Century was more concerned about events in Nicaragua then the staff of Christianity Today. This is in keeping with the increased attention Century focused on the third world in the 1980s. Like Christianity Today, the Century started out ambivalent about the Sandinistas in the revolutionary war, then moved to an endorsement of them. Aside from a couple writers and news briefs, the Century never really became critical about the Sandinistas. A good way to say it would be they simply became less enthusiastic about the Sandinistas, and there was a quiet moving away from their earlier position of outright support, but very few articles appeared that were critical. Instead, the Century shifted its focus in the mid 1980s from extolling the virtues of the Sandinistas, to being critical of United States policy in the 1980s. Interestingly enough though, in 1990 once it was clear that the Sandinistas had lost, the Century almost seemed to return to their earlier position of endorsement for the Sandinistas, and there were a couple articles that lamented their passing.
James Wall, the editor of the magazine, was very concerned about Nicaragua, and wrote 24 editorials on, or that refer to, Nicaragua between 1978 and 1990. Wall’s editorials followed rather neatly the pattern of the magazine, which was fitting given his position. Margaret Wilde, an editor at large for the magazine, wrote most of the articles featured during the 1980s. Wilde’s articles followed the same line as Wall’s, although Wilde took longer to move away from praising the Sandinistas, and returned to praising them quicker. The most fervent supporter of the Sandinistas in the magazine was Robert Brown, another editor at large, who had six articles on Nicaragua. In Brown’s articles, the Sandinistas could do no wrong, and all problems Nicaragua was facing were laid at the feet of the Contras or of the Nicaraguan Bourgeois. Paul Jeffrey, while not as radical as Brown, also remained in support of the Sandinistas throughout the 1980s.
Since both magazines focused on different things, it is hard to do a direct comparison. However, we can look at various events. The first of these is the Christianity of Tomas Borge. Borge, the only surviving founding member of the Sandinistas, was overtly Christian as both magazines picked up. Both magazines quoted Borge as he talked about his commitment to Christianity, both magazines picked up on Borge's request for more Bibles, and both told the rather amazing story about how Borge saw his former torturer in jail, forgave him, and freed the man.
Another thing that both magazines picked up on in the early days of optimism was how the Sandinistas abolished the death penalty. This was actually a common misconception that deceived secular media as well. In fact, the death penalty had never been legal in Nicaragua.27
Another interesting key point is the World Court decision. In 1984, the CIA mined Nicaragua’s harbors. Nicaragua brought the United States before the World Court, and the World Court in November of 1987 decided that the United States had indeed violated International law. This is an interesting test case in media analysis because this case was not mentioned in any of the dominant newspapers or three television networks. However, the previous day most of these media had alerted the United States public about the World Court’s decision that the Soviet Union should remove itself from Afghanistan.28 Christianity Today followed the line of mainstream media and did not mention that story. Christian Century mentioned it repeatedly. (It is, of course, worth remembering at this point that the Century had many more articles per year on Nicaragua than Today).
Another interesting point in the 1984 election. Christian Century took a rather predictable stance on this. The Century repeatedly condemned the Reagan administration for having not recognized the election, and repeatedly brought up the fact that all other international observers had recognized the validity of the elections. The Century repeatedly mentioned how high the voting turn out was, and how much of the vote Daniel Ortega received, to emphasize that Nicaragua had in fact been a democracy, and some authors went as far as to say that this data meant Nicaragua was more democratic then the United States. The Century did not mention that all criticisms of the election in Nicaragua were censored.0 Christianity Today is interesting because of their absence of comment on the 1984 election. It was not even mentioned in their articles.
Again the same pattern is seen in the 1990 election. The Century was fond of quoting Daniel Ortega that Nicaragua voted with a gun to its head. The Century maintained that even though the Sandinistas had lost the election, it was because of United States pressure, not loss of popularity. Christianity Today was strangely silent, and did not even have any articles on Nicaragua at all in 1990.
Also amazing is the lack of coverage about the Iran-Contra affair, considering the intense media coverage it received at the time. Christian Century made references to it, but did not report on it or dedicate any articles to it. Christianity Today never even referred to it. It is difficult to say with certainty why neither magazine reported on Iran-Contra, but I hypothesize that due to the intense media coverage it received at the time both magazines assumed their readers were well enough informed on the issue.
In closing, it is important to see both of these magazines in the context of the 1980s. The 1980s were a time of polarizing politics, where distinctions between left and right became quite clear. The readers of both magazines were Americans, and were more concerned with American politics than with politics in Nicaragua. Therefore, the debate over United States foreign policy in Nicaragua should be seen in the larger context of the right versus left debate of the 1980s. The respective position that each magazine took could possibly be seen as an example of where the magazine stood in the broader debate.
Footnotes:
1. It should be noted that Christian Century has an "Events and People" section, in which updates about events, like the civil war in Nicaragua, are included. While I do make use of this section, when I use the word "article" in this paper I am not counting these selections.
2. Stephen Wykstra, Personal Interview, 15 November 1999.
3. Thomas Walker, Nicaragua: the Land of Sandino (Boulder: Westview Press, 1982), 14-45.
4. Humberto Belli, Breaking Faith: The Sandinsta Revolution and Its Impact on Freedom and Christian Faith in Nicaragua (Westchester: Crossway books, 1985), 183-210
5. Belli, 106-117.
6. Charles Lippy, ed., Religious Periodicals of the United States (Wesport: Greenwood Press, 1986), xi.
7. Charles Austin, "The History and Role of the Protestant Press," in Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith ed. Benjamin Hubbard (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), 114-115.
8. Richard Ostling in Austin, 112.
9. Austin, 113
10. Annalee Ward, "Christian Century," in Popular Religious Magazines of the United State ed. Mark Fackler and Charles Lippy, (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995), 110.
11. James Wall in Annalee Ward, 110.
12. Ibid., 113.
13. Martin Marty, et. Al., The Religious Press in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), 10.
14. Mark Toulouse, "The Christian Century," in Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. ed. Charles Lippy, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 112.
15. Mark Toulouse, "The Christian Century," in Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. ed. Charles Lippy, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 112.
16. John Merritt, "Christianity Today," in Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. ed. Charles Lippy, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 136.
17. Kenneth Kantzer in Sweeny, 147.
18. Sweeney, 148.
19. Ibid., 148.
20. Merrit, 137.
21. "Michael Novak." http://www.aei.org/scholars/novak.htm (17 December 1999).
22. Joshua Muravchik in Allan Brownfeld, "How the Media Misled us on the Sandinistas," Human Events, 11 February 1989, 6-7
23. Stanton Evans, "AP, ‘Post’ cover up for Sandinistas," Human Events, 8 September 1979, 17.
24. Thomas, 37.
25. This is the whole thesis behind Joshua Muravchik, New Coverage of the Sandinista Revolution (Washington: American Institute for Public Policy, 1988).
26. Stanton Evan, 6-7.
27. Belli, 119.
28. Martin Lee and Norman Solomon, Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990), 257.
29. Belli, 261.
Bibliography
Primary SourcesChristian Century: 1978-1990
Christianity Today: 1978-1990
Secondary Sources
Austin, Charles. "The History and Role of the Protestant Press." In Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith. Ed. Benjamin Hubbard. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Belli, Humberto. Breaking Faith: The Sandinista Revolution and Its Impact on Freedom and Christian Faith in Nicaragua. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1985.
Brownfeld, Allan. "How the Media Misled us on the Sandinistas." Human Events, 11 February 1989, 6-7.
Evans, Stanton. "AP, ‘Post" cover up for Sandinistas." Human Events, 8 September 1979, 17
Fackler, P. Mark and Charles H. Lippy. Ed. Popular Religious Magazines of the United
States. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Flynn, Patricia, Roger Burbach, Mark Moberg. "Nicaragua." Collier’s Encyclopedia. 1997.
Hubbard, Benjamin, ed. Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Lee, Martin, and Norman Solomon. Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media. New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990.
Lippy, Charles. H., Ed. Religious Periodicals of the United States. Westport: Greenwood
Press, 1986
Martin, Marty, et al. The Religious Press in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
"Media to Blame for Rise of Sandinistas." Human Events, 29 March 1986, 3.
Merrit, John. "Christianity Today." In Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. Ed. Charles Lippy. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
"Michael Novak." http://www.aei.org/scholars/novak.htm (17 December 1999).
Muravchik, Joshua. News Coverage of the Sandinista Revolution. Washington: American Institute for Public Policy, 1988.
Sweeney, Douglas. "Christianity Today." In Popular Religious Magazines of the United States. Ed. Mark Fackler and Charles Lippy. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Toulouse, Mark. "The Christian Century." In Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. Ed. Charles Lippy. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Walker, Thomas. Nicaragua: The Land of Sandino. Boulder: Westview Press, 1982.
Ward, Annalee. "Christian Century." In Popular Religious Magazines of the United State. Ed.
Mark Fackler and Charles Lippy. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Wykstra, Stephen. Personal Interview. 15 November 1999.
Video 1, Video 2, Playlist
Introduction
Events in Nicaragua have long been absent from the public eye in America. However, the Sandinista revolution made Nicaragua impossible to ignore. The issue of Nicaragua was one that was polarizing for the Christian Community, and was an issue that Christians were on both sides of. On one hand, most of the support in the United States for the Sandinista government came from Protestant churches. On the other hand, the Christian right vehemently opposed the Sandinista government, and supported Reagan’s efforts to overthrow it. How did Christian publications deal with the events in Nicaragua during the 1980s? To answer this question, let us look at two Christian Protestant periodicals, one conservative (Christianity Today), and one liberal (Christian Century). By examining Christianity Today and Christian Century from 1978 through 1990, we can better answer this question. In this paper, we will first look at a general history of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Then we will look more in depth at Protestant periodicals, and Christianity Today and Christian Century in general. Next we will look at the feedback each magazine received from its readers. Afterwards, we will examine one article in detail, before examining the two magazines year by year, and finally we will draw some conclusions.1
In looking at the United States attitude towards the Sandinistas, Christian periodicals are of interest because Christians were heavily involved on both sides of the debate.
Many Protestant churches were pro-Sandinista. In fact, Protestant groups such as Witness for Peace traveled in Nicaragua to try find out what was really happening down there and contrast it to the reports the Reagan administration was giving. These people believed that the Sandinistas were a truly great form of government. They thought that the Sandinistas were Christian democratic socialists. Because of their support for the Sandinistas, and because they traveled Nicaragua in Sandals, they were called "Sandalistas" by the Nicaraguans.2 On the other side was the Christian right. They believed the Sandinistas were a totalitarian communist government, which was actively violating human rights and suppressing the church. Pat Robertson, who prayed on television that God would help those in Nicaragua who are fighting against communism, and raised money through his television show for the Contras, was an example of this.
The Nicaraguan Revolution
To fully understand the history of Nicaragua, it is necessary to go back to 1893, when Jose Santos Zelaya of the liberal party was elected President of Nicaragua. Zelaya ensured Nicaraguan sovereignty by taking Nicaraguan’s Bluefields and the Miskito Coast back from the British. Zelaya also attempted to stop the growth of United States (U.S.) influence on Nicaragua. He accepted U.S. aid to get the British off the Caribbean coast, but refused to grant the United States the right to build a canal, and imposed restrictions on American investors. The United States grew upset with Zelaya, and attempted to remove him from power. Diplomatic and eventually military support went to Nicaragua’s Conservative Party, which overthrew Zelaya and established a government more acceptable to U.S. interests. However, the conservative government proved ineffective. Social and political unrest grew, and a young liberal, Benjamin Zeledon, formed a rebellion. Because United States investors would be in serious jeopardy if Zeledon won, the U.S. sent the Marines into Nicaragua to help put down the Rebellion in 1912. The conservative government of Nicaragua accepted the United States Marines, and the economy was placed under the control of the New York banks. The presence of United States troops, however, only served to increase the resentment felt by the Nicaraguan people against the conservative government. When the Marines tried to leave in 1926, the Conservative Government faced armed resistance, and the Marines returned. The United States attempted to work out a compromise between the Conservative Government and the Liberal Resistance. However the Liberals, led by Augusto Sandino refused to lay down their arms. Sandino’s tactics of guerilla warfare prompted the U.S. to create a National Guard out of the indigenous population. Anastasio Somoza Garcia, who had lived in the United States as a car dealer, was made the head of the National Guard.
The United States troops withdrew in 1933, leaving Somoza in charge of the National Guard. Somoza entered into negotiations with Sandino, and when Sandino came to negotiate he was ambushed and killed by Somoza’s National Guard. This was followed by massacres of hundreds of men, woman, and children who lived in former guerrilla territory. Somoza encouraged his men to be corrupt and to engage in various forms of exploitative activity. This isolated them from the people, and made them more dependent on Somoza. In 1936, Somoza overthrew the elected president, and had himself inaugurated president.
Somoza and his National Guard were in control of Nicaragua. Somoza’s National Guard acted as a kind of legalized Mafia, where citizens wishing to engage in any legal or non-legal activity had to make sure to give the National Guard kickbacks. However, Somoza retained United States support by having his regime consistently back United States foreign policy. Somoza was entertained repeatedly at the White House.
In 1956 a young poet named Rigoberto Lopez Perez infiltrated a party given in honor of Somoza, and shot Somoza five times. Although Somoza died a few days later, his sons Luis and Anastasio became leaders. Luis died in 1967, and Anastasio became President until 1979. In 1972, an earthquake destroyed much of Managua, the capital city of Nicaragua. International relief poured in for the rebuilding of this city, but much of that relief money ended up in Somoza’s own pocket. This incident caused many Nicaraguans to be convinced of Somoza’s depravity, and increased the opposition to include a mixture of every class. In 1974, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) stepped up its attacks. Martial law was imposed, causing businessmen and Church leaders to speak out even more against Somoza. Somoza’s human rights were so bad that the Carter administration cut off aid to Nicaragua. (However, Carter would later praise Somoza for improving his human rights record, angering the Sandinistas). In January 1978, Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, leader of the moderate opposition to Somoza, was assassinated. Although the identity of his assassins was never established, most of Nicaragua blamed Somoza. In September of 1978, the FSLN was able to set off a massive popular uprising against Somoza. In desperation Somoza used planes and tanks against his own people, killing more than 2000. Somoza would often use airplanes to bomb cities the Sandinistas occupied then send in his troops to mop up. His troops would usually kill any young men who had the misfortune of being of fighting age. However, despite Somoza’s efforts on July 19, 1979, FSLN entered Managua triumphant.3
The Sandinista revolution worked out so well because all classes were able to unite against Somoza. Once the common enemy was gone, the problems began to appear. Somoza had looted the national treasury before he left, leaving Nicaragua with a huge debt and little resources to pay it off. The business community withdrew their representatives from the new government. Although many priests had fought beside, or in some cases even led the Sandinistas, tension developed between the Sandinistas and the Catholic Church. The United States was fearful that the Sandinistas would turn out to be a Marxist government and align themselves with the Soviet bloc. Although the United States, under Jimmy Carter, initially extended them economic aid, Ronald Reagan, who claimed that Nicaragua was shipping weapons to the leftist guerrillas in El Salvador, cut off this aid. Instead, the Reagan administration began direct military assistance to the exiled units of Somoza’s National Guard. It was determined that it was illegal for the United States to help the Contras because that was getting involved in another country’s civil war, which violated the United States constitution. However, the United States gave humanitarian aid to the Contras. It has been frequently argued that the food and medical supplies the United States supplied the Contras with enabled the Contras to spend more money on weapons.
Although the Sandinistas enjoyed aid from Cuba and the Soviet bloc, and they enjoyed popular support, they clashed with the organized business community, the Catholic church, Communist trade unions, Miskito Indians, and La Prensa (the leading newspaper). Furthermore, United States backed counterrevolutionaries (Contras) carried out acts of terrorism, economic sabotage, and raids inside Nicaragua’s boarders.
The two conflicts that received the most attention in the United States were the Catholic Church and the Miskito Indians.
The Catholic Church had supported the Sandinistas during the revolution. In many cases Catholic priests had fought side by side with the Sandinistas. In some instances, Catholic priests even led Sandinista units. Tomas Borge, the only surviving founder of the Sandinistas by 1979, was openly Christian. However, tension began to appear. The Sandinistas tried to make the People’s Church, a pro-revolution church created by the Sandinistas, into the official state church. The Catholic Church was skeptical of this, and refused to support the People’s Church. Reports began coming out of Nicaragua of mistreatment of Catholic priests, and some members of the Catholic church became openly vocal in their opposition to the Sandinistas.4
The Miskito Indians, on the other hand, were ethnic Indians who considered themselves Miskito’s first, Nicaraguans second if at all. The Miskito homeland was split right in two by the Nicaraguan/ Honduras border, but the Miskitos often disregarded this border. They were largely unaware of national politics, and when the Sandinistas showed up proudly declaring themselves as their liberators, the Miskitos thought they were just another group of foreign imperialists. The Sandinistas, not understanding the Miskitos, interpreted their resistance to Sandinista rule as counter-revolutionary activity. The Sandinistas also wished to protect the environment that the Miskitos were living in. They tried to stop the Miskitos from cutting down trees. Misunderstandings on both sides led to sometimes violent encounters. The most shocking were cases where Miskito villages were burned and the inhabitants massacred. This was never Sandinista policy, and the Sandinista government officially condemned the acts, but they were done by Sandinista soldiers.5
On November 4, 1984, the Sandinistas held their first election. Although the United States did its best to undermine the elections, more than four fifths of Nicaragua’s electorate voted, and the Sandinista candidate, Daniel Ortega, won two thirds of the vote. Every international observer outside of the United States declared the elections valid. However, the Reagan administration refused to recognize the election, and continued efforts to undermine the Nicaraguan government.
In 1985, the Reagan administration embargoed all United States-Nicaraguan trade, and increased the military pressure. Nicaragua declared a state of emergency. However, the Contras made little headway, and opposition in the United States was increasing to Reagan’s policies. In 1987, the president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, proposed a peace plan. According to the peace plan, the Contras would disarm and internal democracy would be restored in Nicaragua. Both Reagan and the Contra leaders rejected the plan. However, when the United States congress cut off Contra aid, the Contras were forced to enter negotiation. Peace was eventually reached.
The height of United States media attention occurred in 1986 when it was revealed that the United States government sold weapons to Iran in hopes that the Iranian government would be able to help free U.S. citizens being held hostage in Lebanon. The money made from this sale went to help the Contras. Since this was an illegal act by the United States government that many believe was overseen by the president himself, it received much media attention.
In 1990, the next elections were held in Nicaragua. Although almost all involved parties expected the Sandinistas to win, many Nicaraguans were afraid of continued pressure from the United States if the Sandinistas remained in power. Instead, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro (widow of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro) of the National Opposition Union won with United States backing. She was sworn in as President in April of 1990.
Protestant Periodicals
Before looking closely at Christian Century and Christianity Today it is worth making some general comments about Protestant periodicals, and Christian periodicals in general.
Religious periodicals have a long history in the United States. In fact they rank among the earliest of the periodicals published in the English Colonies that later became the United States and have been popular ever since.6 Religious periodicals also serve an important function. Charles Austin, a Lutheran pastor, wrote that religious periodicals are vital because secular media often will ignore religious events, or is inept at reporting them. Religious periodicals also serve as an alternative source of media in which current events are looked at from a perspective of faith.7
Richard Ostling, news editor for Christianity Today in the 1960s once said, "All to many church periodicals are slow or sluggish in responding to the issues of the day".8 Ostling brings up an important dilemma faced by the editors of Christian magazines. Editors are often cautious about commenting too strongly on current day issues for fear they will offend their readers. However, if the magazine gets too bland, readers will turn away.9 This dilemma is clearly seen in the Nicaragua crisis.
For the purposes of this paper we will look at two Protestant periodicals, Christianity Today and Christian Century.
Christian Century can trace its history all the way back to 1884, when it was known as Christian Oracle. "The Century, characterized by its outspoken opinions on every aspect of contemporary life, grew to be one of the most influential religious periodicals in the United States".10 The Century has sought to be the voice of Christian liberalism throughout its publication. Over the course of its run, it has moved from dogmatism to developing a greater appreciation for the complexity of the human predicament.11
In 1972 James Wall became editor of the magazine, and has remained so all the way to the present. Although Christian Century is famous for its strong positions on contemporary issues, this became somewhat diminished under Wall (although it did not disappear completely). It was replaced by a "complex, pluralistic voice".12 Also under Wall, the Century turned its interest more to the third world, and gives high priority to matters of social justice.
Christian Century has a high level of readership. Its circulation since the 1920s has remained at between 35,000 and 40,000. Because of the large number of libraries that subscribe to it, readership is probably much higher. By 1963, the Christian Century was the only religious magazine among the 20 most requested periodicals at libraries.13 Although a liberal Protestant magazine, it has among its readers and contributors Catholics, Jews, and Evangelicals. The typical subscriber to Christian Century is generally a religious professional, either in a teacher at a college or seminary or a worker in the parish setting.14
Christianity Today, the other magazine, was founded in 1956 as the conservative response to the Protestant liberalism found in Christian Century. Its first editor, Carl Henry, described its founding as an attempt to give Christian Century "a run for its biases".15 Kenneth Dole wrote in the Washington Post and Times Herald that the magazine was "to conservative, fundamentalist, orthodox Protestants what the Christian Century is to more liberal believers".16 Described as neo-evangelical, the magazine has sought to write about American life from a conservative, evangelical stance. Billy Graham himself co-founded the magazine with his father-in-law L. Nelson Bell.
In 1978, when the Sandinista revolution came into the focus in American media, Kenneth S. Kantzer was editor of the magazine. Kantzer was interested in increasing the sophistication of the theology in the magazine. However, Kantzer was concerned about nurturing the community of evangelicals, and not causing dissension. Kantzer promised not to "condone any departure from biblical authority" but also said, "no personal vendetta will be carried out against those who may not disagree with us".17 V. Gilbert Beers was editor of the magazine from 1982 to 1985. Although Beers was not editor long enough to make an impact on the magazine, he continued the course set by Kantzer, and "steered the magazine into even calmer waters".18 In 1985, Christianity Today went through a structural change as former publisher and President Harold L. Myra became "publisher and executive editor". Myra led a committee of senior editors, which included former editors Beers and Kantzer. Described as "more of a businessman/ journalist than a theologian,"19 Myra successfully moved Christianity Today into an increasingly sophisticated market place.
Although the magazine began with a readership of intellectually sophisticated pastors and professors, it has moved to a mass audience over the years. This is reflected in the increasingly simple language used by the magazine. There has also been a shift in the authors of the magazine. Between 1959 to 1983, academics went from writing 58% of the material for Christianity Today to 36%.20
Feedback
One thing of interest is the letters readers will write back to the magazine. This shows not only what kind of audience the magazine has, but how much the audience supports the direction the magazine is taking. In 1979, when Christianity Today published its first few articles on the Sandinistas, not one reader response was printed. Christian Century did not print any reader response to its articles on Nicaragua either. Let us take three years in the 1980s where both magazines had articles on Nicaragua: 1981, 1985, and 1989. In 1981 Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua, and printed zero responses from readers. In 1985 Christianity Today published five articles on Nicaragua, and not one reader response was printed. In 1989 Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua, and again it printed zero reader responses. Since both magazines reserve for themselves the right to decide which letters will and will not be published, we should be careful about making the assumption that since no letters were published, that means no readers wrote in. Although both magazines frequently publish letters that are critical of the magazine itself or articles that appear in the magazine, nevertheless a selection process does occur. Since the criteria for selection is not known, no substantial conclusions can be drawn from the above data.
However, we may hypothesize that the lack of printed letters in Christianity Today could indicate the possibility that no readers responded. If this was the case (and as already stated we can not say for certain that it was) then we may conclude that the readers of Christianity Today were either not informed enough on Nicaragua to contest the articles in the magazine, agreed with the articles, or did not care. Since Christianity Today is pitched to a mass audience, perhaps the audience of the magazine was largely uniformed enough to contest the opinions of the magazine.
By contrast Christian Century contained two articles about Nicaragua in 1981, and printed one letter written in response. In 1985, Christian Century published twelve articles about Nicaragua and printed seven letters in response. In 1989, Christian Century published three articles on Nicaragua and printed one letter in response.
Many of the readers who wrote back to Christian Century were informed about the topic themselves. For instance, Paul Jeffery, who wrote a letter in 1981 in response to an article by Joseph Cassidy, would later write several of his own articles about Nicaragua in Christian Century. In 1985, Penn Keble and Michael Novak wrote to Christian Century representing the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). (Novak is also a well known rightist who has published several books and journal articles in addition to serving as a United States ambassador, a delegate for the United States, an advisor to the White House from 1974-1980, and a member of the faculty at Harvard and Notre Dame.)21 Charles W. Bare also wrote in 1985, representing the Ecumenical Services Association. In 1989, Alan Wisdom wrote in representing the IRD.
Since, the subscribers to Christian Century are generally religious professionals, often teachers at Colleges and Seminaries, it should be no surprise that some of them are informed enough to respond on the Nicaraguan issue.
Article in Detail
By examining one article in more detail, it may be helpful to gain a broader understanding of what goes into an article in general. In the October second issue in 1987 of Christianity Today Stephen Wykstra, a philosophy professor at Calvin College had an article published on the situation in Nicaragua. I had the privilege of talking to Dr. Wykstra on November 15, 1999.
Wykstra said the article was written at a time when he was pro-Sandinista. Wykstra was trying to oppose the institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), which, he believed, was trying to portray an untrue picture of the Sandinistas. Wykstra believed the media did not accurately represent what was going on in Nicaragua. After doing an intensive media analysis, Wykstra concluded that although the Contras were routinely butchering civilians, their atrocities never received much media attention. However, the Sandinista atrocities certainly caught the attention of the media.
The article is written in the style of objective journalism. That means, Wykstra said, that he quoted both sides without saying which side he thought was right. A reader, Wykstra said, reading an objective journalism article would not know what the opinion of the author was. The article quotes the accusations of the IRD are, and then includes a response to them by Ron Sider. Wykstra asserted he had to be careful in this article because of the conservative nature of Christianity Today’s audience.
The article is about Gustavo Parajon, whom Wykstra actually met in 1984. Parajon was head of the Evangelical Committee for Aid and Development (CEPAD). Because CEPAD was sympathetic to the Sandinistas, it had been under attack by the IRD. Wykstra used Ron Sider to reply to IRD’s accusations, because Ron Sider would have been well known to Christianity Today readers. Only a few months before Wykstra’s article, Christianity Today published an article in its July 10 issue entitled, "A talk with Ron Sider."
Wykstra thought his article was balanced. People thought he was a little extreme in those days, so it helped to have his article published in a mainline publication like Christianity Today. He got a good response to it, although he doesn’t remember any specific feedback. In fact, the only letter Christianity Today printed about Wykstra’s article appeared in the December 11 issue, and was by a professor from Fullerton College named Derry Seaton. Seaton was upset about another article Christianity Today had printed, and said it "typifies a too-common trait of assuming a single Christian perspective on current issues." Seaton said that, "The next article by Steve Wykstra on Gustavo Parajon is an example of better journalism".
Wykstra, on a trip to Washington, actually met the staff of Christianity Today, including Beth Spring. Their fairness and objectivity impressed him, as well as their commitment to the truth. Wykstra noted that Christianity Today was often caught in the middle between very pro-Sandinista groups like Sojourners, and anti-Sandinista groups like the IRD.
Year by Year
For the research involved in this paper, I have gone through and examined every article concerning Nicaragua in both Christianity Today and Christian Century from 1978 to 1990, with the intent of discovering what kind of coverage each magazine gave to events in Nicaragua, and how this changed over time. My findings are summarized below.
Before I began my reading the periodicals, I had certain expectations. I expected Christian Century to follow the trend of liberal Protestantism at the time and to be in support of the Sandinistas. Conversely, I expected Christianity Today to attack the Sandinistas.
In my readings I discovered that many of the articles in Christian Century and all of the articles in Christianity Today are written in the objective style of journalism. This means that the author will quote from both sides of the issue, and not let the reader know how he or she feels himself or herself. If objective journalism is done right, the reader will not know what the biases of the author are. However, there are methods that I employed to try and find the bias of a certain author. The events that the author chooses to focus on or not focus on are key. Also of note is how much proportional space each side received. If one side received much more space than the other, that is a sign that the author was biased towards that side. Finally, which side received the last word is also of interest. (Obviously, someone has to have the last word, so one can not read too much into this. However, taken into account with other factors this can sometimes be illuminating.)
One of the interesting things is the complete lack of coverage of Nicaragua in these periodicals before the Sandinistas. Take for example four different religious periodical indexes. There is the Index of Religious periodicals, which covers the period from 1948-1958 and indexes 15 different Christian journals. Also there is the Religion Index, which goes from 1949 to the present, and indexes 100 Christian journals. Next is the Christian Periodical Index, which contains 20 Christian journals, and covers the period from 1956 to the present. Finally, Guide to Religious and Semi-Religious Periodicals, which indexes 75 Christian Journals, and goes from 1965 to the present.
These indexes indicate that there were only 13 articles published about Nicaragua in any religious magazine before 1979. Of these, six were about the Earthquake that occurred in Managua on December 23, 1972. However, the earliest article of these six was not until March of 1973. The rest of the articles deal with the church and mission efforts in Nicaragua.
The Sandinistas were formed on July 23, 1960. They did not obtain much press coverage in the United States at first. Joshua Muravchik asserted that the heavy media coverage of the Nicaraguan civil war and the Sandinista movement became overwhelming in July of 1978.22 In the September 8, 1979 issue of Human Events, Evan Stanton wrote "Scarcely a day goes by, so it seems, without some breathless news dispatch from Nicaragua extolling the virtues of the Sandinista revolution".23 However Christianity Today would not have an article on the Nicaraguan revolution until August 17, 1979. Christian Century’s first reference to the revolution occurred in September of 1978.
Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua prior to the outbreak of United States media attention, one was in the December 21, 1973, and reported on the Managua earthquake, the other was on December 19, 1975, and reported on a religious revival in Managua following the earthquake. Nevertheless, Christianity Today was slower in responding to the crisis. Coverage started in July 1978, but their first article did not appear until August 17, 1979. This is consistent with Richard Ostling’s above view that religious periodicals are slow in responding to current issues.
1978In September of 1978, Christian Century featured an article that referred to the events in Nicaragua, while the focus of the article was actually on the Catholic Church in Central America. The article was not sympathetic to Somoza and mentions that his forces brutally beat a group of Catholic priests and then used them as shields. However, the article identified the teenage guerrillas as communists (the name Sandinista was not even used), and quoted a Catholic nun who said, "Communism is not what I want. I tell the young people that the communists do not respect individual liberty in any country they control".
One month later, in November, an article was published on seventeen hunger strikers in Paraguay. The article asserted that events in Nicaragua had monopolized the headlines, so that "the silent protest of 17 Paraguayan political prisoners hadn’t a chance of being heard". The article only had one sentence in describing Nicaragua, but it was a vivid one. "Teen-agers were standing off soldiers in hand-to-hand combat, refugees were streaming out of cities, a Red Cross ambulance and its occupants were riddled by machine-gun fire." An article in December of 1978 made a passing reference to Ernesto Cardenal, "a poet of stature in his native Nicaragua as well as one of the country’s most vociferous social critics".
An article on December 27, 1978, was the first full article by either magazine on the situation in Nicaragua. The article was very anti-Somoza, and quoted Daniel Aguirre of La Prensa, who said, "You must understand, everyone here is in the opposition". Although this was the first article by Christian Century to mention the Sandinistas by name, it said surprisingly little about them, preferring to focus on the conditions of Nicaragua instead.
1979
Most media coverage of the Sandinistas was favorable at first. Christianity Today was no exception. Despite the conservative leanings of the magazine, the first article published about the Sandinistas, in August of 1979 by Stephen Sywulka, did not come down as hard on the Sandinistas as it could have done. Although the article did mention that many were ambivalent because of "the communist influence in the Sandinista camp" it also mentioned that many evangelicals sympathized with the rebels.
The ambivalence continued two issues later as Sywulka described the new Sandinista government. Sywulka mentioned that "Somoza and his allies looted the treasury before they left", but for the most part he laid the blame for damage caused by the civil war on both sides. "Much of the industry around Managua is in ruins, having been bombed, looted, or burned by forces from both sides." Here Sywulka’s wording was misleading, for it implied the Sandinistas had participated in the bombing. However, the Sandinistas did not have the capability to bomb at that point, although aerial bombardment had clearly been one of Somoza’s favorite techniques.24
Sywulka mentioned that some pastors supported Somoza on the basis of Romans 13, but that many young Christians joined the Sandinistas. Sywulka included a quote by one church leader who said that believers should get ready to testify to a communist government, but also said that the Roman Catholic Church supported the Sandinistas, although "in recent weeks the Catholic church has disengaged itself, at least partially, from Sandinista politics".
It had been almost a year since reference was made to Nicaragua in Christian Century. The next reference was only in passing. In his article on El Salvador, Patrick Lacefield mentioned the Nicaraguan revolution, and how it had inspired hope in the people of El Salvador that El Salvador would be next. This implied that the revolution in Nicaragua was a positive thing. There was an article by Barbara Brown on hunger, which referred to the poverty in Nicaragua on October 10, 1979. In November, Robert Longman used Somoza as one of the few examples of a case where a government was so corrupt that it had been obvious to everyone. In December, the Nicaraguan revolution was mentioned as one of the top stories of 1979. Interestingly, the only facts given about he revolution were that it had overthrown Dictator Anastasio Somoza and several Catholic priests had been given prominent government positions.
1980
It was two days short of a year before Christianity Today published their next article on Nicaragua, on September 19, 1980. The author had changed, Paul Pretiz wrote instead of Sywulka. Paul Pretiz was much more optimistic concerning the Sandinistas, and he included several pro-Christianity quotes by Sandinista co-founder Tomas Borge. "As long as Sandinismo exist in Nicaragua, Christianity will continue to exist" and "You have heard us say, 'Sandinismo today, Sandinismo yesterday, Sandinismo forever' let me add, 'Jesus Christ today, Jesus Christ yesterday, Jesus Christ forever!'" The story is also told how Borge had forgiven the National Guard soldiers of Somoza who had castrated him, had killed his wife, and had forced him to watch while seventeen men gang raped and then killed his daughter. The article mentioned the Sandinistas literacy campaign, and how Christians were taking part of it. It also said "Despite recent fears that the Nicaraguan revolution would be taking a Cuban-style Communistic direction, the governing Junta appears to be demonstrating a desire to gain broad popular support among both Roman Catholics and Protestants". This article could hardly have been more pro-Sandinista.
The only reference to Nicaragua in Christian Century in 1980 was in the "News and Events" section, and was about how the pope had ordered six priests in the Sandinista government to step down so that they could meet the spiritual needs of people. The pope said lay Christians could take over their posts just as effectively.
1981
The March 27 issue of Christianity Today contained an article by Ronald Frase, a former missionary to Latin America who had recently visited Nicaragua. Frase’s article was strongly in favor of the Sandinistas. It contained quotes from two Americans living in Nicaragua who were upset because they thought things under the new Sandinista government were much more positive than the United States media had portrayed them. The article also interviewed Carlos Chamorro Coronel, part of the new government who, while he was not a Sandinista, supported their cause. Chamorro asserted that the revolution had not been a Marxist one, but a Christian one. The article also interviewed CEPAD director Gilberto Aguirre, who supported the Sandinistas as well. The article made no negative comments about the Sandinistas, nor included any quotations by anyone who opposed the Sandinistas. It is interesting, however, that the Editor of Christianity Today (Kenneth Kantzer) found it necessary to insert into Frase’s article that "Nicaragua’s Sandinista leadership has been closely linked to the flow of arms to Salvadoran guerillas". This seems to imply Kantzer was not quite as optimistic about the Sandinistas as Frase was.
The next article was in May, and was also extremely positive. Written by John Maust, this article mentioned that Tomas Borge (co-founder of the Sandinistas) had requested the Bibles. Much was made of the fact that Borge was a Christian, and the article also mentioned that Borge denounced and apologized for the murder of Somocistas by Sandinistas. Borge was quoted as saying revenge and murder were not Sandinista policy. The article said the Sandinistas have given full religious freedom to the church, and they had built a pool in prison for prisoners to be baptized. The article did mention, however, that in addition to many Christian literacy workers, there were many Marxist ones. The church leaders wanted to pump religious literature in to keep pace with the Marxist literature.
Christian Century in March detailed the conflict between the Sandinistas and the ethnic Indians of Nicaragua. An article by Joseph Cassidy on October 21 talked about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Sandinistas. Cassidy asserted that the Sandinistas wanted to form a close relationship with the Catholic Church, even though the Church was ambivalent about the Sandinista movement. Cassidy mentioned the same fact found in an earlier news and events section of Christian Century where six priests had been ordered to stand down from the government by the Pope. Cassidy said that this had been later revealed by Managuan newspapers to be a rumor, and that the truth had actually been that the Priests were allowed to keep their positions in the government, but could no longer exercise their priestly roles in public. Cassidy’s article was critical of the Sandinistas, however, and suggested that the Sandinistas wanted to twist Christianity to meet their ideal of revolutionary socialism. It was for this view that Paul Jeffrey harshly criticized him in a letter on December 16. Jeffrey said that the Catholic Church had long been out of touch with the Nicaraguan people. Furthermore, Jeffrey accused Cassidy of only using biased sources in his article, like "the reactionary La Prensa".
1982
In 1982 Christianity Today published two articles on Nicaragua. Edward Plowman published the first of these on February 5. It consisted of an interview with Archbishop Obando Y Bravo, who was an outspoken critic of the Sandinista regime. The Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) was responsible for publicizing the interview. Obando claimed in the interview that it was at that time a crime to criticize the government. Obando also said that the activities of the church have currently been regulated to the religious realm only. Furthermore the opposition paper, La Prensa had been shut down by the government.
The second article appeared on October 8. It contained a report by the Whitmer missionaries. In this report the Sandinistas had herded the Miskito Indians into a concentration camp. Many of them had been forced to dig their own graves before being riddled by bullets. This article did obviously not reflect well on the Sandinistas. However, the introduction to the article blamed the United States foreign policy on causing the tensions between the Sandinistas and the Miskitos, by supplying military aid to counter revolutionaries who lived near the Miskito land. The article pointed out that the United States neutrality laws were being applied in Haiti, where the people were struggling against a right wing government, but not in Nicaragua.
Christian Century had eleven articles, letters, and news briefs on Nicaragua. On January 6-13, Margaret Wilde had an article on the Sandinistas, in which she claimed there are all sorts of false rumors circulating about the Sandinistas relationship to the church and to the Miskitos. The way Wilde described the Miskito conflict is an interesting understatement. "There have been serious misunderstandings – some of them fatal – between the government and native ethnic groups on the East Coast". However, Wilde alleged, the Sandinistas have been working to improve their relationships with both the church and the Miskitos, and were becoming better all the time.
On February 24, Jan Black wrote a very pro-Sandinista article, which detailed all the good things that the Sandinistas have done since they came into power. Kenneth Garcia had a letter published on March 31, which thanked Black for the article. A news brief on April 7 contained one of the few negative things said about the Sandinistas. It said they had expelled eighteen Jehovah’s witnesses for counter-revolutionary activity. (That left only two Jehovah’s witnesses in Nicaragua).
On April 28, Wilde had another article on the Sandinista conflict with the Miskitos. Wilde blamed the disaster once again on United States policy. Wilde said the Sandinista atrocities were often exaggerated or made up. She acknowledged they did happen, but claimed that for the most part the Sandinistas treated the Miskitos humanely. In contrast to the Whitmer’s article in Christianity Today, Wilde emphasized that the Miskitos had not been kept in a concentration camp.
On December 1, an article on Church and State relations in Nicaragua by James Wall appeared. Wall took a very critical view of both Obando and the IRD. Wall argued that there was indeed religious freedom in Nicaragua. "This country is not yet a Marxist state. Marxist governments generally do not permit Roman Catholic prelates to talk to foreign visitors or to write a weekly column in an opposition newspaper, as Obando does." Wall also expressed a concern that the United States government had plans to overthrow the Sandinistas. On December 8, Wall continued his article. He claimed that Obando’s complaints represented conflict between Church and State, not oppression of the Church by the State. Wall contended that there was no religious oppression in Nicaragua.
A news brief on December 8 contained a call from the National Council of Churches for the "United States government to reverse its policy of seeking military solutions to problems in Nicaragua."
1983
Christianity Today only had one article about Nicaragua in 1983, but it was very positive about the Sandinista government. Written by news editor Tom Minnery, the tittle, "Why the Gospel Grows in Socialist Nicaragua: the Revolution turned against Capitalism but not Christianity", pretty much says it all. It had very little negative to say about the Sandinistas. It mentioned the conflict the Sandinista government had with the ethnic Indians, and with Protestants, but even here showed the Sandinistas in a sympathetic light.
Christian Century had much more to say about Nicaragua. In 39 issues, Christian Century had 22 articles or news briefs on Nicaragua, not counting other articles that made mention of Nicaragua. The editor, James Wall, began the year with a number of predictions, one of which was that Nicaragua would "slip further into Marxist orbit" and join Cuba and the Soviet Union. However, Wall was not attacking the Sandinistas so much as he was attacking Reagan’s policy, which he credited as forcing the Sandinistas into the arms of the Soviet Block. This theme would pop up through out the year in Christian Century articles about Nicaragua.
A reader, T.D. Reeves wrote in to attack Wall’s two articles the previous year. Reeves said Wall had been twisting the facts in order to present the Sandinistas in a favorable light. "More than anything else I have read in recent months, it represents biased, politically motivated, distorted and dishonest reporting" Reeves wrote. However, one month later Margaret Wilde wrote in a letter defending Wall’s articles. Reeves letter, she claimed, had been based on misinformation from the United States’ State Department.
Christian Century included a favorable report about the Sandinistas from a delegation that visited there. There was an article about a Reaganite who had visited Nicaragua, and had left it disillusioned with Reagan. There was an Article by James Wall on April 20, which compared the United States intervention in Nicaragua to the United States exploitation of Cuba before the communist revolution. There was a news brief that educators from seven different Universities had been coming out publicly in favor of the Sandinistas, and condemning the United States foreign policy in Nicaragua. Another news brief claimed eight members of the world Council of Churches were convinced that Nicaragua had complete religious freedom under the Sandinistas. There was an editorial by James Wall, which condemned the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction of Nicaraguan oil. (A reader wrote in on December 14, and praised Wall for this editorial). In news briefs it was mentioned that churches had opposed aid to Contras. It was also mentioned in passing in another news brief that there has been tension between the Sandinista government and the church. Wall criticized the United States’ government ban of Tomas Borge from the United States.
Both magazines were pro-Sandinista in 1983. Christianity Today is hard to judge, because it only has one article in April, and the attitude of the magazine may have changed by October. However, that article was written by the News Editor, and was very clearly in favor of the Sandinistas. Christian Century had only two negative things to say about the Sandinistas over the course of a whole year, and one of them was a letter by a reader. James Wall, the editor of the magazine, dedicated six of his 39 editorials that year to defend the Sandinistas. The other big writer was Margaret Wilde, who wrote five articles.
1984
In 1984, Christianity Today only had two articles on Nicaragua. One of them was written in January about Witness for Peace, a Christian group involved in Nicaragua that had protested Reagan’s policies, the United States involvement, and the activity of the Contras. However, Witness for Peace was quoted as saying they did not want to look like they supported the Sandinistas either. The second article was written in September by Beth Spring, the Washington correspondent for the newspaper. The article took the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) and Sojourners, and compared their attitudes towards Nicaragua. The IRD was very critical of the Sandinistas, the Sojourners were very supportive, but both sides were quoted equally.
Christian Century had seventeen segments about Nicaragua, counting News briefs, articles, and letters from readers. An article by Pope Liston in January condemned Reagan's involvement in Nicaragua. Liston gave several quotes by Tomas Borge, in which Borge had indicated plans of the CIA to assassinate prominent religious opposition in Nicaragua and blame it on the Sandinistas. Richard Deats gave a Witness for Peace report, in which he mistakenly credited the Sandinistas for having abolished the death penalty. A news brief talked about Ernesto Cardenal, who had been a Marxist priest in the Sandinista government. Ernesto Cardenal explained why he did not see a contradiction between Marxism and Christianity. Another news brief mentioned the World Court ruling in favor of Nicaragua and against the U.S. Further news briefs include reports from Baptist convention of Nicaragua, which criticized U.S. policy. Also a challenge made to Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that there was no religious oppression in Nicaragua, and then on the same page a different brief mentioned that ten foreign priests had been expelled from Nicaragua. The priests had been supporters of Archbishop Obando y Bravo, a critic of the Sandinista government. In September an article by Gregory Bergman included a quote by an Archbishop, who said that Nicaragua was influencing Cuba in terms of having increased religious freedom in Cuba more than Cuba was influencing Nicaragua. An article by Balfour Brickner condemned United States intervention in Nicaragua, which was supported by a letter from a reader on November 21. James Wall attacked the IRD, and essentially said that they were a tool for Reagan’s propaganda. An article came out supporting the validity of Nicaragua’s elections, and another news brief articulated that several church leaders have planned massive civil disobedience if the United States invaded Nicaragua.
In Christianity Today, there was much more of a move to the middle ground. Of the two articles published, one quoted from both sides of the debate. The other, while criticizing United States policy, clearly did not side with the Sandinistas either. Christian Century maintained a positive view of the Sandinistas, however.
1985
In 1985, Christianity Today had six articles on Nicaragua. The first of these appeared on April 5, by Beth Spring. It told of Evangelical leaders who were planning to visit pastors in Nicaragua. The trip was apolitical, and the participants acknowledged their were widely discrepant views of what had been going on down in Nicaragua. On April 19, Beth Spring had another article. The article dealt with Reagan’s policy on Nicaragua. Spring said that his position "has pitted Reagan against Christian groups that are sympathetic to the Sandinistas". IRD and the Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) planned a joint trip in the article, one group that favored the Sandinistas, and one group that did not. A follow up article to this one appeared on September 6. This article told about how IRD had cancelled the trip, for fear it would have intimidated the Nicaraguan evangelicals, and called increased government attention to their activities. ESA rejected IRD’s reason, and gave a quote implying that IRD had backed out because they were afraid the trip would be more politically advantageous to ESA then it would have been to them.
Also on September 6 was another article by Beth Spring. This is a follow up to her April 5 article. It mentions that the Sandinistas were losing popularity. The article was also very critical of the People’s Church, a church that had been started by the Sandinistas, which Spring described as "a mix of Marxism and Christianity". The article is critical of the Sandinistas, and praised their opponents, with such phrases as: "The traditional Catholic Church, led by Obando Y Bravo, has stood firm against Sandinista attempts to dictate to the Church." Also, the article opened up with a passage that indicated that Spring was very critical of the Sandinistas. "Evangelicals have found themselves caught in the middle. The have tried to reconcile reports of thriving churches, increased literacy and other improvements, with equally compelling accounts of repression, censorship, and manipulation of Christians by the Nicaraguan Government."
On November 8, Assistant News Editor Randall Frame had an article on Pat Robertson raising money for the Contras through his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN). In having done this, Frame was simply repeating allegations first made by another Christian magazine, Sojourners. A quote was included by Tom Hawk, former World Relief Coordinator in Honduras, that Hawk had been "very disappointed in CBN’s reporting on Central America…. It’s very, very one sided. The situation is so complex that you can go down and prove just about any story you want."
Beth Spring had an article on December 13. This article was reporting on the disruption of Civil Liberties in Nicaragua. The article said that the government had been cracking down of Christian activity from both Protestants and Catholics. The article quoted both IRD and ESA, but much more of the quotes came from IRD. The last words in the article were: "The Reagan administration views the Sandinistas as a Marxist government. Christian leaders are unwilling to endorse a ruler who systematically disrupts civil liberties." However, the article never said why civil liberties had been suspended.
Christian Century had 27 articles, letters, and news briefs on Nicaragua in 1985. In January, James Wall mentioned Daniel Ortega’s election in 1984 as one of the signs of hope for the new year. His reason for this was that Ortega had been willing to meet with the Catholic church.
On January 2-9, IRD responded to criticism that they have received in Christian Century by James Wall. They claimed that CEPAD was a Sandinista propaganda machine, and yet Wall supported CEPAD. They refuted Wall’s claim that IRD is just Reagan propaganda, and said that one did not need to be part of the Reagan administration to have been concerned about what was going on in Nicaragua. Finally they said that the evidence Wall used to link IRD to the Reagan administration was faulty.
On February 20, there was an article by Kinsler and Evans that defended the 1984 elections in Nicaragua. Also on February 20, Wall in an editorial lamented the fact that he had been often categorized as pro-Sandinista simply because he had been anti-Reagan. In the same issue, an excerpt was included from a CIA manufactured Contra pamphlet. In the pamphlet, the CIA told the Contras to call themselves a Christian movement, and to open and close each meeting with prayer, in hopes that they would gain support from the populace.
The rest of the year has reoccurring themes. The Contra atrocities are documented. The magazine in general, but especially Wall’s editorials, condemn Contra funding by the United States. Several articles alluded to the fact that the Sandinista Government was not as bad as it looked. Pat Robertson was also condemned. In fact, in May 8, an editorial by Dean Peerman described Robertson’s charity as, "Tithing for terrorism".
1986
By 1986, it was apparent that both magazines had different views of what was going on. Christianity Today had two articles on Nicaragua, on in February, one in April. Both articles were written by Beth Spring, the Washington Correspondent. The article in February concerned the harsh treatment of evangelicals in Nicaragua. Jimmy Haasan described his experience. The tone had obviously moved to a tone harshly critical of the Sandinistas. "Incidents of harassment against Catholics and groups such as the Miskito Indians have cast serious doubt on the Sandinistas’ tolerance for anyone who answers to a higher authority than the ruling junta".
On his visit to Nicaragua, Dr. Steven Wykstra had an opportunity to visit the evangelicals who were harassed. He found that the United States media had largely exaggerated the whole story. Another interesting thing Dr. Wykstra brought to light was the issue of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funding. Hassan, in the article, reported that the Sandinistas had asked him how much the CIA paid him. It was presented in Beth Spring’s article as a ridiculous question. However, Wykstra revealed that the CIA did in fact pay money to Humberto Belli for his anti-Sandinista book "Breaking Faith".
In her second article for the year, Beth Spring increased her anti-Sandinista bias. She took for granted that the Sandinistas were totalitarian, and included a quote from the Washington Post to reinforce it. "Virtually all observers say the Sandinistas are running a totalitarian state". Spring mentioned that there was a Christian Left who believed in the goodness of the Sandinistas. Spring described an encounter Republican Paul Henry had with these individuals. Henry concluded that they were either political naive or held strongly to their leftist viewpoints. He said that the Sandinistas had informed them and that the Sandinista government had only told them what it had wanted them to hear. Beth Spring concluded by saying that it was these kinds of people who were responsible for shaping the views of the Christian Left. No letters were published in response.
Christian Century had eighteen articles, letters, and news briefs on Nicaragua. Robert Brown, one of Christian Century’s editors at large, wrote an article reflecting on his trip to Nicaragua. It was strongly pro-Sandinista. The sickening details of the contra atrocities on a local village were given. "11 year-old Helena, whose hands are horribly mutilated because the contras used them for target practice; her older sister, who was gang-raped on the floor of their tiny house; Carmen Alvira, whose three teen-age sons were kidnapped while cultivating their little plot of land, and have not been heard of since". Steven Wykstra said he was amazed by how little coverage the Contra atrocities had received in the United States media, compared with how much coverage Sandinista atrocities had received. Brown maintained that "embassy officials in Managua tell Washington what Washington wants to hear, so that Washington can act on the basis of what it has heard from Managua". In this way, Brown said it was the Christian right, not the Christian left that was misinformed about what was going on. Brown even went on say that Obando y Bravo, a bishop critic of the Sandinistas, has acted as he did because he was on the side of the rich. Christian Century got two letters back because of Brown’s article. One was strongly in favor of it, one was furious, but the author was upset at Brown’s attack on Catholicism, not his support of the Sandinistas. A couple of news briefs alluded to religious oppression in Nicaragua, everything else was in support of the Sandinistas, right up until December when Jerome Nilssen described how he has become increasingly disillusioned with the Sandinistas. Originally in support of them, each time he made a trip to Nicaragua he had become more and more upset with what was going on. He finally admitted in this article that he would have liked to see the Sandinistas just leave Nicaragua.
1987
Christianity Today had three articles on Nicaragua in 1987. The first of these was by Beth Spring, and was about an interview with Sergio Ramirez, Vice President of Nicaragua. Spring included only a couple statements by Ramirez, and then the rest of the article was about his critics. Although written in the objective style, more space by far was given to the critics (this included the coveted end of the article). Jimmy Carter was among the critics. In the article it was stated: "Jimmy Carter said human-rights abuses under the Sandinistas have equaled or exceeded Somoza’s". The other two articles were more favorable to the Sandinistas.
Christian Century had 19 articles, news briefs, and letters concerning Nicaragua. There were two letters in response to Jerome Nilssen’s ambivalent article the year before. One of the letters was a fierce defense of the Sandinistas, saying that Nilssen had an unrealistic ideal, possible only in heaven. Compared to most other countries, the letter asserted, (which included the United States), Nicaragua was not doing badly at all. The other article was from someone else who had also visited Nicaragua, and shared Nilssen’s ambivalence. In April 29, Jospeph Mulligan defended the Sandinistas human rights record. A reader later challenged him, and mentioned Humberto Belli’s book: "Breaking Faith".
In 1987, Christian Century had become more and more aware of the conflict between the Sandinistas and the church, and included more news briefs about this. Most of the editorials were still anti-Contra, but the tone of support for the Sandinistas, while still present, had decreased.
1988
Christianity Today had two articles on the Sandinistas. Both were by Randell Frame, and both were optimistic about chances for peace in Nicaragua. Both articles were written in the objective style, and had plenty of quotes from both sides.
By 1988, the Century’s support for the Sandinistas was waning, but they were vehemently anti-contra. On January 20, Penny Lennoux asserted in her article that the Ethnic Indians in Nicaragua had not joined the Contras willingly, but were forced into their camp. Lennoux said the Indians hated the Contras as much as they hated the Sandinistas. On January 27, editor at large Dean Peerman claimed that the other Latin American countries looked on the Contras as agents of destruction, and did not believe the Contras were helping anything. Robert Brown wrote an article on February 24, and said that the United States had destroyed Nicaragua through its funding of the Contras. Brown argued that: "The concept is simple: since the United States, through its aid to the contras, has spent seven years and millions of dollars contributing to Nicaragua’s destruction, the U.S. is now obligated to allocate equal time and money for its rebuilding".
1989
Christianity Today had two articles published on Nicaragua in 1989. The first of these articles was an interview with Gustavo Parajon, the founder of CEPAD, which appeared in March. Parajon had been a defender of the Sandinistas over the years, and he supported them in this article as well. The questions asked to him were often pointed questions, directed against the Sandinistas. (For example: "Critics charge that freedom has not increased with the lessening of conflict. Do you share these concerns?"). However, Parajon was always able to give an answer that defended his position. When asked about civil liberties, he responded he did not know, however, "What I do know for sure is that the limbs of more than 2,500 Nicaraguans have been blown off by mines… eight of my co-workers have been murdered by the contras".
The second article was by Randall Frame. It essentially interviewed Alberto Mottesi, an Argentinean Evangelist who had recently prayed with Daniel Ortega. Mottesi emphasized in the interview the tensions between Marxism and the gospel, however the article was written in an objective style.
Christian Century had nine articles, news briefs, and letters about Nicaragua in 1989. In March a news brief reported that the Church of the Brethren had called on the United States to end the embargo on Nicaragua, and to end aid to the Contras. In May, a news brief reported that a delegation of pastors asked for an end to Contra aid. An article about Fred Morris made predictions about what George Bush would do in Central America. In the article, Morris implied the Nicaraguans wanted to be left alone by the United States, and were happy under the Sandinistas. Morris included data to back up his argument. In July, Alan Wisdom, from the IRD, wrote a letter challenging Morris’ statistics, and made an argument that Nicaraguans would be much happier without the Sandinistas.
Also in May, a news brief was given about Pat Roberston’s visit to Nicaragua. Robertson, the brief said, had been contributing millions of dollars to the Contras. In July, Michael Rivage-Seul wrote an article in which he alleged that the United States had purposely undermined the Sandinista regime. The Sandinista had to spend 40 % of their Gross National Product on defense against the U.S. armed contras, which left little for the social programs on which the success of the revolution had been based. Rivage-Seul predicted (falsely) that the Sandinistas’ would win the battle, but it would be a hard fought battle. In August, Margaret Wilde did an article on the Miskito Indian refugees. A news brief reported that it had been revealed that the United States Embassy had been giving out free aid to conservative pastors in Nicaragua. Poorer, more liberal pastors received none. There was a news briefs about the sufferings of the Miskito Indians.
Christianity Today, of its two articles, contained one more sympathetic to the Sandinistas, and one more skeptical. Both were written objectively. Christian Century was, once again, very sympathetic to the Sandinistas. It was increasingly aware of the Miskito plight, and had a couple of articles about them, but even in these articles they did not come down hard on the Sandinistas.
1990
Christianity Today did not have any article on Nicaragua in 1990, where as Christian Century had fourteen articles, letters, and news briefs. In general, Christian Century was optimistic about Violeta Chamorro, although many of the articles did lament the passing of the Sandinistas. One such article in support of the Sandinistas appeared on March 14, by William Fore. It was harshly criticized in a later letter by Michael Novak (from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research). Novak ended his letter by saying, "Yet I am glad that Fore has presented us with such important documentary evidence of the self-delusions of the Sandinistas international supporters, as well as of the Sandinista government itself." Christian Century also documented continued Contra atrocities in the year 1990.
Post 1990
In 1991 neither magazine would feature an article about Nicaragua. In fact, using the indexes listed above no Christian periodicals had any articles on Nicaragua. Once the Sandinistas were out of power, American interest in Nicaragua vanished as well.
ConclusionsIt is worth noting the coverage of the media in general about the Sandinista government before drawing conclusions about Christianity Today and Christian Century. During the actual revolution itself, and the first few years afterwards, Media coverage of the Sandinistas was very favorable.25 There were a few voices on the right wing, such as the periodical Human Events that advocated Somoza’s dictatorship was better then a Marxist government (which they condemned the Sandinistas as being).26 Opinion gradually changed as the Sandinistas atrocities with the Miskito Indians came to light, as well as the conflict with the Catholic Church.
As is evidenced by the above pages, it is hard to track down what bias or viewpoint either periodical takes. One reason for this of course is that many of the articles (especially those written for Christianity Today) were in the style of objective journalism, and objective journalism, if done right, makes it impossible for the reader to determine the bias of the author. (Fortunately, the bias does often show through anyway however).
Secondly, and more importantly, each magazine was composed of many different writers that worked for it, and each writer had his or her own viewpoint. For instance, although both Beth Spring and Randell Frame wrote for Christianity Today, they might not have seen eye to eye on things, and an article by Beth Spring might have taken a different view of the Sandinistas then an article by Randell Frame would take.
There are a few ways of getting around this. One is to take notice of what position the writer has on the staff of the Magazine. For instance, Christianity Today frequently had articles on Nicaragua written by people who were not affiliated with the magazine itself. These articles, although not discounted entirely, are of less important then articles written by Beth Spring, the magazine’s Washington Correspondent, or articles written by Randell Frame, the magazine’s Associate News Editor. Christian Century had almost all of its articles on Nicaragua written by staff writers. The Editor himself, James Wall, wrote many of the editorials concerning Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Another point that should be made is that caution should be taken before comparing these magazines to each other. Because of the sheer number of articles on Nicaragua Christian Century had in most years, compared to the relatively few number of articles Christianity Today had, Christian Century touches on all sorts of events Christianity Today never even mentions.
With the above criteria in mind, and speaking in broad, general terms based on the above evidence, it can safely be said that Christianity Today began in 1979 with a cautious ambivalence regarding the Sandinistas (with articles written by staff writer Stephen Sywulka). After the Sandinista revolution succeeded, the articles in 1980 and 1981 were full of optimism. A number of different writers are represented in this period. A gradual shift was made to a more critical view of the Sandinistas. Beth Spring, who wrote eight articles about the Sandinistas between November of 1984, and January of 1987, dominated the magazine's view of the Sandinistas for these two and some years. Although Spring’s articles were always written in the objective style of journalism, she quoted heavily from those critical of the Sandinistas, and sparingly from their supporters. Critics were often given the last word, and a few times Spring interjected her own view of the Sandinistas into the article as a critic of the Sandinistas. Randall Frame, the other big writer on Nicaragua for this magazine during the 1980s, had four articles between 1985 and 1989. Frame’s articles were more critical of United States policy towards Nicaragua, although they never endorsed the Sandinistas.
Christian Century had, as mentioned above, much more articles on Nicaragua. From this we can deduce that the staff of Christian Century was more concerned about events in Nicaragua then the staff of Christianity Today. This is in keeping with the increased attention Century focused on the third world in the 1980s. Like Christianity Today, the Century started out ambivalent about the Sandinistas in the revolutionary war, then moved to an endorsement of them. Aside from a couple writers and news briefs, the Century never really became critical about the Sandinistas. A good way to say it would be they simply became less enthusiastic about the Sandinistas, and there was a quiet moving away from their earlier position of outright support, but very few articles appeared that were critical. Instead, the Century shifted its focus in the mid 1980s from extolling the virtues of the Sandinistas, to being critical of United States policy in the 1980s. Interestingly enough though, in 1990 once it was clear that the Sandinistas had lost, the Century almost seemed to return to their earlier position of endorsement for the Sandinistas, and there were a couple articles that lamented their passing.
James Wall, the editor of the magazine, was very concerned about Nicaragua, and wrote 24 editorials on, or that refer to, Nicaragua between 1978 and 1990. Wall’s editorials followed rather neatly the pattern of the magazine, which was fitting given his position. Margaret Wilde, an editor at large for the magazine, wrote most of the articles featured during the 1980s. Wilde’s articles followed the same line as Wall’s, although Wilde took longer to move away from praising the Sandinistas, and returned to praising them quicker. The most fervent supporter of the Sandinistas in the magazine was Robert Brown, another editor at large, who had six articles on Nicaragua. In Brown’s articles, the Sandinistas could do no wrong, and all problems Nicaragua was facing were laid at the feet of the Contras or of the Nicaraguan Bourgeois. Paul Jeffrey, while not as radical as Brown, also remained in support of the Sandinistas throughout the 1980s.
Since both magazines focused on different things, it is hard to do a direct comparison. However, we can look at various events. The first of these is the Christianity of Tomas Borge. Borge, the only surviving founding member of the Sandinistas, was overtly Christian as both magazines picked up. Both magazines quoted Borge as he talked about his commitment to Christianity, both magazines picked up on Borge's request for more Bibles, and both told the rather amazing story about how Borge saw his former torturer in jail, forgave him, and freed the man.
Another thing that both magazines picked up on in the early days of optimism was how the Sandinistas abolished the death penalty. This was actually a common misconception that deceived secular media as well. In fact, the death penalty had never been legal in Nicaragua.27
Another interesting key point is the World Court decision. In 1984, the CIA mined Nicaragua’s harbors. Nicaragua brought the United States before the World Court, and the World Court in November of 1987 decided that the United States had indeed violated International law. This is an interesting test case in media analysis because this case was not mentioned in any of the dominant newspapers or three television networks. However, the previous day most of these media had alerted the United States public about the World Court’s decision that the Soviet Union should remove itself from Afghanistan.28 Christianity Today followed the line of mainstream media and did not mention that story. Christian Century mentioned it repeatedly. (It is, of course, worth remembering at this point that the Century had many more articles per year on Nicaragua than Today).
Another interesting point in the 1984 election. Christian Century took a rather predictable stance on this. The Century repeatedly condemned the Reagan administration for having not recognized the election, and repeatedly brought up the fact that all other international observers had recognized the validity of the elections. The Century repeatedly mentioned how high the voting turn out was, and how much of the vote Daniel Ortega received, to emphasize that Nicaragua had in fact been a democracy, and some authors went as far as to say that this data meant Nicaragua was more democratic then the United States. The Century did not mention that all criticisms of the election in Nicaragua were censored.0 Christianity Today is interesting because of their absence of comment on the 1984 election. It was not even mentioned in their articles.
Again the same pattern is seen in the 1990 election. The Century was fond of quoting Daniel Ortega that Nicaragua voted with a gun to its head. The Century maintained that even though the Sandinistas had lost the election, it was because of United States pressure, not loss of popularity. Christianity Today was strangely silent, and did not even have any articles on Nicaragua at all in 1990.
Also amazing is the lack of coverage about the Iran-Contra affair, considering the intense media coverage it received at the time. Christian Century made references to it, but did not report on it or dedicate any articles to it. Christianity Today never even referred to it. It is difficult to say with certainty why neither magazine reported on Iran-Contra, but I hypothesize that due to the intense media coverage it received at the time both magazines assumed their readers were well enough informed on the issue.
In closing, it is important to see both of these magazines in the context of the 1980s. The 1980s were a time of polarizing politics, where distinctions between left and right became quite clear. The readers of both magazines were Americans, and were more concerned with American politics than with politics in Nicaragua. Therefore, the debate over United States foreign policy in Nicaragua should be seen in the larger context of the right versus left debate of the 1980s. The respective position that each magazine took could possibly be seen as an example of where the magazine stood in the broader debate.
Footnotes:
1. It should be noted that Christian Century has an "Events and People" section, in which updates about events, like the civil war in Nicaragua, are included. While I do make use of this section, when I use the word "article" in this paper I am not counting these selections.
2. Stephen Wykstra, Personal Interview, 15 November 1999.
3. Thomas Walker, Nicaragua: the Land of Sandino (Boulder: Westview Press, 1982), 14-45.
4. Humberto Belli, Breaking Faith: The Sandinsta Revolution and Its Impact on Freedom and Christian Faith in Nicaragua (Westchester: Crossway books, 1985), 183-210
5. Belli, 106-117.
6. Charles Lippy, ed., Religious Periodicals of the United States (Wesport: Greenwood Press, 1986), xi.
7. Charles Austin, "The History and Role of the Protestant Press," in Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith ed. Benjamin Hubbard (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), 114-115.
8. Richard Ostling in Austin, 112.
9. Austin, 113
10. Annalee Ward, "Christian Century," in Popular Religious Magazines of the United State ed. Mark Fackler and Charles Lippy, (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995), 110.
11. James Wall in Annalee Ward, 110.
12. Ibid., 113.
13. Martin Marty, et. Al., The Religious Press in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), 10.
14. Mark Toulouse, "The Christian Century," in Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. ed. Charles Lippy, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 112.
15. Mark Toulouse, "The Christian Century," in Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. ed. Charles Lippy, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 112.
16. John Merritt, "Christianity Today," in Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. ed. Charles Lippy, (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 136.
17. Kenneth Kantzer in Sweeny, 147.
18. Sweeney, 148.
19. Ibid., 148.
20. Merrit, 137.
21. "Michael Novak." http://www.aei.org/scholars/novak.htm (17 December 1999).
22. Joshua Muravchik in Allan Brownfeld, "How the Media Misled us on the Sandinistas," Human Events, 11 February 1989, 6-7
23. Stanton Evans, "AP, ‘Post’ cover up for Sandinistas," Human Events, 8 September 1979, 17.
24. Thomas, 37.
25. This is the whole thesis behind Joshua Muravchik, New Coverage of the Sandinista Revolution (Washington: American Institute for Public Policy, 1988).
26. Stanton Evan, 6-7.
27. Belli, 119.
28. Martin Lee and Norman Solomon, Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990), 257.
29. Belli, 261.
Bibliography
Primary SourcesChristian Century: 1978-1990
Christianity Today: 1978-1990
Secondary Sources
Austin, Charles. "The History and Role of the Protestant Press." In Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith. Ed. Benjamin Hubbard. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Belli, Humberto. Breaking Faith: The Sandinista Revolution and Its Impact on Freedom and Christian Faith in Nicaragua. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1985.
Brownfeld, Allan. "How the Media Misled us on the Sandinistas." Human Events, 11 February 1989, 6-7.
Evans, Stanton. "AP, ‘Post" cover up for Sandinistas." Human Events, 8 September 1979, 17
Fackler, P. Mark and Charles H. Lippy. Ed. Popular Religious Magazines of the United
States. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Flynn, Patricia, Roger Burbach, Mark Moberg. "Nicaragua." Collier’s Encyclopedia. 1997.
Hubbard, Benjamin, ed. Reporting Religion: Facts and Faith. Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990.
Lee, Martin, and Norman Solomon. Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media. New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990.
Lippy, Charles. H., Ed. Religious Periodicals of the United States. Westport: Greenwood
Press, 1986
Martin, Marty, et al. The Religious Press in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
"Media to Blame for Rise of Sandinistas." Human Events, 29 March 1986, 3.
Merrit, John. "Christianity Today." In Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. Ed. Charles Lippy. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
"Michael Novak." http://www.aei.org/scholars/novak.htm (17 December 1999).
Muravchik, Joshua. News Coverage of the Sandinista Revolution. Washington: American Institute for Public Policy, 1988.
Sweeney, Douglas. "Christianity Today." In Popular Religious Magazines of the United States. Ed. Mark Fackler and Charles Lippy. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Toulouse, Mark. "The Christian Century." In Religious Periodicals of the United States: Academic and Scholarly Journals. Ed. Charles Lippy. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Walker, Thomas. Nicaragua: The Land of Sandino. Boulder: Westview Press, 1982.
Ward, Annalee. "Christian Century." In Popular Religious Magazines of the United State. Ed.
Mark Fackler and Charles Lippy. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1995.
Wykstra, Stephen. Personal Interview. 15 November 1999.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
