"The last intact memory I have." The post The tragic memory that inspired the entirety of ‘Ghosteen’ by Nick Cave first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

You may wonder what Ursula von der Leyen, management consulting company McKinsey and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer have in common.  The answer is: Corruption. Utmost corruption. Madame Von der Leyen, the unelected President of […]

by Frank Bergman, Slay News: A bombshell new study from leading American experts has declared that Moderna’s Covid mRNA “vaccine” is considered dangerous for men aged between 18 and 64 years old. The group of accomplished mathematicians, epidemiologists, and medical professionals determined that the health risks from the injections far outweigh the benefits for most […]

  Ancient Mesopotamia was home to diverse peoples with different origins, cultures, and languages. But, over the course of two millennia, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Elamites all built towering structures known as ziggurats at the center of their cities. What purpose did Mesopotamian ziggurats serve that they were important to so many cultures? They were homes of the gods, but also focal points for political, social, and economic life.   Getting Closer to the Gods Inscribed votive statue, Sumerian Iraq, c. 2800-2100 BCE. Source: Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago.   The modern word ziggurat is derived from the ancient Akkadian word ziggarratu, which means “temple tower.” The word now refers to the entire temple complex. Although the term is Akkadian, ziggurats were first developed by the Sumerians in the third millennium BCE.   Ziggurats were far more than just buildings to the Mesopotamians, they were symbols of their deeply held religious beliefs. Modern scholars believe that ziggurats represented the mountains and summits where the homes of the gods were located. A ziggurat was usually dedicated to the patron deity of the city.   The people of Mesopotamia named their ziggurats, and it is through those names that modern scholars have determined this symbolism. For example, the ziggurat of the god Enlil in the city of Nippur was known as the “House of the Mountain,” “Mountain of the Storm,” and “Bond between Heaven and Earth.”   But while Ziggurats conveyed important religious iconography, they also served important practical purposes.   The Purpose of Ziggurats  Statue of a male worshiper from the Temple of Eshnunna, Tel Asmar, Sumerian Iraq, c. 2900-2600 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   To understand why ziggurats endured across time and cultures, it is important to understand their purpose. For cities that had ziggurats, the structure served as a focal point for the city’s activity.   Ziggurats primarily served as abodes for gods, and were usually dedicated to the god of the city and served as their cult center. Most ziggurats were located in the center of the city and they were also at the center of a much greater temple complex. At the center of the ziggurat itself was usually the god’s cult statue. The cult statue was a physical image of a god, believed to be their earthly avatar.   For example, the god Marduk was associated with the city of Babylon. As Marduk’s priesthood developed rituals, they also built a temple complex and ziggurat, making Babylon Marduk’s cult center. The general public was only allowed access to the outer temple complex. Only the high-priests could visit the very top of the structure.   Victory Stela of King Naram-Sin, Sippar, Akkadian Iraq, c. 2254-2218 BCE. Source: Louvre Museum, Paris.   In addition to serving as the focal point of a particular cult, ziggurats were the center of non-religious activities, although in the ancient Near East religion permeated everything. Priests in the ancient Near East were the most educated members of society. They also served as physicians, scientists, historians, and scribes. Mesopotamian temple complexes served as scribal schools and astronomical observatories.   Ziggurats also had political purposes. New kings often embarked on ambitious building projects to legitimize their rule, especially if they were the first king of a new dynasty. In addition to scoring a propaganda victory, the construction of a new ziggurat could create social cohesion.   Ziggurat workers—both skilled and unskilled—were drafted from the population in a corvee system. Although workers had little choice in the matter, they and their families were compensated. The vast majority of the people at the time would have venerated the god for whom the ziggurat was being built, and workers would have taken great pride in seeing their finished product.   The construction activity would also have been an economic boon for the city, as thousands of workers were required. Finally, if a new king inherited political instability, building a ziggurat would have been a good method to take the people’s minds off their problems.   Building a Ziggurat  The Palaces of Nimrud Restored, by Austin Henry Layard, 1853. Source: ECHO Cultural Heritage Online.   Although there is no extant “ziggurat construction manual,” modern archeologists are reasonably confident they can reconstruct the methods used. Unlike the Egyptian pyramids that were made from stone, Ziggurats were made of clay and mudbrick, which led to their destruction by the elements over the centuries. The reason the Mesopotamians used less than enduring materials to build ziggurats is simply that there was a lack of stone in the region.   While the Mesopotamians maintained long-distance trade routes with people who did have abundant sources of stone, ziggurat-building techniques were set. The Mesopotamians had no reason to switch to stone because clay and mud brick served their purpose. Besides, building in stone is much more labor intensive, requiring more manual laborers and skilled workers.   Although building an average ziggurat was less labor-intensive than building an average Old Kingdom pyramid, it was still a monumental task. Thousands of workers would have been drafted to work on a single ziggurat, and any project would have taken several years to complete. Among the workers were skilled engineers and unskilled workers who carried and lifted the bricks.   Ziggurats were solid structures that had an inner core and at least one layer of outer bricks. The inner core was sun-dried, while the bricks of the outer core were baked. The baking alone would have required a considerable amount of time and fuel.   The First Ziggurat Copper head of a Mesopotamian ruler, Mesopotamia, c. 2300-2000 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   The Ziggurat of Ur is considered the prototype of all later ziggurats. It was commissioned by Ur-Nammu (ruled 2112-2095 BCE), the king of Ur, and the first king of the Ur III dynasty (c. 2112-2004 BCE). Part of the massive structure has been rebuilt and stands today.   Early ziggurat building was confined to the southern Sumerian cities of Nippur, Uruk, Ur, and Eridu. But when the political power of Mesopotamia shifted to the central Mesopotamian region of Babylonia in the early second millennium BCE, so too did ziggurat construction.   Ziggurat of Ur, Mesopotamia, c. 2112-2095 BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   Babylonian, Elamite, and Assyrian Ziggurats Al-Untash-Napirisha Ziggurat, Elamite Iran, c. 1275-1240 BCE. Source: UNESCO.   The 1st dynasty Amorite kings of Babylon (c. 1894-1595 BCE) built extensively throughout Babylonia and central Mesopotamia. The Amorite kings were impressed with the Sumerian ziggurats to the south, and they followed suit by erecting ziggurats at Kish, Babylon, Borsippa, and Sippar.   The Kassites (c. 1374-1155 BCE) were the next major dynasty to rule Babylon after the Amorites. They accepted most of the religious and architectural ideas of their predecessors. With that said, the Kassites were less ambitious ziggurat builders, only building one notable ziggurat in the city of Dur-Kurigalzu. This does not necessarily mean that the Kassites were not impressed with ziggurats, only that there was already an abundance of the structures in Babylonia when the Kassites came to power.   Bronze Elamite military helmet, Elamite Iran, c. 1500-1100 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   By the late second millennium BCE, ziggurats had become so important that they were adopted by the Assyrians in northern Mesopotamia and the Elamites.   The Elamites lived just east of Mesopotamia in the region of Elam, in what is today southwestern Iran. Although the Elamites adopted many of the deities of the Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian pantheon, they also retained many of their own. Among the most important Elamite gods were Napirisha, the primary god, and Inshushinak, the patron god of the Elamite capital city, Susa.   The Elamite King Untaash-Napirisha (c. 1340-1300 BCE) built a new, eponymously named city (al-Utash-Napirisha) dedicated to himself and the god Napirisha. At the center of the city was a massive temple complex and at the complex’s center was one of the ancient world’s most impressive ziggurats. The ziggurat, which is among the best preserved, was made from millions of baked bricks placed in several rows.   Glazed ceramic wall depicting a lion, Babylonia, Iraq, c. 604-562 BCE. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.   The Assyrians conquered most of the Near East during the reign of King Assurnasirpal II (ruled 853-859 BCE). Although Assurnasirpal did not reign for very long, he established many of the cultural hallmarks of the Neo-Assyrian dynasty, including extensive ziggurat construction. The Assyrians built ziggurats in many of their cities, including Ashur, Dur-Sharrukin, Kalhu/Nimrud, and Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta.   The Greek historian and military general Xenophon noted the remains of Assurnasirpal II’s ziggurat in Khalu/Nimrud when he visited the site in 399 BCE. He wrote: “Near the city there was a pyramid of stone, a hundred feet broad, and two hundred feet high.”   The “stone” Xenophon referred to was likely the baked brick blocks, which had a longer life than clay blocks. With that said, the dimensions he related mean that at one time it was quite an impressive ziggurat.   The Assyrians likely followed the same construction methods used by earlier peoples, but they added one notable feature to their ziggurats. Assyrian ziggurats were apparently built with no staircases, instead being connected directly to the royal palaces. This change in architecture coincided with the increased importance of the Assyrian king.   The Assyrian king, like all Mesopotamian kings, was the high priest of his religion, and during the Neo-Assyrian dynasty, the king’s ritual duties became more important, increasing the political importance of the ziggurat.   The Tower of Babel Tower of Babel, by Pieter Breugel, 1563. Source: Museum of Art History, Vienna.   Although there is no physical trace of the final ziggurat to consider in this article, it has probably had the greatest impact on history. The ziggurat in question was known as the Etemenanki Ziggurat, or the “House of the Frontier between Heaven and Earth”.   The Etemenanki Ziggurat was built during the reign of the legendary King Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE), likely to legitimize his new dynasty, the Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean dynasty (626-539 BCE). Dedicated to the patron god of Babylon, Marduk, the Etemenanki was described by the fifth-century Greek historian Herodotus, as “two furlongs each way” and “one furlong square.” He also described the ziggurat as having eight “towers” erected on top of each other. The ziggurat clearly left an impression on Herodotus, but also on members of the Israelite diaspora.   When Nebuchadnezzar II ordered the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 597 BCE, according to both the biblical and Babylonian sources many Israelites were brought into captivity in Babylon. It was during this captivity that many of the books of the Old Testament were compiled, so it is likely that those Israelite scholars saw the Etemenanki Ziggurat daily.   Modern scholars have argued that the Tower of Babel of Genesis 11:1-9 was based on the Etemenanki Ziggurat. It impressed the imaginations of people during that time and continued to do so for centuries. Later artists made attempts to portray the Tower of Babel.

  One afternoon in early August 338 BCE, an allied army of Athenian and Theban soldiers cracked under the pressure of Philip II of Macedon’s phalanx. The Battle of Chaeronea in central Greece was the beginning of the end of an era. Two of the great city-states that had dominated the Aegean for two centuries were defeated, and a new type of power replaced them.   Chaeronea capped the extraordinary rise of Philip II and Macedon. Before Philip, the Macedonian monarchy was a peripheral player in the Greek world. Following the battle, Philip was the greatest power in Greece, and his son, Alexander, would soon reshape the Mediterranean world.   The surviving sources for the Battle of Chaeronea are limited, so there is much we do not know about what happened. But it is clear that it was a day that changed history.   Philip II & the Rise of Macedon  Macedonian Coin, head of Zeus with Philip II on horseback, 340-315 BCE. Source: The British Museum   Macedon occupied what is now northern Greece. In contrast to the democratic and oligarchic city-states (polis or poleis in the plural) of the south, Macedon was a monarchy. Ruling a fractious kingdom and frequently facing devastating invasions and raids from the neighboring Illyrians, Thracians, and other peoples to their north, the Macedonian kings were minor figures on the Aegean stage. But the result of one such invasion in 360 BCE brought Philip II (359-336 BCE) to the throne and changed Macedon’s fortunes.   After his brother Perdiccas III (365-360 BCE) was killed in battle with the Illyrians, Philip inherited a crisis, but he came to the throne with energy. Within a year, Philip had seen off the Illyrians and set about reforming the military. The army grew in size and skill, and Philip gradually expanded his kingdom and secured new alliances in the 350s.   A decade after the crisis that made Philip king, he had taken a string of key northern cities, secured a marriage alliance with neighboring Epirus, and governed the large region of Thessaly. The acquisition of land and the control of timber plantations and silver and gold mines made Macedon rich, while Philip’s reformed and growing army made it powerful. Macedon was no longer a peripheral kingdom.   Rivalry With Athens Bust of Philip II of Macedon, c. 4th century BCE. Source: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   Philip’s success naturally created enemies. As the cities of the northern Aegean fell to Macedon, Philip’s ambitions clashed with Athenian interests. The Athens of the 4th century BCE no longer held the large Delian League empire it had prior to the Peloponnesian War. The democracy still had a powerful navy but never regained a leading role in the Aegean. Athens’ great vulnerability was that its large population depended on grain grown on the northern shores of the Black Sea. Securing this vital trade meant securing Athenian influence in Thrace, Chalkidiki, and the Hellespont. All of these areas Philip now held or threatened, making him appear hostile to the Athenians.   One of Philip’s great skills was his ability to sow doubts among his opponents. He was a skilled diplomat and a careful, but bold, politician. Meanwhile, the Athenians struggled to reach a consensus on whether he was a friend or foe. For some Athenians, he was a potential danger but not an imminent threat, and perhaps someone they could do business with. For a few, namely the speech writer Isocrates, he was the leader that the Greeks needed to launch an invasion of the Persian Empire. Others saw in Philip a grave threat to Athens and its democracy. The orator Demosthenes was, at least according to his own account, the sole prominent Athenian to consistently point out the danger Philip represented.   Marble bust of Demosthenes, c. 280 BCE. Source: British Museum, London.   For years, Demosthenes argued for preparing for war with Philip. In his mind, this tyrant needed to be dealt with before he arrived at Athens’ doorstep. Throughout the 340s BCE, the Athenians and Macedonians sought to undermine each other’s influence and allies but rarely clashed openly. Demosthenes pleaded with the Athenians to act and denounced Philip to anyone who would listen. But the Macedonian king had enough friends in Athens, and few wished to risk an open war.   War Breaks Out  Macedonian armor from Vergina tombs, Greece, c. 4th century BCE. Source: Museum of the Royal Tombs at Aigai, Greece.   The uneasy peace between the Athenians and Philip broke down in the late 340s BCE when Macedon targeted Thrace and the Hellespont (modern Bulgaria and western Turkey). If Philip took the cities of Perinthus and Byzantium he would be able to cut Athens off from its vital Black Sea trade. The danger was only underlined when Philip captured a grain fleet. Demosthenes’ calls to action now met with a more enthusiastic response.   The Athenians, alongside their Persian and Aegean allies, prevented the fall of Perinthus and Byzantium, but their navy did little to worry Philip’s army. Philip was untroubled enough to follow up these failures with a successful campaign further north against the Scythians. The war then moved closer to Athens when a particularly tangled piece of local central Greek politics brought Philip south in 339 BCE.   A decade previously Philip had announced his arrival as a significant player in Greece by intervening in the Third Sacred War (356-346 BCE) fought over the sanctuary at Delphi. This made the Macedonian king an arbiter in central Greek affairs. A local dispute over the city of Amphissa triggered by the Athenians and Thebans gave Philip an excuse to lead an army south on a new sacred campaign. The Athenians and Thebans were not natural allies as these neighbors were frequently rivals and they had initially been on different sides of the dispute in central Greece, but Philip’s approach changed things.   Philip’s arrival at Elateia in late 339 BCE put him just a few days’ march from both cities. The Athenians were said to have panicked with only Demosthenes, who had warned this moment would come for years, willing to step forward in the assembly and speak (Plutarch, Demosthenes, 18). He led an embassy to Thebes and promised to pay for the war, give command of an allied army to a Theban, and support Thebes’ regional ambitions.   The Thebans and Macedonians were not yet at war and they could have stood back and let Philip deal with the Athenians and central Greece as he wished. However, the Thebans had fought for decades for the leadership of central Greece and they were not about to just hand that over to Philip. The Thebans decided to ally with the Athenians and join the war.   The Armies State of a Greek soldier, c. 4th century BCE, at the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Copyright: Neil Middleton.   As Philip prepared to advance in 338 BCE he had with him around 30,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry (Diodorus, 18.85.5). The Athenians and Thebans likely had a similar number of troops, but there were several differences between the armies.   When Philip came to the throne twenty years earlier, a key part of his rebuilding of Macedon was reforming the army. Philip transformed the army by bringing in siege equipment to take cities, developing a formidable cavalry force, and turning the infantry from an irrelevance into a warwinner.   Greek infantry tactics had already been evolving for some time with the Thebans and Athenians experimenting with the traditional hoplite formation. The hoplite was heavily armed and armored with a large shield covering most of the body and a spear. Philip’s new infantry carried a much smaller shield with a long pike, a sarissa. While individually less protected than the hoplite, the Macedonian phalanx formed a strong, compact, and near-impenetrable wall of spear points.   Wall painting of a Macedonian soldier from the Agioa Athenasios Tomb, Greece, c. 4th century BCE. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   As the Macedonian kingdom grew larger and richer, Philip’s army expanded. From perhaps 10,000 soldiers in 359 BCE, Philip’s army had expanded threefold by 338 BCE. In the process, it also became better trained and more experienced. Constant training and a system of ranks and promotions made it similar to a professional army.   The Thebans themselves may have inspired Philip. In his youth, spent time as a hostage in Thebes and saw the impact of the military reforms of the 370s which brought victory over Sparta. Since then, however, the performance of the Theban armies had been less spectacular while the Athenians remained mainly a naval power. Both cities still relied on citizen militias called up for specific campaigns and augmented with mercenaries. As Philip’s army became professionalized, his opponents stagnated.   There was, however, one unit of the Theban army with a strong reputation, the Sacred Band. This unit of 300 was the closest thing a polis, outside Sparta, got to a permanent professional force. Tradition has it that the 300 were formed of 150 pairs of lovers. Whether this was a practical recruiting policy or a later reflection of discussions about the ideal way to form a military unit is unclear. What is known is that the Sacred Band had a formidable reputation, having led the battles against the Spartans and being undefeated for close to half a century.   The Battle of Chaeronea   View of the countryside from the acropolis of ancient Chaeronea. Copyright Neil Middleton.   Arriving in central Greece in 339 BCE, Philip did not rush into battle. He needed time for his army to gather, so he tried another round of diplomacy. He had reason to be confident his army would win the war but one lost battle could risk everything he had built over two decades. But by the summer of 338 BCE, the time had come for the clash between Philip and Athens.   Once the Macedonians advanced toward the Theban-controlled region of Boeotia, the allies fell back to the polis of Chaeronea. There, the two similar-sized armies faced each other in early August 338 BCE.   Though what followed was one of the most momentous days in ancient history we do not really know what happened. We have no near-contemporary accounts, and later writers only give us scraps of information. An account can be pieced together out of the fragments of evidence, but many important questions remain unanswered.   Our two main accounts come from Diodorus (1st century BCE) and Polyaenus (2nd century CE), who focus on the left and right flanks of the battle respectively. Philip commanded the Macedonian right against the Athenians, while his 18-year-old son Alexander and several experienced officers opposed the Thebans on the left.   Diodorus tells us that Alexander was the first to break the enemy line (18.86.3). This gave rise to the belief that Alexander broke the Sacred Band with his cavalry, but this is never explicitly stated. But the key to the battle seems to have sat with Philip and the Macedonian right. According to Polyaenus (4.2.2), Philip employed a deliberate trick. As the Athenians advanced he pretended to retreat until he reached some higher ground. At this point, Philip turned and attacked, breaking the Athenians.   We know that the battle was drawn out and difficult, so it is possible that Philip’s initial retreat was not as voluntary as later believed. Whether this was a deliberate tactic or Philip managed to rally his forces in time, the training and discipline of the Macedonian phalanx defeated the Athenians. More than 1,000 Athenians died and 2,000 were captured (Diodorus, 18.86.5). Demosthenes, who had joined the army he had so long wished to see take the field, was forced to flee with the survivors.   Macedonian Phalanx, by Johnny Shumate, 2017. Source: Livius.org.     Combining the accounts of Diodorus and Polyaenus, we can see Philip dividing the allied army by encouraging the Athenians to advance. Alexander could then have exploited gaps between the Thebans and Athenians to win on his side of the field. Again, the battle was fierce. The Thebans seem to have resisted with the Sacred Band fighting especially hard.   The Sacred Band went down fighting. A native of Chaeronea, Plutarch, tells us the story that, upon surveying the field after victory, Philip came across the bodies of the Sacred Band still lying in their ranks where they fell (Plutarch, Pelopidas, 18). After the battle, the Thebans built a monument topped by a lion which can still be seen today. Beneath the monument, the remains of 255 men have been found, tempting archaeologists to believe this is a memorial for the Sacred Band.   It is worth noting that memorials to a defeated army were unusual in Greece. If this is a memorial to the soldiers who died in 338 BCE, the Thebans must have been compelled to erect this lion by a particularly moving event.   However the battle played out, the result at the end of a long and bloody day was clear. Philip and his army had crushed the allies. The Sacred Band was destroyed and Demosthenes was fleeing back to Athens.   After the Battle of Chaeronea Lion monument of Chaeronea. Copyright Neil Middleton.   Philip was now the master of Greece. The Thebans got the worst of the subsequent peace deal. Their city was garrisoned by Macedonians, and when they revolted in 335 BCE, Alexander destroyed Thebes. In contrast, Philip sought to reach out to the Athenians. Their dead were honoured and no garrison was imposed.   Macedonian control of Greece was further secured with the garrisoning of the city of Corinth after the battle. There Philip summoned the Greeks and formed them into an alliance under his leadership. This league would now move on Philip’s next target, the Persian Empire. Philip, however, would not be the one to lead the campaign. Just two years after Chaeronea he was assassinated, leaving Alexander to take his father’s army all the way to India.   The Battle of Chaeronea fundamentally changed the Greek world. Philip’s victory began a period of Macedonian dominance that created a new Hellenistic era. For the next century and a half, various Greek states, including Athens, attempted to break free of Macedon and overturn the result of Chaeronea. Ultimately, they would never manage to do so.

  The years leading up to the publication of Norman Rockwell’s painting, The Problem We All Live With in the January 14, 1964 edition of Look magazine, were ones of heartache and reflection. After losing his first wife to a heart attack in 1959, Norman had remarried, written an autobiography, and left the job that made him a household name as the man who idealized life in America. Now, the old Rockwell of happy-go-lucky Americana was gone, replaced by a social critic, unafraid to let his brush tackle the nation’s most prominent issue: race.   Two Rockwells Rockwell at work in his Massachusetts studio. Source: The Shreveport Journal, April 2, 1971   The 1970 Christmas issue of Good Housekeeping said it best when, after reviewing the author’s most recent work, its editor proclaimed that there were now two Norman Rockwells. Following his wife’s death in 1959, Rockwell slowed down his output and took more time to himself. The sixty-six-year-old artist joined a weekly poetry group and began seeing a retired English teacher, Mary Leete “Mollie” Punderson. The new couple surprised the family in late 1961 when they abruptly announced their marriage.   A reinvigorated and inspired Rockwell was ready to plunge back into his work, but the American landscape he witnessed was not the same one he had once depicted. The editors at the Post, where Norman had worked for forty-six years, had also long changed, and the magazine was feeling the pinch from the new television medium garnering all the attention. There was now a push at the Post for Rockwell to do portraits of famous people, something he did not find particularly interesting.   Feeling that the magazine was interfering with his creativity and having a crisis of confidence in his nation’s direction, Rockwell let it be known he was open to a change. New magazine offers came pouring in, with Look in the lead. According to Rockwell’s autobiography, the magazine promised to let him paint “anything he wants to, in whatever way he wants to paint it, anywhere in the world.” Apart from a few freelance illustrations, Rockwell’s storied career at the Post was over.   “There was a change in the thought climate in America brought on by scientific advancements, the atom bomb, the two world wars, and Mr. Freud and psychology,” Norman stated in a 1963 speech. “Now I am wildly excited about painting contemporary subjects… pictures about civil rights, astronauts… and poverty programs.”   Rockwell and Civil Rights  A young Norman Rockwell, one still only known for the happy and innocent depictions of America. Source: Library of Congress   “I remember Pop being interested in only two political issues, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty… and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s,” one of Rockwell’s sons would later write. “He had always felt strong about tolerance, though it shows only indirectly in his Post covers and most of his other work,  since the cover of the Post and most advertising had to be politically neutral – or rather, neutered.”   Before World War II, the American illustrator, as a rule, sparingly depicted African Americans in his paintings, a direction given to him from above. The few who did appear were often servers, porters, or background characters. Look magazine relied on photographs for its covers, so the editors’ interests were more in line with having their new artist paint images that reflected the news and feature articles contained within its pages.   With all restrictions gone, Rockwell could finally tap into what he believed to have been a particular social responsibility of any artist—what he called showing the “big picture,” a message that transcended art. Humor and innocence that once fit into the depiction of American life no longer fit the mold of the turbulent 1960s. Yet there was also hope in Rockwell’s new paintings, mainly the assertion that the American people were ready to confront the honest portrayal of race in their society.   The most potent paintings created by Norman Rockwell in the 1960s were the gentle yet assertive The Problem We All Live With (shown below), the more daring Southern Justice, and the most hopeful New Kids in the Neighborhood. Norman Rockwell, the white artist known for nostalgic American idealism, had now become an equal rights advocate.   The Problem We All Live With The Problem We All Live With by Norman Rockwell, 1964. Source: Wikipedia   It took only one year since signing on with Look for Norman Rockwell to paint arguably his most celebrated Civil Rights image, The Problem We All Live In. It would have been an understatement to say that it was a departure from his previous work, which hardly ever included African Americans as subjects. The image depicts a Black six-year-old girl, Ruby Bridges, on her first day in an integrated school. The flanking US Marshals and the racist graffiti-covered wall with evidence of recently thrown tomatoes heavily contrast with the young lady wearing a pretty white dress and clutching her textbooks.   It would be fitting that Rockwell chose the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education as his first subject. Historians and social critics alike point to the case as one of the primary events that jumpstarted the American Civil Rights Movement of the latter half of the twentieth century.   US Marshals escort the young Ruby Bridges to school. The event and image inspired one of Norman Rockwell’s most famous and controversial paintings. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Ruby Bridges, the subject Norman chose for his depiction of the event, was one of the first children selected to start the process of desegregation in New Orleans. She would later say, “The girl in that painting at six years old knew absolutely nothing about racism. I was going to school that day.”   Ironically, the model for the image, like Ruby, was the only African American girl in the local elementary school in 1963 Stockbridge, Massachusetts, where Rockwell lived. The nine-year-old Lynda Gunn walked to Norman’s studio by herself every day after school for a week to pose for the pictures and sketches the artist would use to paint his famous image.   Comparing the painting to his past Post covers of idealized America, Rockwell stated, “…we pushed our problems and prejudices under the rug. Now they’re out in the open… now we can try to solve them.”   Southern Justice (Murder in Mississippi) The murder of three CORE volunteers became the inspiration for Rockwell’s Southern Justice. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Norman Rockwell’s most daring depiction of the Civil Rights struggle, which he named Murder in Mississippi, more commonly known as Southern Justice, appeared in Look magazine’s June 29, 1965 issue. The artist once more decided to depict a specific historical event, the murders of young volunteer civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Like the previous one featuring Ruby’s story, the second “civil rights” painting provided a layer of realism as it depicted real people: James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman. The three activists were working for the Congress On Racial Equality (CORE), helping with voter registration, when they were arrested by a Klansmen sheriff and later driven to a remote location in the middle of the night and shot.   Rockwell designed his painting to represent the scene across two pages. On the left, the soon-to-be slain youth, and on the right, the Ku Klux Klan members and the sheriff responsible for orchestrating the event. Much like Francisco Goya’s famous 1814 depiction of the execution of Spanish resistance members at the hands of Napoleon’s forces, Rockwell’s composition places the victims in the light, in this case coming from car headlights, surrounded by darkness and their long shadows.   Ironically, when Rockwell finally submitted the finished two-panel work to the magazine’s art director, the latter instead chose to run the original left-panel sketch given to him months before to preview what the finished painting would look like. The Look magazine’s director explained that it somehow depicted more anger and frustration with the event and would thus go better with the article about the murder written to accompany it. It would be the only time in Rockwell’s career where his sketch was chosen over his finished work.   New Kids in the Neighborhood Rockwell’s New Kids in the Neighborhood showed hope through the young generation of Americans willing to work together toward a color-blind future as one seen here at an integrated high school in 1957, Washington DC. Source: Library of Congress   The New Kids in the Neighborhood from Look magazine’s May 16, 1967 issue subtly harkens back toward Rockwell’s old days of an idealized America. It is an image of hope for a better, color-blind American future. It is a moving day for an African American family into what is presumably a white neighborhood. We can see a skeptical neighbor looking past a not-so-subtlety-drawn curtain in the faraway window as if afraid or unwilling to accept the reality of the situation.   The local children, on the other hand, seem a little weary but not prejudiced enough to avoid the young African American boy and girl. Like his previous paintings for the Post, Rockwell hints at the meeting’s ultimate happy ending by having both groups of kids holding a baseball glove. One can tell almost instantly that this “civil rights” painting differs from the others, as it shows hope and empathy instead of hate and division. The boys will soon play baseball, and race will be forgotten. The parents might not have been ready for the change, but the kids were.   At the time of the publication, the 73-year-old Rockwell’s eyesight and general health were starting to deteriorate. Still, as the image suggested, the aging artist was becoming more hopeful for a better future. Reinvigorated by the promises of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Rockwell abandoned the civil rights topic and shifted his focus again, this time toward a better tomorrow. The work included the moon landing and the semi-autobiographical Home of Christmas, depicting his hometown. When approached to paint an image of a portrait of a US Marine in Vietnam kneeling over a severely wounded local villager during the Vietnam War conflict as controversial and divisive as the Civil Rights Movement, Rockwell turned it down.   Legacy July 15, 2011. Norman Rockwell Museum loaned The Problem We All Live With to the White House, and President Obama invited Ruby Bridges to view the painting on display. Source: Official White House Photo   Speaking in 1976 about moving on from his more serious works, such as the “civil rights” paintings, Norman Rockwell admitted his belief that people missed the security the past provided. His original light-topic, Americana covers were becoming popular once again. Arguably, they never stopped being his signature style and were only briefly intersected with the more serious topic of civil rights.   “These days, everyone is a little frightened, and they want those good-natured human pictures again,” the artist told Good Housekeeping magazine. When asked whether the good old days from the early years of his career were indeed any better, Rockwell replied, “Yes, I would say so. We laughed a lot more in the old days.”   While many people praised Norman Rockwell’s depiction of the Civil Rights Movement and the seriousness of his early 1960s work, most American viewership and readers longed for the artist’s happier times. Yet, although brief and minor in scope compared to his other nearly 4,000 works of art depicting small-town America, Rockwell’s short-lived flirtation with social issues had left its mark on American society and culture.   In 2011, America’s first African American president, Barack Obama, hung The Problem We All Live With in the White House to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Ruby Bridges’ brave walk to Franz Elementary School. Even decades after he died in 1978, Rockwell’s civil rights subject paintings continue to provoke thought and discussion about the ongoing struggle for racial justice in the United States—even if Rockwell himself returned to the spirit of optimism and resilience that defined much of American society in the 20th century.

  When we speak about the Netherlands, Amsterdam is usually the first city that comes to people’s minds. However, there’s much more to the Dutch country than its capital. And the best thing is that, on top of being steeped in history, the Netherlands is a small country on the European continent, which makes it very convenient and easy to explore. And what could be better than exploring some of the most historic Dutch small towns, all located within a short distance from the City of Canals? You’ll find out below that nothing beats such a “polder-perfect” journey.   1. Broek in Waterland (7.46 Miles From Amsterdam) Canal and houses in Broek in Waterland, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   If you want to learn about traditional Dutch life, then this quaint village is the place to be in the Netherlands. Located only about seven and a half miles north of Amsterdam, Broek in Waterland boasts around 2,700 residents. In terms of time, it’s just a 15-minute short drive away from the Dutch capital. The highlights of this peaceful escape are its beautifully preserved wooden houses as well as its charming, tranquil canals.   Wealthy Amsterdam merchants and seafarers started flocking to Broek in Waterland during the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the village itself dates back to the 12th century.   When visiting Broek in Waterland, you’ll have the chance to marvel at the historic centerpiece of the town, Saint Nicholas Church. While this landmark was built before the year 1400, it was destroyed during the Eighty Years’ War. However, the Protestant church was later rebuilt in 1628.   Broek in Waterland is also famous for its idyllic setting as well as its cleanliness. It is surrounded by meadows and waterways, so you’ll enjoy visiting it if you want to experience the Dutch countryside.   2. Monnickendam (9.32 Miles From Amsterdam) Drawbridge and historic houses in the small town of Monnickendam, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This small historic Dutch town is also located on the Northern side of the country, just around ten miles northeast of Amsterdam. Monnickendam dates back to the 14th century when it was founded by monks, and its name actually translates to “Monk’s dam.” During its early years, the town became a significant port for fishing and shipbuilding. Today, visitors enjoy coming to Monnickendam for its picturesque beauty and well-preserved architecture.   The 17th-century Weigh House (De Waag) should be at the top of your list when in Monnickendam. The same applies to the Speeltoren, which is a bell tower housing the Netherlands’ oldest playable carillon. Don’t forget to head to the 14th-century Protestant church in town, Grote Kerk, which was later restored after it was damaged in the Eighty Years’ War.   Monnickendam also hosts the annual Monnickendammer Visgaden, which is an event that celebrates the historic fishing industry of the town. During this festival, you can experience traditional fish smoking and other local crafts.   3. Naarden (18.64 Miles From Amsterdam) Streets and buildings in Naarden, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Located on the northern side of the Netherlands, this historic town is famous for its star-shaped fortifications. These are considered among the best-preserved in Europe. Naarden’s defenses are surrounded by formidable walls and a moat, which is a unique site to behold and witness with your own eyes 16th-century military architecture.   If you want to learn in more detail about the role of Naarden in Dutch military strategy, then you’ve got to head to the Netherlands Fortress Museum or Nederlands Vestingmuseum, where you will get plenty of knowledge about the town’s rich history. After all, it’s not only in Amsterdam where you can find noteworthy museums.   Another amazing thing to do in Naarden is to try the boat tours around the fortifications. Many of the buildings of the town date back to the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, so you’ll be enjoying sights dating back to hundreds of years ago. Make sure to visit the Grote of Sint-Vituskerk. This historic church is worth the visit only for its iconic painted wooden ceiling. You can also take in a panoramic view of Naarden and its star-shaped layout from atop the church’s tower.   4. Edam (12.43 Miles From Amsterdam) The Old Town Hall in Edam, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   When you stroll through the historic center of this picturesque Dutch town, you’ll see peaceful canals, monuments, and charming squares that tell stories of the past of Edam. The latter was a key hub for trade in the past, thanks to its ideal location by the water. That’s because ships were able to dock at its ports, which allowed the town to grow as a trading center. The canal-side homes and their grand facades are an iconic example of the wealth that once flowed through the northern Dutch historic town.   The name Edam is synonymous with its world-famous cheese, the round Edam cheese, to be more precise. The traditional cheese market of the town still draws visitors to this day during the months of July and August. It goes without saying that one of the top places that you should add to your bucket list in Edam is the Edam Cheese Museum, where you can learn more about the town’s dairy legacy. It’s easy for you to get to Edam as it’s reachable with an easy 30-minute bus drive from the Dutch capital.   5. Muiden (12.43 Miles From Amsterdam) Muiderslot Castle in Muiden, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Muiderslot, a centuries-old castle, is the main highlight of this historic fortified town located east of Amsterdam. The castle was built in 1285 by Count Floris V and is considered one of the Netherlands’ best-preserved medieval castles. Muiderslot also had a major role in protecting the Dutch capital, particularly during the Dutch Waterline defenses. Today, you can tour the castle (which you should do) and have the chance to marvel at its beautifully restored interiors and gardens.   Another amazing thing to do in Muiden is to take a boat trip to Pampus Island. The latter is a historic quarantine station for ships traveling to Amsterdam. Pampus Island once served as a place where vessels were held before they could enter the city’s main port.   It’s also worth seeing the Great Sea Lock or Groote Zeesluis when you’re in Muiden. This sea lock connects Muiden to the IJmeer river, so this is where you can watch boats passing on the waterways. Also, don’t forget about the Muizenfort, a UNESCO-listed Defense Line of Amsterdam. This is a system of fortifications that was built to protect the Dutch capital.   6. Marken (13.67 Miles From Amsterdam) Wooden houses in Marken, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This one was a former island in the Zuiderzee, so it was separated from the mainland until a causeway was built in 1957. This was when it got connected to the rest of the Dutch nation. The interesting thing about Marken is its car-free center, filled with traditional wooden houses and clogs displayed outside. The town really resembles something from a storybook.   Due to the fact that this historic Dutch town was isolated for centuries and because of its unique geography, its distinct culture has been preserved to this day. This includes the traditional clothing as well as the architecture of Marken.   One of the essential things you need to do in town is to head to the Marker Museum to learn about the history and lifestyle of the village. The Paard van Marken lighthouse is another landmark worth witnessing. It’s a symbol of Marken’s maritime history. You can easily access this town by bus from Amsterdam. You just need 30 minutes to reach.   7. Weesp (9.32 Miles From Amsterdam) Historic houses and panoramic views in Weesp, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This town is over 700 years old, and it’s the perfect escape if you’re looking to explore Dutch history and charm. It’s just a short 15-minute ride from Amsterdam and boasts scenic canals, windmills, and neoclassical architecture.   Museum Weesp is housed in the 18th-century town hall and offers you a glimpse into early Iron Age settlements in town as well as Weesp’s contributions to Dutch porcelain and jenever production.   The Wispe Brewery is also a unique attraction that’s worth visiting. This one is set in a historic church and allows you to taste locally brewed beers and dive into the brewing tradition of Weesp.   On top of the scenic canals and bridges that run through the town, make sure to also explore the Ossenmarkt Fortress, a notable historical landmark there.   The Dutch town is located southeast of Amsterdam and became known for its trade and defense. It’s actually one of the Netherlands’ fortress towns. Weesp also played a major role as part of the Dutch Waterline, a defense system that could flood surrounding areas to protect the nation’s major cities.   8. Abcoude (8.08 Miles From Amsterdam) Historic church in the town of Abcoude, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   This charming Dutch village is home to around 8,000 residents, and it’s located in the Green Heart of the Netherlands. Abcoude is based just southeast of Amsterdam, in the province of Utrecht. With a history dating back more than 900 years, the town was first mentioned in records from 1085. It was first a modest village with a major focus on fishing and architecture. What makes Abcoude so unique is its location at the confluence of the Angstel, Gein, and Holendrecht rivers, where it’s surrounded by meadows, farmlands, and peaceful waterways.   A must-see historical site in the village is the UNESCO World Heritage-listed Defense Line of Amsterdam, Fort Abcoude, which is open to visitors only from May to September. It’s the perfect place to learn about the Netherlands’ historical defense system. Add to your must-visit list also the 17th-century church tower as well as the old town hall.   9. Ouderkerk aan de Amstel (6.84 Miles From Amsterdam) De Kerkbrug bridge in Ouderkerk aan de Amstel, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Ouderkerk aan de Amstel offers a tranquil slice of Dutch countryside living. It’s located just around seven miles south of Amsterdam. You can reach the village from Amsterdam in just 40 minutes by cycling, where you can enjoy riding past waterfront homes and open fields, or you can opt for a quick 20-minute drive.   The charming Dutch village is located along the Amstel River, so it’s the perfect escape if you want riverside terraces, peaceful views, and scenic windmills. Ouderkerk aan de Amstel is also full of historic churches, and it’s famous for housing the Netherlands’ oldest Jewish cemetery (Beth Haim). If you’re looking for some outdoor relaxation where you can enjoy a swim, then Ouderkerkerplas lake is located just near the town.   Ouderkerk aan de Amstel was first mentioned in 1308. It developed around a church, and its historical significance stems from its close proximity to Amsterdam.   10. Volendam (12.43 Miles From Amsterdam) Shopping street in Volendam, Netherlands. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Over the years, 14th-century Volendam has transformed into a popular tourist destination, especially in summer, with its colorful wooden fishermen’s houses that serve nowadays as restaurants, souvenir shops, and photography studios where visitors can dress in national Dutch costumes.   The fishing village is located about 13 miles north of Amsterdam and is nestled along the shores of the Markermeer. Back in the 14th century, the town served as the harbor for the nearby town of Edam. Later, it developed into a bustling fishing community.   Make sure to visit the Volendams Museum to learn about the village’s cultural heritage, such as its art and traditional costumes. Also, hit the local eateries for some delish smoked eel and seafood, which Volendam is famous for.   During festivals and special events in this town, you’ll have the chance to witness residents dressed in traditional Dutch attire.   It’s easy to reach Volendam by bus or bike from Amsterdam, and the village is usually included in guided tours along with Zaanse Schans and other must-see charming Dutch villages.

  Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States, resigned from office in 1974, after the Watergate Scandal exposed the engagement of his administration in a broad array of illegal activities. These “dirty tricks” included burglary, political sabotage, wiretapping, and the obstruction of justice. Despite Nixon’s infamous claim that he was “not a crook,” the release of secret White House tapes revealed his direct involvement in Watergate and the ensuing cover-up. Facing near-certain impeachment, Nixon chose to resign before he was pushed on August 8th, 1974.   Early Life and Career Election poster for Nixon’s 1946 campaign for Congress, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Richard Milhous Nixon was born on January 13th, 1913, into a Quaker family in the small Californian town of Yorba Linda. His parents ran a lemon farm that failed in 1922, leading the Nixons to move to Whittier, California, where they opened a gas station and grocery store.    After attending Whittier College and Duke University School of Law, Nixon passed the California bar exam in 1937. After applying to the FBI – and receiving no response – he went on to join a local law firm. During World War II he served in the US Navy in the South Pacific before retiring from active duty in 1946.    Nixon’s political career officially began when his military career came to an end. In 1946, he was elected to the US Congress, where he gained early recognition as a prominent member of the House Un-American Activities Committee. In 1950, Nixon was elected to the Senate, and in 1953, he became the 36th Vice President of the United States under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.    Nixon In Power Richard Nixon’s official White House portrait. Source: National Archives   Richard Nixon first ran for President in 1960 but was narrowly defeated by John F. Kennedy. After a failed bid to become Governor of California in 1962, he mounted a remarkable political comeback to become President of the United States in 1968.    As president, Nixon achieved several significant foreign policy achievements. Alongside his influential National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, Nixon opened diplomatic relations with China and pursued a policy of detente with the Soviet Union. He initially escalated the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos, before shifting the burden of fighting onto South Vietnamese forces and gradually withdrawing US troops.    Domestically, Nixon’s policies mixed progressive and conservative politics. He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and signed the Clean Air Act of 1970. In 1971, he inaugurated the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one.”   The Watergate Scandal An aerial view of the Watergate complex, where the Democratic National Committee headquarters was burglarized on June 17, 1972. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)   The Watergate scandal began on 17th June 1972, when five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, DC. The men were linked to Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign, specifically a group called the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). It soon transpired that the breaking was part of a wider pattern of the Nixon administration’s political misdeeds and illegal activities.    Initially, Nixon’s administration successfully covered up its involvement in the burglary and Nixon was re-elected by a landslide in November 1972. However, owing to a combination of investigative journalism and whistle-blowing within the FBI, a fuller picture of the administration’s illegal activities was uncovered.     The most explosive revelation for the president came with the discovery that he had secretly recorded his conversations in the Oval Office. The so-called “Watergate Tapes” provided direct evidence that Nixon had been involved in attempts to cover up the break-in, authorized the payment of hush money to the burglars, and pressured the FBI to stop the investigation.    Nixon’s Resignation President Nixon during the Watergate Scandal. Source: Wikimedia Commons   President Nixon initially tried to contain the fallout from Watergate. In a televised address to the nation on April 30th, 1973, he claimed to be innocent, blamed his aides for keeping him in the dark, and infamously declared that he was “not a crook.” Nixon vowed to take personal charge of the investigation and discover the truth. However, the ongoing investigation by the Senate Watergate Committee continued to expose serious abuses of power. Televised hearings featured key witnesses, including White House Counsel, John Dean, who implicated Nixon in the cover-up.    The release of the so-called “Nixon Tapes” from the Oval Office in 1974 inflicted the final blow. They proved that the president had lied to the public and had been directly involved in a plot to obstruct the Watergate investigation. Facing almost certain impeachment by Congress and a catastrophic loss of political support from his own party, Richard Nixon announced his resignation on August 8th, 1974. In doing so he became the first and only president to resign in US history.

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey is apparently getting increasingly desperate -- so desperate, in fact, he's looking to throw President Joe Biden under the bus. In an ad cut by Casey, one of several vulnerable Democrats going into this cycle, a Pennsylvania couple who happen to be married to each...