My testing, one, two, three, my testing. Good morning, everyone. Yeah, welcome to Norwich University. Thank you very much for attending the Norwich's fifth Peace and War Summit in person or virtually. My name is Yang Mokoo and Associate Professor of Political Science and Associate Director for Peace and War Center in Norwich. I am truly honored to serve as Executive Director of 2024 Peace and War Summit that addresses the theme of war, memory, and reconciliation. Since 2018, our summit have addressed most significant global issues, including the North Korea's nuclear and missile challenges and US-China rivalry and Russia-Ukraine war. And last year, just we talked about the peace and conflicts in the Middle Eastern regions. So this year, we are gonna address the issue of war, memory, and reconciliation. So our global community has witnessed the outbreak of numerous military conflicts within and between nations, which cause immediate sufferings, such as so many people's death and injuries and economic devastations. These interstate and interstate wars lead to international community to seriously deal with those devastating consequences as viewed in contemporary Russia-Ukraine war and Israeli-Palestinian war. However, our global community tends to give little attention to the long-term negative impact of those consequences, those wars, on the individuals and societies and the international community. So this negative impact includes lingering painful memories and traumas in the people's hearts and minds, or so like a historical antagonism between former adversary ethnic groups and nations. In this context, today's summit will closely address the issue of war, memory, and reconciliation in multiple reasons. So it can help promote our understanding of the persistent and negative impact of past military conflicts on current societies. Without any doubt, the currently ongoing wars, Russia-Ukraine war and Israeli-Palestinian war, many other wars, will leave long-term negative consequences. Therefore, it is necessary for policy makers in all nations to make every effort to prevent the outbreak of wars and to promote peace and reconciliation. Today, from 9 a.m. to 4.30 p.m., our keynote speaker and eight scholars and four students will present their unique insights on the issues, these issues. Tomorrow from 9 to 12.15 p.m., the summit speakers will have enclosed workshops to discuss their research papers. So now, I'm so pleased to introduce our keynote speaker, retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel, William McClell. Since 2022, he has been serving as Vice President of Student Affairs and Commandant of Cadets and Norwich University. McClell was commissioned into the Marine Corps in 1991 after graduating Summa Cum Laude from Norwich University. As a Marine, McClell developed into a distinguished leader. He commanded 1st Battalion 5th Marines, the 1st Marine Resiment, and the Crisis Response Task Force for U.S. Central Command, as well as serving as an advisor team leader in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He served overseas in multiple operations, including marathon, southern watch, desert thunder, Iraqi freedom, enduring freedom, canjari and inherent resolve. He also graduated with honors from the basic school and previous warfare school and Marine Corps work college, as well as served as a congressional fellow. In his final tours, he served as a director of the Marine Corps Command and Step College, followed by serving as the Marine Corps liaison to the U.S. House of Representatives. His personal awards include Legion of Merit with a V device and four gold stars, the Bronze Star with a V device, the Purple Heart and Combat Action Reborn with one gold star. He holds the rank of Brigade General in the Vermont State Militia. So now I turn it over to Kamadan McClell, fluids of yours. Let us give a round of applause. Good morning, everyone. All right, see if I can do this without messing with the microphones. All right, well, welcome to what I am quite certain is gonna be an enlightening series of presentations. And I think they will be especially meaningful for many of you students.  But knowing you and knowing some of your choices of professions, I think you're gonna find this is gonna be more than just an academic pursuit, but this is the beginning of you learning more about your chosen profession and that some of these insights that you'll get over the course of today, I think will affect the way you approach your professional duties for the rest of your life. I wanna say a loud thank you to various colleagues that are gonna be presenting today. I hope you students realize that preparation for a short presentation sometimes can be the results of many months of academic work trying to find the grains of truth in a sea of distraction at times. Their efforts and investment in you, our students are noted and deeply appreciated. So make sure to thank some of those professors when the day is finished, as you're reflecting upon the things that you've learned. You know, when my colleague, Gangmo, asked me to be the keynote for this conference, I was initially reluctant. You know, discussions of war and its aftermath are not things that you're supposed to pick up lightly or treat without due diligence and deep thinking. Just him asking the question brought back some memories, some that I think of regularly and some which I hadn't revisited for quite a while. Contained in some of those memories are fragments of what might by some be called wisdom. And since my whole purpose in coming back here to be your commandant is to pass on the things that I've learned since I was a student to you, the easy answer to Yangmo was yes, I'll do it. And the neat thing was from those memories that his question brought up, this keynote actually almost started to write itself. I just had to organize which piece I might wanna talk about first. One of the memories that Yangmo's ask brought about, it hardly sounds like it's connected to war at all, but it is. So I want you to close your eyes a second and picture a spring day in Southern California. Perfect weather, blue skies, warm, but not hot. I had recently returned from a combat deployment. It was our second in the past three years. And I was beginning my post deployment, 96 hour liberty. For the uninitiated, that's mill speak for a four-day weekend, 96 hours divided by 24, that's four days. So I had a four-day weekend. We would often do that when we returned from deployment, get that initial period at home and then come back to work and work on making sure everyone else is returned properly. So this particular 96 hour LIBO was a Monday and a Friday with a weekend in between. And since Friday was a school day, I thought I'd give my wife Caroline a well-needed break. After all, she'd been running the household while I was off somewhere else. And I thought I'll go pick up my boys from school. I could make up for some lost time.  We'd make a little memory. So I jumped into my truck and the first memory hit me was it was the same truck that the boys and I had scoped out and purchased after my return from a different combat tour a decade earlier. So the truck was a little older, a little worse for wear, but it already brought out memories of me and my family together because we'd picked that truck together. And I was early. I had plenty of time to get to the school. So I was driving slowly through my neighborhood, calmly taking in the sights, people mowing their lawns, walking their dogs, regular life unfolding. And I hadn't experienced that unrushed feeling for probably most of the past three years. I was either in command deploying, on deployment or returning from deployment. So I was really relishing this, this period just a few minutes of completely having no task except for drive my car to go pick up my boys. When I got to the edge of our neighborhood, about four blocks from the house, I hit a T intersection where we were leaving the neighborhood and I had to choose to turn left or right. And it was there that I froze. I froze because it was there that I came to the full realization that I didn't know where the school was. I wasn't capable of making a choice to go left or right because I didn't know where I was going. So I sat there for a moment, come to grips with that. Here's a Marine Colonel in command of 4,000 folks, lost four blocks from his house. In this modern era, the memes almost right themselves, don't they? Then I realized, I've got the answer right here. Got my phone. You may not believe this, but returning from a deployment, you have to get used to carrying a cell phone again because you go seven, eight, nine months, a year of your life without using one. So I grabbed the phone, I unlock it, I pull up Google Maps, and then I freeze again. How do you search Google Maps for something that you don't know the name of? Here's what I did know. I knew where my wife's contact info was in the phone. So I hit that button and I called Caroline, my wife, to get the information that I needed to proceed more than four blocks from my house. We had a quick laugh about it. She went easy on me, but it wasn't all just a funny story because the question I couldn't shake on the rest of the drive was what kind of a dad doesn't know where his kids go to school. To make the memory even a little more complicated after I got the directions and was now driving in the correct basic direction towards the school, I passed over a cross street that I recognized. And it was the same street that led to a different neighborhood. One that my Sergeant Major, Tom Sowers and I had visited six years earlier to visit the parents of a Marine that Tom and I had lost in Afghanistan. Young man named Donald Hogan. His parents, Jim and Carla, were now our close friends, as sometimes happens. And I thought, what would they not give to have a simple problem like not knowing where to go to pick their son up? So I put that memory into context because they would never be able to pick their son up again. They would look at my small problem in a completely different way. This inevitably led to me thinking about the Marines that their son, Donald, who took some heroic actions and he saved many of his colleagues. I always remember how one, a young man named Rocky Hoard, he was badly wounded in the event, but he was saved. And he's badly wounded enough that we had to evacuate him to Germany. He was too unstable to be further evacuated to Bethesda Naval Hospital just outside of D.C. So he had to stay there in Germany for a while. And his very pregnant wife somehow got her way onto an international flight and flew there to see him in Launchstuhl, Germany. A short while later, she gave birth to their son in the very next room in the clinic at Launchstuhl. I thought about the connection between those two events. One family shattered and another saved. This has always led me to thinking about the Navy Cross that Donald had been awarded for the actions that day and how difficult it was to accurately write the summary of action that always accompanies such things. Many of you may know about citations and this is not to be confused with the citation. The citation is the short public description that often gets read at ceremonial events or gets printed on a piece of paper and hung up somewhere. No, the summary of action is a minutely detailed description of the entire event and surrounding actions. It's backed up by eyewitness statements, by interviews, by command logs, maps, photographs. To the outside eyes, that seems like a very straightforward task, gather these things up, put them in order, write them down, send it in. But in reality, that can become a very difficult task. Under the stress as a combat, people encode their memories differently. For some, adrenaline and other chemicals that quickly hit you, they act on the brain to compress time. Sometimes 10 minutes can pass in your memory and it'll seem like two. Entire sequences of actions can go unremembered and biologically unrecorded. For others, a mere few feet away, time can get stretched out and become elongated. Mere minutes can seem to their mind to be dozens of minutes. Some of you might recognize or remember the verse from the Gordon Lightfoot song when he says, does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours? That's a songwriter's way of telling you about that particular phenomenon. It's not hyperbole, but it's a real phenomenon. You'll also interview people that get tunnel vision and they can recall with uncanny accuracy the most minute details about what is right in front of them. But that superpower is bought by experiencing absolutely nothing that takes place to their immediate left or right. Those memories go unrecorded. They take that attention and they concentrate it down to a singular thing. Others can get auditory exclusion and they don't hear things or maybe more accurately, they don't remember hearing things like a second explosion or their two or were their three. Well, it depends on which statement you read or an aircraft passing very closely overhead. Believe me on the battlefield, you know very well when a jet aircraft passes about 150 feet off the deck. But for some, they don't remember hearing it. Doesn't mean the event didn't happen. But for them, they have to rely on others memories because in their memory bank, it just didn't happen. From a dozen statements, a general timeline and basic flow of events can emerge. But exactitude can be out of reach. It's another casualty of war and conflict. Each person's memory becomes their piece of the truth. And it doesn't always match the exact truth of the person next to them who experienced the event slightly differently, different biology at work, different other memories that need to get encoded into the new memories. So as I sat in that pickup line at what I now knew was Bernice Ayer Middle School, I had some conflicted thoughts. Joy at being home, being able to pick up my boys, anticipation of spending some time with them, combined with grief about remembering young Donald and his family and so many other fine young men lost before their time. Both of those thoughts tempered with hope for the future, especially for the futures of the people that his actions had saved, muddled and complicated with guilt over being in one piece yourself when others were not. And not knowing intrinsically how all of those things are supposed to fit together, we lost the visual, I guess that's because I closed this, but that maybe you could say I was having trouble reconciling a variety of my own memories that day. So I share that somewhat complicated story with you to get you into the mindset to understand at a deeper level some of the presentations that you will hear today. There is no straight line that leads from war to memory to reconciliation because war itself creates folds and side tracks. Those folds and side tracks, they spawn conflicting memories in the people that participated in the same events. And those conflicts of memory, if not understood and recognized as products of war itself, can often stand as obstacles to reconciliation. As one of our great American writers, Tim O'Brien put it, in any war story, but especially a true one, it is difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen. It's safe to say that in a true war story, nothing much is ever really true. Here, I think he got to the heart of it. You know, in the reconciliation business, in much of life, truth is often most regarded as fact. We use those two terms interchangeably. But when it's a product of war, truth must sometimes be approached more as individual meaning, of which there can be several derived from a single incident. Those meanings can all be true, while simultaneously differing in some small details. Now, don't mistake what I just said as a support of postmodern relativism. To my mind, that concept has taken far too many liberties and too often becomes a helpful excuse for those who are trying to flee from accountability, either accountability from themselves or from society. But simply a recognition that war can create conflicting memories and you are not going to be able to reconcile those without understanding them as part of the fabric. So for you students, as you take in the presentations, keep this thought in mind. What you're gonna hear are distillations and lessons drawn from the most difficult of environments to discern truth from. When Shakespeare wrote, cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war, he was describing that transition from the controlled environment before war where truth can largely be grounded in the fact realm, to the most chaotic environment the man can invent, where the vagaries of fog and friction, incomplete information, chance, violence and the imperfect human response to these things all thrive and combine. This is where fact can become unmoored and truth can emerge into the meaning realm more than the factual realm. And if you hope to one day engage in the process of reconciliation, you must recognize these realms as different. You have to accept that heroism and cunning viewed from one side of a battle can be viewed as treachery by the other. Bravery can sometimes be remembered as foolhardiness, just as often as brashness can be remembered as courage. Battlefield genius can be interpreted by some as simply luck. The lucky can be remembered as geniuses. One would do well by reading the book The General by Forrester to be reminded that the main character occurs on his appearance with his unit at the decisive point of a battle resulting in a victory. Was the result of him getting his unit lost in a maze of gullies and arriving at the decisive point simply by chance. This resulted in his steady promotion up the chain of command. Or was it chance though? Maybe there was an innate skill that assisted. Maybe he made his own luck. Participants in the battle all might remember it differently and draw conflicting conclusions. Reconciliation rests with the ability to recognize both as true at the same time. Now shifting gears a little bit, another aspect of this conference I'd like to set the stage for involves what I hope happens in the minds of you students as you take in these presentations. Years ago I read a fascinating book by Professor Ed Hirsch from the University of Virginia. It was about cultural literacy. There is a lot of material in the book about how our minds create associations between individual pieces of knowledge forming something like a web of connected pieces of information, he referred to them as scumata. It is his contention that your most connected and integrated web becomes your culture. It's the net that all new information that you take in is strained through and that new information finds at times relevant spots to connect to your existing culture and it finds itself anchored. You find new connections between individual pieces of knowledge and information. All of the new things that you remember become remembered in context and relation to the things that you already know. And that is something that you're going to be doing participating in by attending these presentations. You're gonna be adding new nodes of knowledge, new connections between nodes.  You're gonna make the spacing between those nodes finer. You're gonna be capable of catching and assessing and assimilating more information. Your cultural literacy will not just cover some of these conflicts of our history, but because you participate in this, they will include some more discerning aspects of conflict and what effect conflict has on society and how societies heal and reconcile from conflict. You might even begin to determine if reconciliation can happen under a given set of circumstances. So for you students, you're probably, many of you getting tired of hearing this last bit of guidance from me, but you know every time I get a chance, you're gonna hear it from me. I charge you, find the connections between these presentations, but not just the presentations. Find the connections that exist between the presentations, the classes that you're taking, or have taken in the past, and the things that you've already experienced firsthand in your lives. I want you to do two things. Appreciate the things that match and reinforce. You're building a strong culture that way, but I also want you to actively look for the inconsistencies. Look for the parts that don't meet squarely at the ends. You have to move beyond just identifying them, however. You got to discuss these disconnects with your fellow students, with your professors, with your mentors wearing a uniform, with your family members, or with me when you see me, because that is what learning is. Both the reinforcement and connection mechanism and looking for the inconsistencies and trying to figure out why they're inconsistent. That's what learning is, and that is why you are here at Norwich. That's what Norwich exists for. So I hope this symposium is fantastic for you. I hope that it does several of those things and gives you a mechanism to advance your learning. And I appreciate being here with you this morning. Semper Fidelis and Norwich Forever. I think we have time for a minute or two for questions. If we've got two questions, I'll entertain them, otherwise I'll stay here for a few minutes. If you've got one of those questions, you would rather ask one on one instead of in a group of people. Here's one brave soul. Good morning. In your experience going overseas, I want to know, when you're interacting with people who have similar experiences to you from other cultures, how do you find common ground and tell stories to each other and also interact in that regard? I think the good question, you're gonna use this one as well and leadership lesson baked into it. Too many times when we're given an important task, we see that as the only story unfolding in a given place in a given time. And there's a tendency to see everyone else as a supporting character in your story.   That's easy to say, but you'll find yourself having to remind yourself over and over again of that piece and what you're trying to do is align people to have one line in your story that actually moves your narrative forward. And what you have to do is try to find the common ground. Remembering they're writing a story of their life and you can find the line that if you write it in yours and they write it in theirs, you're both writing the story that's gonna work for both of you. What you've done at that point is just led in a very difficult time. But you can't take the shortcut of just assuming that your goals and desires are gonna magically transfer over to the goals and desires of everyone that you're dealing with. You gotta get to know them a little bit and you find the overlap and then pretty soon they're doing things that advances their story and it just so happens that it meets your goals and desires as well. But that takes work and you get to practice that here. And you'll use it in the Coast Guard, believe me.  But you'll figure it out and you'll figure out ways that they're gonna, they're gonna tell you the pieces that you need to know your story will move forward and so will theirs. Is that helpful to you? You have a follow-up? No? Okay. Oh, here comes the scholar of Marine Corps history too so I gotta be on my toes. Sir, as someone who has interviewed dozens if not hundreds of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about reconciliation and maybe if you were yourself have ever done an oral history interview, whether or not that experience doing oral history interviews has been therapeutic and if that can be counted as part of reconciliation. You know, it's interesting and the answer as in so many things, Dave, helpful for some, not helpful for others. Everyone has their own experience with that. Some people thrive on that need to share and others would prefer to self-contain. Both can be avenues for reconciliation. I'll tell you, I first, it was actually outside a war that I first learned some details about the reconciliation business. It was when I was working in the Congress for the first time and those of you that don't know those of us uniform military folks that work as liaisons to Congress, we spend some of our time taking members of Congress overseas to see firsthand the things that they need to see and experience to make better policy decisions on behalf of all of us. And the first trip that I ever took was to South Africa and there were, gosh, I wanna see, say 14 members of Congress on that trip. The two leaders were John Lewis, who many of you might remember from the Civil Rights Movement, we lost John a few years ago, and then a guy named Amo Houghton, he was from upstate New York, he was at the time the richest member of Congress. He made his money in fiber optics. The two of them were the two leaders and we went to South Africa to talk about reconciliation. It was, we met with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with FW DeClerk, Nelson Mandela. We met with Desmond Tutu, Archbishop, who led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Justice Goldstone, who tried to, he was the lynchpin of rewriting the South African Supreme Court to take into account the end of apartheid and the changing government. And there was a lot of storytelling inside of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was the heart of how they went about trying to reconcile all those years of apartheid. Was, we can't reconcile until we can agree on some version of the Truth. And that was where Archbishop Tutu's strength as a religious leader became very important to gathering both victims and perpetrators together to arrive at a somewhat agreed upon version of what had happened in the past. But I also learned, at that time, there are some elements of nonwar that can seem similar to war when it comes to how people encode their memories. So I remember hearing from those gentlemen and understanding the Truth sometimes is gonna have slightly fuzzy edges on either side based on who you interview of what happened at this date, this place, this time. And I also learned sometimes people are victims one day and they're perpetrators on another day. And it changes how they are as victims the next time. And then it also changes how they act as perpetrators. There's this strange line. Events that happen to us one day clearly affect how we ourselves act the next day. All these things can be drawn from a study of what unfolded in South Africa at the end of apartheid. So that was kind of a long-winded answer, but what I found was there were many people did not participate in the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions because that was the healthiest thing for them personally was not to bring up those memories again. But I saw there were a lot of people that did have some semblance of feeling because they participated. So the answer as usual from me, Dave, is it depends on the individual and it depends on the circumstances. Does that help? Okay, any follow-up to that? Okay, well again I hope today is a memorable one for you and I hope you get a lot out of these speakers and don't be afraid to ask them the tough questions or talk to them afterwards if you have an epiphany tonight when you're trying to fall asleep. You just can't square a couple of things. That's a good thing. You're being kept awake for a reason because your brain says don't put this thing down until you get it encoded a little bit better. So again, Yang Mo, thanks for the invitation. Thank you so much for your insightful keynote speech. I think listening to his keynote, I think he pointed out very important aspects. During today's summit and tomorrow's like workshops with scholars and students, we will address this topic conflicting, right? The conflicting memories. So just one example I can talk about is that just later on I'm gonna address the Japan and Korea relations. But as you might know, the Japan colonized the Korea starting in 1910 and then until 1945. So Japan just brutally ruled Korea and then at the last stage of the World War II, even just the Korea, the Japan forcibly recruited so-called comfortable women who forced them to serve sexually Japanese soldiers for certain period of time. So so many of them died and all those kinds of stuff. But what I'm trying to say is that the recent days of the past seven, eight decades, the Korean interpretations of Japan's colonial rule or brutal actions toward Korean versus Japanese interpretations of Japan's colonial rule of Korea and Japan's war actions toward Korean people, they are sharply different. They are sharply diverging. So that different interpretation of the history can cause huge turmoil and disruptions between those relationships. Even that affects US policy toward the Asia Pacific. US really want South Korea and Japan as allies to check and balance the rising China and the North Korean-Ukrainian missile threats. But in many cases, Japan, South Korea, they cannot go together well because of those historical memories and conflict-turing memories. So I think how to reconcile those conflict-turing memories, how to reconcile just those relationships between those two peoples. That's a really important and intriguing topic. So in today's, the semi-sessions, we are gonna address those topics in American settings, historical settings and European settings and Asian settings. I think even just a long time ago, happening a long time ago, 30 years of war, just Professor Emily Gray is gonna talk about. So hopefully, all of us can important lessons from today's discussions and questions and answers and all those sessions. Thank you again for joining the keynote session for Peace and World Summit in 2024. So next session will begin at 10 a.m. So, see you then. We had a whole, because they had the whole Zouov thing. They, their kind of fixation was on European imperialists, particularly the French and stuff, the Bale students. Power thing for me, I don't know anything. I know your experience with that. I know, yeah. Let's make that again, call one of the Medicare. That's part of the reason why. This is where, where am I gonna get an Uber in Northfield, but I've already been in an Uber. Testing, testing. Good morning everyone. My name is Ahmed Mohamed. I'm a sophomore in the Honors College, majoring in computer security information assurance. And my name is Erin Reynolds. I'm a junior majoring in political science. Thank you for joining us both here in person and those watching online for the first panel this year's Norwich University Peace and War Summit. The purpose of this year's summit is to explore wartime memories and post-conflict reconciliation to understand the lasting impact on citizens, infrastructure and political climates beyond the end of hostilities. Today, we are fortunate enough to have two scholars ready to share their work on the complex historical narratives surrounding significant events in American history and the individuals involved. Professor Zachary Bennett, an expert in early American history and environmental history, joined Norwich University in 2020. He holds a PhD from Rutgers University, an MA from Miami University and a BA from Northern Michigan University. Bennett's research focuses on colonial New England's transformation through its waterways with publications in journals like the New England Quarterly and Early American Studies. Currently, he's working on contested currents, rivers in the remaking of early America and plans to delve into the narrative history of the Anglo-Wabinaki Wars next. Professor Stephen Sodigrim, with a BA from Cornell College and a PhD from the University of Kansas, specializes in American and military history. His acclaimed book, The Army of the Potomac in the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, earned him the prestigious 2018 Colby Award, making him the first to win for Norwich University affiliated author in its history. Each of our presenters will present for 15 minutes, followed by a 10 minute Q and A. There are microphones on both sides of the room at the stairs where we will invite you to ask questions at the end. Once again, we thank all participants for joining us at the Norwich University Peace and War Summit and look forward to the day ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My presentation is called The Indian in the Mirror, Remembering New England's Colonial Wars. Just a quick point, if you're from my 121 course, there is a paper circulating around, so look for that and sign that if you could. So yes, Remembering New England's Colonial Wars. The point that I'm going to make first off is that we have pretty much utterly forgotten about New England's Colonial Wars. I still remember in fifth grade, there being a kind of like when we were studying American history, a poster of all of America's wars, and it started with the French and Indian War in the 1750s and the Revolution War of 1812, so on and so forth, but actually there were a series of wars that were really important that Americans experienced starting in the 1670s that we have largely forgotten, largely because of the Civil War, which Professor Sodergren will be talking about in a moment. So for example, when you say things to an American like Lexington and Concord or Gettysburg or D-Day, you're probably hopefully aware of what that is. However, things like the Siege of Louisborg, the Battle of Cartagena, the Great Swamp Fight in Rhode Island, these were massive conflicts with very, very serious consequences, but have been forgotten or kind of purged from our national memory because they took place before 1776, but they were really important, and I'm gonna talk about why, and at least one aspect today. So first off, as I said, the American Civil War really flattened our historical memory because it was such a traumatic event that as a result also of the American Civil War, our country became less of a regional nation and much more of a national nation, so things like Memorial Day and Veterans Day, the way in which we, Thanksgiving even, come out of the American Civil War, and a lot of the holidays that preceded it are forgotten. Actually, it was a recently evacuation day in Boston, I believe, which commemorates when the British left Boston in 1775, 76. That's an example of those kind of regional holidays that we've largely forgotten. So the way, and if some of you have looked at my paper that I talk about the memory of these colonial wars is a detail about the Boston Tea Party, which recently we celebrated our 250th anniversary of that event because it occurred on December 16th, 1773. By the way, get ready, there's gonna be a lot of American Revolution stuff in the next couple of years because it's the 250th anniversary of that event, also known as the Semi-Quinn Centennial. Not as catchy as Bicentennial, but still pretty important. So if you know anything about the Boston Tea Party, there is this part of the retelling of the story is that the protesters, the American colonists, dressed up as Indians. And when I was doing research for this, well, first off, when they did a recreation of this event in December in Boston, noticeably there were no Native American costumes at that event, that is probably as a result of the kind of era of political correctness that we're in, also an awareness that dressing up as Native Americans is a form of cultural appropriation. So that's, I mean, I think that was probably a wise thing to sidestep in the commemoration of the event, but nonetheless, it kind of raises the question, why did Americans dress up as Native Americans in 1773? First off, when you look at retellings of the Boston Tea Party, the detail is often not that they dressed up as Indians, but specifically that the Americans dressed up as Mohawks, which are the Native people on the other side of Lake Champlain in New York. And as I was doing research a little bit on the Boston Tea Party and familiarizing myself with the details, first off, in the event itself, it was very quiet and organized, and there's a lot of doubt that the colonists dressed up as Native Americans at all, rather just smudging their faces and perhaps putting a couple turkey feathers in their hats. But nonetheless, in the days after the event, newspaper men picked up on this detail and spread it with great effect, not only in America, but across the ocean into Britain, and there became all of these images of Americans dressed up as Native people. Initially, they were called Narragansetts. Narragansetts are the indigenous people in what is now approximately Rhode Island. So the idea is like, who were they dressed up as? Narragansetts, because that was the largest group near Boston at that time. But ultimately, it was a mistake kind of ginned up by a reporter in Boston and then really picked up in London that settled on Mohawks. And I think the reason why Mohawks were selected is because they were the most feared and infamous warriors in the Northeast at that time. But it's just not true. So, and you can see that in the 19th century, historians, late 19th century, when they're writing the histories of the revolution, they picked up on this Native American detail, and specifically the Mohawk part. And you still see that when people refer to the Boston Tea Party, but that's, it's just not true. And I think why I'm kind of talking about this is it kind of demonstrates that we have entirely forgot about the colonial wars, which I think really inspired those costumes or the context out of which they came. So, again, going back to my original question, what inspired colonists to dress up as Indians on that fateful night in 1773? I didn't have any PowerPoints because I think just in general with this topic, for example, the images of the Boston Tea Party are inaccurate. And what I'm talking about right now, there's not a lot of records or recollections about these kind of specific events. There's a lot of mystery here. And I'm mostly like filling in the blank spots and speculating. So I'm looking forward to your ideas. But Philip Deloria has a book called Plain Indian, which is the authority on this topic of, why do white people dress up as Indians? It's weird, okay? And they've been doing, there's a long history of Americans doing that. And why is that? And the Boston Tea Party is very important in this book. And he says that the inspiration for Americans dressing up as Native Americans comes from across the ocean. Two things in Europe, misrule festivities were basically in a very hierarchical medieval society to deflate the social tension of kind of constantly being talked down to if you're a lower class person, is that there would often be festivals or carnivals which would mock the social hierarchy where peasants would dress up as leading figures and mock them. So some of the names would be the Cardinal of Bad Measure, Duke Kickass, and the Grand Patriarch of Syphilis. And these people would kind of go around town and take it over for the day as a way of kind of poking fun at the elites and deflating that pressure. So there's a tradition of Europeans dressing up in these kind of ridiculous costumes. The other context is poachers. Poachers, especially in English forests, hunting grounds were reserved for aristocrats. And local people would basically break these hunting rules and terrorize people who would try to enforce the law. They would soot their faces black and this which gave them the nickname blacks. So there's also this tradition in Europe of dressing up and resisting local authorities. Deloria argues that although colonists dress up as Indians, Native Americans themselves had no input into the meaning behind it or why they chose that costume. It was a form of appropriation which it certainly was to a large extent. What I'm going to suggest is that if you look at the context of the regional history of New England, I think it's very clear that it's not from Europe that this inspiration comes from and that in an indirect, unintended way, Native Americans actually had a part to play in the meaning behind that costume. So first off, the, so this is not the first time in 1773, the first time that White folks dress up as Native Americans. There were at least four incidents, probably more, that date back to 1734 of colonists dressing up as Indians and they all take place in New Hampshire and Maine. So why, what happened up there? So we have forgotten this, as I've said, but there was a series of five wars over the span of 80 years in New England starting in 1675. These were very bloody conflicts where Maine and parts of New Hampshire were raised by Native Americans, people kidnapped, Europeans kidnapped and killed. Eventually the English prevail over the Wabanakis here, but this was a very bloody conflict. Scholars of historians have recently shown that the hysteria behind the Salem witch trials was actually inspired by these Wabanaki wars. So why, and when we look at these wars that took place in Maine and New Hampshire, like what caused them? Traditionally the answer is land, but that's not really the case. If you look at these conflicts, Wabanakis actually got along with English settlers. What they complained about was the impact of colonialism on their way of life, specifically how they noticed when English people moved in, the hunting grounds were depleted, the fishing went away, that they couldn't share the land with their English neighbors that well. And this is when they explain their reasons for war, they talk about these incursions on their natural rights or their hunting and fishing rights, not necessarily maybe land treaties. Because ultimately that's how indigenous people in New England survived, right? And when colonists moved in, they took away that ability to survive. Another point here is that the English, basically when they responded to these arguments, the official line that you'll find in the archive is the English will say, we have bought the land in the early 1600s and that when the Wabanakis are resisting us, they are actually rebels and thus deserve all this horrible treatment. But when we look at the land deals that took place in the early 1600s, they were shaky at best with people that Native Americans that didn't have the authority to sell the land. And there's actually a lot of records in the treaties that were signed in the early 1700s that the English translators forged the treaties. So basically saying orally, like, yeah, you have all these rights while getting the Indians to sign treaties that said the exact opposite. One of the things I mentioned in my paper is a very famous judge named Samuel Sewell. He's a really interesting guy. He was one of the judges that took part of the Salem Witch Trials and he was the only judge to apologize for his participation in that event. He also wrote one of the first anti-slavery pamphlets in American history, very rare for that time. And he also wrote in 1718 a pamphlet which said after a treaty with the Wabanakis that he looked at, and this is a powerful man in Boston, he said based on the treaty that recently happened or a meeting we had with the Wabanakis, we English refused to create a clear border with them. How can we be peaceful with our Native American neighbors if we refuse to even agree on a border? And he argues that if we really want Native Americans to be our friends, we should actually try to convince them, okay? The point of all this is that in these wars the English kind of acknowledged winkingly throughout these events that it was might not right on their side in this war of conflict contest with the Wabanakis. And I think that gave a lot of English sympathy actually for Native Americans. How many minutes? Five minutes, great. So the other thing too where English people and Native Americans were able to kind of gain sympathy for each other was the wars that took place. Most, especially in New England, the English relied on Native American mercenaries to fight in a lot of these wars because they couldn't get recruits themselves. They also, excuse me, colonial fighting tactics imitated Native American fighting skills which led to ranging, which is really the origins of the US special forces are here in the colonial wars in New England as Americans learned how to fight like Native Americans and they fought alongside them. There's not really records too much about how these people got along, but I think the experience of war without question forged some type of bond or at least acknowledgement of cultural respect between these groups over the span of several decades. So when we look at the first example of white people dressing up as Indians, it's in Exeter, New Hampshire in 1734, what happens? Basically the British are trying to enforce the law.  The colonists up here just didn't want to follow that law. They'd rather cut those trees up for themselves and do what they want. So what happened is in 1734, British officials come up here to the sawmills in New Hampshire to enforce this law. And what happens is that they are attacked by a posse of white people dressed up as Indians who basically beat them up and run them out of town. What I, and also there's other events in the 1760s later in Maine, also where these Wabanaki conflicts had happened, where local people dressed up as Indians often would like pieces of wood in their mouth to disguise their voices. I don't know how that worked, but that's what they said. And these people would attack landowners or proprietors who are trying to move in on these settlers territory and basically charge, basically make them pay taxes or fines or these type of things, which they saw as unjust. So as I say, like in the paper, the Indian Mirror, I think one of the inspirations for like why colonists dressed up as Native Americans is because they felt that they were kind of in the same situation as the Wabanaki people they ironically had recently dispossessed. Outside forces, in this case the British Empire, were moving into their territory and telling them what to do or how they should use natural resources. This was precisely the perspective of the Native Americans which they had only recently defeated in war. Ultimately, this is a coincidence. There's no records of this. People don't write these things down, especially when they're doing illegal acts in the 1730s. They don't want records to survive, but I think it's a similarity or coincidence that's worth pausing on. So why does this matter? I mean, basically so the trivia thing that you can leave with today is that the Boston Tea Party was not Mohawks but Wabanakis that inspired the Native American dress at the Boston Tea Party. But in a larger sense why I think this actually really matters is that it kind of speaks to what Philip Deloria and this other scholar named Richard Slotkin say about this phenomenon of white people dressing up as Indians which continues well into the 20th century. They see it as a kind of evidence of a psychological process within Americans to find a unique identity that's separate from Europe or Britain, okay? And when we look for the origins of Americans trying to find a distinct identity, we often go to the American Revolution, we often go to the Boston Tea Party. What I think this episode shows in the experience of these wars is that experience of Americans trying to find an identity for themselves and that struggle which we're still going through with to this day actually starts with the colonial wars before the Revolution up here in northern New England. And furthermore, indirectly Native Americans I think inspired colonists to think about things like natural justice and the rights of individual people in ways that we haven't acknowledged sufficiently before. Great, thank you. It's doing things, there we go. Working on it, there we go. Good morning. As the more than able student moderators already pointed out, I am Professor Steve Sodergren and I wanted to spend my portion of the time this morning talking about some recent research I've done regarding really the legacy of the American Civil War. Now, anybody who pays attention to media at all will know that certainly the Civil War has come up more than once in recent years in this country and I can't think of perhaps a conflict more appropriate to a topic such as war memory and reconciliation than that conflict, the American Civil War. It is something that is still unresolved in the minds of many Americans and it's something that still has us talking about what it meant, what it actually accomplished, even questions such as who really came out the victor in that conflict. And while there's been discussion of monuments, the naming of military bases, how that memory should be cherished or not, my work has kind of focused on something that slipped under the radar a little bit and that is really the first war crimes trial in American history and that war crimes centered on this individual Henry Wurts. Historians have not ignored Henry Wurts but they have really fixated on the end of his life, rather than the beginning. Henry Wurts on November 10th, 1865 was executed in Washington DC having been convicted of multiple counts of violating the customs of war, effectively what we would call war crimes. Why was he executed? You may have never heard of Henry Wurts but once you hear why he was executed you probably will understand in a single word, Andersonville. Henry Wurts was the commandant of Andersonville Prison in Georgia during the American Civil War. This was a Confederate prison camp that was really only created late in the war. It was actually called Camp Sumter, named after Fort Sumter, the great Confederate victory early in the war and over the course of about a year, 40,000 union prisoners of war would go through Andersonville Prison. One third of them would die there.  You cannot find numbers like that in any other prison camp during the American Civil War. There was another bad Confederate prison camp in Florence, North Carolina. There were two bad ones of one in Elmira, New York, on the northern side, Camp Douglas in Chicago but the idea that one in three soldiers did not walk out of Andersonville is something really incomparable in Civil War history. What happened was once the truth of Andersonville became known at the end of the Civil War, the North demanded retribution. Now, when we get into the notion of war criminals it's not surprising because at some times certainly the Lincoln assassins of whom four were executed were considered war criminals but Henry Wertz was in a class of his own since he was actually military officer in the Confederate army and thus he was deemed sort of a special class. So let's talk about who he was and unfortunately we don't know all that much of who he was. Information is missing. The stories that are told, the whole stories that he told about himself are often contradictory. What we do know is he was not born in the United States, he was born in Zurich, Switzerland in either 1822 or 1823, this is the problem, we don't know all the details. We do know that in Zurich he married and had two children and worked for his father in a bank in Zurich but in the 1840s he ran afoul of the law. Perhaps because of there was accusations of embezzlement from his father's bank he was imprisoned for several years and ultimately he was exiled from Switzerland. The Swiss kicked him out. And from there he traveled Europe for several years before eventually settling in all places Louisiana where in the 1850s he starts a new life. He marries again, has two more children, two daughters and he ends up practicing medicine in Louisiana near Baton Rouge. There is no evidence that he actually had any medical training though. When the war breaks out he immediately volunteers for the Confederacy. Why is your guess as good as mine? But given his background, given his education he is immediately made an officer. Early in the war he suffers an injury to his arm. His right arm would be effectively useless for the remainder of the war. He said it was a battle wound there's no real indication that that was the case. And as he shifts around through various commands he eventually ends up under the command of General John Winder who was the Confederate officer responsible for all Confederate prisons. And it's Winder who put him in charge of the day-to-day operations of Camp Sumter, Andersonville on March 27th, 1864. While he technically was not in charge of everything at Andersonville he was in charge of the day-to-day operations including security. He instituted some interesting policies there. One of them being the so-called deadline. Soldiers who approached within 20 feet of any prison walls would be shot without warning. And that was a way of maintaining security considering there were very few guards at Andersonville since Confederates just didn't have the manpower for it. As was noted Andersonville led to the starvation and suffering of many, many prisoners of war. And so Henry Warts was what we call a high value target when the war ends and he is captured on May 7th, 1865. He is immediately held responsible for Andersonville even though he wasn't really directly responsible for feeding and clothing the prisoners. That was John Winder. However, unfortunate for Warts, John Winder had suffered a heart attack and died in March of 1865. So effectively Warts is the last man standing responsible for Andersonville. His military trial becomes a public spectacle. After the, this is after the trial of Lincoln assassins. So this is more unfinished business from the Civil War. He is charged with, he's charged with several counts including a charge of conspiracy quote, to injure the health and destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States in violation of the laws and customs of war. He's charged with the idea that he did not accidentally cause the death of 13,000 men that it was a deliberate policy to starve prisoners of Andersonville. He is also charged with 13 counts of murder in that he directly killed prisoners. It's a problematic trial. I mean, historians tend to focus on this because it's really the first war crime style. It's also, he effectively utilizes a just following orders defense which we will see again in the future of military affairs but you have, it's a military commission. So it's military judges. There are vague and contradictory witnesses, minimal resources and time provided for the defense. It's an inherently problematic trial and really it's no surprise when he is convicted. Not of everything though. He's only convicted of 11 of the 13 murder charges but he is also convicted of the conspiracy charge. He's convicted on October 24th, 1865 and he will be executed on November 10th. So moving forward, what is the legacy of Henry Works? Well, that legacy of Henry Works was almost immediately created by Civil War veterans themselves. Northerners specifically wanted to make clear he was a monster who got what he deserved particularly those who had spent time in Andersonville. Whereas Southerners tried to, in the notion of the lost cause, the idea that the South was in some ways right and was only defeated by mass resources, tried to defend Henry Works and suggest that he was a martyr for the Confederate cause. I wanna start with the Northerners because without a doubt the Northerners are very clear about this. They might have been willing to meet the Confederates halfway on a few things on agreeing to what the memory of the war is. No Northerners ever agreed that Henry Works should get off on this, that he should be forgiven for this. And if you read what they have to say in their memoirs they drag him through the mud repeatedly. So let's look at some of the Northern assessments here. Northerners in their memoirs after the war even those who didn't serve in the prison camps routinely cite him as a monster, a martinet, a coward, a tyrant, or my favorite, a purile scoundrel. They belittle him, they mock him. One prisoner at Andersonville, Massachusetts private Warren Goss notes the day that they arrived and when they first get there and they first see Henry Works who greets them upon entry, Goss says they all laughed at him because his appearance was so silly.  And then in his memoir, he mocks Henry Works's strong Swiss accent by writing, by God, you Tam Yankees, you won't laugh when you gets into the pulp end. They routinely mock his accent. They all call him German. They don't realize that's not the same as Swiss. It's not that they don't realize, perhaps they don't care. But as time goes on, more and more soldiers. What comes out is a portrayal of him as a little man. As Pennsylvania soldier, as Ripple notes, he was a thinned, wise and specimen of a man resembling in appearance a sky terrier. They also point out that he had a terrible temper. This is actually something Works himself admitted during his trials. That his temper could get out of control. One soldier noted that his commonest language was abusive and blasphemous. Whereas another soldier noted, Works was the most even-tempered man I ever saw in that he was always in a rage. So very clearly, there is very few redeeming qualities painted for Henry Works here.  He was silly. He should never have been in uniform. They mock him in every way they can. But they also want to make clear, and this is kind of a contradiction when you get down to it, is he's stupid, he's silly, he's ridiculous, but he was a mastermind who killed thousands. And one person who really walks this delicate balancing act is arguably the most famous Andersonville prisoner, John McElroy. In 1879, John McElroy would publish his memoir, Andersonville, a story of rebel prisons. McElroy was a private in an Illinois Calvary unit. He is captured in December of 63, and he's one of the first prisoners at Andersonville Prison. And as time goes on, he will note that he will say things like he was an undersized fidgety man with an insignificant face. He was simply contemptible from whatever point of view he was studied. But he also points out that only words, small insignificant miserable words, the underling, the tool, the servile, the brainless, the fetcher and carry of these men was punished. In other words, he wanted Jefferson Davis to hang for this thing as well. Now Southerners are a little bit different. Southerners, when they talk about words struggle because he's a foreigner, and they don't know that much about him. And pretty much everybody agrees that Andersonville was a bad thing. So instead, they tend to devote time to what aboutism is what we would call it today. Oh, Andersonville was bad, but Northern prisons were worse. And so they call it judicial murder. Jefferson Davis in his memoir talks about words and calls the trial a so-called trial. And words was a foreigner by birth, poor, friendless and wounded. One soldier notes poor words of Andersonville was a saint by the side of some and the higher authority in the Union side. That's pointing to, well Sherman and Grant, they should have hung for their treatment of prisoners in Northern camps. But what really brings this issue to a head is in 1905. In 1905, the Georgia division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy decide that, if I can, there we go, that Henry Wurz deserves a monument. And what they announce is in October of 1905, they will fund a suitable monument that will acknowledge, quote, he was judicially murdered under false charges of cruelty to prisoners. Well, Northerners exploded this. Northerners jumped up and down on the Daughters of the Confederacy, saying that Wurz was a villain, a traitor, he was inhuman.   Southerners have a tendency to say, well, yes, but maybe he was innocent, but maybe a monument is not the best thing. One soldier notes that perhaps it was impolitic of the Daughters of the Confederacy to bring up this idea of a monument for him. Or that one author notes, I'm inclined to conservative views on this subject and whether or not to issue a monument. And the fact, and the point of the fact is, is that the South was really mixed on Henry Wurz. In fact, the Daughters of the Confederacy can't find a place to put a monument to him. Richmond says no. Well, you know, they want Henry Wurz's monument up on Monument Avenue with Lee and Davis and Jackson, all of them. Nope. Atlanta says no. Macon Georgia says no. And finally, the only place that will accept it is Andersonville itself, also known as Amicus, America, excuse me, is the local town near Andersonville Prison. And sure enough, on May 12th, 1909, up goes the monument. The inscription on the monument reads, Henry Wurz discharging his duty with such humanity as the harsh circumstances of the times and the policy of the foe permitted, Captain Wurz became at last a victim of misdirected public clamor. A news article about the dedication ceremony says that the monument went up in kind spirit. And that's where it is today. These are my pictures from two years ago. In all the discussion of monuments, Lee, Jackson, Davis, this has never come up despite the fact that it is only about half an hour from Fort Benning now, Fort Moore. More. This is the legacy of Henry Wurz, enshrined in stone, only yards away from the American Military Cemetery where over 13,000 soldiers yet lie buried. So when we think of Wurz, the daughters of the Confederacy wanted us to think of this monument. But really, when it comes to history, people tend to focus on his trial and execution. And maybe that's appropriate. Since nobody would know Henry Wurz if it weren't for Andersonville, nobody would know Henry Wurz if he weren't for his execution. Ultimately, historians have come down on the idea that it was a bias trial. It was an unfortunate trial. It wasn't really a great moment in American legal history. But Wurz was probably guilty of something. As one historian says, it is hardly believable that over 100 witnesses from both armies would perjure themselves. And so at the end of the day, Wurz's legacy has been firmly tied to Andersonville for better or for worse. His legacy is complicated. Northerners were abundantly clear that he was not a good guy and he should not be remembered for being a good guy. Whereas perhaps surprisingly, Southerners were a bit more mixed on it. They tried to defend him, but even Southerners seemed to admit Andersonville was a humanitarian disaster. And at the end of the day, I think one historian said it best, whether intentional or not, Andersonville was a crime against humanity and Wurz was made to pay for it. Thank you very much. If you have any questions for either the panelists, please, there are microphones on either side of the stage. Question for Professor Bennett. So in your research, I know you're talking a lot about the Wabanaki. Given that the Boston Tea Parties in Massachusetts, did your research touch on the Wampanoag at all, especially in King Philip's War and sort of the devastation that that caused to Massachusetts? Are you from Massachusetts? No, from California. Okay, cool. So that speaks to, I think, actually something about on the memory of this period, is that when we're taught about this era in American history, we learn about the Wampanoag because of the pilgrims, so-called pilgrims. And then when we talk about Indian wars, especially in New England, perhaps if you're from Massachusetts or Rhode Island, you learn about King Philip's War. But nothing happens north of the current boundary of Massachusetts. We don't talk about that. That's kind of reflected in the archival records as well, is because the English don't like talking about the wars with the Wabanakis because they often are losing them. And that validates arguments that perhaps God is not on their side and perhaps what they're doing is not totally righteous and good. And actually, so Maine was part of Massachusetts until 1820. And the thing that's interesting as opposed to the memory of it is, but as a scholar who studies this period of time, is that people in Boston were very much attuned to events in Maine and New Hampshire because these wars were constantly going on there in terms of raising soldiers, building fortifications. So there's a major political issue, but it's one that once they kind of win, they're happy to quickly forget. And then after the American Revolution, that becomes like the big event for them. But in the lead up to it, this political context would have been something that they were very, very familiar with. So, yeah. Thank you very much. Oh, short, sorry. So with Europeans and European Americans having like a history of dressing up as other communities and groups to either ridicule them or intimidate others, I was wondering like, did you come across any research or information that kind of showed the effects of those European Americans dressing up as the Wabanakis and how that kind of like affected the community and the views and stigmatizations like around them. Because we kind of see like post civil war with like the ministerial shows and the popularizations of those, how the views of black people were kind of like created around that. So I'm wondering did you come across like any research that kind of like showed how that may have affected perspectives on the Wabanakis? Yeah, so that's a great question. So when we think of the Indian wars or these Indian battles, and I talked about this recently in my survey course, I mean, most of us have probably heard of Little Big Horn with Custer, that's very famous. St. Clair's defeat, which happened in the 1790s where the Indians also defeated, almost destroyed the U.S. Army in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Many of you probably have never heard of that before, right, because that was kind of awkward. But at least so for Americans, the idea of the Native American Other was really shaped by the Buffalo Bill Wild West shows. Also when a national culture was first emerging in the 19th century. So the American idea of the Indian is often very much a plains Native American person like with a teepee and horses and these type of things. Native Americans actually all, it's a big continent, are very diverse in different areas. So you could see in terms of how that impacted the Wabanaki people in the late 19th century when they're trying to make money by selling baskets to tourists and these type of things, they often dress up and adopt plains Native American costumes because that's what they want. Because they understand that's what white people want them to do, even though it's not a reflection of their own practices or culture. Thank you. I have a question for Professor Sodergren. So I was just wondering if in your research you delved into some of the other famous war criminals of the Civil War, people like Champ Ferguson or the other border state guerrillas and how maybe their actions hampered efforts of reconciliation during reconstruction in the border states after the war. Thank you. That's an excellent question because any words are really only the highest, the biggest profile one, but yes, you could Champ Ferguson, William Quantrill, these were people who really cut a swath through the border regions during the Civil War. They were, by a modern definition, really guerrilla operators.  So there really is no trial for him and others are also tried by effectively military commissions as well. I have begun to do some research on that, on the military commissions that were set up to, and they used the word guerrilla to arrest and try guerrillas. But these did occur, they did get some publicity, but in terms, Henry Wurz got the press because it was Andersonville. Andersonville with so many dead really kind of captured the public. And it was the Northern prisoners who were in the press saying, you need to punish this guy, we can't forgive this guy, we have to do that. But going back to the original point, yes, because states like Kentucky and Tennessee, Missouri, where they had really kind of interstate and interstate fighting in many respects, that leads to a difficult reconciliation after the war because it was more neighbor versus neighbor there and they did some terrible things to each other. And it's only recently, I think historians are starting to actually pick that apart in more detail. Hi, great set of presentations. I'm Professor Goldstein, I'm up from Brown University, I'm an Asia specialist, I'll be speaking in the afternoon. But I, a couple of questions for each of you. One, living in Rhode Island there, I'm kind of struck by, as you said, I mean, it's hardly discussed. I mean, you'll see certain things are named after King Philip or something. Nobody even knows that that's a Native American person. And then I, but so my question is, I mean, to your, New England, I don't think has done a good job at reconciling and remembering, you know, I'm familiar with the Pequot Museum. It's one place that seems to at least approach the discussion in a serious way, but I was wondering if you think any New England states are better at this or, and how can we do better? And then I have to ask on the Civil War whether you kind of hinted at this at the end, but our country's been going through a lot of discussion about Civil War monuments. And, you know, I just wonder what your general take on this as a child, I remember looking at these things and being like, what, you know, why is this here? But on the other hand, it's clearly, you know, still an emotive issue. So I wonder how you think we're grappling with it if I could put you on the spot. Thank you, gentlemen. So first, I'll say I taught at Connecticut College for a year, so I live down there as well. And I would just recommend if you're down there, the site of the Great Swamp Fight, which was perhaps several thousand people died in that battle, many more were enslaved. And it's the creepiest historical place I've ever been. You have to walk through a swamp by yourself for a mile to this like ruined monument. So it's kind of really powerful to go to those places even though people don't acknowledge their significance. And I think actually a good way of thinking, thinking, answering your question is right now it's the 300th anniversary of Dumber's War, which was the most important Native American conflict in Northern New England. But there has not been any kind of articles about it. There's actually, if you've been to Battery Park in Burlington, there's a huge statue of a Native American man and it's purportedly named after Greylock, who was the head Wabanaki Sagamore from that conflict. If you ask, who has an amazing story, but if you ask people who is Greylock or why did he matter, I don't really, I don't think many people can answer that question. So I think there's a lot of room for it. And I'm kind of suspicious that at least in Maine, when we commemorate it, it will be the Norwich Walk Massacre. So oftentimes, and I think this is something to challenge for us, is that when we remember this period of time, it's often the most horrible events that are like the most genocidal, which are very important and we should remember, but there's kind of an attitude like, that's all you need to know about Native American history or this period of time. And I think that's actually really unfortunate and missing a huge part of the story. One thing I'll just note about Civil War monuments, because it is an ongoing discussion and I think that it's amazing that we're actually having the discussion and people are saying, oh, well, we're tearing down monuments and things like that, but we're talking about it. And the courts are weighing in on this and they're weighing in on what communities can and can't do in terms of the preservation and history. And these are timeless issues that we need to tackle. To put things back to my research, the Henry Wurz monument is in many ways an outlier because when people defend monuments, they say, well, like it or not, Lee had a lot of accomplishments. Like it or not, Jackson had a lot of, they won battles. They had a tremendous impact on history. The Wurz monument, Wurz didn't accomplish anything and even the monuments seem to acknowledge as that. The monument is there to commemorate what the daughter's confederacy say was an injustice. The monument is to his fate, not to his accomplishments and that puts it in a different whole class. And I mean, I don't think it's so far saying is like, it's effectively like saying, we're gonna put up a monument to remember that somebody was lynched on this spot or something like that. That's what the daughters of the confederacy were going so forth. They weren't necessarily glorifying Wurz as recognizing him as a monument. And I think that's a category of monument that we really haven't addressed in all of our discussions and there might be more of them out there. This is a question for Professor Soderman. I was, I wanted to ask if you believe that the creation of this monument wasn't any way sort of almost intimidation tactic to show how the confederacy was still going to be fighting against the union for a long time and we still kind of see that sort of division today because there has been some evidence that has shown that a lot of monuments and the confederacy has been erected long after the wars have ended in order to intimidate the civil rights movement. So do you think there's any indication that this could be it or if it was just to kind of take a stab at a court that was probably essentially not very reliable? Good question, thank you. Every time a group or a country or a person puts up a monument, they are making an argument about history. They are saying what they think should be remembered, who should be remembered and why it should be remembered. They are staking a claim to the past. So in this case, absolutely, I think the United Daughters of the Confederacy were staking a claim to the past. I don't, unlike some monuments, I don't think this was about civil rights. I think this was about telling quote unquote the truth of history and that is trying to say that look, future generations, when you come here to this monument, realize that whatever happened to this guy, whatever you've heard about it is not true. Here is the truth. He was unjustly convicted and executed and they wanted that enshrined and set in stone for future generations. And there are many other Confederate monuments that do similar things that say that the Confederacy was about this or it wasn't about that and efforts to make clear to the future generations, this is what the past should be. And what we're engaging right now in as a nation is trying to determine whether or not because it's set in stone, does that necessarily mean that is the agreed upon version of the past and what we do about that? So yeah, good question. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have today for this panel. I'm sure those of you with questions still, our presenters will be happy to answer them at another time maybe. But thank you all for coming and the next panel should be at phone call. Thank you. Good job. Are you a television viewer? What is the nicest way I can say this? I was gonna say, I was... Okay. Yeah, I was going to say this. There is... Cheryl, once it gets going. Do you have a lot of images, but I will not. All right. I will not go over. Yes.  If they don't lower the noise, you might ask them to. I don't know. Can, maybe we should ask our... I ask Yang Mo. Yes, Yang Mo, but he's... Oh, look. Oh, there we go. That's good. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I think that. I don't help a lot, because it's... I think it'll be nice to be able to see the images. I don't know. We might get some complaints from Mark about it being dark, but I don't know. As long as we have big hand gestures and look at each other. That's right. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for joining us for the fifth annual Peace and War Center. Welcome to the second session, which is about war, memory, and reconciliation. I am Joshua Smith, pleased to be a moderator for this session. I'm an international studies major. I am Richard Conlin, the other moderator for the session, and I am a studies and war and peace major. In this 11 o'clock session, we'll move from remembering wars for the experiences themselves and on to exploring celebrations of peace and reconciliation catalyzed by war. In this session, we are joined by Dr. Emily Gray, Professor of History, and Dr. Timothy Parker, Associate Professor of History and Theory of Architecture and Art. Professor Gray will lead off her session with her work, Peace and Reconciliation after the Thirty Years War, Augsburg's Peace Festivals and Memorial Art. Dr. Parker will follow with his presentation within the aftermath of war, making space for memory and reconciliation. These presentations will last 15 minutes apiece, and we will dedicate the final 10 minutes of this session to your questions. Thank you. Professor Gray earned her doctorate in history from the University of Pennsylvania in 2004. She's been on the faculty at Norwich University since 2007, becoming Professor of History in 2020. Dr. Gray was awarded the Homer L. Lodge Award for Teaching Excellence from Norwich in 2015. Her historical specialty is Early Modern Europe, specifically the Protestant Reformation in Germany, and she has published with Wrestling with the Reformation in Augsburg, 1530, as part of the Reacting to the Past series, and has two forthcoming publications discussing churches in Augsburg. Today, she's gonna be presenting on the memory of the Thirty Years War in Augsburg through their annual Peace Festival. Thank you. All right, thank you for that introduction, Richard. I'm very pleased to be here. Thank you all for coming. I don't know of any place in history, maybe, that's grappled with the issues of peace and war and reconciliation as long and as consistently as in Augsburg, Germany. For nearly four centuries, since the year 1650, the city of Augsburg in Bavaria, Southern Germany, has celebrated the Peace of Westphalia and the end of the Thirty Years War in annual celebrations every single year on the 8th of August. The Augsburg Hoas Freedance Fest or Great Peace Festival is actually today the only officially recognized municipal holiday in all of Germany, banks close, government offices close, businesses close, citizens get together and enjoy these public celebrations in the city's main square. They eat Friedenstauben, peace doves, these little kind of doughnut kind of things. They call it Trauben and Trauben, doves and grapes because the two rhyme, I guess. People bring food, they share it with their neighbors, speeches are delivered every three years and Augsburg Peace Prize is given out. Most recently in 2023, the Peace Prize was given to journalist Katrin Eigendorf but past winners have included Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader and Christian Fuhrer, who was the pastor of the Nikolai Church in Leipzig that started the protests that eventually opened the Berlin Wall. There is also always, aren't they cute, a children's peace festival in a city park the following weekend. Let me tell you just a little bit about Augsburg. It is a medium-sized city in Germany. It's the third largest city in Bavaria, population of about 300,000, but it has a very deep history. It's actually a 2,000-year-old city that was founded by the Romans. Augsburg is named after Caesar Augustus and it was actually among the wealthiest cities in the world in the 1500s. There was a series of important banking families, the Fugre, the Velser, the Hochstetter. Augsburgers controlled a lot of area in the world, including Venezuela for a period of time, but you probably haven't heard of Augsburg if you haven't had a class with me and that's because in the Thirty Years' War, Augsburg was decimated losing about 60% of its population and almost all of its economic clout. So now that makes it a lovely little city to live and work in with some really amazing historical archives. Another thing that's interesting to note about Augsburg, it has been a biconfessional city for more than 500 years, biconfessional meaning that Lutherans and Catholics live together in relative peace even though they haven't always been happy about that. In 1555, you might have heard of the peace of Augsburg. This was an agreement that was reached, happened to be in the city of Augsburg between the Holy Roman Emperor and the various princes of the Holy Roman Empire that came up with the principle of Cuyus regio eus religio, he who rules chooses the religion. So these princes, these cities, they picked one side or another. They picked being Catholic or they picked being Lutheran. Augsburg couldn't pick. And the reason they couldn't is because the wealthy people wanted to stay Catholic. Many of them loaned money to popes and were afraid that the popes and the important Catholic rulers wouldn't pay them back. But most of the people were Lutherans. So they settled into a kind of uneasy dual relationship between Lutherans and Catholics. And it's this tradition actually when it says Augsburg versus Friedenstadt, we are a city of peace. That's kind of the tradition that they're trying to draw upon that for 500 years you've had these different groups living together in relative peace. But it hasn't always been peace and happiness in Augsburg. The Thirty Years' War, which went from 1618 to 1648 was a horrific time in the history of German Central Europe for Augsburg and really for everywhere else. It was mostly fought within the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire, but the intervention first of the Danish and then of the Swedes, who knew that the Swedes would be so belligerent. They're terrifying, actually. That kind of just took the whole level of destruction of the war up. And soon the Thirty Years' War became a proxy war between Habsburg dynasties of Spain and Austria and the Berman dynasty of France, during which time new military technologies, new uses of gunpowder in particular led to previously unimaginable loss of life. And as many as one million men may have fought in the war, that's only direct combatants, not their wives, their families, various other people who came along and supported these armies, so they were huge. Historians estimate that about 20% of the population of Central Europe died as a direct result of the war, either combat deaths or deaths due to disease and starvation. Compare that to World War I and World War II where about 6% of the population of German Central Europe died, and that's bad. But it's less than a third the impact in terms of the population. The sides in the Thirty Years' War correspond roughly to Protestant and Catholic religious groups. So even though it wasn't officially a war about religion, if you want more details, come take my Thirty Years' War class in the fall, there was definitely a religious inflection to the war, and you saw that when the war actually was going on. So during the Thirty Years' War, both sides burned down churches, prohibited religious practices they didn't agree with. In Augsburg, this was a problem because as I just mentioned, Augsburg has both Lutheran and Catholic churches. This is an example of we've got a Catholic church here and then next to it, the Lutheran church that was destroyed in 1629. And actually, this destruction of churches starts happening in Augsburg in 1628 as soon as Catholic forces become really ascendant in the city.  They make the Catholics share their churches with the Lutherans, that does not go well, and so they just take the churches away from the Catholics and they give them to the Lutherans. And then Gustavus Adolphus dies in 1634 and everything goes back. And pretty much for a period of time, everyone's just kind of worshiping outside because there's no churches to worship in. The war was a stalemate from about 1635 to 1648. Nobody knew how to end a war on this scale. Nobody knew how to end a war period. So when the piece of Westphalia was finally announced, there was widespread rejoicing. This is one of the broadsheet images that announces the actual decision of the piece of Westphalia. You can see from Vienna to Stockholm, you can see Paris kind of there in the background. All of that is, all of that is there. You've got the ship there that says Fried, which means peace. Everyone was really, really excited about that. Note the date on this, depending on how well you read old Fractur German. It says it's the 25th of the Vine monad. It's the 25th of October when this was announced. And yet, if you remember, in Augsburg, they celebrate the piece on the 8th of August. I'll tell you why they do that in just a minute. But the very first great piece festival that takes place in Augsburg takes place in 1650 and it was organized by Augsburg's Lutherans. And it was really about celebrating their religion and the return of their churches. So we've mentioned already a couple of people, divergent memories of war. Professor Koo mentioned that Koreans and Japanese remember the occupation of Korea very differently. The North and the South in the Civil War, very divergent memories. Well, in Augsburg, we have very divergent memories in that Catholics and Lutherans remember the war very differently and celebrate it very differently. So in the first big Freedance Fest, the big peace festival, there were thousands of people packed into Augsburg's Lutheran churches, under banners that read, through peace comes joy, fresh flowers decking the walls, paintings of the kings of France, Sweden and Austria, all the signatories of the treaty. Pastors gave great sermons that were trumpets. It's always good when there's trumpets, right? Trumpets and drums accompanying the church organs and then they had soldiers outside of the churches and at kind of key points in the sermon, volleys of musket fire, celebratory musket fire. A few days later, the children's festival, children paraded through the streets, dressed like angels, wearing white shirts or aprons with boughs of greenery carried in their arms and re-sund their heads. Meanwhile, Catholics stayed in their homes with their windows closed. So they did not provoke more conflict on a day that was supposed to be about celebrating peace. This was not a celebration, as I'm sure you can see by now, about toleration. This was a celebration of a Lutheran victory. There was that period during the war where Lutherans were afraid that Augsburg was gonna be completely re-catholicized, that all of their churches were gonna be taken away, the peace of West failure returned their churches to them and that's actually why they chose the 8th of August to celebrate this great peace festival. The 8th of August was the day that the Edict of Restitution was put forward in 1629 that took all the Lutheran churches away. So by holding this peace festival on the 8th of August, the Lutherans of Augsburg are saying we won this war, we got all of our churches given back to us. So I wanna look just for the next few minutes that I have at some art from the two periods of time in which the peace festival was celebrated because we can tell a lot about what the peace festival was supposed to do by the kind of art that was created for it. And one of the things that was really important in the peace festival from 1650 all the way to 1789 is that every year they created these images for children. And when you went to the children's peace festival, you got an image like this that was printed for you when you were supposed to take it home and hang it on your wall and remember. And so each one of these kind of captures a moment in time where we're told what the children of Augsburg were told to remember. This one which is from 1736 by Philip Andreas Killian depicts a historical event. This is what it looked like for all of the Lutherans of Augsburg to be gathered together outside because they didn't have any churches to gather in and holding a religious service. And then if you look up above, we have images of all six of Augsburg's Lutheran churches kind of up above. So this is a way of seeing a kind of celebrating, we didn't have our churches, we were about to lose our religion and then we got it back thanks to the piece of Westphalia. This one from 1748, Christoph Friedrich Hermann von Gutenberg shows Augsburg up there. You can tell it's Augsburg because of the Rathaus, very iconic. And it's surrounded by walls and the walls are guarded by angels and the angels have flaming swords. I mean, the image here is pretty clear. At the top you've got the all-seeing eye of God and then you've got text here clarifying the meaning of the image. It says Augsburg's constitution is founded on rock and guarded by angels. Augsburg's constitution was created by the piece of Westphalia. Its constitution made it so that Lutherans and Catholics would share power equally. There were two mayors in the town when Lutheran and Catholic and people, members of the city council. But the thing that's interesting about this is in this image of Augsburg, the only buildings you see other than the Rathaus are Lutheran church buildings. Actually, I'm gonna skip this one. Let me, some of the images were political. This is one from 1764 that celebrates the election of a new Holy Roman emperor, Joseph II. Now, Joseph II was Catholic, but he was known for his toleration and this is kind of, here you've got God at the top again, the eye-seeing all of God is instructing this woman here in the foreground to write things down. She's got these important dates in her tablet there recording key periods of time as it relates to the Thirty Years' War. But also some early 18th century battles in the War of Spanish Succession and that took place near Augsburg and then of course the date that this new emperor takes office. And you can see in the background you've got all of these soldiers kind of surrounding this church in the back and they've also just kind of released their celebratory musket fire. So it's a little, the image is interesting because it's a little scary that you've got all of these soldiers kind of like gathered around the church but I think it's meant to be celebratory. So they stopped creating these Fradens-Gamelda or these peace pictures in 1789 but the peace festival continued on, it continued through the Napoleonic Wars, through Augsburg's incorporation into Bavaria in 1806, Franco-Prussian War, World War I and II. And then after World War II U.S.-occupied Augsburg was trying to find a way, you know, how can we, we need something to celebrate, we need to think about peace, what should we do? They wanted to do something incorporating history. And that's where this idea of this peace festival which really was a celebration of Lutherans I becomes a celebration of toleration and it's really kind of developed into that ever since 1950. And just to show you some images, they no longer are creating peace pictures for children to take home and put on their walls but they do have murals that get commissioned every year on the 8th of August and that will also tell you a little bit about what are we supposed to be remembering here and what are we supposed to be celebrating? So here's a couple of images here, 2018 by Guido Zimmerman which means when everything forms a unit so you've got these people of different races and then I love here in the front you've got like an ape and then you've got a robot. Holding hands as well. But you have them kind of all working together there, that was from 2018. The one on the right is from 2021, similar kind of image. One hand cares for the others is what that means. And this also shows forums kind of belonging to a variety of people and still our ape, I don't know what happened to our, I don't know, there's no robot in there, it's a little bit disappointing. But you can see kind of a very different idea about what peace means by the time we get to the modern day. Just a couple others that I wanna show you, have just a minute. I like this one called Acrobats, not only because it's fun, but because I feel like this actually really demonstrates what it's like to kind of hold all of these things in tension. At the same time, I mean sometimes to have peace requires a certain amount of contortion and a little bit of a balancing act to be able to make it work. Certainly that was the case in trying to maintain peace in the years immediately following the 30 years war. And then this is an interesting one, this is the only mural that incorporates a church. And it's a church that didn't exist at the time of the 30 years war, this is a relatively new church from 1910. You might notice that it looks a lot like Neuschwanstein, those of you who've been to that castle. But anyway, it is meant to kind of put this church in a different context, it's underwater, we've got our coral here and a turtle going by. It is in the neighborhood of Ferset, which is where the US military was headquartered. And after the military left in the early 90s, a lot of migrants moved in there. And so it's kind of become a neighborhood of migrants. And the title of this is Refugees Welcome. So 400 years nearly have passed since the beginning of the 30 years war and Augsburg has celebrated 373 great peace festivals and counting, many things are the same. In both cases, both ancient sort of many years ago and today, children are being taught what it means to be an Augsburger and imbued with a sense of civic pride in their history. Adults are getting together to remember times of war and really celebrate being in a period of peace. But the meaning and significance of this peace festival has changed a lot over time. Now what we have is cultural and religious diversity being celebrated as a strength and a source of pride and not as something that we unfortunately have to live with which is how they felt about it several hundred years ago. The great peace festival today not only is Lutherans but also Catholics, many other types of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, everybody gets together and celebrates together. So the Augsburgers of 1650 would probably be very confused by the kind of things that were happening today but they are in many ways a logical outgrowth of 400 years of Augsburg largely avoiding conflicts and doing their best to get along with their neighbors and just because the meaning of that has changed over time I think there's still a lot that we can learn from them. I will leave it at that. Professor Gray, thank you very much for your remarks. I'm now pleased to introduce Professor Timothy Parker. Dr. Parker earned his doctorate in architectural history and theory from the University of Texas at Austin in 2010 and has been on the faculty at Norwich since 2012. His teaching and study in the field of architecture is extensive and this is reflected largely in his major publication from the University of Texas. This volume is entitled, sanctioning modernism, architecture and the making of post-war identities. It's incredibly insightful as it delves into the fusion of psychological, philosophical, historical and religious factors among others which influence architecture. Today, Dr. Parker will be presenting within the aftermath of war, making space for memory and reconciliation. Good morning, very happy to be here. Thank you, Emily. Professor Gray for wonderful reflections that I hope mine will complement in some ways. I'm working today as you can see on the context of what architecture might be able to do regarding a goal of reconciliation but I wanna be really clear up front. I'm not one of those architects who thinks architecture can do everything or architects can do everything. There's a famous line buried within the Renaissance treatise, the most important one of the Renaissance on architecture by Alberti where he claims that beauty and architecture is so important it can even help save a building from destruction because approaching combatants might pause before they attack it. Not that kind of suggestion here. Instead, what I want to do is think about how architecture can in fact be more broadly construed than buildings and how they look. But instead, architecture is a central component in creating the built environment, a broader phenomenon wherein we inhabit our daily lives, we go about conflicts, moving through potential reconciliation and everything in between. They are physical remainders and reminders of all the fullness of life. You can't really avoid architecture. With regard to reconciliation in the aftermath of war, one naturally enough thinks of memorials and monuments. But I like to call to mind a pithy observation by the philosopher of art, Arthur Donto, that reminds us just how tricky this can be. He writes, we erect monuments so that we shall always remember and build memorials so that we shall never forget. Not exactly the same thing, but they do share a lot. There are some overlaps and intention. And I think part of the challenges here is the fact that once something is built, it exists in time and will take on meanings that we can't control. So what I want to do today is explore a little bit one particular site of convergence. It's a remarkable site having to do with the post-World War II reconstruction of Coventry Cathedral. And in particular, it's the new, self-consciously modern cathedral, immediately adjacent to the ruins of the old that were destroyed in the Blitz of 1940. But before I get to that, I want to comment upon a couple conceptual things at play in my mind. If we're thinking about architecture, not primarily in terms of objects that we encounter and think about, but as creators of space, we also experience architecture always through time somehow. That is, if we're thinking of our lives and the events of our lives individually or collectively, how we encounter a building or the built landscape, the built environment, we do so in motion. We approach and enter. We move through. We cross boundaries and thresholds. We feel protected or enclosed or not and all sorts of things like that. And I think when we consider particular sites with regard to traumas of war, it's very appropriate to remind ourselves we walk into any building with our own memories, our own histories, personal and partly shared, somehow also there. And so we respond to environments variously in part through imagination and memory as well as hope and desire. And if we're talking about churches, there's also a question here regarding sacredness, sacred space. Might it matter when we cross a certain kind of threshold that we're entering into a place where behavior has to change, we act more reverentially or something sort of like that. I say sort of because in the modern world, 20th century and beyond now, well beyond, we don't agree very easily regarding what is sacred and what is not and how to regard such distinctions. And so I'd like to suggest here that thinking about moving around and through an experiencing architecture as well as considering possibilities of the sacred and finally thinking of the modern experience especially. We're dealing with modes of mediation. One way or another, we're trying to navigate, negotiate, settle, at least provisionally, how we relate in the present to the past, how we relate as individuals to something that transcend us. One way or another, we're trying to bridge the gap between something and if anything, reconciliation is seeking to bring back into right relationship, parties, people, events, places, et cetera, that have been estranged. With regard to Coventry Cathedral in particular, I wanna introduce it briefly as a work of architecture you see on the screen an exterior view, not of the entire new building, but really of where the so-called west or entry end of it meets the ruins, the remains of the Medieval Cathedral. The attitude the architect Basil Spence consciously adopted regarding those ruins is significant because this was the result, the design, of an international competition. And yet, part of the requirements from the beginning was to say, we're going to keep the tower. All winning designs, potentially winning designs would have to incorporate the tower somehow into the new site. He went further and he basically decided that any and all parts of the ruined building that could be stabilized enough to remain should remain. He writes in his report accompanying the winning design, the following. Through the ordeal of bombing, Coventry was given a beautiful ruin. The tower and spire reveal themselves for the first time in an arresting new aspect from the ruined nave. As the cathedral stands now, it is an eloquent memorial to the courage of the people of Coventry. It is felt that the ruin should be preserved as a garden of rest embracing the open air pulpit and stage and the new cathedral should grow from the old and be incomplete without it. Clearly he's not designing a building to follow the stylistic gestures and traditions of the medieval. This is not a Gothic revival building. It's a modern building, but it's a particular kind of modern. Modern identity after all is a kind of negotiation with what attitude does the architect embrace or approach the past? Do we seek to be entirely and utterly new or develop some aspect of previous tradition? For Spence, he writes at length in his memoir of this experience that he was well formed in the long history of medieval architecture, especially church architecture. And he does not see it as a singular style. In fact, he says some of the greatest cathedrals embody within the single body of the building multiple styles that somehow work together over time. He describes the adventurous nature of this tradition and then turns the tables on the common discourse, all too common regarding modern versus tradition. People are, he says, shocked when architects think in this traditional way. They cannot see that the true traditionalists are people who think simply in their own era. The copyists then are surely the revolutionaries. One thing to note about this then, he makes a few decisions regarding the architecture that I'll point out. On the right, you see the plan and it forms a kind of L shape. And as it is, you see the entry in the gap between the ruins at the bottom and the building at the top. The orientation is maintained to be fundamentally about the altar end at the top of that screen. The zigzag walls that allow the windows to shed light on that end but not be seen as one approaches it from below from the entry and several other design decisions are included here. But I'm looking at this site, not just as a work of architecture with regard to ruins, but as a site also of another range of art forms. In particular, the musical performance, the premiere of the War Requiem by Benjamin Britton. Only five days after the consecration of the cathedral. Britton likewise adopts and actually had been described by others as a figure that manages a mediation between the modern and the traditional that's subtle and complicated. He was called a revolutionary conservative. And we see evidence of that attitude that's really distinctive here because he could for the celebration of the new cathedral choose any kind of sacred or secular text. He adopted the choice of the mass for the dead, the Requiem, and he interspersed within the text of that Requiem mass, the Latin text, fragments of anti-war poetry from Wilfred Owen, rooted in the experience of the First World War. And I want to simply bring these reflections regarding mediation to a focal point without attempting to do justice by any means to the complexity of the musical experience of modernity vis-a-vis tradition. But I'll suggest it's in the interstitial space, the threshold, the boundary between the church proper and the nave garden of rest of the ruins where a provocative aspect of the War Requiem takes hold. This entry zone into the new cathedral is a floor-to-ceiling, full-height, light metal frame glass wall, upon which are engraved images of saints and biblical figures, but most especially angels. And they range in different postures. The ones you encounter most directly are the standing angels along the lower row. Spence himself, when he talked about early visions for the cathedral, said, he always had a clear vision of the orientation toward the altar, but it was ever changing. I could not see the altar, but through the bodies of the saints. So there was an intention to keep a transparency there and yet also an arresting challenge. These were the products of lots of experimentation throughout the 1950s by the artist John Hutton. And I'd like to suggest that attending to the premiere of the War Requiem, this site takes on a new meaning in addition to that perhaps intended by Spence. And that is because during one of the, sorry, I should say first, the arrangement of the War Requiem is complicated. There were three different portions of performers, one of which, however, was a boys' choir. And the boys' choir sung in a decidedly archaic mode of Latin singing, and they were always held to be at a great distance. I believe, though I haven't found absolute evidence of this, but managing the interior organization of the space and speculating a bit, they must have been towards that entry end near this glass wall. And I'll close with simply this one passage from the Requiem Mass, which brings our attention back to the question of how we're encountering this memory that's being processed in a way and a religious tradition of the Requiem praying for the repose of the dead, that they be saved to a better afterlife than they had in life. But what occurs here is a bracketing in the offertarium of the Latin sung by the major choir invoking the grace and benevolence of God for the afterlife of the fallen soldiers. But it's a War Requiem, a Requiem not for the soldiers, but perhaps for war itself. For Britain was a conscientious objector. He was a lifelong pacifist and he chose to premiere in this spot a work of music that balanced as difficult as it might be, a challenge to reconciliation. So in the midst of prayers by the main choir and then at the end, the boys choir in the back, the two tenors seeing the text that you have seen here on the screen by Wilfred Owen. I won't read it and I haven't played any of the music because really you need to just listen to the whole thing and follow the text. It's an amazing back and forth of supplication for peace and a hope and desire and belief in that and a commitment to seeing straight on the horrors of what has been experienced. You'll see at a glance a familiar story repackaged from Wilfred Owen, the binding of Isaac, the would be, but averted sacrifice of his son, of Abraham's son, Isaac, the final two lines shifting our attention rather to the world wars of Europe. Thank you very much. So with that, thank you very much and we have 10 minutes for any questions. You can use these two mics right here. Hi. My question is to Professor Gray. So you were talking about how the 30 years war is like in between two different religions and so you said that other countries had to step in to solve that war, correct? The other countries really stepped in to take advantage of it and exacerbated it. They made it worse. So then have you come across any sources saying, showing how people at the time looked at this stepping in from the other countries? Oh, you mean how people from outside the Holy Roman Empire might have seen what was happening inside? No, how the inside was looking at what how the outside was reacting. So the way that people were reacting to it. Well, I think it's just like you find in every war. It was a really, really awful time. And this was, we sort of had new armies, great big armies, but they hadn't figured out supply trains yet. So anytime an army came through they would just take all your stuff. They didn't ask you what religion you were or what side you were on. Soldiers themselves were often changing sides because you would fight for whoever would pay you and so it didn't matter what religion you were. But for a lot of people they just saw it as a great calamity. A lot of people saw it as judgment from God coming down upon them for their sins. A lot of people blamed those outside forces. Oh, this is the fault of the Spanish. This is the fault of the French. Everyone's terrified of the Swedes, who knew. They weren't always as peaceful as they are today. And so I think there was a whole mix of emotions around this time. One thing that I can definitely say is by the time this was over, everyone was happy. Everyone was relieved. And I didn't get a chance to really get into this, but the Catholics have their own way of celebrating the end of hostilities and the peace that comes in Augsburg as well. Everyone was just so relieved it was over at the end. Thank you. So in the last panel Dr. Sadegrin talked a little bit on civil war memorials, in particular one to a perceived Confederate war criminal. So my question, and I believe this could go to either professor here, is how do you believe that the destruction of architecture, particularly those that hold a historical or cultural significance can impede the post-war reconciliation process? How does the destruction compete with? Is that the question? How can it impede? Impede, thank you. Okay, yeah, it's, the favorite professorial answer is it's complicated, right? Of course, but I will say that when it comes to architecture and the inherent pretense to permanence, there is automatically a question for future generations to always deal with. What do we do with very old buildings? And aside from explicit memorials and monuments about which we will variously disagree and need to process that for future generations in one way or another, that issue is a subset of a larger issue to me because it's, it continues to be a matter of in what way are we as humans represented, embraced, spoken to in anything like a recognizable language by the world we inhabit. We make the world we inhabit if we're talking about the built environment, but the we changes. It's always going to change and the more permanent a building or monument is, the more that becomes an issue for future generations to come to terms with what do we think about this? So it's not, maybe it's not a great answer to the question. It can certainly impede something that needs to happen, but sometimes what needs to happen is recontextualizing part of the past. And my mind goes in many different directions regarding it from monuments that we, to the degree we can speak in a common shared voice. And that's a very tentative thing. We may want to actively remake our public sphere aside from, and in addition to what we've inherited by happenstance, but aside from those particular kinds of things, we also have instances such as in New England, there are lots of little churches and the dwindling religious population. What do you do with those churches? More pointed in say France and England and Canada, but you can look around and see historic churches that are valued now as cultural properties and are de-consecrated, sold to developers and become something else. There's a wonderful one in Montreal that is now part of a museum. And to my mind, as long as it's in product of a process where the maximum amount of citizenry have a say, that's a good thing. Thank you. Thank you. Good question. Hi, my question is, Augsburg has such a long history of its peace festival. What is its history of resistance during wartime and who are the key figures from Augsburg that took the message of peace interaction? Oh, that is a great question. History of resistance in Augsburg. I wouldn't say, I mean, Augsburg loves to celebrate its history of peace, but I wouldn't say that Augsburg was really a leader in toleration as we think about it necessarily. For the people of Augsburg, the Lutherans and Catholics that were living together, yeah, they didn't kill each other, but they were very happy about the fact that they had to live together. And so the kind of model of toleration that we think about as, let's create a big diverse community and let's draw strength from our differences was really not how they thought about it. Now, all of this said, if there was a modern Augsburger in the audience here, they don't like to hear that. They like to hear about their history being one of everyone getting along great and we love diversity and diversity is our strength. And I think that's the way that the story gets told today. There's not a lot of historical evidence that that's the way that they felt about it back in the day. So as much as I would love to be able to tell you that Augsburg was a great leader in trying to create values of toleration and peace, I think they just did the best that they could in the unfortunate circumstances that they were in. And now we find ourselves 500 years later with actually a long history of people getting along great and they're justly very proud of that. Thank you. I think we have time for one more short question. So I had a quick comment and a question for Professor Parker. I visited Coventry as a teenager. Thank you so much for bringing back a flood of memories that I had not returned to in decades. Wonderful. And enriching that experience with an awful lot of understanding I didn't have then. For Professor Gray, the piece of Augsburg resulted in this rule that you cited, the Cuyus religio. So whoever the prince is, his religion is what will be the religion of the place. That's named after Augsburg and yet Augsburg did it have a prince that said, I don't care? Is that how it turned out? Yeah, the city council couldn't pick. But about 20% of the population was Catholic. They tended to be the rich people. 80% of the population didn't want to be Catholic. And so they found themselves in this kind of awkward position of they neither side could really establish itself as the one official religion. So they had two. It's very unusual. The parts of Germany are very specifically Catholic or Protestant by tradition. Even to this day, very much so. Yeah. Are there other cities you're aware of after the piece of Westphalia actually officially established this kind of parody constitution so you've got equal political representation for Lutherans and Catholics. There were only three of their cities that officially were mentioned in the piece of Westphalia and their cities you haven't heard about. Ravensburg, Bebarock, and Dinklesbuel. So not important cities. But there are actually, I think the whole Holy Roman Empire is an example of religious diversity because there's so many borders within the empire. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Holy Roman Empire itself, the EU today, there's borders everywhere and everybody's got their own culture. So you've got these different religions, like five minutes walk and you're in a different state that has a different religion. So there is actually much more religious diversity in the empire than I think we generally give them credit for. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. And let's give a round of applause to our presenters. Thank you so much for attending the morning sessions. So starting at 1 p.m., we will have three more sessions talking about the European memory and reconciliation from the literature perspective. And then 2 p.m., just the Asian memory and reconciliation issues, China, Japan, and Korea. And then three o'clock, student panel sessions, talking about the Russian, Ukrainian war, and the Chinese kind of transnational repressions and all other topics will be addressed. So student panel. So have a nice lunch and see you again. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Anna Lemler and I am a freshman pursuing a degree in computer and electrical engineering. My name is Gretchen Ries and I am a freshman in the core pursuing political science and criminal justice. Thank you for joining us at Norwich Fifth Annual Peace and War Summit. This year we're focusing on the human and political repercussions of the recent conflicts in Europe and the Middle East and how nations can better deal with these traumatic events. Today, Dr. Kyle Povetti and Dr. David Ward have offered their expertise in how war and regional conflicts have impacted Europe and the future implications these have on political and current climates. Kyle Povetti is an associate professor of English at Norwich University. His research has examined memory and political identity in early modern England, especially in the works of Shakespeare. His first book titled of memory and literary form, the making of nationhood in an early modern England, looked at ways literary devices that craft collective memory. He is also a co-author with John Garrison of Shakespeare at Peace, a study of the pacifist thinking in Shakespeare's work. His writing on adaptation of memory and identity has been featured in journals, Shakespeare studies in ethnicity and nationalism, modern theology and explorations in Renaissance culture. His talk today on emotional memory is inspired by the continued embarrassment he feels for mistakes made 25 years ago. Dr. David Ward is professor of German in Norwich's Department of Global Humanities. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Duke University and his PhD in German Literature and Language is also from the University of Texas as Austin with studies in Munich as well and a year as a Fulbright Fellow in Frankfurt am Main. His primary areas of scholarly activity are post-World War II German literature and literary translation. His published translations include novels, plays, essays and non-fiction, most recently the memoir by Reinhard Glickner that he will be discussing today. We will have 15 minutes for each speaker and 10 minutes at the end of the session for questions where you can just come up to the mic and ask your questions. If you find something interesting and would like to address it with Dr. David or Dr. Ward, please prepare to be asked at the end. Thanks everyone. Thank you for being here and thanks to Gretchen and Anna for introducing us and moderating this session. So I also wanna thank Professor Aku, remember he went, for organizing things and especially Megan Liptak who I think is parked out front working on the next event she's got tomorrow. She runs all things peace and wars and are many of the centers here. We couldn't do it without her. So I approached today's topic memory and reconciliation as an English professor and that means I'm interested in literary representations of the past and in particular today I'm gonna be thinking about how drama depicts the past and how drama helps us remember things and in particular I'm looking at early modern England and this genre of play that becomes really popular that is the history play and especially in Shakespeare he keeps depicting the history of England and I wanna know what memorial work is happening there and I will be approaching this through the notion of memory but also you can see here in the title this idea of emotional memory. So I'll be talking a little bit about what's called affect theory very popular in literary studies these days and really it's talking about how emotions are constructed, how emotions are communicated and how emotions are shared among groups. So I wanna see what the history play is doing with kind of a collective emotion and a collective memory at the same time and I think it's complicated you can see this is a scene from Shakespeare's Richard the Third his famous play about the evil king and here you've got the responsible for the murder of these two princes and he's haunted by the ghosts that come to him and I wanna think about that moment to kind of the collective memory at work as Shakespeare's restaging past that are often painful, uncomfortable and that often English killing other English. So but I wanna start off with another moment from more recently and that is of March 2023 and that was an anniversary in the United States although 20 year anniversary not much commented on it was the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Not one marked by many parades or memorials but it was struck by a column from Lorraine Alice wrote this in the LA Times, she's an Iraqi American and she was thinking about what it means to be looking at the invasion of Iraq 20 years on and she says the anniversary of the war crept on us like an unwanted memory tucked behind bank failures and miraculous weight loss drugs. What's interesting here is she's using the language of trauma that this past exists out there it is kind of overwhelmed by the daily activities of our lives, the bank failures, miraculous weight loss drugs but then the intrusive memory appears and like that verb she uses it creeps up on us and she wants to know why isn't this being discussed more obviously the legacy lives on it is not resolved yet what will that reconciliation look like and she offers one potential answer about what might be getting in the way and it's the emotion that I wanted to look at today that is shame and she has this to say. So it's understandable why folks might prefer to overlook what has become to be seen as a shameful chapter in American history. So notice she's positing the emotion of shame against the memory of the war that it's because of shame that we don't want to look at that memory that keeps creeping up and what I want to do is think about this in terms of the early modern England the 1590s what Shakespeare is doing with English pasts and really to consider shame not as opposite memory but actually as part of memory and that I'll be arguing that this feeling of shame is in fact memorial work happening and is important for not just reconciliation but really thinking through national identity. So it's a lot to chew on here do I best to explain these terms? Let's start with this idea of emotional memory. So I have here a line from Lawrence Hedges he's a psychologist so we're borrowing from a lot of psychological language says that the best maximum for the 21st century is there is no memory save emotional memory. So important here to theory of memory that he's working on is that it's easy to think of memory as this library that you've got in your head this is the kind of cognitive model and when you wanna recall facts you can just kind of reach back there and pull some information out and what Lawrence Hedges wants to say as following many psychologists is that memories actually more complicated than that it's not nearly as stable as that model things we've just got your books kind of sitting your head waiting for you and he wants to say there's actually this notion of emotional memory here's a line from him with some fancy science terms. So he says our entire bodies are implicated in various ways and complex interactive systems of effective charge neuronal processing that influence all aspects of our being especially memory. So to break this down to think about memory is not just happening in your head it is happening throughout your body it is kind of imbued in the way your breath moves your heartbeat your sweaty palms all that is part of memory attends to memory so you remember things you're also feeling things I think if you're like me you wake up in the night having anxiety flashbacks to 10 years ago you've recognized yeah of course memory is emotional it pops emotions in us it also these thinkers talk about it going the other way too that your emotions you feel is also a demonic process that you have learned certain patterns in your body certain breath controls pulses feelings the way your blood vessels work that those communicate feelings to you and you were recalling those feelings for social purposes individual purposes at any particular time so when you feel things you are remembering things just as much as when you remember things you also feel them these two processes are combined and it's emotional memory so what does this do for memory theory? well we've seen today that a lot of this kind of idea very common in the field of memory studies that the past is reconstructed rather than simply represented you can build your memorials that communicate different things we can talk through the past in different ways it depends on what version of the past is being reconstructed at any moment there's a line I like from a classic kind of memory studies theorist Bartlett who says memory does not need to be true memory needs to be useful that goes for your individual memory too when you're remembering things you're not always pulling on what's true you're pulling on what's useful for you at the moment so this idea of memory the past is reconstructed rather than simply represented I've got one last line here from two memory theorists who talk about this affect the idea of emotions being shared saying that the turn to affect can also be seen as a turn to memory as long as such memories understood as embodied and non-representational so we talk about collective feelings what emotions are shared we're also talking about what is being remembered at any particular time so that's this idea of emotional memory not nearly as stable as you hope and involves a lot more feeling than you might want to admit when you're trying to recall information on the test so what does that have to do with Shakespeare? well as I mentioned Shakespeare wrote a lot of these history plays this is Sir Tom Hiddleston he's not a knight yet Sunday King of mischief playing Henry V that is Shakespeare's most famous king in the Henry V play that's the band of brothers play it's probably the most famous one of his Shakespeare's representing the past all the time and doing all these history plays are very common in the period and I want to think about the emotional memory work happening in these plays and it's occurring this genre is becoming very popular with two kind of historical circumstances one you've got an emergent nation state it's really where we're beginning to see nationhood in our modern sense of a government that's centralized and controlling policies we've got the emergence of the modern nation alongside this stuff being built at the time that is the public playhouses so they're becoming also popular in England at the period the playhouses of course have been traveling shows but these are permanent structures built in London that people could go to and I pulled a line here from scholar Stephen Mulaney says that they're accessible to literate and non-literate alike so mass groups of people can come see a play the drama that developed in the amphitheater playhouses was one of the more complex effective technologies of this or any other period if you've been to a play you probably know that yeah drama plays are about emotions right that's why we go you to feel things to cry if you're sensitive but laughter more of you are comfortable with laughter I certainly am and what he's saying is the play is really this technology that causes emotions to be shared bold claim of technology of this or any other period like right up there with social media public playhouses, early modern London so what emotions was it causing at the period here's Henry Cross he is a writer, sorry a writer thinking through what drama does in the period he has in mind here kind of an ancient theory of comedy he says this when you see comedies the spots and areas of our life are acted out to our own shame i