In the world of espionage, the best recognition is no recognition at all.
The front of the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Langley, Virginia have monuments to fallen agents, sculptures on intelligence gathering, and a statue of Nathan Hale, the Revolutionary war spy who got caught and hanged in September of 1776. The fallen agents went down due to numerous factors (possibly including incompetence), the intelligence gathering is nothing to celebrate, especially lately, and Hale is remembered more for supposed valor at the gallows than any real prowess as a spy.
Yet there is little public fanfare for the first successful spy agency in American history.
For most Americans, the recent debut of the AMC series Turn is their introduction to the Culper Ring, a network of spies and couriers that operated in New York City, Long Island and Connecticut during the Revolution. For me, and anyone who went to school on Long Island, the Culper Ring was part of our common knowledge. Part of my American history class was devoted to local history, and the Culper Ring featured prominently–I had to memorize the names and roles of Benjamin Tallmadge, Abraham Woodhull, Caleb Brewster and the like.
We even used some of their codes and encryption methods in class–which is especially fun when coding out swear words to your classmates.
Yet beyond the spycraft and 18-century Bond-like gadgetry, the Culper Ring was successful in the quality and quantity of their information (they supposedly discovered the Benedict Arnold betrayal and the British ambush on French troops in Rhode Island) as well as keeping their cover. The original ring kept their identities hidden to the grave, and most of these identities weren’t discovered until the 1930s.
This was a story that just begged to be made for the screen, and AMC has done it right, for now, in releasing their story as a series. Is this new drama worthy of the exploits of the Culper gang? Two episodes in, the verdict is still out, but the results look promising.
The series is based on Alexander Rose’s book Washington’s Spies and begins in a supposed backwater of the war–Suffolk County, Long Island. Yet it is here, in the north shore hamlet of Setauket, where the ring begins to take shape. Benjamin Tallmadge, a Continental major (and Yale classmate of Nathan Hale) recruits his reluctant friend Abraham Woodhull on a mission to transmit information to the rebel base across Long Island Sound in Connecticut. Woodhull is portrayed as a typical non-committal farmer ala Mel Gibson’s melodramatic Benjamin Martin in The Patriot. His loyalist (for now) father is the local magistrate and friends with the local commander of the British garrison. As a struggling farmer, Woodhull just wants to stay out of the way, until events push him towards Tallmadge and rebel espionage.
After two episodes (including a one and a half hour pilot) I can see where the creators are going with this. It’s great that the show is taking its time in developing the establishment of the spy network. In real life, establishing confidants, sources and “assets” to “turn” (spyspeak for getting an asset to spy on their side) takes time and dangerous planning. The show is also accurate in developing the perspectives and loyalties of everyday colonists of the time. Even among the loyalists, you get a sense that the characters are loyal less out of any sense of connection and more of expediency. The patriots also seem less like the textbook noble heroes and more human, driven by more tangible needs than simply love of liberty.
Another fun feature of the show is its interactive features. The Turn website features an option called Story Sync. Designed to be used simultaneously with the broadcast, Story Sync features information about the historical characters, quizzes, polls, and little asides designed to enrich the experience. There are also links to interactive maps, spy materials, and other resources that an educator can use. I already see how these can create a home Blu-Ray or DVD loaded with surprises.
However, the construction of the basic drama, at least now, seems formulaic. It establishes a clueless British commander in Major Hewlett, a one-dimensional, wooden villain in Captain Simcoe (who reminds me of Colonel Tavington in The Patriot without the charisma), and a somewhat contrived love triangle between Woodhull, his wife, and Anna Strong, a local tavernkeeper who was once engaged to Woodhull and whose husband is in prison for an attack on a British officer. I will admit, I didn’t read Rose’s book yet, but I do think this romance is more a creation of the screenwriters and less a development of actual events.
In terms of dramatic license, there needs to be some slack given. Until recently, there was little evidence as to the existence of the ring at all, let alone their day-to-day operations. So we can forgive the writers somewhat in their zeal to fill in the blanks.
In that vein, Robert Rogers offers a fun way to develop the story. Rogers, a hero of the French and Indian War and a founder of modern military rangers, had serious legal issues in Britain and returned to America as an erratic alcoholic during the Revolution. He offered his services to whoever would pay him: first Washington, who (wisely it seems) didn’t trust him, and then the British. He created another Ranger unit that helped capture Nathan Hale, but Rogers’ behavior got him dismissed the next year, so he probably didn’t have as much involvement in the Culper spy network as the series would like him us to believe.
However, I think Rogers can become the most interesting character in the whole show.
In the series, he is portrayed as a colonial has-been with a hair-trigger temper and a sixth sense for treachery, one who’ll sell his mother for a few guineas. Of all, I see Rogers as developing into an Al Swearengen type of character: a son of a bitch so ruthless and witty you just have to love him. The problem with the show right now is that the British are all universally one-dimensional bad guys. The best villains are those who have something likable about them, and Rogers is definitely someone I would have a drink with. If Rogers emerges as the main antagonist, this might become a really fun show.
In terms of history, Turn is doing its best with the information it has. Again, I didn’t read the source material, and once I do, I can make a more informed judgement. However, as a television show, this has the potential to be fun, exciting and a good starting point in studying espionage in the American Revolution.
If only the show can get away from the cookie cutter formulas, it just might do justice to an important set of patriots in our history. Let’s hope the history wins out.
Bring Back Social Studies – From the Pages of The Atlantic
The beginning of the end: President Bush signing NCLB at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Even if you’ve said it a thousand times, it doesn’t hurt to say it again.
Mr. D’s much more industrious little sister, Dr. D (yep, she finished that doctorate!) drew my attention to this recent article from The Atlantic. The article advocates stopping the current trend towards neutering social studies as a distinct discipline in American education.
While the article itself breaks no new ground, it encapsulates the history and status of the issue well so that newbies to the struggle get an eye opener–whilst the veterans get a refresher course in the shitstorm that is No Child Left Behind.
Jen Kalaidis opens with the decline of student time spent studying social studies, to a whopping 7.6 percent. More importantly, she details the history of this decline–and contrary to popular belief, it didn’t happen in the Cold War.
Kalaidis does mention the 1957 Sputnik launch as a “Pearl Harbor” moment in American education. From that point on, millions of dollars poured into math and science programs to keep up the space race against the Commies. Yet to assume education was a zero-sum game at the time would be false: social studies did maintain its status through the Cold War, in fact peaking in 1993-1994 at 3 hours per week on average in US classrooms.
The reasoning is simple: the Cold War was more than just a technological race. It was a battle of ethics and morals, of hearts and minds. Social studies was at the center of that struggle, for better or worse. At its worst, social studies channeled jingoistic American patriotism into half-truths and propaganda. At its best, social studies provided the historical foundations, civic structure and critical analysis that helped shape a better America–one that could hopefully achieve that moral high ground against the Soviets.
The real decline came with No Child Left Behind–and here is where the article gets mundane.
To old-timers of the education wars, Kalaidis’ retread of the decline of social studies–the sacrifical lamb at the altar of Common Core, ELA, and STEM–is an old argument shouted out in hundreds of teacher lounges, conferences and workshops across the country. The emphasis on reading, math and science pushed social studies to a secondary discipline–one that was often not subject to standardized testing. If you couldn’t use a number 2 pencil, it wasn’t worth knowing.
We also all know how important it is to develop critical thinking and analysis skills, something social studies was designed for. If taught well, social studies makes students take ownership of history, of civics and economics, leading them to their own ideas, conclusions and opportunities.
One aspect of this decline that Kalaidis did mention–and should be mentioned more–is the “civic achievement gap.” The lack of civic education has created an underclass not only ignorant of their own government, but wholly unable or unwilling to vote, to participate in local politics or pursue careers in public service. As much as we rag on the government, we need one–a competent one–and that involves competent people working in all levels. To ignore the civic gap in low-income Americans is tantamount to disenfranchising them.
Lastly, Kalaidis does mention steps to move social studies back to the forefront. Obama has decried the lack of civic education in NCLB. So has Arne Duncan in a half-hearted article in the NCSS journal in 2011 (I ripped him a new one about it). Yet most of this is lip service, or that dreaded word integration (as in subject integration, not race).
The reality is that there is no concrete move to make social studies important again in American schools. And I hate to admit it–but the conspiracist in me thinks the decline of social studies is deliberate.
When the lunatics run the asylum, they make sure no one figures out they’re really lunatics. Without proper social studies education, there’s no way to tell the difference.
Filed under Uncategorized
Tagged as American History, Arne Duncan, Barack Obama, Cold War, Commentary, Common Core, Communications, Cultural Literacy, Curriculum, Education, education reform, No Child Left Behind Act, Opinion, Pearl Harbor, Social studies, Teaching, U.S. History, United States, World History