~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
In any case, we are, or were, at it. I'm reminded of a three-volume history of the Byzantine (East Roman) Empire written some years ago by John Julius Norwich. The middle volume was titled "The Apogee". After that, everything was tragedy.
Will it be so for us? Well, right now things are looking like a tragic farce: Never has a nation been so powerful, and never has a nation so powerful been so apparently impotent. Mostly for reasons of its own creation.
Of course, many people say such - but they usually mean it in the wrong way (in my opinion), and Krauthammer cautions us against the Amerocentric Fallacy (wherein all good, or more commonly all evil, things are ascribed to American causation). But much of what renders us impotent is of our generation, or the consequence of our politics. I mean, overall, an impartial observer with a sense of history would not say that the enemies the West (broadly considered) faces today are all that puissant. Indeed, they are notable for their inherent weakness, individually or collectively - at least if opposed by anyone willing to be stalwart and resolute. Yet they are obviously feeling their oats now, triumphantly murdering people from Beirut to the heart of London and mocking the possibility that anything will be done about it, sounding the victory horns from Pyongyang to Teheran to Caracas, not even daring us to do anything about it but knowing nothing will be done about it, openly and brazenly Sadr opposes us in Baghdad and our own allied government their shields a man wanted by their own law, knowing that when the "satanic, abusive occupier" is told to back off from bringing him to justice, we shall stay our hand and do nothing.
People talk about the West being in decline, but it still has approximately 50% of global GDP. Materially, it is at least as powerful as it has been for a century. What it is lacking in is the fortitude to stand up to the challenges of even minor enemies with resolve. That will make all the difference, in the end. Call it the "broken windows theory of international relations", if you'd like.
I need not even get started about our domestic politics, which, if anything, resemble nothing so much as that of the self-destructive domestic politics of Imperial Byzantium in the middle half (roughly 1025-1081) of the 11th century.
"So in the Libyan fable it is told,
that once an eagle, stricken with a dart,
said when he saw the fashion of the shaft
'with our own feathers, not by others' hands
are we now smitten."
- Aeschylus
Well, anyhow, at least one of the parties is fighting mad, now. It's just that our brave "Fighting Dems" are fighting mad against their domestic political opponents, not our country's enemies.
Does running for President allow a candidate to freelance at a time of war by talking to our enemies and triangulating against the president? Why is Gov. Richardson talking to North Koreans, or Sen. Kerry trying to talk to the Iranians, or Sen. Bayh to the Syrians? Wouldn’t that be like a Tom DeLay talking to Milosevic to undermine Clinton during the Kosovo bombing? Or Trent Lott dealing with the Taliban as Clinton sent cruise missiles against them?
Read the whole thing, as they say, especially the final suggestion, which is close to what I said
While you're at it, check out this piece by James F. Dunnigan. The good news:
Moslems are beginning to change their attitudes towards Islamic terrorism. That’s a major step forward in the war against terror.
Then there's this:
The Islamic conservatives hate what the West stands for. Freedom, especially in thought, is not what conservative Islam is all about. Such worship of “the good old days” is not unique to Islam. Other religions have had similar attitudes.
That last part is worth remembering. It's become fashionable for Leftists to say no, they don't hate freedom, they just hate our policies (and then they list a litany of policies that, not coincidentally, the Western Left dislikes). But it really is Liberty that they fear and hate, as Paul Berman (more here) and others who have researched their statements have found out.
We should remember that it up until fairly recently, historically speaking, that the Catholic Church had its own problems with democracy, liberalism, and the like, condemned by Pope Piux IX's Syllabus of Errors in the 1860s, and then there were Catholics throughout the first half of the 20th century who had serious problems with mass-rule and liberal democracy. This is not to pick on Catholics - they weren't alone, but it's a good example, and they got past it. But it is an illustrative example, showing both that yes, it's not implausible, but also a path through which Islam could follow in moving forward without losing the essence of their faith.
Yesterday I linked to StrategyPage's review of Oliver Stone's Crow T. Robot's Bram Stoker's The Civil War (er, Alexander) and made a typical snide quip about it.
But some serious observations are in order, too. Oliver Stone is a talented director - good, if not great. A master of the art. There's no denying that just because one doesn't like his politics. But it is his politics, or more accurately the fervor with which he inserts them into his films, that is his Achilles Heel as a filmmaker.
The historical Alexander was a fascinating, complex person. As depicted in the film, he had an idealistic side - a dream of uniting all of humanity under one world government (under his rule), to bring about peace and enlightened rule. He was a model of multiculturalism, or multiethnic and cosmopolitan, aspiration – one not uncommon among idealistic imperialists. He was also an unstable tyrant. Yes, there were times when he would listen to the advice of subordinates. Then there were times when he would later fly into a blind, drunken rage, and murder them. A filmmaker less driven to make a political point might have explored that.
Likewise, someone who has been an anti-imperialist throughout his life, as Stone has been, might have explored whether the peoples Alexander conquered wanted to be part of his dream of a world-spanning Empire or not. Stone usually is more questioning of the benevolence of hegemonist ambitions - but I suppose not when it involves one-man, totalitarian rule.
Stone has always been as much of a propagandist as a filmmaker. He rises above the common polemicists, the Michael Moore's of the world, when he puts art ahead of politics. He fails here, and ironically, would have perhaps served his political ideals better by making a film that more fully explored all the facets of its protagonists instead of simply trying to beat home the message he wanted to convey.
An interesting observation and conflict between historical Persia and the Mullahs who hold the Iranian people in thrall today. Guess which side the people of Iran are on?
The Mullahs can't last forever, but people should remember that despotism has often held people in its grip for long periods in spite of their lack of support.
Prof Riley-Smith, who is Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, said the plot was "complete and utter nonsense". He said that it relied on the romanticized view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics.
"It sounds absolute balls. It's rubbish. It's not historically accurate at all. They refer to The Talisman, which depicts the Muslims as sophisticated and civilized, and the Crusaders are all brutes and barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality."
Prof Riley-Smith added: "Guy of Lusignan lost the Battle of Hattin against Saladin, yes, but he wasn't any badder or better than anyone else. There was never a confraternity of Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense."
Dr Jonathan Philips, a lecturer in history at London University and author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, agreed that the film relied on an outdated portrayal of the Crusades and could not be described as "a history lesson".
Well, I would say that by and large this critique sounds right. However, Guy of Lusignan wasn't exactly the most shining example of Western Chivalry, nor did the Templars play a positive role in the Battle of Hattian. Their role was negative not primarily because they were Snidely Whiplash types all around but because they happened to be led at the time by someone who encouraged Guy to do stupid things, and Guy didn't need much encouragement.
On the other hand, Selah ed-Din was one of the best examples of a Moslem ruler - not, however, because he had entirely clean hands. One thing many of these accounts that are aimed at drawing a contrast do is omit some of the devious and bloody things he did in his own account. But overall any appraisal of him is bound to be a positive one.
However, that gets to the real point: omission and emphasis. The period of the Crusades was a two-plus century era, with heroism and villainy (to use "judgmental" words) on both sides. Not every city the Crusaders took had its inhabitants slaughtered, and not every city the Moslems captured or recaptured was treated as generously as Selah ed-Din treated Jerusalem when he entered it.
By picking the periods and characters they do to emphasize, people like Ridley Scott give audiences a skewed view. This is highly common in academe today and general discussions about the legacy of the Crusades. Today it is common to put the "white hat" on the Moslem side of things as if they were the victims of unprovoked Western Aggression, and portray the Crusades as a precursor of European/White Male/Western Imperialism against a noble, advanced, culturally sophisticated people that only wanted to live in harmony with others.
This is done by selecting choice bits of history, accurate in and of themselves, but leaving out other bits that would give a fuller picture. It is history-as-propaganda, in this case Multicultural, Transnationalist, Progressive propaganda.
I'm writing this post, by the way, as someone who is not too keen on the Crusades as a whole. There were positive aspects, but also a lot of things that I think were deplorable. As the article quotes Amin Maalouf saying:
"It does not do any good to distort history, even if you believe you are distorting it in a good way. Cruelty was not on one side but on all."
It doesn't serve Western audience well, nor does it serve Arab and Moslem audiences well, to portray things this way. As Riley-Smith says, it is Osama bin Ladin's version of history.
For those interested in more, I've written on the Crusades and their relationship to modern conflicts before, in the following posts:
I've been mentioning both South Park and Catholic stuff quite a bit recently. Here's something that touches on both. Well worth reading - serious, not humor (much less sarcasm).
Those not that keen on religious stuff can give it a miss if they insist, but IMO their loss. Those keen on religion but not South Park likewise can give it a miss if they insist, but IMO their loss.
Because they want to repeat it. Check out this interview with the authors of the book In Denial if you haven't already, for insight into how Western historians are willfully blind to things they don't care to see.
My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died!
Land of the Pilgrim's pride!
From every mountain side,
Let freedom ring!
My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love.
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture fills
Like that above.
Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees
Sweet freedom's song.
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.
Our father's God to, Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King!
God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us;
God save the Queen!
O Lord our God arise,
Scatter her enemies
And make them fall;
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all!
Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign;
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen!
Not in this land alone,
But be God's mercies known,
From shore to shore!
Lord make the nations see,
That men should brothers be,
And form one family,
The wide world over.
While I'm doing musical tributes, the USS Vandegrift is in Saigon harbor. Apparently, at least from the BBC this morning, no music played as it sailed into port. Me, I'd have played this:
Let martial note in triumph float
And liberty extend its mighty hand
A flag appears 'mid thunderous cheers,
The banner of the Western land.
The emblem of the brave and true
Its folds protect no tyrant crew;
The red and white and starry blue
Is freedom's shield and hope.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free!
May it wave as our standard forever,
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with mighty endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.
Let eagle shriek from lofty peak
The never-ending watchword of our land;
Let summer breeze waft through the trees
The echo of the chorus grand.
Sing out for liberty and light,
Sing out for freedom and the right.
Sing out for Union and its might,
O patriotic sons.
Other nations may deem their flags the best
And cheer them with fervid elation,
But the flag of the North and South and West
Is the flag of flags, the flag of Freedom's nation.
Hurrah for the flag of the free.
May it wave as our standard forever
The gem of the land and the sea,
The banner of the right.
Let despots remember the day
When our fathers with might endeavor
Proclaimed as they marched to the fray,
That by their might and by their right
It waves forever.
So I'm driving into work on Monday morning and listening to the BBC World Service news report. Among the stories they covered was the upcoming (that is, happening now) State visit by President Bush and the planned protests. They had one of those roundtables where the BBC gets their opinions in on the story-of-the-moment, and the last question the anchor asked was "has any American President ever been this unpopular in Britain?" and the expert-of-the-moment referred to how well received Clinton was.
Ahh, the greater historical depth of our European friends; their historical horizon is the Clinton years. It is of course true he was more their kind of guy, but see here and here. Well, all I could think then, sitting in my car, was "what about Reagan?" (see, my historial horizons extend to Reagan; had I thought about it, I'd have recollected that their attitudes towards Republican Presidents are historically consistent).
Austin Bay details the parallels between the reception Reagan got then and Bush got now. Rhetorical question of the day, of course, is who proved more prescient and insightful twenty years ago, dumb ol' cowboy Reagan or the sophisticated, wise, and enlightened European (and American) skeptics of his dangerous foreign policy views?
Btw, I know where I stood twenty years ago and I'd like to think I've learned something since. ("When I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish"). The protests seem like deja vu all over again, though.
I guess that proves Yogi right again: "There are some people, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em."
In the comments section of this post, Joe Katzman writes:
Rome had its heart ripped out by a corrosive alliance of the upper and lower classes against the middle. Once that locked in, its fall was just a matter of time.
Lets look at a few of the social/class conflicts in Roman history that Joe might be talking about:
The Conflict of Orders: this one took place fairly early on (concluded by the 4th Century BC) (see here and here for some good web-based info); pitted the Patricians against the better-off Plebeians (mainly; lower classes were also involved but it was mostly a Bougieousie thing). Coincided with the rise of Rome.
The Optimates (Aristocrats) & their Clientela vs. the Populares & their Senatorial supporters (late 2nd Century BC - late 1st Century BC): played out over time (via the Civil Wars) as one Senatorial faction and its supporters against another Senatorial faction and its supporters. The Optimates certainly couldn't be classified as "the middle", but this conflict is probably what Joe is referring to. Coincided with the replacement of the Republic by the Augustan imperial institutions.
While certainly taking place within a context of internal social discord, what really played out here was the incapacity of the Senate and other institutions designed to govern a city-state to administer a vast Mediterranean-wide Empire and, perhaps most significantly, the fact that military units (the Legions) were, in the post-Marius era, giving their loyalty principally to the commanders who mobilized, equipped, trained, and paid them than to the central Senatorial government.
Neither Caius Julius Caesar nor Augustus Caesar waged war against or deprived the Roman middle class of anything - they instead subverted the institutions of Senatorial power, which was, even after the Conflict of Orders, run primarily by the wealthy. When it was all over, Augustus partially solved, rather than created, the problem that most afflicted Roman government in the century preceding him: henceforth the Legions would be paid by the State, not their commanders, and owe their principal loyalty to the central government rather than to provincial commanders. As I said, this was only partially successful - it tended to break down from time to time, but mainly in periods of misgovernment.
Augustus did plant the seeds for later problems, but not by attacking the Roman middle classes which he treated more as a pillar of his rule than an obstacle or enemy of it. The seed existed in the fact that he did not institutionalize succession; this lapse further encouraged commanders to try and emulate him and his adoptive father in times of misrule and, much worse, confusion over the Imperial succession (eras where there was no One Clear Choice and thus each field commander felt they had as much a claim to Imperium as any of their fellows).
In any case, the "inevitable fall" that Joe is referring to here took place 15 centuries after Joe says it became "inevitable" as a result of the rich and poor dog-piling on the Roman middle; that's quite a delayed reaction!
Even if we count only the poorer, less developed Western half of the Empire, it lasted half a millennium after Joe says its fall became inevitable for the reasons he cites; a period the same length as from Columbus' landfall in the New World to the present. Quite a lot of things happened in the interval.
It might even be more accurately said that the Civil War represented a championing of the desires of both poor and middle class Romans against the wealthy Senatorial land-owning class, in that one of the reasons the side that won did so is they stuck up for the desire of the soldiers loyal to them to receive land grants that the Senatorial class was resisting providing, and Augustus relied on Equestrians and Freedmen to staff his administration.
Note that I'll happily accept letters on this and respond to criticisms and quibbles in the form of a blog post. The Roman Republic of the 1st Century BC, however, for all of its virtues, should not be confused with a government of the people or by the people - even with the Assembly and the Tribunes Populares counted.
