I don’t get the title though, it’s talking about a “uniquely American racist act” but doesn’t actually outright say what that uniquely racist act is except it mentions the Virginia Governor having a black face photo of himself in a yearbook. But how is blackface a uniquely racist American act? Blackface predates the invention of America and even the Canadian Prime Minister got in trouble for his own old brown face photos in a similar setting.
My WAG is the “uniquely American racist act” is the statute that made a white man’s child with a Black slave that white man’s slave also.
But the title is " A photo of a uniquely American racist act" and the only other photo mentioned besides the two Jefferson descendants is the blackface governor picture.
The headline is inaccurate. Lucian K. Truscott IV or possibly the salon desk have perpetrated the uniquely American act of national myopia. 
The why didn’t it work? Why didn’t the side that mobilized first win the war?
“No plan survives contact with the enemy.” – Von Moltke the Elder.
“Every staff officer knew” is an example of group think at work. Maybe that’s what they expected, and planned for, but mobilization was only the beginning.
France and Britain managed to defeat the Germans in the Battle of the Marne. Then the race to the sea, then the trenches…
What Northern Piper said and also many General Staffs underestimated how quickly the enemy could mobilise. The speed of the Russian mobilisation especially surprised everyone. This led to the Germans diverting 3 Corps pf troops pencilled in for France to the East. Politics also played a role, with the decision to cancel the invasion of the Netherlands’s forcing the Germans into a narrow space in Belgium, further slowing them down.
But that contradicts the statement that once they started mobilizing, they had to attack. Once the Germans, Russians and French realized that they were all mobilizing at the same speed, they could have reassessed the situation, halted and dug in. In other words, once the troops were in place, they could have decided not to pull the trigger. Their decision to attack was just that - a decision, one that could have been changed
I don’t think so. At one point, after mobilization had started, Wilhelm apparently asked if it could be slowed down, and the answer was that it couldn’t be. The troop train schedules were set, including the disembarkation rates and locations. If the disembarked troops at a station didn’t start moving towards the frontier, there would have been no way for the next trainload to unload and the train to move on, the train that was next following would have had to stop, and so on.
So they all reach the border, stop, and start digging in. Have the massive opposing armies face off for a few weeks while the politicians find a solution.
Not shooting was still an option.
This goes back to the old “minstrel shows”. (AFAIK mostly relevant in America with its significant racial divide) There were shows where (white) performers in the USA back before WWI would paint their faces black and sing assorted folk songs, do comedy routines emphasizing the racist image of blacks, etc. Obviously, actual black performers were most often not allowed to actually appear on the stage to make actual money. In the last decade or two this has become a much-criticized aspect of racist American culture. What was simply funny or not hurtful intent and not even reflecting minstrel blackface has become heavily criticized - such as Justin Trudeau dressing himself up and making up as Aladdin (middle eastern) or some instance of someone who had made himself up as Michael Jackson, complete with makeup. Still, this is something best not done nowadays.
(Something similar is occurring in Canada - while wearing a feathered headdress was part of a costume dress up since I was a kid, nowadays most native groups are speaking out against any unsanctioned instance of that as a sacrilegious use of a culturally special item and cultural appropriation - including anything resembling wearing native feathers.)
Context.
The brouhaha when that photo surfaced prompted Truscott to write an OP-ED about his own experiences and those of his relatives. The headline is inaccurate, but the text is surely worth reading.
Not just a blackface governor:
The Klan has spread out of the US on occasion (including to my own province a century ago), but the Klan is, if not unique to the US, a clearly American organization. A guy dressed up as a Klansman, standing next to a white guy wearing blackface, has particular resonance in the US, I would suggest.
I wonder whether it was serious, or just people with really really really bad taste in humor?
Recall (ex)Prince Harry dressed up as a Nazi for a Halloween costume party many years ago.
We get that. But it isn’t “uniquely American” though. Minstrel shows were popular in England, too. A show called The Black And White Minstrel Show was one of the highest rated shows on British TV from the fifties to the seventies. (see clips on youtube, but probably NSFW)
And it has been criticized for a lot longer than “the last decade or two”. TBAWMS faced growing criticism until it was cancelled in 1978.
Even back in the Victorian era Gilbert and Sullivan included “the nigger serenader” (i.e. black face performer) on their ‘little list’. Possibly one reason why modern productions keep changing the lyrics.
I understand the whole history of ministrel shows but calling it uniquely American is the exact same bad history you see as when people call chattel slavery as “uniquely American” despite the fact it happened elsewhere too. It’s some weird thing where people like to imagine racism and slavery originated in the US so Canadians can sleep at night going “Well at least WE didn’t have slaves”.
It’s just another form of American exceptionalism.
There’s an entire wikipedia aricle on the issue; the Canadian Museum of Human Rights covers the issue; and one of our most significant historians, Marcel Trudel, wrote extensively on the issue, starting with a major text back in 1960.
There are… sort of. Well, not really, but yeti remains preserved by Himalayans have been DNA tested and the tests show that yetis are bears
I’ve seen a map that Bigfoot type animal sitings correspond very closely to bear ranges.
(did you know that there were bigfoot sitings in one of the GTA games?)
Not so much. The delegates from the Old South seemed to think it would go away on it’s own. That is, until King Cotton made them all rich. Remember, slaves were a major asset, if you just freed them, that often caused you to be bankrupt.
Sean McMeehan is by no means a “single outlier historian”, He had access to hither fore unseen diaries and such, which Tuchman did not. And Tuchman blames everyone.
As in his earlier book, McMeekin sees Russia as one of the states carrying a high level of responsibility due to its early and (initially) secret mobilization on July 24. This secret (partial) mobilization had been ordered even before formal receipt of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, and was only to be announced in case of an Austrian declaration of war or the outbreak of military operations. This order for partial mobilization was confirmed by the Russian council of ministers on July 25, where also (and more important) the “Period Preparatory to War” was (again secretly) announced in all of European Russia. It is only during the “Willy-Nicky” correspondence on July 30 that Czar Nicholas inadvertently admitted that “the military measures which have now come into force were decided five days ago” (p. 283). This admission makes Kaiser Wilhelm’s reaction that “the Czar has secretly mobilized behind my back” and his support for German mobilization definitely understandable. Still, only when this information was confirmed by the actual Russian mobilization placards was the German chancellor Bethmann Hollweg convinced. Mobilization was initiated with the proclamation of the “Kriegsgefahrzustand” on July 31 followed by the German mobilization on August 1.
Both authors put a stake through the heart of a common narrative that has Germany mobilizing first so as to spring the preventive war its generals had long advocated. It didn’t. Clark documents how Berlin’s political and military leaders stuck to their blithe belief that any conflict could be localized. Russia’s mobilization, he says, was “one of the most momentous decisions of the July crisis. This was the first of the general mobilizations.” McMeekin says that Russia’s crime was first in escalating a local quarrel by encouraging Serbia to stand up to Austria-Hungary and then accelerating the rush to war. He faults Barbara Tuchman in her classic “Guns of August” for misdating Russia’s mobilization two days later than it was ordered. He is no apologist for Germany.
Clark lends authority by citing Russian-French falsifications of documents. The Russians backdated and reworded papers in the records. The French were even more inventive, fabricating a telegram reporting six days of war preparations by Germany that weren’t happening. In Clark’s phrase, both Russia and France were at pains, then and later, to make Berlin appear “the moral fulcrum of the crisis.”
So, the two most respected modern authors agree. Mind you-they both agree that Germany (and everyone else) carries blame also.
One of the most widely read military historians of the 20th century, S.L.A. Marshall was also a liar and a shameless self-promoter. …It has been known for more than a decade now that Marshall made up “facts” to support his personal theories and pet ideas.
Not to mention, he died in 1977, thus outdated.
According to reviews, Max Hastings concentrates on the military, not political aspects of the war. But of course he blames the Germans.
Not suggested- proven by Russian documents.The “Period preparatory to War”.
Incidentally, Both the French (Gen. de Boisdeffre) and Russian- (Dobrorolskii) are quoted as saying mobilization means war. The French thought so in 1914, The Russians thought so in 1914- what an American in 2022 thinks is beside the point.
They did. Well, in the case of Russia, sorta. But the French won.
" Both authors put a stake through the heart of a common narrative that has Germany mobilizing first so as to spring the preventive war its generals had long advocated. It didn’t.
Yes, and thought to be a previously “unknown to science” sub-species.