How a meeting in Philadelphia changed American religion forever.

By Matthew Avery Sutton, professor of history

For many Americans, it was thrilling to be alive in 1919. The end of World War I had brought hundreds of thousands of soldiers home. Cars were rolling off the assembly lines. New forms of music, like jazz, were driving people to dance. And science was in the ascendant, after helping the war effort. Women, having done so much on the home front, were ready to claim the vote, and African-Americans were eager to enjoy full citizenship, at long last. In a word, life was dazzlingly modern.

But for many other Americans, modernity was exactly the problem. As many parts of the country were experimenting with new ideas and beliefs, a powerful counterrevolution was forming in some of the nation’s largest churches and Bible institutes. A group of Christian leaders, anxious about the chaos that seemed to be enveloping the globe, recalibrated the faith and gave it a new urgency. They knew that the time was right for a revolution in American Christianity. In its own way, this new movement — fundamentalism — was every bit as important as the modernity it seemingly resisted, with remarkable determination.

Unlike more mainstream Protestants, fundamentalists did not expect to see a righteous and holy kingdom of God established on earth. Instead, they taught that the Holy Spirit would soon turn this world over to the Antichrist, a diabolical world leader who would preside over an awful holocaust in which those true believers who had not already been raptured to heaven would suffer interminable tribulations.

Find out more

New York Times

Author: Noriko Kawamura, Washington State University

When Japan’s Emperor Akihito abdicates on Tuesday 30 April 2019 the gengo — or era name — of Heisei (‘achieving peace’) under his 1989–2019 reign will come to an end. A new era will begin when his son, Crown Prince Naruhito, ascends the throne on 1 May. The new era will be known as Reiwa (‘beautiful harmony’) as revealed by the Abe Cabinet to an eagerly awaiting Japanese public on 1 April.

The Japanese media has recognised the widening gap between Emperor Akihito, who embraces the pacifist course, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is implementing a more assertive foreign policy — including establishing Japan’s first-ever National Security Council and National Security Strategy. The Abe government also reinterpreted the Article 9 ‘peace clause’ of the Constitution to permit Japan’s Self-Defense Forces (SDF) the right to engage in limited forms of collective self-defence.

When Crown Prince Naruhito ascends the throne, many expect him to follow his father as a champion of pacifism, civil liberties and the welfare of the people. But as the Abe government continues to pursue constitutional revision to recognise the SDF, the new Emperor may be standing at a crossroads. Given the constitutional limitations on Japanese Emperors it is hard to tell what Naruhito can or will do, but compared with his father’s mild manner and humility, the Oxford-educated Naruhito is known to be more individualistic, independent and outspoken.

Besides the issue of abdication, the Imperial Household Law may be long overdue for amendment on the question of succession. The law stipulates that the Chrysanthemum Throne must be succeeded by a male, but Crown Prince Naruhito only has a daughter, Princess Aiko. In the age of increasing gender equality the law seems anachronistic to most liberals, but the conservative Abe Cabinet does not seem interested in amending it. Will the new Emperor and his Western-educated wife, Masako, be content with accepting the old tradition?

In contrast to its moniker of ‘beautiful harmony’, the Reiwa era may begin with some less than harmonious dialogue between the Imperial House and the Abe cabinet.

Find out more

East Asia Forum
The Morning Call – click to view
Hartford Courant – click to view
Walla Walla Union Bulletin – click to view
The Daily Herald – click to view
Asian Correspondent – click to view

A WSU documentary, filmed over the course of eight years, showed research on an unratified treaty between the U.S. and the mixed-band of Shoshone, Bannock, and Sheep-Eater people.

Alicia Woodard, a part-time history graduate student, said the documentary brings to light how the federal government treated the unratified treaty and the 32,000 square mile land cession by Chief Tendoy of the mixed band as law.

The Indian Claims Commission consulted with the Shoshone Bannock tribe in 1970 to find what territories were taken.

Orlan Svingen, WSU history professor, said the commission failed to uncover the cession document in 1970, and so the mixed-band tribe was not compensated for all their land.

“It’s my hope and theirs that the federal government will provide a remedy that is fair to history, and fair to the mixed band,” he said.

Find out more

Daily Evergreen

A documentary featuring Washington State University history professor Orlan Svingen’s research on the unratified treaty of the Mixed‑Band of Shoshone, Bannock, and Sheep Eater people will air on two PBS stations this week.

“In Good Faith” shares the story of the Virginia City Treaty of 1868. Signed by Chief Tendoy, the leader of the Mixed‑Band people in southwestern Montana Territory, the treaty was negotiated with U.S. government officials in good faith. Tendoy then ceded 32,000 square miles of aboriginal territory in 1870 for a permanent treaty reservation in central Idaho. However, the United States Senate failed to ratify the treaty.

“The facts surrounding the unratified treaty for the Mixed‑Band is a little‑known historical narrative of a tribe that has been mistreated, removed multiple times, and has lost millions of its acres without compensation. This is an important story to share,” said Svingen.

Find out more

WSU Insider