Donald Trump takes the Oath of Office as his wife holds the Bible and his youngest son looks on. (Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Michelle Obama, Melania Trump, Donald Trump, Barack Obama at 58th presidential inauguration, January 20, the Capitol, Washington, D.C. (Jimmy Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
President Donald J. Trump’s Inauguration
I have just watched the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump. His address was ambivalent. After thanking attending former Presidents, he stated that as of 20 January 2017, it would be a new America. It was as though no one came before him.
President Abraham Lincoln and President John F. Kennedy were assassinated, but he did not name them. He did not mention Franklin Delano Roosevelt nor did he mention Mrs. Clinton, whom he defeated. He didn’t say that when President Obama took office, the United States had to pay a huge debt accrued during wars waged in the Middle East. America had been great in an undefined and somewhat mythical past and he would make it great again because power would not be in the hands of politicians in Washington. He was giving it to the people.
He did not address the larger issues: the climate, the oceans, the rainforest, peace in the Middle East. However, he will crush terrorism. Although America renews itself with each administration, it has a past and it must keep up with the times. President Obama has left the United States in much better condition than it was in 1908, and the Affordable Care Act was a landmark.
Mr Trump said that the carnage was over. Yet he was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, who oppose gun-control, and the Ku Klux Klan, who peddle hate.
Seal of the President of the United States
I will always remember President Obama inviting all former living Presidents of the United States to the White House. The United States had moments one wishes to forget and also to remember. Not so long ago, on 9/11, the United States was attacked. Back in 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked, which is when the United States entered World War II. Young men died on the beaches and cliffs of Normandy and troops then travelled north to liberate Europe and take out of various concentration camps the few who had survived Hitler’s demented “final solution.”
Yet, while I bemoan President Trump’s indictment of all the leaders who preceded him and his messianic discourse, I don’t think he meant to trivialize the four former Presidents who attended the inauguration. He escorted the Obamas to their helicopter quite cordially and then took Melania’s hand and walked her back to the stairs. They turned and stood until the helicopter departed.
Slaves working in a mine. Ancient Greece. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Slavery
We have looked at the abolition of slavery, but we have not discussed racism. The image placed at the top of this post shows that slavery is an ancient institution. In classical Athens two to four-fifths of the population were slaves. (See Slavery, Wikipedia.)
Not all slaves were born to slaves. Many slaves were persons held in captivity during a war, ancestors to our prisoners of war. Poet Horace‘s[1] (8 December 65 BCE – 27 November 8 BCE) father was a slave for several years. He had been “taken captive by the Romans during the Social War.” (See Horace, Wikipedia.)
During the Ottoman wars, Christians were enslaved, but once again enslavement was the result of an armed conflict except that the conflict opposed people of different faiths. These religious conflicts have been numerous, the worst being the Crusades. Mercedarians often rescued captive Christians.
The work of the Mercedarians was in ransoming Christian slaves held in Muslim hands (1637). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Serfdom[2] also constituted a form of slavery. In fact, slavery endures: debt bondage, the sex industry, child labour, etc. but many slaves and most serfs were and are of the same ethnicity as their owner, lord or seigneur, which precludes racial discrimination.
“Luttrell Psalter” Two serfs and four oxen operating one medieval agricultural plow, 14th-century illuminated manuscript, the Luttrell Psalter. (Photo credit: The Encyclopaedia Britannica)
I must skip examples or never publish this post. Moreover, we have reached a topic defined by the United Nations as “racial discrimination.” (See Racism, Wikipedia.)
Slavery differs from Racial Discrimination
racial discrimination
ethnic discrimination
Slavery differs from racial discrimination or racism. In an earlier post, I noted that the United Nations does not define “racism.” Defining racism is difficult because there has been and there is discrimination between ethnic and religious groups. However, the United Nations does define “racial discrimination.”
“the term ‘racial discrimination’ [a term adopted in 1966] shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.” (See Racism, Wikipedia.)
The above definition of racial discrimination is consistent with Gobineau’s racial theories, in that it combines race and ethnicity.
Arthur de Gobineau(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Joseph Arthur, Comte de Gobineau
gobinisme Caucasians Aryanism
Joseph Arthur, Comte de Gobineau[3] (14 July 1816 – 13 October 1882) is the author of L’Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines(An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races) (1853 – 1855). According to Gobineau, there was inequality between the races: the white, the black and the yellow, the white race being the superior race. However, although the “white” race was deemed superior to the “black” and “yellow” races, Gobineau looked upon some Caucasians, the white, as inferior to other Caucasians. The term Caucasian is still used, but less frequently, to describe members of the white race. As for the word Aryan, it existed before Gobineau. (See Aryan, Wikipedia)
“He [Gobineau] advanced the theory that the fate of civilizations is determined by racial composition, that white and in particular Aryan societies flourish as long as they remain free of black and yellow strains, and that the more a civilization’s racial character is diluted through miscegenation, the more likely it is to lose its vitality and creativity and sink into corruption and immorality.”[4]
Gobineau’s theories may have influenced Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, but Gobineau was not anti-Semitic and cannot be linked, at least directly, to the slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews by Hitler’s Nazis. Gobineau’s Aryans were “the peoples of European and Western Asian heritage,” including the peoples of the Middle East and India, as in Indo-European languages. (See Caucasian race, Wikipedia.) As for Hitler’s Aryan race, it excluded the Jews.
The “allies” fought Germany not only because Hitler was invading other countries, beginning with the Sudetenland and Poland, but because of Aryanism. In other words, ethnicity played a major role in World War II and, once Hitler seized power, no dissent was tolerated in Germany.
Racism: The Black & the Coloured
Atlantic slave trade
Slavery and racism linked
In the case of the lucrative Atlantic slave trade, or Translatlantic slave trade, which took place between the 16th and the 19th centuries, racism, as most of us understand it, i.e. Gobineau’s black, white and yellow races, was a major factor. In this instance, slavery and racism were linked. The slaves were black and the black had been considered a less-than-human race before the Transatlantic slave trade. Ironically, black people often captured black people to sell them to slave traders who would send them to both South and North America. You may remember that Ignatius Sancho’s father committed suicide to avoid being subjected to slavery. (See RELATED ARTICLES.) Black Africans themselves were slave traders and slave owners.
During the 14th century CE, Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun (27 May 1332 CE – 19 March 1406 CE) wrote that:
“beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings.” “Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated.” (See Racism, Wikipedia.)
“[D]umb animals!” In the United States, the slaves were also black. Consequently racial discrimination often followed the ignominy of enslavement, especially in the former slave states. But racial discrimination soon extended to people of colour who were neither black nor slaves. They were Amerindians or persons of mixed ancestry (métis). Amerindians were an inferior “race” compared to the white “race,” yet they were not black slaves. They were people of colour.
“We have never dreamt [sic] of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race…. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged… that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.” (See Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia.)
I suppose it would be difficult to enslave a person one had not first divested of his or her humanity. It remains that being born black is what I have called, in an earlier post but different context, an accident of birth. If one is white and born to an aristocratic family, it is also an accident of birth.
Being rich is also, to a very large extent, an accident of birth. In Russia, serfdom was not abolished until 1861 and it impoverished landowners. In North-America, the loss of slaves—free labour—led to a civil war and contributed to racism. The abolition of slavery had impoverished the slave-owners. Shouldn’t former slave-owners and their descendants be compensated for the loss of their slaves? Why should they pay taxes and promote a decent minimum wage? Why should the children of their inferiors be given access to higher education?
There are people who do not want to attend university or cannot pass the entrance examination. It is best for some people to enter a community college and learn a trade. My plumber once told that he would rather be a plumber than a university teacher. There are many ways of earning a living and a decent living.
The United States & …
From Slavery to Racism
Impoverishment
As we know, long after the abolition of slavery, racism persists and many citizens feel they should carry a gun to defend themselves. The abolition of slavery did not transform the black into white citizens and it impoverished slave owners and their descendants. Hence the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists, violence by the police and against the police, and, as far as I can see, disrespect towards the President of the United States, who is a man of colour.
A 12th-century Byzantine manuscript illumination depicting Byzantine Greeks punishing Cretan Saracens in the 9th century. From the Madrid kylitzes. (Caption and photo credit: Wikipedia)
I have often wondered whether or not the mental representation of coloured people, expressed by Senator John C. Calhoun a long time ago, has survived. In other words, I have wondered whether or not what we call racism is a built-in mental content. If it is a built-in mental concept, there’s very little room left for reason to lead to a change. Yet, it’s a mea culpa. We’ve all “sinned.”
Conclusion
Fortunately, we can end racism. President Barack Obama was elected to the presidency of the United States. He did not buy his position. It is clear, therefore, that racism is waning, but racism remains a major issue.
We, humans, must now fight poverty, violence, terrorism. We have to put an end to flogging and beheading.
However, we could first put an end to racism. It can be a society’s decision. There are white supremacists in Canada!
Blue Point, Long Island by Alfred Thompson Bricher
The Hudson River School
The United States has produced great artists. Members the Hudson River School enjoyed landscape painting as did, for instance, members of the Barbizon School in France.
The Hudson River School was a mid-19th century school. Therefore, Bricher was a late member. As Modern Art gained prominence, he was nearly forgotten, but he later regained notoriety as a marine painter. In the 1890s he purchased a house near the sea in the New Dorp section of Staten Island. He could view the Atlantic Ocean and Raritan Bay. He remained active until his death, in New Dorp in 1908.
No one is perfect. But President Obama has been keeping his nation afloat and growing. Given the burden he inherited, he has in fact done very well. Were it not for President Obama and members of his administration, it would be extremely difficult for the international community to trust the US. At the moment, the credibility of the US within the world community is based almost entirely on the intellectual and moral principles of its President.
This is cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face and it is petty, in the utmost.
A lot of people are like the cock of the fable told below, by Jean de La Fontaine (8 July 1621 – 13 April 1695). They cannot tell quality.
A cock scratched up, one day,
A pearl of purest ray,
Which to a jeweller he bore.
“I think it fine,” he said,
“But yet a crumb of bread
To me were worth a great deal more.”
So did a dunce inherit
A manuscript of merit,
Which to a publisher he bore.
“It’s good,” said he, “I’m told,
Yet any coin of gold
To me were worth a great deal more.”
Jean de La Fontaine (I.20)
Le Coq et la Perle (I.20)
Post on the United States
Here are two lists of posts and two posts. The second list is not complete.
On Thursday, I went to Montreal to share lunch with a friend of many years. She had come from Ottawa and I, from Sherbrooke. Our friendship dates back to the year I studied in Montreal. We did, of course, discuss the weather and spent an hour or so shopping. But we then found a café and simply talked. We discussed Pauline Marois, the current “separatist” premier of Quebec. I told my friend that a few months ago Pauline Marois had hired someone to identify the wrongs currently inflicted on Quebec by Ottawa. My comment put an end to that part of the conversation. We laughed. However, I have since read that Pauline Marois and Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, “may have just buried” separatism.
We went on to speak about Syria. We were both delighted that an “off-the-cuff” remark by US Secretary of StateJohn Kerry (born 11 November 1943) had led Russian President Vladimir Putin (born 7 October 1952) to call on President Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) to put his chemical weapons under international control and to destroy them. There is an end to this intervention, which is its main but very real virtue. President Bashar al-Assad has warned that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961) has been described as “ambivalent” by CNN’s Gloria Borger. Given the events of the 2000s: two wars, a huge debt, not to mention the loss of life and limbs, one can understand why President Obama is a reticent warrior. Had there been a strike on Syria, the US would have led an international coalition and no one would have entered Syria, a sovereign country. Yet, a strike is dangerous. President Assad has warned that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
The use of chemical weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction, is prohibited under international law. Yet, on 21 August 2013, the Assad regime allowed 1,429 Syrians, including more than 400 children to be gassed to death. Can the international community simply stand by? Assad committed a crime and may have done so to draw the United States into a conflict with Syria and, possibly, with Russia. I would prefer to dismiss the idea of a setup, but I suspect political wranglings on a larger rather than smaller scale.
Despite its debt, the United States remains a “superpower” and it has a formidable arsenal. But it is a weary superpower and, by and large, US citizens oppose any action that could lead to yet another war. Consequently, President Obama had been seeking the support of Congress and that of his nation before entering into a military engagement: a strike. But there has now been an agreement. Russia has called on Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control and to destroy them and Syria has agreed to do as President Putin proposed. So why is President Putin entertaining the thought of a possible strike?
The Security Council
Russian President Vladimir Putin is indeed urging the US to “‘obey’ international law and not strike Syria without the approval of the United Nations.” On Thursday, 12 September 2013, he in fact “used the editorial pages of the New York Times to make his own personal address to the American people.” How very noble, but confusing! Again, hasn’t Russian President Vladimir Putin persuaded Syrian President Assad to put his chemical weapons under international supervision and to destroy them?
As I wrote in my last post, Syria on my Mind, the UN may serve rather than hinder Assad’s regime. If the Security Council votes in favour of a strike, Russia can veto that decision. Moreover, China is one of the five nations that may veto “punitive” — I do not like that word — action against Syria. The US owes China a fortune.
I may be wrong, but I sense a motivation on the part of Russia to make itself a superpower intent on obstructing another or other superpower(s). Therefore, it may be prudent on the part of the United States to concentrate on making sure Syria puts its chemical weapons under international supervision and destroys them, as President Assad has agreed to do. I believe it would be wise on the part of the United States to insist that Assad keep his word or forever be mocked for lying to the world.
In other words, it would be my opinion that the US may be well-advised to pare the problem down to its smallest, yet enormous and central, component: the use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. It just could be that Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark can be used as an off-the-hook opportunity.
The Shoe is on the other foot
On my way home, I kept thinking that it was hugely arrogant of President Assad to be warning the international community that “after a strike, one can expect anything.” The shoe is on the other foot. President Bashar al-Assad has violated an international law by using chemical weapons to kill indiscriminately 1,429 citizens of his country. It therefore seems that it is now the international community’s turn to tell President Assad that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
Conclusion
Yet, as I wrote above, I believe that an intervention on the part of the United States should be limited to insisting that President Assad keep his word and put his chemical weapons under international supervision, ensuring they are destroyed. As I have noted above, Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-the-cuff remark and Assad’s compliance just may take the United States “off the hook.” John Kerry’s suggestion — that President Assad put his chemical weapons under international control — targets the offense, i.e. the use of a weapon of mass destruction, which, in my opinion, makes it an appropriate response. Not only does such an intervention have a foreseeable end, but it also addresses Assad’s warning that “after a strike, one can expect anything.”
_________________________
[i] Olga Khokhlova, a Ballets Russes ballerina, married Pablo Picasso in 1918 and is the mother of his son Paulo. The marriage was not a happy one. The two separated in 1935, but Picasso would not consent to a divorce as Olga was entitled to one half of his wealth. Olga died in 1955.
Official portrait of President Barack Obama 2013 (Photo Credit: Pete Souza)
that the dream should come true in my lifetime…
I just watched President Obama’s inauguration and was again very impressed. He is an intellectually superior and knowledgeable individual. He is trying to unite his nation and praises his nation. After all, although it was a very difficult endeavor, he was re-elected.
He talks about what he is doing and plans to do rather than demolish his opponents. He does all he can to help his country in very difficult times: social programs, job creation, extending the period during which an unemployed individual can receive benefits from the government.
He is compassionate. He went to visit the people of Newtown and he talked with each family, not only as their President, but also and mainly as another human being, a father who knew how painful it would be to lose a child. Losing a child is devastating. He has already signed orders that should decrease the number of deaths by gun: a month and two days!
When Sandy devastated the east coast, he visited the victims and did so hours before Americans would vote. He knew what his duties were. His team works extremely hard. Joe Biden is committed to his work and solid as a rock. Michelle and Jill have rolled up their sleeves when in fact they could be shopping in Paris. Not these women!
Yet, these are hard times! Congratulations America.
On January 16, a month and two days after the massacre at Newtown, December 14, 2012, the Vice-President and the President had a plan to announce and orders to sign so the plan would go into effect immediately.
The plan does not go all the way. People may still bear arms walking down the street, but it may be that the President went as far as he could go given the circumstances of his Presidency. I therefore remain congratulatory.
So, let me repeat that a month and two days after the Newtown massacre and despite the holiday season the President signed orders that should decrease deaths by gun.
Sitting in the audience and introduced to us were parents of Newtown who had lost a child. We learned that the President had actually visited with the bereaved parents. That may not have been very ‘presidential’ of Barack Obama, but it was the human thing to do.
Behind the desk where he signed the necessary orders, there were children. He had read their letters. These children will never forget that they can talk with the President of the United States and that he will hear them and act. Again, it was the human thing to do. (See first Related Articles for photograph.)
Ironically, although he faces obstructionism in Washington, in the eyes of the world President Obama is viewed as a great leader. In most instances, he is, in fact, at the very top of the list, including my list. I am so grateful to him, to Vice-President Joe Biden, to Michelle and to Jill for helping the people of Newtown. In fact, they are the people of Newtown.
Yet, let me repeat that the plan does go far enough and add that, if such is the case, it is, to a certain extent, that the people of the United States will not let the Vice President and the President go further.
Given the opposition he faces in Washington, the President has to know that the people want him to go further. If he doesn’t know this, his successor may revoke the security measures his administration has put into place. Good presidents act in the best interest of the people, but good presidents prefer not to go beyond the expressed will of the people.
Many individuals enjoy collecting firearms, but I presume these are not loaded. Many individuals also like target shooting. It’s a sport. But again, I would presume that target shooters practice and compete in an enclosed area and that, for security reasons, they do not carry home loaded weapons.
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes would not agree with me. Yet, I would also presume that people know that their freedom ends where the freedom of others begin as do their “rights.” Rights and duties are like the opposite sides of the same coin as are reason and instinct.
* * *
I remember my mother telling me that the nice thing about turning seven was that a child had finally reached the age of reason. I hate to say this, but when will members of the National Rifle Association (NRA) turn seven?
Publiée le 17 janv. 2013
Sir Henry Wood‘s ‘Suite No. 6’ is a set of six Bach transcriptions, arranged from various sources, that includes this heartfelt ‘Lament.’ It is the ‘Adagio’ from Bach’s ‘Capriccio on the Departure of His Most Beloved Brother’ in Bb major, BWV 992. In this recording, the BBC Symphony is conducted by Leonard Slatkin. (With all due acknowledgements to Chandos Records.)
In his Leviathan (1651), Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679) opposes what we would call private militias. The families he is speaking of are the Gonzaga family, who ruled Mantua, the Medicis, who ruled Florence, the Sforza family, the rulers of Milan and other rulers.
Niccolò Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) knew these factious city-states. He had worked for the Medicis and witnessed a constant struggle for power, a “war of all against all” (Thomas Hobbes), hence his advice to the prince. For Machiavelli, “the end justifie[d] the means.” How could his prince survive other than by being a “fox?” Machiavelli’s Prince was published in 1532. (The Prince is a Gutenberg publication.)
Feuds Of Private Families
“In all Common-wealths, if a private man entertain more servants, than the government of his estate, and lawfull employment he has for them requires, it is Faction, and unlawfull. For having the protection of the Common-wealth, he needeth not the defence of private force. And whereas in Nations not throughly civilized, severall numerous Families have lived in continuall hostility, and invaded one another with private force; yet it is evident enough, that they have done unjustly; or else that they had no Common-wealth.” (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Part II, xxii)
Thomas Hobbes
The Leviathan was published in 1651. So Hobbes’ foresight amazes me. His analysis of society, here a divided society, is as insightful and valid today as it was in 1651. I should think that the common denominator is human nature. It doesn’t change.
The US has militias and Canada has its indépendantistes. Pierre Elliott Trudeau ended terrorism on the part of séparatistes in October 1970 when, at the request of the alarmed premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, and the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, he sent in the troops. There had been deaths throughout the 1960s: bombs placed in mailboxes and during the October Crisis, Pierre Laporte, Quebec’s Minister of Labour, was kidnapped and killed.
However, former Quebec Premier Jean Charest (born John James Charest on June 24, 1958), a member of the federalist Liberal Party, was defeated by Pauline Marois’ Parti Québécois in the Quebec General Election, held on 4 September 2012. So, there may be yet another referendum: “to separate” or “not to separate.” I fully understand that we French-speaking Canadians should protect our heritage, but…
Faction
Canada is not about to enter into a Civil War. The citizens of Quebec would not agree to this kind of disorder, but I no longer live in Hobbes’ “Common-wealth.” It was bilingual, bicultural, hospitable and, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau leadership, “[t]here [was] no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” (Omnibus Bill, 1967). Quebec is a unilingual province. Immigrants to Quebec have to learn French, which is not too problematical. However, the citizens of Quebec must pay taxes to both the Quebec Government and the Federal Government and a Quebecker‘s health-insurance card does not cover visits to a doctor outside Quebec. Fortunately, it covers hospitalization. These restrictions would not exist if, in 1982, Quebec had signed the patriated Canadian Constitution.[i] So, to a certain extent, Quebec is a country within a country.
The Commander-in-Chief
President Obama has been criticized for this and criticized for that, but President Obama is the kind of leader who allows not just the United States but the world to feel safer. We breathed a huge sigh of relief when he was re-elected to the Presidency of the United States of America. I’m not saying that he is perfect, no one is. For instance, I would like him to be quite ruthless with respect to gun ownership and the presence of militias. In other words, I would like him to use his authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces to the fullest extent.
Let us hope, with respect to gun-control, that Congress will not be divided, but if it is, President Obama may have to use whatever mechanisms he may use as commander-in-chief to ensure the security of Americans. Between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the militias, the United States has armies within armies as well as its official armed forces, the only legitimate army. A house divided…
Conclusion
Barack Obama was re-elected to the Presidency of the United States, despite near certainty on the part of members of the Republican Party that Mitt Romney would emerge a winner. However, Americans knew that President Obama was the better candidate. So I believe that the persons who have re-elected him also know that the better decision is to take the guns away and will support him in his effort to curb and perhaps end the massacres, the staggering number of deaths by gun and the presence of militias, Hobbes’ factious “private force.”
As for Chris Christie, I wrote a blog in praise of him a few months ago. He’s a good, reliable person. I saw him shake hands with President Obama a few days ago. Both were visibly very concerned for United States citizens whose homes were destroyed by Sandy. As we used to say, they seemed “on the save wavelength,” i.e. the people, shattered people.
Blue Point, Long Island, by Alfred Thompson Richer
I have been asked to compile all my articles on the United States. Some had been compiled. So here is half of my complete list. Mutiny in Congress: Ship them to Guantanamo was a favorite. For added pleasure, I thought you might enjoy a video featuring Alfred Thompson Bricher’s art. The United States has produced great artists. Members the Hudson River school enjoyed landscape painting as did, for instance, members of the Barbizon School in France.
I hope to feature more paintings by the artists associated with the Hudson River school.
Alfred Thompson Bricher (April 10, 1837- September 30, 1908) was an American painter associated with White Mountain art and the Hudson River School. He studied at the Lowell Institute and with Albert Bierstadt, William Morris Hunt, and others. By 1858, he made art his profession. He opened a studio in Boston, but in 1868 he moved to New York City and showed “Mill-Stream at Newburyport” at the National Academy of Design. He had first worked with oils, but ended up switching to watercolors. In 1873, he became a member of the American Watercolor Society. As did other members of the Hudson River School, Bricher painted landscapes mainly, but in the 1870s, he started to paint seascapes and these are the paintings that earned him renown.
The Hudson River School was a mid-19th century school. Therefore, Bricher was a late member. As Modern Art gained prominence, he was nearly forgotten, but he later regained notoriety as a marine painter. In the 1890s he purchased a house near the sea in the New Dorp section of Staten Island. He could view the Atlantic Ocean and Raritan Bay. He remained active until his death, in New Dorp in 1908.
© Micheline Walker
14 September 2013
