̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - American History

USA sexually ‘teased’ its troops in WWI to make them fight harder

ta385 — Mon, 07 Nov 2022 09:00:00 +0000

̽��ֱ��United States Government sought to sexually stimulate then frustrate its soldiers to prepare them for an unpopular conflict in Europe, a Cambridge historian argues.

Map discovery: American ‘hero’ plotted massive land grab and broke peace treaty

ta385 — Mon, 07 Feb 2022 08:00:00 +0000

A newly decoded map shows that the famous explorer William Clark planned the theft of 10.5 million acres of Indigenous land in Missouri, USA in the early 19th century

Historian wins major journalism award for Indigenous land project

ta385 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:30:00 +0000

Last year, Dr Lee and co-winner Tristan Ahtone – then Indigenous Affairs editor for High Country News, now editor-in-chief of the Texas Observer – published a hard-hitting report revealing how 52 American universities built their fortunes using 11 million acres of Native American land, signed over amid violence, corruption and coercion.

Through exhaustive research over several years, the Land-Grab Universities project located 80,000 parcels of land scattered across 24 states, identified their Indigenous owners, and traced every dollar endowed with profits from dispossession in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

̽��ֱ��investigation reconstructed a land area about the size of Denmark that was taken through over 160 land cessions. ̽��ֱ��dispossessed included the Dakota, Navajo, Apache, Cheyenne, Arapaho and Ojibwe among nearly 250 other tribes, bands and communities. Read more about Dr Lee’s research here.

On 6 April 2020, High Country News launched an interactive website enabling the public to explore the fully mapped data for themselves and published an open-source data set Lee assembled for future researchers and journalists to build upon.

Since then, a number of the universities at the heart of the story have responded by launching initiatives, changing their land acknowledgment practices and using the report, website, and data set in their teaching.

Cornell’s American Indian and Indigenous Studies Program (AIISP) has formed a committee to “present information and opinion about the implications of Indigenous dispossession for the university and its responsibility to address that history”. ̽��ֱ��committee aims to “determine the Indigenous communities affected by Cornell’s land-grab and consult with them about possible remedies.”

A team at Ohio State ̽��ֱ��, in partnership with the First Nations Development Institute, has announced that it is working to “open a path toward both a reckoning of this inglorious history within our university community, as well as the conversations necessary with the affected tribes to determine an appropriate path forward." In doing so, they intend to “develop an initial understanding of what specific reparative actions would most benefit the Native American communities impacted by this land dispossession, particularly with respect to food security and sovereignty, and the process by which it could be jointly designed.”

Washington State ̽��ֱ�� has changed its land acknowledgment to incorporate the data.

Dr Lee hopes that land-grant universities will start redirecting income still being derived from the sale of Indigenous land to support Native American students, and that unsold land will eventually be returned.

Dr Lee said: "I was grateful to hear we had received the Polk Award. Since its publication, ‘Land-Grab Universities’ has sparked public conversations about the debts universities owe to Indigenous nations. This recognition will extend its reach.

“ ̽��ֱ��Polk also has a track record of amplifying innovative forms of journalism. In this case, we combined historical research and investigative reporting in a way one rarely sees practiced. ̽��ֱ��project was risky in that regard. Hopefully, this award will encourage more collaborations between historians and journalists."

Tristan Ahtone said: "I'm absolutely delighted that 'Land-Grab Universities' has been honored with this award, and hopefully will inspire even more reporters and researchers to dig into the data. It's absolutely critical that more newsrooms dedicate resources to investigative reporting in Indigenous communities, and I hope this project helps to reveal the breadth, and impact, possible when supporting teams focused on Indigenous affairs reporting."

̽��ֱ��George Polk awards are conferred annually to honour special achievement in journalism. Winners are chosen from newspapers, magazines, television, radio and online news organizations. Judges place a premium on investigative work that is original, requires digging and resourcefulness, and brings results.

̽��ֱ��awards were established in 1949 in memory of CBS correspondent George Polk, who was killed while covering the Greek Civil War. They are conferred annually by New York's Long Island ̽��ֱ��. Dr Lee and his colleagues at High Country News won the award for Education Reporting.

Dr Robert Lee, ̽��ֱ�� lecturer in American History, has been awarded a George Polk Award, one of the most prestigious in journalism, for his investigation into how the United States funded land-grant universities with expropriated Indigenous land.

We combined historical research and investigative reporting in a way one rarely sees

Robert Lee

Dr Robert Lee

Funding

This project was supported by the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting and the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

‘Wild West’ mentality lingers in US mountain regions

fpjl2 — Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:01:29 +0000

When historian Frederick Jackson Turner presented his famous thesis on the US frontier in 1893, he described the “coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and acquisitiveness” it had forged in the American character.

Now, well into the 21st century, and researchers led by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge have detected remnants of the pioneer personality in US populations of once inhospitable mountainous territory, particularly in the West.

A team of scientists algorithmically investigated how landscape shapes psychology. They analysed links between the anonymised results of an online personality test completed by over 3.3 million Americans, and the “topography” of 37,227 US postal – or ZIP – codes.

̽��ֱ��researchers found that living at both a higher altitude and an elevation relative to the surrounding region – indicating “hilliness” – is associated with a distinct blend of personality traits that fits with “frontier settlement theory”.

“ ̽��ֱ��harsh and remote environment of mountainous frontier regions historically attracted nonconformist settlers strongly motivated by a sense of freedom,” said researcher Friedrich Götz, from Cambridge’s Department of Psychology.

“Such rugged terrain likely favoured those who closely guarded their resources and distrusted strangers, as well as those who engaged in risky explorations to secure food and territory.”

“These traits may have distilled over time into an individualism characterised by toughness and self-reliance that lies at the heart of the American frontier ethos” said Götz, lead author of the study.

“When we look at personality across the whole United States, we find that mountainous residents are more likely to have psychological characteristics indicative of this frontier mentality.”

Götz worked with colleagues from the Karl Landsteiner ̽��ֱ�� of Health Sciences, Austria, the ̽��ֱ�� of Texas, US, the ̽��ֱ�� of Melbourne in Australia, and his Cambridge supervisor Dr Jason Rentfrow. ̽��ֱ��findings are published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

̽��ֱ��research uses the “Big Five” personality model, standard in social psychology, with simple online tests providing high-to-low scores for five fundamental personality traits of millions of Americans.

̽��ֱ��mix of characteristics uncovered by study’s authors consists of low levels of “agreeableness”, suggesting mountainous residents are less trusting and forgiving – traits that benefit “territorial, self-focused survival strategies”.

Low levels of “extraversion” reflect the introverted self-reliance required to thrive in secluded areas, and a low level of “conscientiousness” lends itself to rebelliousness and indifference to rules, say researchers.

“Neuroticism” is also lower, suggesting an emotional stability and assertiveness suited to frontier living. However, “openness to experience” is much higher, and the most pronounced personality trait in mountain dwellers.

“Openness is a strong predictor of residential mobility,” said Götz. “A willingness to move your life in pursuit of goals such as economic affluence and personal freedom drove many original North American frontier settlers.”

“Taken together, this psychological fingerprint for mountainous areas may be an echo of the personality types that sought new lives in unknown territories.”

̽��ֱ��researchers wanted to distinguish between the direct effects of physical environment and the “sociocultural influence” of growing up where frontier values and identities still hold sway.

To do this, they looked at whether mountainous personality patterns applied to people born and raised in these regions that had since moved away.

̽��ֱ��findings suggest some “initial enculturation” say researchers, as those who left their early mountain home are still consistently less agreeable, conscientious and extravert, although no such effects were observed for neuroticism and openness.

̽��ֱ��scientists also divided the country at the edge of St. Louis – “gateway to the West” – to see if there is a personality difference between those in mountains that made up the historic frontier, such as the Rockies, and eastern ranges such as the Appalachians.

While mountains continue to be a “meaningful predictor” of personality type on both sides of this divide, key differences emerged. Those in the east are more agreeable and outgoing, while western ranges are a closer fit for frontier settlement theory.

In fact, the mountainous effect on high levels of “openness to experience” is ten times as strong in residents of the old western frontier as in those of the eastern ranges.

̽��ֱ��findings suggest that, while ecological effects are important, it is the lingering sociocultural effects – the stories, attitudes and education – in the former “Wild West” that are most powerful in shaping mountainous personality, according to scientists.

They describe the effect of mountain areas on personality as “small but robust”, but argue that complex psychological phenomena are influenced by many hundreds of factors, so small effects are to be expected.

“Small effects can make a big difference at scale,” said Götz. “An increase of one standard deviation in mountainousness is associated with a change of around 1% in personality.”

“Over hundreds of thousands of people, such an increase would translate into highly consequential political, economic, social and health outcomes.”

Distinct psychological mix associated with mountain populations is consistent with the theory that harsh frontiers attracted certain personalities.

This psychological fingerprint for mountainous areas may be an echo of the personality types that sought new lives in unknown territories

Friedrich Götz

Todd Diemer

Man in a cowboy hat atop Humphreys Peak in Arizona, US

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

First Peoples: two ancient ancestries ‘reconverged’ with settling of South America

fpjl2 — Thu, 31 May 2018 18:01:52 +0000

Recent research has suggested that the first people to enter the Americas split into two ancestral branches, the northern and southern, and that the “southern branch” gave rise to all populations in Central and South America.

Now, a study shows for the first time that, deep in their genetic history, the majority – if not all – of the Indigenous peoples of the southern continent retain at least some DNA from the “northern branch”: the direct ancestors of many Native communities living today in the Canadian east.

̽��ֱ��latest findings, published today in the journal Science, reveal that, while these two populations may have remained separate for millennia – long enough for distinct genetic ancestries to emerge – they came back together before or during the expansion of people into South America.

̽��ֱ��new analyses of 91 ancient genomes from sites in California and Canada also provide further evidence that the first peoples separated into two populations between 18,000 and 15,000 years ago. This would have been during or after migrating across the now-submerged land bridge from Siberia along the coast.

Ancient genomes from sites in Southwest Ontario show that, after the split, Indigenous ancestors representing the northern branch migrated eastwards to the great lakes region. This population may have followed the retreating glacial edges as the Ice Age began to thaw, say researchers.

̽��ֱ��study also adds to evidence that the prehistoric people associated with Clovis culture – named for 13,000-year-old stone tools found near Clovis, New Mexico, and once believed to be ancestral to all Native Americans – originated from ancient peoples representing the southern branch.

This southern population likely continued down the Pacific coast, inhabiting islands along the way. Ancient DNA from the Californian Channel Islands shows that initial populations were closely related to the Clovis people.

Yet contemporary Central and South American genomes reveal a “reconvergence” of these two branches deep in time. ̽��ֱ��scientific team, led by the universities of Cambridge, UK, and Illinois Urbana-Champaign, US, say there must have been one or a number of “admixture” events between the two populations around 13,000 years ago.

They say that the blending of lineages occurred either in North America prior to expansion south, or as people migrated ever deeper into the southern continent, most likely following the western coast down.

“It was previously thought that South Americans, and indeed most Native Americans, derived from one ancestry related to the Clovis people,” said Dr Toomas Kivisild, co-senior author of the study from Cambridge’s Department of Archaeology.

“We now find that all native populations in North, Central and South America also draw genetic ancestry from a northern branch most closely related to Indigenous peoples of eastern Canada. This cannot be explained by activity in the last few thousand years. It is something altogether more ancient,” he said.

Dr Ripan S. Malhi, co-senior author from Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said: “Working in partnership with Indigenous communities, we can now learn more about the intricacies of ancestral histories in the Americas through advances in paleogenomic technologies. We are starting to see that previous models of ancient populations were unrealistically simple.”

Present day Central and South American populations analysed in the study were found to have a genetic contribution from the northern branch ranging between 42% to as high as 71% of the genome.

Surprisingly, the highest proportion of northern branch genetics in South America was found way down in southern Chile, in the same area as the Monte Verde archeological site – one of the oldest known human settlements in the Americas (over 14,500 years old).

“It’s certainly an intriguing finding, although currently circumstantial – we don’t have ancient DNA to corroborate how early this northern ancestral branch arrived,” said Dr Christiana Scheib, first author of the study, who conducted the work while at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

“It could be evidence for a vanguard population from the northern branch deep in the southern continent that became isolated for a long time – preserving a genetic continuity.

“Prior to 13,000 years ago, expansion into the tip of South America would have been difficult due to massive ice sheets blocking the way. However, the area in Chile where the Monte Verde site is located was not covered in ice at this time,” she said.

“In populations living today across both continents we see much higher genetic proportions of the southern, Clovis-related branch. Perhaps they had some technology or cultural practice that allowed for faster expansion. This may have pushed the northern branch to the edges of the landmass, as well as leading to admixture encounters.”

While consultation efforts varied in this study from community-based partnerships to more limited engagement, the researchers argue that more must be done to include Indigenous communities in ancient DNA studies in the Americas.

̽��ֱ��researchers say that genomic analysis of ancient people can have adverse consequences for linked Indigenous communities. Engagement work can help avoid unintended harm to the community and ensure that Indigenous peoples have a voice in research.

“ ̽��ֱ��lab-based science should only be a part of the research. We need to work with Indigenous communities in a more holistic way,” added Schieb, who has recently joined the ̽��ֱ�� of Tartu’s Institute of Genomics, where Kivisild also holds an affiliation.

“From the analysis of a single tooth, paleogenomics research can now offer information on ancient diet and disease as well as migration. By developing partnerships that incorporate ideas from Native communities, we can potentially generate results that are of direct interest and use to the Indigenous peoples involved,” she said.

New research using ancient DNA finds that a population split after people first arrived in North America was maintained for millennia before mixing again before or during the expansion of humans into the southern continent.

̽��ֱ��lab-based science should only be a part of the research. We need to work with Indigenous communities in a more holistic way

Dr Christiana Scheib

Scheib/Kivisild/Mahli

Two of the four possible combinations of ancient admixture highlighted by the researchers.

Yes

Ancient genome study identifies traces of indigenous “Taíno” in present-day Caribbean populations

tdk25 — Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:00:58 +0000

Researchers were able to use the tooth of a woman found in a cave on the island of Eleuthera in the Bahamas to sequence the first complete ancient human genome from the Caribbean. ̽��ֱ��woman lived at some point between the 8th and 10th centuries, at least 500 years before Columbus made landfall in the Bahamas.

̽��ֱ��results provide unprecedented insights into the genetic makeup of the Taíno – a label commonly used to describe the indigenous people of that region. This includes the first clear evidence that there has been some degree of continuity between the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean and contemporary communities living in the region today.

Such a link had previously been suggested by other studies based on modern DNA. None of these, however, was able to draw on an ancient genome. ̽��ֱ��new research finally provides concrete proof that indigenous ancestry in the region has survived to the present day.

Comparing the ancient Bahamian genome to those of contemporary Puerto Ricans, the researchers found that they were more closely related to the ancient Taíno than any other indigenous group in the Americas. However, they argue that this characteristic is unlikely to be exclusive to Puerto Ricans alone and are convinced that future studies will reveal similar genetic legacies in other Caribbean communities.

̽��ֱ��findings are likely to be especially significant for people in the Caribbean and elsewhere who have long claimed indigenous Taíno heritage, despite some historical narratives that inaccurately brand them “extinct”. Such misrepresentations have been heavily criticised by historians and archaeologists, as well as by descendant communities themselves, but until now they lacked clear genetic evidence to support their case.

̽��ֱ��study was carried out by an international team of researchers led by Dr Hannes Schroeder and Professor Eske Willerslev of Cambridge's Department of Zoology within the framework of the ERC Synergy project NEXUS1492. ̽��ֱ��findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Schroeder, from the ̽��ֱ�� of Copenhagen who carried out the research as part of the NEXUS1492 project, said: “It’s a fascinating finding. Many history books will tell you that the indigenous population of the Caribbean was all but wiped out, but people who self-identify as Taíno have always argued for continuity. Now we know they were right all along: there has been some form of genetic continuity in the Caribbean.”

Willerslev, who has dual posts at St John’s College, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, and the ̽��ֱ�� of Copenhagen, said: “It has always been clear that people in the Caribbean have Native American ancestry, but because the region has such a complex history of migration, it was difficult to prove whether this was specifically indigenous to the Caribbean, until now.”

̽��ֱ��researchers were also able to trace the genetic origins of the indigenous Caribbean islanders, showing that they were most closely related to Arawakan-speaking groups who live in parts of northern South America today. This suggests that the origins of at least some the people who migrated to the Caribbean can be traced back to the Amazon and Orinoco Basins, where the Arawakan languages developed.

̽��ֱ��Caribbean was one of the last parts of the Americas to be populated by humans starting around 8,000 years ago. By the time of European colonization, the islands were a complex patchwork of different societies and cultures. ̽��ֱ��“Taíno” culture was dominant in the Greater, and parts of the Lesser Antilles, as well as the Bahamas, where the people were known as Lucayans.

To trace the genetic origins of the Lucayans the researchers compared the ancient Bahamian genome with previously published genome-wide datasets for over 40 present-day indigenous groups from the Americas. In addition, they looked for traces of indigenous Caribbean ancestry in present-day populations by comparing the ancient genome with those of 104 contemporary Puerto Ricans included in the 1000 Genomes Project. ̽��ֱ��10-15% of Native American ancestry in this group was shown to be closely related to the ancient Bahamian genome.

Jorge Estevez, a Taíno descendant who works at the National Museum of the American Indian in New York and assisted the project team, said that as a boy growing up in the United States, he was told stories about his Taíno ancestors at home, but at school was taught that the same ancestors had died out. “I wish my grandmother were alive today so that I could confirm to her what she already knew,” he added. “It shows that the true story is one of assimilation, certainly, but not total extinction. I am genuinely grateful to the researchers. Although this may have been a matter of scientific inquiry for them, to us, the descendants, it is truly liberating and uplifting.”

Although indigenous Caribbean communities were island-based, the researchers found very little genomic evidence of isolation or inbreeding in the ancient genome. This reinforces earlier genetic research led by Willerslev, which suggests that early human communities developed surprisingly extensive social networks, long before the term had digital connotations. It also echoes ongoing work by researchers at the Faculty of Archaeology in Leiden and others indicating the connectedness of indigenous Caribbean communities.

Professor Corinne Hofman from Leiden ̽��ֱ�� and PI of the NEXUS1492 project, said: "Archaeological evidence has always suggested that large numbers of people who settled the Caribbean originated in South America, and that they maintained social networks that extended far beyond the local scale. Historically, it has been difficult to back this up with ancient DNA because of poor preservation, but this study demonstrates that it is possible to obtain ancient genomes from the Caribbean and that opens up fascinating new possibilities for research."

A thousand-year-old tooth has provided genetic evidence that the so-called “Taíno”, the first indigenous Americans to feel the full impact of European colonisation after Columbus arrived in the New World, still have living descendants in the Caribbean today.

It has always been clear that people in the Caribbean have Native American ancestry, but it was difficult to prove whether this was specifically indigenous to the Caribbean, until now.

Eske Willerslev

Image courtesy of the Library of Congress

First encounter. Columbus landing in the New World

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

One Hundred Days of Trump

ag236 — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:30:44 +0000

̽��ֱ��concept of the Hundred Days was first used to describe the period between Napoleon’s return from exile and his final defeat at Waterloo, in 1815. As a marker of the president’s first months in office, a “honeymoon” period when conditions for him to enact much of his agenda are supposed to be most advantageous, it has come to take on a rather different meaning in modern American politics.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in the Oval Office from 1933 to 1945, was the first president to have a period known as “ ̽��ֱ��Hundred Days.” He used it to usher in a series of legislative reforms that began the implementation of the New Deal, a domestic reform program which totally refashioned America in FDR’s image and made his party, the Democrats, the dominant political force in the country for decades to follow.

In American politics, the Hundred Days are meant to be a period of Rooseveltian success, not Napoleonic failure. It is supposed to mark a period of dramatic change so that America comes to reflect the values and goals of its new president. It is not supposed to end in the president’s own Waterloo. Every president wants to be a Roosevelt, not a Napoleon.

Roosevelt’s Hundred Days have become the stuff of legend, and books on the period—including a smart, superbly written account by a noted Cambridge expert of American history, Professor Tony Badger—incorporate the phrase in their title. This is because the Hundred Days had more of a Napoleonic spirit than FDR himself would have liked to admit, conveying a gut-level instinct for action, ambition, and above all grandeur. ̽��ֱ��Hundred Days are supposed to be consequential, a period in which people realize they are living through an important part of history. They are supposed to be a reach for glory.

With the advent of the New Deal, FDR made good on this promise of a dynamic Hundred Days. Roosevelt worked with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to pass legislation on a wide number of problems caused by the Great Depression, from the banking crisis to widespread poverty and unemployment to the collapse of agriculture and industry. Within three months, many of the staples of the New Deal were set up. Not all would last, but Roosevelt and congressional Democrats showed that they had a plan and were doing what they could to enact it, quickly.

Few historians accept that the New Deal cured the Depression—the largest government stimulus program in world history, also known as the Second World War, did that instead. Nor did FDR have a coherent ideological vision: he was too experimental and pragmatic for that.

But by showing that he cared, and that he was willing to do whatever it took to help the American people in their time of suffering, he transformed himself into the most popular president in American history. After Roosevelt’s first victory in 1932, Democrats won six of the next eight presidential elections and controlled both houses of Congress for all but four of the next forty-eight years.

̽��ֱ��Hundred Days started something pretty special. It’s no surprise, then, that presidents from both parties who followed in Roosevelt’s wake have sought their own dynamic start. Most haven’t been successful, and many have seen their presidencies nearly ruined from disasters right at the outset.

John F. Kennedy oversaw the humiliating debacle at the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961, his 94th day in office, while Ronald Reagan was shot and nearly killed on March 30, 1981, his 69th day. Neither tragedy did much damage to presidents regarded, at the time and ever since, as popular and successful. On the other hand, the president who self-consciously strived hardest to emulate FDR’s rapid achievements, Lyndon B. Johnson, saw the early hopes of his presidency destroyed by the war in Vietnam and the deterioration of race relations at home.

In other words, the Hundred Days marker is a poor gauge of presidential success. Roosevelt set an example of a quick-start, dynamically successful presidency, yet it remains pretty much the only example. President Donald Trump, who, despite Republican majorities in Congress, has accomplished virtually nothing of his agenda so far, may have had a good point when he recently tweeted to complain about being held to “the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days.”

̽��ֱ��problem is, it was Trump himself who set that standard. All through the presidential campaign last year, and then during the transitional period between the election in November and the inauguration in January, Trump not only promised quick action but quick results. ̽��ֱ��wall along the border with Mexico, supposedly adverse trade deals, ISIS—all were going to be solved “immediately” or “on day one.” At a campaign rally in Florida, in October, he said he would begin to repeal and replace Obamacare on his “first day in office. … It’s going to be so easy.”

It hasn’t been so easy, of course, certainly not for President Trump. Only time will tell whether that means his presidency will ultimately end with him as a Roosevelt or a Napoleon. But he’s not off to a good start.

Andrew Preston, Professor of American History, is the author of Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy (Knopf, 2012)

Professor Andrew Preston examines the origins of the first hundred days as a measure of presidential success in American politics.

In American politics, the Hundred Days are meant to be a period of Rooseveltian success, not Napoleonic failure.

Andrew Preston

Andrew Preston on Trump's 100 days

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

#ICYMI - Trump’s First Hundred Days

ag236 — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:41:16 +0000

“I don't think that there is a presidential period of time in the first 100 days where anyone has done nearly what we've been able to do.” So declared President Donald J. Trump in a recent interview, offering a characteristically bold interpretation of American history.

Since his inauguration on 20 January, Trump has certainly been active. On the international scene, he has played nice with Vladimir Putin, fallen out with Vladimir Putin, bombed Syria, and sent the US Navy to rattle North Korea. He’s wined and dined the Chinese president, overcome his germaphobia long enough to hold hands with British Prime Minister Theresa May (while refusing to shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s), and variously attacked and embraced NATO.

At home, he has struck a defiant tone – against the media, Meryl Streep, assorted nay-sayers, and his own intelligence agencies. He has played musical chairs with his advisors in the West Wing, and accused his predecessor of wiretapping him. Amid the sturm und drang he has managed to get a Supreme Court nominee approved, but his much-vaunted healthcare proposal was dramatically shelved when support failed to materialize, and his travel bans targeting Muslims have been suspended by the courts.

Perhaps his rollback of Obama-era environmental protections amounts to the biggest formal change thus far, but as a new executive order undoing older ones, it required only the stroke of a pen. He signed another order withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but NAFTA still stands. And there are not, as yet, any bricks in the border wall. In sum, in substantive terms, Trump’s administration has not done nearly as much as he claims, or promised.

̽��ֱ��idea of the “First 100 days” as a benchmark of presidential success dates back to the early months of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency in 1933. And Roosevelt, as with much in presidential history, set the bar high. Amid the grave crisis of the Great Depression, and with a landslide electoral victory just behind him, Roosevelt promised “direct, vigorous action” to meet the economic emergency – and delivered.

With a potent combination of charisma aided by circumstance, he persuaded Congress (sitting in a special session lasting 100 days) to pass fifteen major pieces of legislation – restructuring major industries, regulating banking and finance, providing subsidies to farmers, and offering some relief to the unemployed and destitute. He explained these actions in “Fireside Chats” – using the new technology of radio to speak directly to citizens in their own homes, connecting president and populace in a new way. His plain speech and folksy manner served to revolutionise presidential rhetoric, and in the most laudatory accounts, transform the mood of the country too. From despair came determination and a new positive outlook, courtesy of Roosevelt’s winning personality and can-do attitude (never mind that the Depression itself didn’t lift for a decade).

No other president can match Roosevelt’s speedy legislative achievements, or the mythical aura that has grown up around his presidency. Most presidents rack up a success or two: Bill Clinton got his budget through in the first 100 days, Barack Obama signed the $800 billion stimulus into law, and George W. Bush’s tax relief plan was on its way to approval. But their most significant legislative accomplishments came later.

Even for Presidents who have gained their own mythic status, the First 100 Days weren’t always easy. John F. Kennedy’s start was marred by the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. Ronald Reagan faced, and survived, an assassination attempt in March 1981. Reagan’s demeanour in adversity, though (he quipped that he hoped all his doctors were Republicans), sent his approval ratings sky high – helping him pass a major economic recovery programme, and laying the foundation for his later tax and budget cuts.

Trump has presented outlines of his budget and proposed tax reforms, but Congress still needs to take action. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan has twice pulled votes on healthcare reform, and Trump is yet to affix his signature to a major law.

And then there’s that FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, lurking in the background but threatening to upend his administration altogether. With all thatin mind, Trump’s claims of extraordinary action and achievement undoubtedly fall short. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, Trump has responded to a spate of negative “100 days” assessments by turning on a dime, and now pronouncing this benchmark to be “an artificial barrier” that isn’t “very meaningful.”

Of course, all politicians over-promise and under-deliver, but for a president who defined himself in opposition to typical politicians, this is a dangerous game. His job approval rating in the Gallup poll stands at 41% on average for the first quarter of 2017 – the lowest accorded a new President since polling began, and the first below 50%. And yet, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests that Trump voters aren’t displaying any “buyer’s remorse.”

For now, his supporters are still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. In this, the pragmatic side of Trump’s political persona may be working to his advantage – his claims to be a “dealmaker” providing some cover when backing away from his more strident stances. But his deals need to bear fruit, and soon.

In mid-April, the White House Instagram account captioned an image “#ICYMI President Donald J. Trump is continuing to Make America Great Again!” “ICYMI” – text-speak for “In Case You Missed It” – was apt. For all the bombast, any return to “greatness” as Trump sees it, has indeed been easy to miss. ̽��ֱ��mood of the country has not been transformed (Trump’s Twitter musings have not proven to be the new “Fireside Chat”).

̽��ֱ��United States remains a deeply polarized nation, where politics has become an ever-sharper scythe, defining and dividing friendships, families, communities and regions. Yet the sky has not fallen. American political and civic institutions have not collapsed, as some darkly predicted in November. Outrage has fuelled and followed him, the spectre of impeachment hovers over him, but as his first 100 days draws to a close, Trump may yet have a more successful second act. At the very least, it is unlikely to be dull.

Dr. Emily Charnock is a Lecturer in American History and a Fellow of Selwyn College

Dr Emily Charnock, Lecturer in American History, delivers her verdict as the Trump presidency reaches its first major milestone.

̽��ֱ��idea of the 'First 100 days' as a benchmark of presidential success dates back to the early months of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency in 1933. Roosevelt, as with much in presidential history, set the bar high.

Emily Charnock

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes