we really hope visitors to the columbus museum come away with a greater appreciation for the rich history, heritage and culture columbus has had throughout its life. we want our local residents to really take pride in where they are living and appreciate what has made an impact on the world stage. we hope visitors from out of town begin to recognize not just columbus's rich history when they are here, but when they go home. they may see something that reminds them of a person, place, business, or a product that came from columbus, and how it enriches their own daily life.

now the 20th century, and not to

copy what the greeks saw and felt in art over 2000 years ago. here is the key line, above all the great thing is to express oneself. the reporter, i thought of a celebrated canvas matisse once produced of blue tomatoes. why blue, he was asked? because i see them that way and i cannot help it if no one else does. this interview goes on and on. for matisse, we see how the modern artist is less impressed with copying the forms and techniques from previous generations. we see how the new artists are creating greater premium on the emotional power of the work. they sought some deeper emotional relationship to their work, to achieve an emotional fulfillment through their work.

whether or not the end result looks like the subject mattered less and less. they're using their art to access something within. does that sound like freud? i think it does. coming after the powerful realist movement, realism approximately 1850 to the late 1880's into the 1890's, the realist movement, which as you can tell by the name realist realism, attempted to capture the subject. the peasants working in the field actually look like peasants working in a field. given that backdrop, we can see, we can imagine how the impressionists and post-impressionists and cubists

how what they were doing was seen as revolutionary. one of the classic examples of realist art is titled arrangement in grey and black. what do we know that painting as? you will know it as soon as i put it up. whistler's mother, james whistler 1871. why is it a realist painting? we can probably say with confidence that this is what mrs. whistler would have looked like. it is against this kind of realism that the postimpressionists and cubists

are working against. the matisse is different from whistler's mother but it's a far cry from what the cubists are about to do. if the critics thought that matisse was wild and revolutionary, they fell all over themselves looking at the work of cuba's painters. all of these on display at the armory show. let me give you three quick examples of cubist art, in contrast with what we are seeing here. dances at the spring. what is going on here? good question. dances at the spring, evidently.

the point is how different it is from whistler's mother, from the whole realist school. picasso, woman and a mustard pots. finally, marcel duchamp. nude descending. you get the sense of the cubist john ray here, and what is it we are seeing here? a further disorienting of lines and overall structure compared to whistler's mother. the cubists, on purpose fractured the traditional form, the subject, it is all broken up and reassembled. this fit the artist's temper at

the time and the new philosophical motivations of their time, and that is that things may not eat what they seem. especially with einstein and some of freud's influence, this is a thought that is starting to take root. what we thought was time and space turns out to be not time and space. things like that. you can see this working its way into art. what we thought was true or real or solid or absolute, that these things can be broken down and then they can be reassembled that truth or art or life itself can be broken down, but then reassembled in a way that had

greater meaning or value than existed previously. from this point then, we should be able to make the link from this artistic sensibility we are describing and the kind of social reforms at jane adams might advocate. if we think about the adams biography, that whole progressive ease those. -- ethos, these problems in society can be broken down and they can be reassembled to make life better, to have more meaning. in a way, that is what these artists are doing. they are breaking down the subject, right? and then they are reassembling. critics of modernism however, as we will see, tended to focus on the breaking down part. they tended to focus on that a lot. cubism provoked some very strong negative reactions.

it seemed to symbolize, be encouraging the feeling of the disintegration of the modern world itself. so the reaction against cubism really strong. for instance, this article that i passed out here in the fresno morning republican, september 27, 1913. in that little article that i copied for you here, the rider -- rightwriter makes a really interesting connection between cubism and labor radicalism. he says if the rights make you -- i.w.w. make you angry, try the antidote of going out and exploring the violent world of the art annex. before you get out you will regard the iww as rational and law-abiding citizens.

he goes on, the violent towards where these paintings -- the violent wards where these paintings are held. cubism and futurism run riot, so write it indeed they will not even stay in their frames. for this is liberty and free art cannot confine itself within its frame. here is a room full of pictures that represent neither things nor thoughts nor even emotions but disordered visions, manias and delirium. ok, so here's the question then. what is the connection between -- how is this person connecting cubism and the iww? who were the iww's? their nickname is the wobblies. the wobblies. the wobblies were, for that time, probably the most radical

labor organization. the american federation is pretty popular, but they take a much more conciliatory approach to labor relations, and this is one of the reasons we get groups like the iww, the industrial workers of the world. who get this awesome nickname of the wobblies. the wobblies then did advocate aggressive confrontation with mine owners in the west for example. they did encourage even violence to a certain extent. ok? certainly they were seen as the most radical labor organization of the time. to a lot of middle-class types and business owners and mention of the iww, the wobblies, sent chills and shivers down their backs.

great concern in consternation sent chills and shivers down their backs. grave concern and consternation of the wobblies. in this context, this article that links cubism with the kind of labor confrontation advocated by the wobblies, it is really telling. it really gets at those anxieties that modernism was generating and spreading. it was not confined just to art. critics are able to make this connection between the kind of disruption that cubists have done to art form, and the kind of disruption that the wobblies advocated in labor-management relations. another example is this

interview that the new york times holds with this artist named kenyan context -- kenyan cox. march 16 1913, kenyan cox was himself an american painter born in the 1850's, but at this stage in his life, he is known more for being an art critic as opposed to his work as an artist. he responds very forcefully to the rise of cubism. early on, we can see the sympathy of the new york times. "the times writes" -- "the times" writes, the artist was

found in his new hampton studio with the corncob pipe between his teeth. what kind of image does that convey? what comes to mind when we think of that? what are they trying to say about kenyon cox? >> that he seems like a good old farm boy. >> not necessarily southern. one is that he's old. born in 1850's. he's not that old. >> well respected. >> very stable. very practical. this is important. even in this article, being able to convey this image of cox of being well settled in "slippered ease." i love that. stable.

because then he is going to talk about cubism and the application that -- the implication that cubists aren't. so, kenyon cox on the cubists. here is what cox says. "they maintain they have invented a symbolism that expresses their individuality, or as they say, their soul. if they really expressed their soul in the things they show us, god help their souls." right? because in their souls, potatoes are blue. then he makes this important link between modernism and painting and literature and cox raises a very important question. he says if the literary man were to say wiggle the legal the wiggle the -- wiiggility wiggility, wiggilty and tell you that combination of letters gives you the impression of dawn, how will you say that it doesn't?

the good question. they represent for him a tendency to abandon all respect for tradition and to insist that art shall be nothing but an expression of the individual. so, again cox has raised a very important point regarding modernism and cubism. if all that matters to the painter, to the artist is what he or she feels inside, what happens if that view, that conviction moves beyond the realm of art? what then?

it's a fair question. the thing, he concludes, is psychologically insidious and worst of all for cox, it is popular. these men have seized on the modern engine of publicity and are making insanity pay. they ran an opinion column the same day as the interview and here you see a depiction that sets him up differently from the image we have of the cubist artists. he is described as someone who expresses the view of the sound artists and a rational human being. therefore, he is our guy. we can count on him. it should be borne in mind that this movement is surely to disrupt and degrade, if not to

destroy, all of art and literature and society, too. you can see how quickly the critics of modernism move from being critical of the art itself to arriving at these very large conclusions or fears that grow out of this sort of artistic sensibility. my god. if this is allowed here, where does it stop? ok? it continues -- they have their counterparts not only in politics but in all forms of art including music and the industrial movement. there is iww again, the wobblies. there only need seems to be that all is old is bad, all that is

improved is false, all that has been cherished should be destroyed, all that is beautiful should be despised, all that is obvious should be ignored. yikes. wow. ok, moving on then. some of the poets and novelists of the day were also breaking down traditional forms storylines, the very structure of righting it self -- writing itself. american poets like ezra pound william carlos williams, t.s. eliot all reflect the rise of modernism in american poetry. one very quick example is william carlos williams, very famous poem "the red wheelbarrow," 1923. i will go ahead and read all of it. here it comes. so much depends on a red wheelbarrow glazed with rainwater -- so much depends?

what is he saying. it is not clear. another of the famous modernist poets was t.s. eliot. born in missouri, which he quickly left and spent most of his adult life in europe. one of his most famous poems, he implemented a recurring theme that basically says, we can't know what another person is actually saying or what they mean. so in this poem, one of his most famous, alfred prufrock -- the story, it appears, the rambling thoughts of the middle-aged man. it begins -- we have little bits

of it here. it begins, let us go then, you and i when eden is spread out against the sky like a patient on a table. it goes on, i have seen the paternal footman hold my coat and snicker and in short, i was afraid. what i want to draw our attention to is how he keeps coming back to this theme. for instance when he writes -- if one settling the pillow by her head should say, that is not what i meant at all, that is not it by all. and a little later -- it is impossible to say just what i mean.

and again, if one settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl and turning to the window should say, that is not it at all. that is not what i meant at all. so when you read this poem it read some watch as -- somewhat a stream of consciousness. it wasn't. he actually worked very hard on it, but nevertheless, you get that impression. but those scenes i pulled out here, it is undermining a 19th-century confidence in the power and accuracy of words. eliot writes, it is impossible to say just what i mean. that is not what i meant at all. the meaning of words themselves, let alone the meaning of truth or love or beauty is slippery. it's hard to pin down. life in this complicated modern world calls for new forms of expression. ok. now let's look at the other side here. it will come as no surprise to

you, i'm sure, traditional religion and modernism clashed. religion, after all, harkins for the eternal unchanging truth and modernism, as we have been seeing is built on the inside that the truth may not be what we thought it was after all. and by the early 1900s, there seems to be a lot of evidence. it is hard not to peek ahead, to see part of the negative reaction, especially among the young to the death and destruction of world war i. not that this disillusion started with world war i, but world war i certainly added to it. as we have seen in some of the books we have read this semester, right, some of those truths that young people have been raised on included the idea that war was noble. that war invigorated american

manhood. but for a lot of americans in the aftermath of world war i proud of the effort to be sure had to admit that the actual experience had been one that -- jennifer keenan's book captures this perfectly -- bad planning hideous conditions, extreme terror, let alone death and carnage. much of it eventually -- not right away -- much of it seemed eventually senseless. we will come back to that as we are wrapping up. at any rate, many traditional believers despised the ambiguities, the relativity, the tearing down that seem to be so much a part of modernism. so to put this debate another way, what was liberating to modernists was cultural or social destruction to

traditionalists. ok, so the question then is, what do you do? how do you respond? first off, we should note that by far, most americans were able to accommodate themselves to the changing modern world, even different could be very confusing at times. by far most americans got on

with their lives. i do not want to give the impression that all americans, like the modernists, were wringing their hands about the downfall of civilization. not all of them were. but some were, right? and a couple groups responded by taking very strong stance against modernity. so, looking at them helps us set up the other end of that cultural social political spectrum of the day. i will look at two here quickly. first, in the early 1900s, a wealthy southern california oil millionaire, a man by the name of lyman stewart, becoming more and more convinced that his traditional view of christianity was under attack, paid for the riding and publication of -- writing and publication of some 90 essays on the christian faith. these volumes were rolled up between 1910 and 1915 and they were given the title "the fundamentals." "the fundamentals: a testimony to the truth." i think these subtitle may be as important as the title, right? the fundamentals. the foreword to volume one explains that these volumes will be published and sent to every

pastor, evangelist, missionary theological professor, theological student, sunday school superintendent, ymca and ywca secretary in the english speaking world, so far as the addresses of all of these can be obtained. this was a man with big plans. the publishers continued -- the publishers believe that the time has come when a new statement of the fundamentals of christianity should be made. keywords right there.

the time has come. in light of what we have been talking about so far, yeah, that is how it seems. now those christians who referred to the fundamentals contained in these volumes then became known as why? -- as what? fundamentalists. thank you. don't over think. a baptist leader is credited with the term in the 1920's. the fundamentals asserted the authority of scripture, attacked modernism, and generally railed against various isms of the modern world and millions of copies were sent out. that is the important part. not just that they did it, but they disseminated millions of copies. and they were part of a movement then. they were part of a movement. the 1920's, one of the leading voices of this traditional christian movement was a man we have talked about a number of times this semester, william jennings bryan. bryan's chapter in this story

then reaches its peak during the scopes trial of 1925. but he was not alone. that is the important thing there. there are others, lots of others like william jennings bryan, traveling the countryside during these years, talking about traditional christianity. people like billy sunday, former professional athlete turned preacher. men like mordecai hamm. in 1923, 1924, hamm traveled the self decrying the teaching of evolution in public schools.

and as he did this, he also took the opportunity to take shots at other disciplines being taught at the modern university of the 1920's. like economics. political science. here is one little excerpts from one of mordecai ham's sermons, 19 .4. here is what he said. this was aimed squarely at the university of north carolina. this is the day of the false prophets and seeing the prophets of god lasted in the face and doing nothing. you put men in your colleges who are known to believe that christ's was an illegitimate child to review wonder why russia is swept by bolshevism, white england and even your own country are swept by disruption.

the day is not far distant when you will be in the grip of the red terror and your children will be taught free love by that damnable theory of evolution. as a historian, you come across these excerpts, and that is a wow moment. wow. there is a lot going on there, isn't there? you bet there is. people like mordecai ham, billy sunday, william jennings bryan again, they believe in what connect the iww with cubism. you take that modern sensibility and it opens up this universe of anxieties. ok, another incarnation of this defense of tradition at this time comes in 1915 with the rebirth of the ku klux klan. the ku klux klan. we can discuss the remote and of the klan in terms of southern history as it goes through jim

crow, how movies like "birth of a nation" meant to glorify the klan, but in this context we can expand the role that the ku klux klan played in american society. the story begins things giving -- thanksgiving night 1915, on top of stone mountain, georgia. if you have never been there, it is a tall granite peak outside atlanta. a group of men gathered, planted an american flag and a cross set the cross on fire. of course they do, right? and they opened a bible to romans, chapter 12, verse 2, and proclaimed the new knights of

the ku klux klan. and what do they find? do not conform yourself to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of the mind so you may judge what is god's will and what is good and pleasing and perfect. do not conform yourself to this age gives us a very large hint at what drove those to join this newly formed mass. do not conform yourself to this age. think of what "this age" represents you a lot of people. but note also in this verse, it confers upon the believer the power to determine for themselves "what is god's will and what is good, pleasing, and perfect." you are armed with that, you were in pretty good shape, right?

you can fire up on yourself ability to determine what is god's will. i don't know about you, but i would kind of like to have that power, wouldn't you? all right, the new klan move beyond hate and fear of african-americans. this new version also was concerned with the new position of catholics, juice, progressives -- catholics, jews, progressives, liberals. they opposed feminist, they supported prohibition, they supported the exclusion of catholic teachers teaching in public schools. they opposed the entry of the united states into the league of nation and on and on and on. all of this then. this new klan's response.

this new klan was not only poor, white men and not at all exclusively southern. there's a strong movement in places like indiana. so, when we look at the rise of this new klan, what are we seeing? the places most likely to be hotbeds for the klan were places that were rural and were becoming more urbanized or more connected to the industrialized national economy. this makes sense because what kind of problems from their perspective, what kind of problems with that bring? ok? fear of labor unrest. maybe black migrations, looking for work, all of these parts of the rural society being brought

into industrialized society. when we study the rise of the klan during this time we find that it caught hold in those places that were just being introduced to a more modern consumer culture. things like movies, things like the automobile, magazines, photographs. all of these were thought to be loosening agents in society. they all seem to be new experiences beyond the control of the apparent. so, in short then, anything, anything -- north, south, west -- anything that threatened the stability of an older, white dominated, male-dominated, rural-based, more isolated era. the klan slogan was native white supremacy.

the klan got started on thanksgiving, but it did not do much until after world war i 1919, going into 1920. suddenly membership in this new klan took off. probably peaked around 1925 or so. the numbers are hard to say. certainly in the hundreds of thousands. probably approaching millions in this new klan. the question is, why then question mark if it started in 1915? this book that we've read last week gives us a good description of this mood that comes over many americans as the war is brought to a close. at the end of that book, she really captures this very well and there is this sense, for example, among the soldiers that

that is it. we've done it. we've done our bit. time to go home. beyond the soldiers though there is this sense it is not only time to physically bring the soldiers back home, but it seemed a time for many people to rein in all of the innovations the experimentation, they perform that -- the reform that seem to drive the progressive era. time to rein that back in now. brand's biography of wilson really gets it that toward the end, doesn't he? in this sense the rise of the klan is one part of the swing back to a more traditionalist mood in the united states. not a mood that comes out of nowhere, remember, after world war i. it had been there in the years prior. how do we detect, how do we measure the conservative mood

coming back to the united states? one simple way. the political choices made after world war i. for example, the election in 1920. presidential election, 1920 featuring warring harding -- warren harding. a very famous quote from his campaign, 1920 -- well, not very famous. return to normalcy. return to normalcy. whenever you read about war and harding -- granted not very often -- oh, yes, return to normalcy. that does capture the mood. but i also want to look at a little bit more from that speech where he used this word. this is during his campaign in 1920.

harding says america's present needs not a rhodes, but healing, not nostrand's, but normalcy, not revolution, but restoration, not agitation, but adjustments. and it goes on. instead of talking about normalcy -- that is it. let's also focus on the word agitations that he uses. for example, after world war i hundreds of thousands of white soldiers returned to find what they considered their jobs already filled by recent african-american migrants to the north. thousands of white soldiers returned to northern cities to find the sheer number of african-americans sharing what they considered their cities to be increased dramatically, and they didn't like it. we have covered this in "loyalty and three time of trial," but we know 1919 was one of the worst years on record for race raids and white on black violence. the prospect, st. louis, chicago, illinois.

all erected in race riots -- all erupted in race riots. millions of workers, about 4 million workers are going to go on strike in 1919. and this wave of labor unrest did not fit into this conservative mood. it seemed to spark hysteria. this is a time when we are dealing with the red scare. the red scare with the bolshevik revolution being so fresh, that americans now determined that perhaps bolshevism had come to the american shores and were undermining the capitalist system as we speak, write? so in this climate there is a very harsh reaction to labor unrest in 1919. there were accounts of violence that seemed to be tied to the labor unrest. the u.s. post office during 1919

intercepted dozens of bombs that were being mailed to prominent americans. they did not intercept all of them. one of them blew up on the front door of mitchell palmer's house. mitchell palmer was the attorney general of the united states. here's the thing about the red scare. it is not clear that bolsheviks or communists sent those bombs. they probably didn't. it was probably anarchists. but in this climate americans were predisposed to draw the conclusion it was the bolsheviks. it must be radical labor

organizers. in the minds of americans they are one and the same. because bolsheviks as they are living out the words of carl marx -- karl marx, we have to go after the labor unions. mitchell palmer starts this new division where they are going to root out signs of bolshevism and labor radicalism and organized labor. these are called the palmer raids. they physically go to union halls in 1919, the early 1920's and round up people on suspicion of labor radicalism and agitation and the end of the porting a number of them. the palmer raids. the palmer raids were led by this general intelligence division palmer created, led by this zealous young investigator j edgar hoover. his endless career is just getting started. so, when we look at the labor unrest of 1919, we have to remember -- where were the

workers coming from? we know because we talked about this. the workers were african-americans at this time seeking to make real the promises woodrow wilson headset for word in bringing the united states into war. from the workers' perspective this meant more democracy in the workplace. in the context of 1919, the overriding fears have just become too much. too many other americans, race riots in the city, violent strikes, feminism, the fear of bolshevism, these all seem to indicate we have entered frightening times after world war i. these all seem to indicate what the irish poet yeats would write after world war i -- things fall apart.

the center cannot hold. that what ever it is that holds this world together, it seemed to be disintegrating. a time when young people are saying the following. f. scott fitzgerald in his novel "the side of paradise," he writes, here is the new generation grown-up to find all god's dead, all wars fought, all faith in man shaken. "the older generation has certainly pretty well ruined this world before passing it on to us. so what to do. hold on. hold on to what has previously been understood to be the truth. hold onto what you have always

understood to be the truth." about race relations, about gender relations, about the limited role government should play, about what art should look like, what music should somewhat, how literature should be. hold on. let's stop there. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> you are watching american history tv -- 48 hours programming every weekend on c-span3. tolowa's on twitter for information on our schedule of upcoming programs and to keep up with the latest history news. >> now, isis rears their ugly

head and this army is very shady. you can do -- you can't undo soviet here and saddam hussein era stuff in eight years. afghanistan, according to the president's announcements, we currently got 10,000 troops in a training and advisory role, but we are trying to undo 5000 year and almost zero the year after that. i warn we will probably see a similar result in what we saw to iraq. >> tonight, daniel bolger on the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done differently. that's tonight at 8:00 eastern and specific on c-span's "q and a." each week, american history tv's "reel america" brings you archival films that tell the story of the 20th century.