Dear Dana Loesch and the NRA, What the Fuck is Wrong With You?

I am writing an extra thing today that is out of my usual purview of talking about books. As most of my readers are probably aware, I like trains. Really, really like trains. To the point that people joke the I Like Trains Kid is based off of me. I can safely say that the origin of this obsession began with Thomas the Tank Engine, whose stories I first encountered through Shining Time Station on PBS in the early 1990s. Thomas and his friends have long since grown beyond the original stories of the Rev. Wilbert Awdry, but continue to bring joy to millions of children (and children at heart) throughout the world. As you can imagine I have very, very strong positive emotions tied to Thomas and Friends.

So I found out today that Dana Loesch and the NRA got their panties in a bunch over new characters for Thomas and Friends and felt the appropriate response was to create an image of Thomas, James, and Percy wearing Ku Klux Klan hoods. And I'm going to be entirely honest, I have completely lost my shit. I am incandescent with rage. And as an...attempt at catharsis I'm writing this. I don't know if it'll help.

Dear Dana Loesch and the NRA,

What the fuck is wrong with you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Granted, this is a question I ask every time, Ms. Loesch, you get up there after a school shooting and tell us with a straight face that we actually need more guns to make us "safe". That I at least understand because that's the entire NRA's agenda and you're paid to say that. But getting offended over increased diversity in a children's tv show? That has absolutely nothing to do with guns or the Second Amendment, why are you even talking about this? What the fuck is wrong with you?

If you were a cynical person you could say that Mattel's decision to include more characters is an opportunistic move to sell more toys. You could also say that it's an opportunistic decision to expand the popularity of Thomas and Friends among a more global audience by including characters from across the globe, as well as introducing female characters to appeal to the half of the audience that is female in a series that has been historically light on female characters. (I don't think Annie, Clarabell, and Henrietta really count as characters per se as they have less agency than the engines do.) But you know what? It can be a cynical, opportunistic cash grab and a good thing.

Because you know what? Yes, the series has been short on girl characters. The original series only had Mavis and Daisy, both of whom were diesels and had a bit of an attitude until they had an inevitable incident with trucks and an incident with a cow respectively. I'm pretty sure Emily was the first female steam engine introduced to the series and even then she was the only female character for a long, long time. And sure, maybe I find the decision to include engines from different countries with special paint schemes a little questionable because most steam engines were painted black because of all the soot but kids like bright colors so let's make all the engines bright colors. Whatever, it's for kids. 

And I was emotionally invested in Thomas. If I'm being entirely honest, I find the new CGI weird and well into the uncanny valley and I really miss the old model trains even though they were probably expensive and a lot of work. And I hate seeing some of my favorite characters like Donald & Douglas getting shunted aside for new kids on the block, but fine. Whatever. I'm a little sad, but they're not making the show for me, they're making it for the little kids of today. 

But for whatever reason, you weren't satisfied. You had to go and get your panties all up in a bunch about the fact that Thomas and Friends is promoting things like clean water, gender equality, and quality education for everyone and doing it with a cast of diverse characters. What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you just hate clean water? Do you hate children? Do you hate fun? Why are you so angry about this? It's a children's show about trains who perpetually learn that it's better to work together and be kind to each other. How can you object to any of this? What the fuck is wrong with you?

What bugs me the most is this isn't even about guns. Like, far be it from me to tell people to stick within their wheelhouse but this is totally not in your wheelhouse. It's like you specifically hunted down something to be offended about, and it was something that is almost inherently inoffensive. Which is rich irony coming from people who are always complaining about "snowflake liberals" who are constantly being "triggered" by things they find offensive.  At least when we're offended it's because of the overt racism, sexism, and bigotry that seems to constantly spew from your mouths. When you're offended it's because we said clean water was a good idea. What the fuck is wrong with you?

How does a person become so filled with hate that they see something good and kind in this world and immediately say, ''I want to smash that!"? How does everything in the world become a personal attack on you and your beliefs? Are you exhausted from constantly being under siege?  Because I can't see how any person with intelligence, with compassion, with even a shred of empathy would do what you decided to do. I guess ultimately what I'm asking is: What the fuck is wrong with you?

- Kalpar 

Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow: The Epic Story of the Transcontinental Railroads, by Dee Brown

As has been established time and again on this blog, I like trains, so it'll come as absolutely no surprise to anybody that I'm talking about them yet again. And don't worry! They'll come back! I've got at least two more books to read just about trains!

This book deals specifically with the history of the transcontinental railroads built during the later half of the nineteenth century. I actually read another book about this very topic called Railroaded which goes far more in depth about the railroads than Brown does in this book. This is definitely far more of a general overview of the transcontinental railroads as a historical subject so it's good if you're unfamiliar with material and doesn't get too bogged down in technical details. If you're looking for something a little more substantial or in-depth then Railroaded is definitely superior in that regard.

The transcontinental railroads of the United States are an interesting topic because there was no real financial reason for them to exist. Railroads in the eastern parts of the United States were often built to connect existing settlements and ease transportation issues that had been partly but not completely solved by a combination of river and canal transportation. The Pennsylvania Railroad, the largest railroad in the United States and so solid it did not collapse into bankruptcy during the Great Depression, is the ultimate example of the eastern railroad. The western railroads, however, were going into vast territories inhabited only by the numerous Indian nations who had no interest or more frequently were opposed to the introduction of railroads into their lands. Perhaps a line of communication between east and west would be strategically necessary, but there was little economic incentive for a railroad of continent-spanning size.

As a result, the railroads crossing the western United States were largely subsidized through the federal government in a variety of ways. The Central Pacific and Union Pacific got cash for every mile of usable track laid, as well as extensive land grants, and their bonds backed by the federal government. Other railroads such as the Santa Fe eschewed cash payments in exchange for significantly greater land grants, providing the railroads with extensive opportunities for profit entirely divorced from actually running a profitable railroad. The bountiful opportunities for corruption, graft, and financial manipulation brought dozens of robber barons to exploit and gut the transcontinental railroads, leaving the United States with five barely-functioning railroad networks crossing the west.

Brown does a pretty good job covering the major points of the story of the transcontinental railroads, which weren't exactly the heroic nation-building exercises they sometimes get portrayed as in popular history. That being said, I do have a couple of issues with Brown's book at least one of which is because of when it was written. This book actually dates from the 1970's, which were a dark, dark decade for railroads in the United States. Penn Central, the poorly-planned merger between the Pennsylvania and New York Central railroads, had gone bankrupt and the issues of numerous other railroads led to the government takeover of all passenger operations with Amtrak and reforms to railroad regulation. An industry that even fifty years prior was central to America had become an obsolete relic. Many historians of railroads at this time had bitter and angry things to say about the railroad companies, and Brown is no exception.

While this is fair for the time period, and Amtrak service hasn't improved greatly either, at least where I live, it definitely dates the book. And considering how many emotions are tied up to the collapse of the railroads in the 1970s, it's hard for me to really make an objective assessment of the period because of the number of emotions involved. It's truly a curious phenomenon and I wonder if there will be history on it at a later point.

The other thing that bothered me was the disparity in Brown's coverage of Indian experiences and black and Chinese experiences with the railroads. Brown goes into great detail about the experiences of the Indians, as their titles to land supposedly guaranteed by treaty are rapidly extinguished to make way for railroads and the associated land grants. And of course there is much to be said about how the railroad, by splitting the buffalo herds and making them even easier for white hunters to exterminate, hastened the demise of the traditional way of life for many plains Indians. And Brown has every right to be furious as she is about the treatment of Indians.

But by comparison her coverage of the Chinese and black experiences with the railroads go far less in-depth. What I most remembered was her briefly mentioning the usage of black convict labor and Pullman Porters. Now, there is a whole in-depth exploration of the peonage system created in the United States after the Civil War that made it incredibly easy for black men to be convicted for trivial offenses and then leased as convict labor to farms, mines, and railroads as basically slaves. If you're ever interested in learning more about peonage, I highly recommend the PBS documentary Slavery by Another Name. Suffice to say that in the south, including Texas, black convict labor was often employed to build railroads. And even where free black men were employed, they faced lower wages, discrimination, and violence from white railroad workers. And of course Chinese railroad workers faced the same issues as their black counterparts. These are huge issues that just sort of get glossed over in this book and feels like a missed opportunity.

Brown also mentions Pullman Porters, one of the best jobs available to black men in the United States, but fairly low-paying compared to other railroad workers and working as a servant for the benefit of the passengers. Pullman Porters, and by extension many railroad porters, have been referred to as ''George'' regardless of their actual name. Brown mentions this as in honor of their employer, George Pullman, owner of the Pullman company. The problem is that this was hardly an honor for the porters. It has been conjectured, although I have not found any strong evidence for this so far, that the Pullman Porters were called George because that was the name of their employer or ''master''. Even the simple fact that white passengers couldn't be bothered to learn the names of their porters reflects the second class status Pullman Porters were relegated to as black men. I think it is grossly misinformed to call this behavior an honor.

Issues aside, this is pretty good for a general history. As I said, it doesn't go terribly in-depth but covers the major highlights of the history of transcontinental railroads in the late nineteenth century in the United States. If you're looking for basic information this is a good start, but there are other sources that go far more in-depth.

- Kalpar

The Baldwin Locomotive Works 1831-1915: A Study in American Industrial Practice, by John K. Brown

As I've mentioned several times before here on this blog, I'm a bit of a maniac when it comes to trains so it should be absolutely no surprise to anyone that I picked up a history book which talks about locomotive construction. And if you needed further evidence that this one's going to be a dry read, you merely need look at the title: The Baldwin Locomotive Works 1831-1915 A Study in American Industrial Practice. A title that simple and yet also long can only belong to an incredibly thorough and well-researched monograph and in that respect I was not disappointed. I will warn everyone right away this book will probably be best survived by people who have a strong interest in nineteenth century industrialization, or the most ardent of railroad fanatics.

To provide a summary for my readers who probably aren't as train-obsessed as I am: Baldwin Locomotive Works was a Philadelphia-based company and one of the first American builders of locomotives. Over the years it would become the most successful American builder, controlling over a third of the total market, and by the time it ceased locomotive production in 1956 it had produced over 70,000 locomotives. Throughout this time Baldwin grew from a fairly small plant to an absolutely enormous facility, and yet as Brown illustrates many of its structures remained largely unchanged from the middle of the nineteenth century. Despite its size, Baldwin didn't incorporate until 1909, remaining for much of its history a partnership which required reorganization as partners joined or departed the firm. However for much of its history, Brown argues effectively that these were critical strengths for Baldwin rather than weaknesses, at least until dramatic changes almost no one in the railroad industry predicted occurred in the 1920's.

As Brown points out very on, Baldwin and other locomotive builders are rather different from the famous American System businesses and corporations which have been the focus of so much historiographic effort. Much of the focus has been placed on producers of raw materials, such as steel mills, or producers of consumer goods such as sewing machines. These industries benefitted from automation, standardization, and economies of scale. And, perhaps more importantly, they were far more resilient in the frequent economic shocks that punctuated American history through the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Baldwin Locomotive Works, by contrast, was a constructor of capital goods: large, expensive, and extremely complicated devices which were major purchases for railroads. When times were good, Baldwin was flushed with orders, as railroads scrambled to obtain more motive power for the increased traffic. When times were bad, railroads forgoed capital purchases, reducing Baldwin's workload to a trickle. This resulted in Baldwin relying on a number of strategies, such as laying off significant portions of its workforce and cultivating export markets, to weather these dry spells before demand returned once again.

Further complicating this is the sheer difficulty of producing a steam locomotive. One of the main contributions America gave the nineteenth century was the development of interchangeable parts. First developed in Federal Armories to make parts from one rifle capable of repairing another rifle, the idea of standard and interchangeable parts made repairs incredibly simple and drove down the costs of numerous consumer and industrial goods. As much as interchangeable parts would be a boon to locomotives, and no matter how much locomotive builders attempted to incorporate the idea, steam locomotives would consistently defy such attempts due to their very nature, which I thought was a really interesting part of this book.

As Brown explains, although locomotive builders such as Baldwin tried to design and sell ''standard'' products, ultimately it was the railroads that decided when and what sort of locomotives would be built based upon the needs of their railroad and all too often the builders had to either meet these needs or go without business. As such the majority of locomotives were custom-built for railroads depending on their specifications and suggestions. Builders such as Baldwin would try to incorporate standard parts such as valves and fittings as much as possible, with some degree of success, but the sheer plethora of locomotive designs made this a difficult task. In addition to the varieties of locomotive to build, there was also a great amount of variety within types, ranging from narrow gauge to broad gauge and everywhere inbetween.

On top of this, locomotives were constantly evolving over time as well. Although the 4-4-0 American type locomotive would be dominant for the latter half of the nineteenth century, from 1850 to 1880 it would grow in size and strength, with larger and heavier boilers, cylinders, and driver wheels increasing its tractive force. However in a quest for bigger and better locomotives, the 4-4-0 would eventually be supplanted by the 4-4-2 Atlantic. Which of course would then in turn be replaced by the 4-6-2 Pacific. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the dozens of other wheel arrangements experimented with or developed during this time period. Steam locomotive design and development was a constant process, which ultimately reached a fevered pitch in the glory days of the early twentieth century, before economic troubles and the arrival of practical diesel power heralded the end of steam power. Baldwin and many other locomotive builders were so wrapped up in the struggle to produce bigger and better steam locomotives that they were completely unable to adapt to the rapid changes diesel power brought.

Overall I found this book a fascinating read, although that's probably because of my great interest in railroad history more than anything else. If it's about trains you've got me hooked. Even as an avid rail enthusiast I found this book very dry and technical and I think only the most interested of audiences will get something approaching enjoyment out of it. However, it's very well researched and Brown does a good job of exploring an area of history that hasn't garnered much attention and detailing how locomotive construction is inherently different from so many other industries. Even if he gets a little opinionated in some areas, which is something I'm noticing in railroad historians.

- Kalpar