The Observer
Obamas’ holiday idyll shattered by local anger over outsize mansions
Martha’s Vineyard residents fear the aura of their island is being wrecked by gentrification
Sunday 31 July 2016 11.00 BST Last modified on Monday 1 August 2016 12.55 BST
When the Obama family start their summer holidays this week on the quaint New England island of Martha’s Vineyard, off the coast of Massachusetts, they can expect to relax in the solitude and privacy they have enjoyed during their previous five visits. The Washington Post called the president the equivalent of a vacationing Yeti: “Many have had near brushes with the leader of the free world, but only a precious few have actually laid eyes on him.”But film-maker Thomas Bena says the house the Obamas are renting this year is a prime example of the kind of mega-construction that is threatening to destroy the character of the island.
Bena has spent 12 years making a film called One Big Home, which is being shown to islanders this weekend. It documents an issue that is as tricky for residents of the Vineyard as it is for beach destinations everywhere: how to protect small communities from the distortions created by an influx of wealthy visitors who come for just eight weeks of the year. The film chronicles Bena’s crusade against the proliferation of outsize homes in the town of Chilmark, where he lives with his wife, Mollie, and daughter, Emma.
Bena argues that the giant homes, often referred to as McMansions, are not only out of proportion with their environment, but wasteful symbols of the over-reaching vanity of their absentee owners. Over the past 20 years, what started as an aberration is now a trend: mansionisation, or the practice of building the largest possible house on a plot of land.
“For me, this is more gross than mere conspicuous consumption,” says Bena. “It’s another type of gentrification. We need to start taking care of our communities and be more careful with land use and zoning.”
A backlash has started, with people in Martha’s Vineyard and in the Hamptons on Long Island questioning the wisdom of land being turned over to mansions that sit empty, but heated, for 10 months of the year. In Los Angeles, the city planning commission recently voted to eliminate various loopholes, including one that grants a 20% square footage bonus for building “green”, that has been contributing to bigger-is-better mansionisation.
But on Martha’s Vineyard, Bena’s campaign to limit the size of new houses in Chilmark caused a stir in the community. Some said the plan sounded un-American: the social disruption that comes with gentrification is part of the price. “That’s America, like it or not,” the Chilmark building inspector Leonard Jason Jr tells the film-maker. “Big houses are what some people feel they need. You can always leave.”
Bena believes McMansions have contributed to a new sense of “us and them” – local people and summer visitors. “In the summer, you feel that tension wherever you go,” he says. “People put a smile on their face because they don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them, but it’s there.”
When the president takes his family out to eat, there will be 10 cars in his motorcade and a bus for the press, says Bena. “He’s vacationing on a small island where people dress down and try to drive older cars. The ethos remains intellectuals and artists living in cottages.”
The fisherman Chris Murphy points out: “The more that people trickle in, the more they socialise with their own. There’s not that same mixing that used to occur. A community should be able to determine its own destiny.”
In 2013, the community of Chilmark voted to introduce a sliding scale that would effectively limit house size in the district to 3,500 sq ft.
The film (and legislation) is not anti-wealth, Bena says, but pro-community. “The only power the little people have is the power of the vote. So we got together and said we want to preserve the rural character of our town. We’re not saying we don’t like wealthy people. We’re saying we have a sense of place here and we want to maintain that.”
https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2016/07/05/his-home-turf-thomas-bena-screens-one-big-home
Welcome to Martha's Vineyard
MARTHA'S VINEYARD MAGAZINE
One Big Home by Thomas Bena screened on Wednesday evening to a full house at the Chilmark Community Center.Ray Ewing
NEWS FILM
On His Home Turf, Thomas Bena Screens One Big Home
Alex Elvin
Tuesday, July 5, 2016 - 2:02pm
Three years ago, in the face of development that many felt had gone too far, the town of Chilmark passed the Island’s first bylaw limiting the size of new houses. The vote at the Chilmark Community Center was celebrated with applause and cheering.
The vote is documented in Thomas Bena’s first feature-length film, One Big Home, which had its Island premiere at the town community center last week as part of the Martha’s Vineyard Film Festival’s summer series.
And as if echoing the earlier town meeting vote, the capacity crowd again voiced its approval with applause.
One Big Home chronicles the development of the so-called big house bylaw, which Mr. Bena helped spearhead around 2012. It also follows Mr. Bena’s own journey into parenthood over 10 years, and his evolving views related to the topic of big houses.
Hundreds of people turned out for the premiere on June 29, filling nearly every seat in the wood-paneled community center where Chilmark holds its annual town meetings. The center also has long been a home base for the Martha’s Vineyard Film Festival, which Mr. Bena founded in 2001.
At a brief panel discussion following the film, many expressed gratitude for the film and bylaw and shared stories of outsized development in other communities around the country.
The film’s Island premiere comes on the heels of a public controversy surrounding the festival’s plans to relocate to a large tract of land in West Tisbury. The festival has since withdrawn its plans, and the future of the property remains unclear.
Mr. Bena appeared unfazed by the recent calamity, welcoming the crowd on Wednesday and encouraging participation in the discussion to follow.
“We want you guys to ask hard questions,” he said before the lights went down and the film began.
Two of the film subjects — architect Peter Breese and contractor David Knauff — who were expected to take part in the discussion did not attend. Instead, there was informal back-and-forth, mostly between Mr. Bena and audience members.
“I think the reason why it was so beautiful is because you portrayed your journey really authentically and really vulnerably,” said Saskia Vanderhoop, who appears in the film with her husband, David Vanderhoop, at their teepee in Aquinnah. “We need cultural change, and we need to discuss these issues,” she said.
One longtime Edgartown resident asked if similar efforts regarding big houses were underway on the Island. Mr. Bena said he wished they were. He drew attention to the fact that 150 years ago, land in Aquinnah was still held in common by the Wampanoag tribe. “That’s not that long ago,” he said. “We could change how we look at land ownership. It’s almost too radical to even say that, but we could change it.”
Sold out show became forum on the issue as many shared stories of outsized development in other communities.
Reiterating a theme in the film, he noted the many summer homes on the Island that remain vacant most of the year. “We all want a community,” Mr. Bena said. “We don’t want to come to an empty place. So I think we have a lot of work to do, and I hope the film begins to spark that conversation.”
Geoffrey Parkhurst, who provided before-and-after satellite images for the film, also expressed gratitude.
“I was fairly stunned when Chilmark passed the resolution it did, because in so much of our country money seems to speak louder than votes,” Mr. Parkhurst said. “I’m so grateful that we’ve put the brakes on a little bit in this place I care so much about.”
Others inquired about the nature of the bylaw, which Mr. Bena said was imperfect but has lowered the average house size in Chilmark by 40 per cent in three years. He compared big houses to other consumer trends that have faded in the face of public awareness.
“At some point it became not cool to smoke, or not cool to wear dead animals,” Mr. Bena said. “I feel like the trophy home thing is kind of like that, at least in this community.”
Annie Cook noted a similar big-house trend in Washington D.C. and elsewhere, and presented a challenge: “How do we deal with this need for an awareness paradigm shift, where it’s not that selfish need for hugeness?” she said. “It’s [about] guiding people to think more in terms of their communities.”
One moviegoer noted a growing number of resort communities in the country that prevent homeowners from heating vacant houses for long stretches. Some laughter arose when she mentioned laws that require houses long-vacant to be occupied by someone, if not the homeowner. “If you think about the housing problem on the Island, a lot would change if a lot of these places weren’t vacant,” she said.
David Vanderhoop looked out over the crowd of new and familiar faces and noted that everyone in the room had landed on the Island for a reason. He encouraged people to speak up when they saw development that they felt went awry.
“We have to move from this point on consciously into the future, so that we can preserve it for our children, for the next generation, and generations to come after that,” he said.
As the crowd began to disperse, Mr. Bena, along with editors Liz Witham and James Holland, who had also joined the discussion, lingered at the front of the room and chatted with moviegoers.
One after another, people thanked Mr. Bena for his film and service to the community before heading out into the night.
One Big Home will screen again Monday, August 8, at the Chilmark Community Center. For tickets and information, visit tmvff.org.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/real-estate/gentrification-urban-displacement-affordable-housing-overview-research-roundup
CITIES, INEQUALITY, MUNICIPAL, RACE, REAL ESTATE
Gentrification, urban displacement and affordable housing: Overview and research roundup
Tags: gentrification, local reporting, poverty, research roundup | Last updated: August 15, 2014
The cost of renting a home has increased throughout the United States in recent years, most notably in urban areas. According to an April 2014 analysis by Zillow Real Estate Research, between 2000 and 2014 median household income rose 25%, while rents increased by nearly 53%. The analysis also found that residents of Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco and New York paid the highest portions of their income on rent — in Los Angeles, the figure was 35%. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be unaffordable when its costs exceed 30% of a family’s income. A 2014 report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that just over half of U.S. households paid more than 30% of their income toward rent in 2013, up from 38% of households in 2000.
Two trends accompany rising rents in the United States — growing urban inequality and a widening gap between the demand and supply of affordable housing. A 2014 Brookings Institution analysis of Census data found that economic inequality was higher in cities than the country as a whole, and a 2013 study from Cornell and Stanford determined that income-based neighborhood segregation rose between 1970 and 2009 (racial segregation slowly decreased from very high initial levels, however). Furthermore, an Urban Institute analysis found that for every 100 “extremely low-income” households in 2012, only 29 affordable rental units were available — a drop from 37 in 2000. Of the affordable units that are available, most involve federal housing assistance such as Section 8 vouchers, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program and government-owned public housing.
Background history
The term “gentrification” often arises in conversations about urban inequality and the increased cost of rental housing. Sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term in 1964, defining it as a process by which a neighborhood’s “original working-class occupiers are displaced” by influx of higher-income newcomers. More broadly, gentrification refers to a process of neighborhood change involving the migration of wealthier residents into poorer neighborhoods and increased economic investment. Since the term appeared in the lexicon, scholars have debated both its precise meaning and the phenomenon’s effects on society — particularly whether the process harms or benefits the original residents of gentrifying neighborhoods.
In the 2000s, researchers published some of the first longitudinal studies quantifying trends in gentrification. Challenging the long-held beliefs of many urban geographers, these studies generally found that the extent to which gentrification displaced low-income residents was limited. In 2005, Lance Freeman of Columbia University published an influential nationwide study that found that low-income residents of gentrifying urban neighborhoods were only slightly more likely to leave than those in non-gentrifying neighborhoods — 1.4% versus a 0.9%. Many journalists and some policymakers took the study to mean that gentrification had a negligible social cost while benefiting poor residents through improvements to neighborhoods — for example, an article by USA Today was headlined “Studies: Gentrification a Boost for Everyone.” However, in 2008 Freeman stated that more research was needed: “The empirical evidence [on gentrification] is surprisingly thin on some questions and inconclusive on others.”
Benefits or drawbacks?
Recent studies of neighborhood change have examined other effects of gentrification on low-income residents. Research published in 2010 and 2011 found evidence that gentrification could boost income for low-income residents who remained and also raised their level of housing-related satisfaction. Examinations of gentrification’s effects on crime have found mixed results, with a 2010 study of Los Angeles neighborhoods showing a rise in crime and a 2011 Chicago-based study showing a decrease (with the exception of street robberies in majority-black neighborhoods, which increased). A 2014 study from Grace Hwang and Robert J. Sampson of Harvard found that black neighborhoods were less likely to be gentrified than those with significant Asian or Latino populations.
Even if the proportion of low-income residents displaced by gentrification is low, research indicates that the aggregate number displaced can be high and the consequences of displacement particularly harmful. A 2006 study estimated that about 10,000 households were displaced by gentrification each year in New York City. Follow-up interviews found that among those displaced, many ended up living in overcrowded apartments, shelters or even became homeless. Further, there may be long-term political consequences for low-income residents of gentrified neighborhoods — a 2014 study found poor neighborhoods with rich enclaves spent less on public programs, for example.
Research deficits
The major studies on gentrification share several important limitations: They have not consistently examined the fate of displaced low-income residents; they do not look at the effects of gentrification over multiple decades; and most use data from the 1980s and 1990s — preceding major increases in rental prices throughout the 2000s and before the Great Recession. There is also no consensus on how to measure gentrification, so existing studies may be missing important demographic transitions in U.S. neighborhoods. More research is needed about the extent of urban displacement and the social effects of gentrification in the contemporary United States.
The following is a recommended selection of studies on gentrification and its effects:
________
“Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods”
Freeman, Lance. Urban Affairs Review, 2005. Vol. 40, Issue 4. doi: 10.1177/1078087404273341.
Findings: “Overall, the models suggest at most a modest link between gentrification and displacement. The relationship between mobility and gentrification is not statistically significant. Although displacement was significantly related to gentrification, the substantive size of this relationship is very small, as indicated by the predicted probabilities. Finally, poor renters do not appear to be especially susceptible to displacement or elevated rates of mobility. Taken together, the results would not seem to imply that displacement is the primary mechanism through which gentrifying neighborhoods undergo socioeconomic change. Nevertheless, it is true that gentrification was related to displacement in this analysis, contrary to the findings of Vigdor (2002) and Freeman and Braconi (2004).”
“Divergent Pathways of Gentrification: Racial Inequality and the Social Order of Renewal in Chicago Neighborhoods”
Hwang, Jackelyn; Sampson, Robert. American Sociological Review, 2014. doi: 10.1177/0003122414535774.
Abstract: “Gentrification has inspired considerable debate, but direct examination of its uneven evolution across time and space is rare. We address this gap by developing a conceptual framework on the social pathways of gentrification and introducing a method of systematic social observation using Google Street View to detect visible cues of neighborhood change. We argue that a durable racial hierarchy governs residential selection and, in turn, gentrifying neighborhoods. Integrating census data, police records, prior street-level observations, community surveys, proximity to amenities, and city budget data on capital investments, we find that the pace of gentrification in Chicago from 2007 to 2009 was negatively associated with the concentration of blacks and Latinos in neighborhoods that either showed signs of gentrification or were adjacent and still disinvested in 1995. Racial composition has a threshold effect, however, attenuating gentrification when the share of blacks in a neighborhood is greater than 40 percent. Consistent with theories of neighborhood stigma, we also find that collective perceptions of disorder, which are higher in poor minority neighborhoods, deter gentrification, while observed disorder does not. These results help explain the reproduction of neighborhood racial inequality amid urban transformation.”
“How Low-income Neighborhoods Change: Entry, Exit and Enhancement”
Gould Ellen, Ingrid; O’Regan, Katherine M. Regional Science and Urban Economics, March 2011, Vol. 41 Issue 2. doi: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.12.005.
Findings: “The picture our analyses paint of neighborhood change is one in which original residents are much less harmed than is typically assumed. They do not appear to be displaced in the course of change, they experience modest gains in income during the process, and they are more satisfied with their neighborhoods in the wake of the change. To be sure, some individual residents are undoubtedly hurt by neighborhood change; but in aggregate, the consequences of neighborhood change — at least as it occurred in the 1990s — do not appear to be as dire as many assume.”
“The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City”
Newman, Kathe; Wyly, Elvin K. Urban Studies, January 2006. Vol. 43, Issue 1. doi: 10.1080/00420980500388710.
Findings: “We found that between 8,300 and 11,600 households per year were displaced in New York City between 1989 and 2002, slightly lower than the total number identified in earlier estimates. However, our displacement rates are slightly higher, reaching between 6.6% and 9.9% of all local moves among renter households. We expect that both figures underestimate actual displacement, perhaps substantially, because the [New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey] does not include displaced households that left New York City, doubled up with other households, became homeless, or entered the shelter system—all of which were identified as widespread practices in the field interviews. The dataset also misses households displaced by earlier rounds of gentrification and those that will not gain access to the now-gentrified neighbourhoods in the future.”
“Who Gentrifies Low-Income Neighborhoods?”
McKinnish, Terra; Walsh, Randall; White, Kirk T. Journal of Urban Economics, 2010. Vol. 27, Issue 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2009.08.003.
Findings: “[R]ather than dislocating non-white households, gentrification of predominantly black neighborhoods creates neighborhoods that are attractive to middle-class black households, particularly those with children or with elderly householders. One reasonable interpretation […] is that because these neighborhoods are experiencing income gains, but also more racially diverse than established middle-class neighborhoods, they are desirable locations for black middle-class households. In contrast, for the gentrifying tracts with low black populations, we find evidence of disproportionate exit of black high school graduates. It is possible that in these neighborhoods, for black high school graduates, the rising housing costs are not offset by the same benefits of gentrification as in the predominantly black neighborhoods. Despite the exit of black high school graduates, in-migration of this group is sufficient to increase its proportion of the population slightly in these tracts, suggesting some sorting among households in this group with different neighborhood preferences. Perhaps even in the predominantly black neighborhoods, displacement has not occurred yet, but will in the future. It is of course, impossible for us to address this empirically. However, we point out that the neighborhoods we define as gentrified have already experienced massive income growth (in absolute and percentage terms), yet still have very sizeable fractions of non-white and non-college educated households, and sizeable in-migration of these same demographic groups. These facts alone suggest that the stark gentrification-displacement story was not the norm during the 1990’s.”
“Moving in/out of Brussels’ Historical Core in the Early 2000s: Migration and the Effects of Gentrification”
Van Criekingen, Mathieu. Urban Studies, 2009, Vol. 46, Issue 4. doi: 10.1177/0042098009102131.
Abstract: “Exploring migration dynamics associated with gentrification is particularly important in order to shed light on the nature and contested effects of such processes. Quite paradoxically, however, this aspect remains under-investigated in the gentrification literature. This paper explores the migratory dimensions of gentrification in Brussels’ historical core, hence offering a view from a city wherein current rounds of middle-class reinvestment of inner urban space operate under circumstances that partially contrast with those reported from more prominent global cities. Findings stress that educated young adults living alone and renting from private landlords are predominant among both in- and out-movers to or from Brussels’ historical core, suggesting in turn that renting in a gentrifying area is for most of them associated with a transitional step in their housing career. In addition, findings indicate that displacement of vulnerable residents is a limited but actual constituent of the migration dynamics in Brussels’ historical core and point to other harmful consequences of gentrification in the area. In Brussels, gentrification and its effects operate under circumstances associated with the preponderance of a poorly regulated private rental housing market in the city’s inner neighbourhoods.”
“More Coffee, Less Crime? The Relationship between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005”
Papachristos, Andrew; Smith, Chris M.; Scherer, Mary L.; Fugiero, Melissa A. City & Community, September 2011. Vol. 10, Issue 3. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6040.2011.01371.x.
Abstract: “This study examines the relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates by measuring the growth and geographic spread of one of gentrification’s most prominent symbols: coffee shops. The annual counts of neighborhood coffee shops provide an on-the-ground measure of a particular form of economic development and changing consumption patterns that tap into central theoretical frames within the gentrification literature. Our analysis augments commonly used Census variables with the annual number of coffee shops in a neighborhood to assess the influence of gentrification on three-year homicide and street robbery counts in Chicago. Longitudinal Poisson regression models with neighborhood fixed effects reveal that gentrification is a racialized process, in which the effect of gentrification on crime is different for White gentrifying neighborhoods than for Black gentrifying neighborhoods. An increasing number of coffee shops in a neighborhood is associated with declining homicide rates for White, Hispanic, and Black neighborhoods; however, an increasing number of coffee shops is associated with increasing street robberies in Black gentrifying neighborhoods.”
“Endogenous Gentrification and Housing Price Dynamics”
Guerreri, Veronica; Hartley, Daniel; Hurst, Erik. NBER Working Paper No. 16237, July 2010. doi: 10.3386/w16237.
Abstract: “In this paper, we begin by documenting substantial variation in house price growth across neighborhoods within a city during city wide housing price booms. We then present a model which links house price movements across neighborhoods within a city and the gentrification of those neighborhoods in response to a city wide housing demand shock. A key ingredient in our model is a positive neighborhood externality: individuals like to live next to richer neighbors. This generates an equilibrium where households segregate based upon their income. In response to a city wide demand shock, higher income residents will choose to expand their housing by migrating into the poorer neighborhoods that directly abut the initial richer neighborhoods. The in-migration of the richer residents into these border neighborhoods will bid up prices in those neighborhoods causing the original poorer residents to migrate out. We refer to this process as “endogenous gentrification.” Using a variety of data sets and using Bartik variation across cities to identify city level housing demand shocks, we find strong empirical support for the model’s predictions.”
Keywords: gentrification, urbanism, inequality, poverty, research roundup
Writer: Justin Feldman | August 15, 2014
On this day in 1703 Daniel Defoe was placed in a pillory for the crime of seditious libel after publishing a politically satirical pamphlet, but was pelted with flowers.
Daniel Defoe; c. 1660 – 24 April 1731), was an English trader, writer, journalist, pamphleteer, and spy, most famous for his novel Robinson Crusoe. Defoe is noted for being one of the earliest proponents of the novel, as he helped to popularise the form in Britain with others such as Samuel Richardson, and is among the founders of the English novel. He was a prolific and versatile writer, producing more than five hundred books, pamphlets, and journals on various topics, including politics, crime, religion, marriage, psychology, and the supernatural. He was also a pioneer of economic journalism.
Defoe's first notable publication was An Essay upon Projects, a series of proposals for social and economic improvement, published in 1697. From 1697 to 1698, he defended the right of King William III to a standing army during disarmament, after the Treaty of Ryswick (1697) had ended the Nine Years' War (1688–97). His most successful poem, The True-Born Englishman (1701), defended the king against the perceived xenophobia of his enemies, satirising the English claim to racial purity. In 1701, Defoe presented the Legion's Memorial to the Speaker of the House of Commons, later his employer Robert Harley, flanked by a guard of sixteen gentlemen of quality. It demanded the release of the Kentish petitioners, who had asked Parliament to support the king in an imminent war against France.
The death of William III in 1702 once again created a political upheaval, as the king was replaced by Queen Anne who immediately began her offensive against Nonconformists. Defoe was a natural target, and his pamphleteering and political activities resulted in his arrest and placement in a pillory on 31 July 1703, principally on account of his December 1702 pamphlet entitled The Shortest-Way with the Dissenters; Or, Proposals for the Establishment of the Church, purporting to argue for their extermination. In it, he ruthlessly satirised both the High church Tories and those Dissenters who hypocritically practised so-called "occasional conformity", such as his Stoke Newington neighbour Sir Thomas Abney. It was published anonymously, but the true authorship was quickly discovered and Defoe was arrested. He was charged with seditious libel. Defoe was found guilty after a trial at the Old Bailey in front of the notoriously sadistic judge Salathiel Lovell. Lovell sentenced him to a punitive fine, to public humiliation in a pillory, and to an indeterminate length of imprisonment which would only end upon the discharge of the punitive fine. According to legend, the publication of his poem Hymn to the Pillory caused his audience at the pillory to throw flowers instead of the customary harmful and noxious objects and to drink to his health. The truth of this story is questioned by most scholars, although John Robert Moore later said that "no man in England but Defoe ever stood in the pillory and later rose to eminence among his fellow men".
"Wherever God erects a house of prayer
the Devil always builds a chapel there;
And 't will be found, upon examination,
the latter has the largest congregation."
— Defoe's The True-Born Englishman, 1701
After his three days in the pillory, Defoe went into Newgate Prison. Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, brokered his release in exchange for Defoe's co-operation as an intelligence agent for the Tories. In exchange for such co-operation with the rival political side, Harley paid some of Defoe's outstanding debts, improving his financial situation considerably. Within a week of his release from prison, Defoe witnessed the Great Storm of 1703, which raged through the night of 26/27 November. It caused severe damage to London and Bristol, uprooted millions of trees, and killed more than 8,000 people, mostly at sea. The event became the subject of Defoe's The Storm (1704), which includes a collection of witness accounts of the tempest. Many regard it as one of the world's first examples of modern journalism. In the same year, he set up his periodical A Review of the Affairs of France which supported the Harley Ministry, chronicling the events of the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–1714). The Review ran three times a week without interruption until 1713. Defoe was amazed that a man as gifted as Harley left vital state papers lying in the open, and warned that he was almost inviting an unscrupulous clerk to commit treason; his warnings were fully justified by the William Gregg affair. When Harley was ousted from the ministry in 1708, Defoe continued writing the Review to support Godolphin, then again to support Harley and the Tories in the Tory ministry of 1710–1714. The Tories fell from power with the death of Queen Anne, but Defoe continued doing intelligence work for the Whig government, writing "Tory" pamphlets that undermined the Tory point of view.
Flower Power is an historic photograph taken by American photographer Bernie Boston for the now-defunct Washington Star newspaper. It was nominated for the 1967 Pulitzer Prize. Taken on October 21, 1967, during the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam's march to the Pentagon, the iconic photo shows a young, long-haired Vietnam protestor in a turtleneck sweater, placing carnations into the barrel of a rifle of a National Guardsman.
No comments:
Post a Comment