Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Monday, May 9, 2011

A Lack of Writing

One of my disappointments concerning ancient history is the lack of any written record for my closest ancestors from 3,000+ years ago. How did the people in Britain live, for instance? We can only draw general conclusions based on objects and bones that have been dug out of the ground. A great many questions arise which remain unanswered. Who were the heroes, the kings, the generals, the inventors, the priests? What were their names?

It's a pity our ancestors didn't take time out for writing in all the time they spent bludgeoning one another over the head with clubs. Have we strayed much from their ways? Not so much. There's literacy, but many prefer bludgeoning to writing. Literacy is viewed as a means to an end (a job, or more to the point, money). At the library, hordes are using computers, but few are reading any books. Funding for libraries continues to plummet. Soon, public libraries will go the way of the Tudor hospital.

Even the Roman Empire is a disappointment. At the height of their power and security, they chose to continue engaging in invasions, some extremely costly, much like our involvement in Afghanistan. The Romans showed little interest in seafaring or inventions, even though one of their inventors, the aptly named Hero, dabbled with a steam engine. Today also, the primary item on the national agenda is a costly, counter-productive war in which the country stands to gain nothing but debt. Our leaders are unconcerned with scientific research or development. All they care about is bludgeoning their enemies over the head with a club. Their evolution has not progressed beyond the ancient Celts or Romans.
by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Sunday, December 12, 2010

An American Heroine

I read the obituary of a great American heroine, Adele Starr.

Not many people can look back on their lives with certainty that they made a difference. Adele certainly could have done so. She helped to make the world a better place.
by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Monday, October 11, 2010

Carl von Ossietzky

The popular interest in the life and times of Adolf Hitler represents a failure or a perversion of the human imagination. German Pacifist Carl von Ossietzky, who opposed Hitler, was a better man and worthier of the numerous biographies, books, and films that have been made instead of worthless, evil scum like Hitler.
by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Monday, July 12, 2010

Does Reagan Deserve to be on a Stamp?

The chorus of adulation that always attends any mention of former President Reagan in the mainstream media ignores the outcomes of his administration's policies. It is due to Reagan's poor decision to support Bin Laden and the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan that we are bogged down in Afghanistan today, just like the Soviets from 1979 - 1989. Apparently, the conservative right-wingers in the U.S. felt guilty for what they inflicted upon the Soviet Union and were determined to inflict the same injury upon the U.S., although it is likely the final tab for our war will exceed anything incurred by the frugal Soviets.

I do not think anyone would mind a communist Afghanistan today. Certainly, no Republicans blink at buying goods manufactured in communist China. A modern communist Afghanistan would have been far preferable to what is there now and what may be there in the future. Women would have been better off in a communist Afghanistan.

Incidentally, why is it that the U.S. is hostile toward Communist Cuba, while maintaining cordial relations toward Communist China? China's government is far less ethical than Cuba's. To be sure, the government of Cuba is a dictatorship, but it does not appear to be of quite the same character as Iran's. China has shown belligerence to Taiwan, a U.S. ally, going so far as to threaten the little island-nation with total annihilation. The U.S. should at least have the same scope of relations with Cuba as it does with China, in order to be morally consistent. Otherwise, the hypocrisy is clear for all to observe.

Reagan was a loyal friend to Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic fundamentalists, even going so far as selling arms to Iran in a covert manner. Reagan was unable to see past the anticommunist rhetoric he had immersed himself in during his career. According to his worldview, communism was the only threat. He was wrong about that, just as he was wrong about a great many other things.

Reagan began in earnest the great budget-busting deficit spending that was to lead to today's enormous federal debt of eleven trillion dollars. Rather than be a good steward of the economy, Reagan siphoned funds from taxpayers to the defense industry on the pretext of guarding against a phantom Soviet threat. It is due to the policies of Reagan and succeeding administrations that the U.S. is in the economic situation that it is today. The only area of manufacturing where the U.S. retains a high competence involves weapons of war. However, war is not a product that consumers in other nations wish to buy. Hence, the trade deficit.

Until greater numbers of voters elect liberal, left-wing politicians, then it can be anticipated that the U.S. will spend all available monies on weaponry and gadgets of war. Under any Republican administration, it can be anticipated that the U.S. will engage in counter-productive overseas adventures to feed the egos of vain old men who like to play at being armchair generals. It is the only thing that is capable of amusing their simple minds. Toy soldiers, bombs, boom, boom, I win, you lose. Republicans despise science, education, research, and development, because these things tend to challenge their preconceived beliefs about the world and about reality. This is why Republicans tend to reduce funding for education and scientific research, while increasing funding for weapons and wars. A vote for a Republican is a vote for barbarism, corruption, and ignorance. Today, the U.S. is still reeling from eight years of neglect and decay under the G. W. Bush administration. It may take eighteen years to repair what was undone in eight.
by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Gordian III

One of the more popular Emperors in Roman history due to his family ties, this teenager reigned but a brief time. Literate and learned, he inherited a library of 60,000 manuscripts from his martyred family. Books published in modern times are priced like ordinary commodities. Where ancient texts are concerned, however, it is quite a different matter. In many instances, historians writing the history of the ancient world have been forced to rely upon a few sources or even a single one, and these sources vary a great deal in accuracy. Therefore, a single significant new text from Plato or Aristotle, for incidence, could be worth many millions of dollars. Gordian the Third's library, if discovered intact and containing important texts, could exceed the value of any single treasure--diamond or work of art--in the world. The value would be priceless, and any self-respecting government in the world would want to have its secrets. Men are curious about their ancestors.

Ancient observers should have foreseen the doom approaching the Roman Empire, because there were many signs as the Empire continued its long and steady decline. Someone with foresight may have taken measures to preserve for posterity the literature of the age within a time capsule, much the same as later generations have done. There may be coffers filled with manuscripts hidden in the dry and preserving climate of Egypt. Maybe one day such a capsule will be unearthed and rock the academic world. But beware of frauds.

As for the young Emperor Gordian III, he met his doom at the age of nineteen in a war waged in what is now Iraq.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

The Wisdom of Hesiod

That book of Hesiod's Theogony and Works and Days proved to be a spectacular investment on my part. I was curious what a writer who lived eight hundred years before the birth of Christ would have to say. There is no doubt that any man who gathers up all of Hesiod's wisdom will become an unstoppable force. Here are some of his pearls of wisdom:

"The 21st of the month is best after sunrise; it is worse toward evening. The middle 9th is a better day toward evening; but the first 9th is altogether harmless for men."

Aha! Hesiod divined the secrets of Numerology. Just as I've always suspected, there are good numbers and bad numbers!

"When your private parts are covered with semen indoors, do not let them be seen as you go near the hearth-fire, but avoid it."

I would certainly hope so.

"Never urinate in the waters of rivers that flow to the sea."

It is impolite to those that dwell downstream.

"Invite to dinner him who is friendly, and leave your enemy be."

I only wish I had known this before. All this time, I've been inviting my enemies to dinner and leaving my friends be.

Well, these are only examples of his sage instruction. Thank you, Hesiod. So much.

#

Although Hesiod presents an easy target for modern sarcasm, I am not serious, and would never consign his books to the garbage. Don't worry! I haven't had a good excuse to wax sarcastic in quite some time, and I needed to work out some of the irritation I had endured with Hesiod. Especially Theogony. Brother! It's not easy for me to read anyway, these days, with all the television shows competing for my attention, but trying to read Theogony really slowed me down. I was reading about three pages a day, if that, and sometimes less than a page.

Hesiod was an old, dear, quaint fellow, and I read him not so much for instruction, but to satisfy my curiosity about how people lived in those days. From that angle, Hesiod was a delight, especially Works and Days. Theogony I found impenetrable, just like Numbers in the Bible. Too many "begats" and not enough action. I liked Works and Days better. Hesiod is a learned man addressing simple men and therefore has no reservation against stating the obvious. What appears obvious to a modern was not always so to an ancient, particularly the rustics who composed Hesiod's audience.

Here's an interesting insight into marriage customs of the time:
In due season bring a wife into your house, when you are neither many years short of thirty nor many beyond it: this is your seasonable marriage. As for the woman, she should have four years of menstruation and be married in the fifth. Marry a virgin so that you may teach her good ways; and for preference marry her who lives near you, with all circumspection in case your marriage is a joke to the neighbors. For a man acquires nothing better than the good wife, and nothing worse than the bad one, the glutton, who singes a man without a brand, strong though he may be, and consigns him to premature old age.

In other words, be careful and know the person before you marry her. In Hesiod's time, just as today, men were marrying women based upon looks alone. I think the advice on "a seasonable age" for both the woman and the man is designed to encourage large families. The ancients always wanted large families, the better to protect against neighboring hostile tribes. Hesiod expected men to wait until thirty to marry, because prior to that, they liked to play the field, which encompassed same-sex as well as opposite-sex relationships.

Considering the history of Ancient Greece, it is probable that Hesiod gave advice concerning same-sex relationships, as well. According to the translator, many ancient manuscripts were partial scraps. The manuscripts may have been censored by prudish monks. What we possess are, in many cases, fragments of copies of copies, translated or not. The closest Hesiod comes to advice for gays concerns men who have "a dear friend that is like a brother," and there he offers little other than "repay any wrongs with vengeance that harms twice as much," which sounds foolish, and "always forgive the transgressor who tries to make amends," which sounds more reasonable. He notes that those who change their friends often should reflect upon their own disposition rather than blaming others, which seems reasonable for his time, although nowadays, we change locations so often that it may not be convenient to maintain long-distance friendships.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

James Buchanan, First Gay President?

After watching the History Channel's "Presidents" miniseries of shows, I'm persuaded that James Buchanan, our 15th U.S. President, was gay.

A lifelong bachelor, he lived with a man for many years, and the two of them were referred to as "Aunt Nancies." They hobnobbed with a group of other dandies. No conclusive evidence, I grant, but one is unlikely to find conclusive evidence; had there been any, he would have been denied the Presidency.

It is possible that Buchanan went along with slavery in part due to blackmail by those Washington insiders who knew incriminating details about his personal life. This leads me to the following observation.

In societies where homosexuality is not tolerated, gays are subject to blackmail. This offers another argument in favor of toleration. Gays will always be with us. If they can be open about their sexuality, then they are just as safe from blackmail as their heterosexual counterparts. To bring this issue home, gays serving in the U.S. military are subject to blackmail at this time due to the so-called "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" policy. It would be wise to eliminate that policy along with all of the other policies that seek to meddle in the sex lives of our troops. Otherwise, blackmail remains a potent risk.

Getting back to the issue of James Buchanan, I do not believe that he was our first gay President, as the show suggested. He was our second.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

William Butler Yeats

Poets from yesteryear dabbled with racist notions here and there, such as William Butler Yeats, who wrote in The King's Threshold (p.389) a passage that has troubled scholars:

The stars had come so near me
that I caught

Their singing. It was praise of that great
race

That would be haughty, mirthful, and white-
bodied
,

With a high head, and open hand, and how,

Laughing, it would take the mastery of the
world.

No writer in their right mind would drop such a bombshell today. I try to bear in mind the times that Yeats lived in and take his words in that context, the same sort of allowance that I make for homophobic writers of yesteryear such as Edward Gibbon. Gibbon always talked trash about sodomites, in accord with the views of his age, but there remains ample cause for speculation over his own sexuality, which never seemed to manifest in any open manner.

What Yeats had in mind was an ideal future generation, such as we envision now through manipulation of the human genome. Whether such a future race would be white is open to debate, and I think Yeats would concur with this, because we now know that white skin is more vulnerable to skin cancer and only possesses an advantage in climates where the human body must remain covered for protection from cold. An ideal skin pigmentation depends upon the climate, and climate cannot be directly controlled, yet, although it can be predicted. So a variety of skin pigmentation would be the optimum configuration of any human population. No one color should be the rule--otherwise, we are putting all our proverbial eggs in one basket.

The future ideal race may lack a physical form altogether and be entirely virtual. This would ensure immortality--as long as the host server remains operational (a mighty big if, to anyone who knows anything about computers). As though to underscore this frailty, my computer experienced a power outage just as I typed that last sentence.

And now I must digress to the issue of computer malfunction. If your computer clicks off due to power failure, and even after the power resumes, your computer refuses to come on again, here's a trick. Unplug the power cable in the back. Wait five minutes. Plug it back in. Chances are, everything will come back, no problem. In fact, Firefox 3.5 reloaded every one of my windows that I feared had been lost, which is another reason I love Firefox 3.5. Also, Blogger had stored an online copy of this very missive, which is why I love Blogger. What I really don't love is typing in the same text I had already typed before. Had that scenario presented itself, you would not be reading this now. I'm doing this for fun, remember.

One more trick I have up my sleeve is to open up the power supply and replace the fuse, because I've seen fuses blow in the past, and it costs less than one dollar to replace one. Just for those that wish to know. I ignore those silly little stickers that warn of "dangerous voltages -- no user-serviceable parts inside". Look, if the power supply is unplugged, it is not going to kill you. I was seconds away from opening up the power supply and inspecting the fuse when I decided to try 'er again and see what happened.

Why did the Ancients Prefer Alcohol?

In addressing society's ongoing debate over marijuana, one is struck by the incongruity of prohibition. On the one hand, you have a nontoxic inebriating substance, pot, that causes no health problems, but it remains illegal. On the other hand, you have a toxic substance, alcohol, that causes physical addiction and physical harm, but it is legal and even celebrated by our President, among others. Logical? Not in the slightest. Historical? Yes. It is because of history, and nothing else, that alcohol is accepted while marijuana is not.

The question then becomes, why did our ancestors choose alcohol in the distant past to such an extent that it became a celebrated tradition? I suspect the answer lies in the reluctance of ancient peoples to smoke. Drinking has an antecedent in diet, whereas smoking is an unpleasant experience for novices. Only with practice does smoking become palatable. Of course, this problem has been mitigated with the introduction of vaporizers, but in olden days, it may have been a deal-breaker for some.

Alcohol reduces inhibitions, which makes people more aggressive than would otherwise be the case. Drunk, we allow the amygdala more scope in controlling our behavior. This has proven useful for leaders that wish to persuade their followers to go to war. Hitler made his first grab for power in the Beer Hall Putsch.

Ancient Roman historians, who are our only guide for certain periods and locations of history, wrote of the barbarians living in northern Europe--yes, they would be among the ancestors of Hitler's followers--as spending their days in deep, dark woods, idle for the most part, fighting, drinking, and little else. Family feuds were common, as were feuds between individuals, and the Northerners would as soon fight among themselves as against the Romans. The reputation of the Northerner centered on courage and ferocity in battle, naivety and foolishness overall (in war or peace), and a fondness for beer. Perhaps these Romans were unfair observers given to stereotype, but even a stereotype may have a grain of truth in it. At any rate, there are insufficient records of the peoples dwelling in Northern Europe at the time of the Romans. Being for the most part illiterate, the barbarians left behind little other than artifacts such as jewelry and weapons of inferior craftsmanship. If you wish to leave behind a history, literacy helps, after all.

Romans preferred wine, with the exception of those troops serving on Hadrian's Wall, who adopted beer, the preferred beverage of the locals. Wine was consumed at almost every meal, unless one were poor or a slave, and even then, one usually had diluted wine as a beverage. With the possible exception of the New World and Amerindian nations, it would be difficult to find a civilization in human history where alcohol has not played a role, although any attempt to trace its precise influence would be difficult at best. This leads me to the next question, which presents a challenge for a good computer simulation. Any social scientists out there wish to take it up?

Here it is. What if our ancestors had chosen pot instead of wine and beer? Would there have been less war? Would the Roman Empire have endured to the present day? European history accuses our ancestors of a secession of bloody wars, often fought for little or no reason. You can scarcely find a century, between now and the birth of Christ, when a war did not erupt. Most of these wars were insipid. What was the logic behind the Crusades? The Spanish Armada, sent off to invade England during the reign of Elizabeth, was another huge blunder. Why invade? Why wage war? Why not wage peace? The first World War also comes to mind--millions dead, just because of the assassination of a prince. All these ills cannot be laid at the door of the pub, but is it just possible that alcohol played a contributing role?

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Ancient Roman Triumphal Columns

I was reading along in one of my favorite books, "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," by Nigel Rodgers, a lavishly illustrated coffee table piece, when I was struck in the face by...I hesitate to say.

Instead, let me quote from page 70, the beginning of a chapter entitled "Triumphal Columns":
Commemorative or triumphal columns celebrated great individuals, especially military men. The Romans, like the Greeks or Egyptians, were passionate about perpetuating their fame by the most durable means available, but the idea of erecting marble columns topped by bronze or marble statues seems to have been a wholly Roman one...

...Columns known as columnae rostratae were erected from the 3rd century BC... By the 2nd century BC, relatively small columns celebrating successful Republican nobles' exploits were being erected...

The accompanying photo of Trajan's column looks like nothing so much as a penis. Phallic symbols were customary throughout the ancient city of Rome. So I believe the similarity in appearance is intentional.



This got me to thinking. Could war just be an exercise in penis comparison, as the comedian George Carlin famously said? I think so. Other than Boudica, there aren't many women on the record as having begun wars of conquest, and in the case of Boudica, she had ample provocation.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Reevaluating World War I

In a previous blog entry, I found World War 2 to be the most, and possibly the only, justified war in American history.

After watching a lengthy documentary on World War 1, I am persuaded that World War 1 had as much justification as World War 2.

In both cases, the indisputable villain, the instigator of the dreadful world wars, was the nation of Germany, the aggressor and invader. In both wars, Germany invaded and occupied Belgium, a neutral nation, without provocation, committing atrocities and causing great loss of life in the process. Had German forces remained in Germany, the verdict of history might be different, but the majority of the war was fought on the soil of countries that the Germans invaded. The loss of life was extreme for all nations concerned and the psychological effects, incalculable. Germany brought great evil into the world with their wars. It makes one wonder whether the world might have been a better place without Germany ever having existed.

In both wars, the United States was attacked first. In both cases, Germany engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare, which imperils neutral commerce and civilians. Germany's strategic goals at the time are irrelevant; the ethical issue prevails, and condemns them for all time.

Germany went so far during World War 1 as to promise Mexico territory in the United States, including Texas and California, in the infamous Zimmerman Telegram.

I was often taught in school that the Allies were vicious in the Versailles Treaty, which punished Germany with massive fines and restrictions on the size of their armaments. After learning more about World War 1, I am persuaded that the Versailles Treaty did not go nearly far enough. Permanent military occupation of all of Germany would at least have prevented the second world war. The young corporal Adolf Hitler could have become one of the political prisoners of the Allies, writing his mad screeds against Jews in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison located in Alaska. The largest beneficiaries of such a draconian policy would have been Germans, who would have been spared the millions of casualties of the next great conflict. But the Allies, battered and exhausted by the war, had no stomach for a continuation of militarism.

The world wars changed America in ways that were unfortunate. Ever since the world wars, our people have in general entertained a favorable opinion of foreign intervention and a crusader mentality--not to be confused with "crusader" in the sense of medieval Christian crusaders, but rather crusader in the sense of idealism, a belief in democratic principles. This sort of enthusiasm can exceed the bounds of caution, as seen by our present-day entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, places where democratic principles are unlikely to thrive due to the indigenous culture and history. Persia and Mesopotamia have no history of democracy. Ancient Persians bowed to the ground and kissed the dirt before their Emperors, who were treated as Gods, with absolute authority. A Persian Emperor could, and often did slay or torture subordinates for little or no reason. Contrast the abject submission of the ancient Persian with the attitude of the Greeks, whose free male citizens voted on the issues of the day. Overall, the culture of the Middle Easterners has produced fanaticism, repression, war, and oppression. For an example, look no further than Turkey during World War 1. The reaction of Turkey, upon being attacked by the English, was to assume automatically that the war was against Islam. With that irrational notion rattling about in their tiny brains, they turned upon the Christian minority in their midst, the Armenians, and committed genocide.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Ancient Roman Epitaphs

I made a strange and delightful discovery today: ancient Roman epitaphs. These two were retrieved from the Isola Sacra cemetery:

"Here in my tomb I drain my cup more greedily, because here I must sleep and here must stay for ever."

---

"May the passer-by who has seen these flowers and read this epitaph say to himself: 'This flower is Flavia's body.'"



-- "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," p.248, by Nigel Rodgers, published by Hermes House.

I was inspired to look online for more Ancient Roman epitaphs from the cemetery at Isola Sacra, but all I can find online are hotels, resorts, and a few scholarly forums where archeologists chat with one another. What I was looking for was a comprehensive list of Isola Sacra epitaphs, such as was published by H. Thylander in 1952. I suppose this is one of those gotcha's on the Internet, where the subject matter is just too obscure to find any good material. Many scholars are discussing ancient epitaphs, but they never quote the epitaphs verbatim. Instead they write volumes analyzing and speculating on things, which I suppose is the nature of academia. I just wanted to read a long list of Ancient Roman epitaphs. The main attraction is that they are outside of our contemporary culture and either pre-Christian or primitive Christian--either way, of more interest than your usual cemetery, and even ordinary cemeteries are very interesting places to visit. Even when tombstones lack poetry or stories, the dates tell something, bringing to mind historical events that were contemporary to the dates.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Was the U.S. Civil War a "Good" War?

Growing up, I was taught in school that there were at least three good American wars, possibly more, but three were in the canon of sacred wars, immune from criticism:
  1. The Revolutionary War
  2. The Civil War
  3. World War 2
Of these, I still believe that World War 2 was a justified war.

The Revolutionary War may have been the least justified. The main instigators were not the poor, but the wealthy, who demanded less taxation and greater control over domestic affairs. Remaining within the British Empire, the United States might have benefited from the future British decision to outlaw slavery, thus avoiding the Civil War. In time, the U.S. would have been as free of colonial domination as Canada is today, but without so much loss of life.

About the Civil War, I have doubts, mainly based upon the fact that over six hundred thousand Americans lost their lives. The vast majority of these casualties were incurred on land. At the same time, the Union naval blockade may have been the single greatest factor destroying the war-making capability and economy of the Confederate South. The Union possessed a navy far superior to the Confederacy. In my opinion, Lincoln was too hasty to bring the South back into the fold. After the Confederates in Charleston fired upon Fort Sumter, Lincoln used that as a pretext to begin a bloody land war that lasted about five years. As Commander-in-Chief, Lincoln's conduct of the war was abominable. His choice of generals was poor, particularly in the early years. If one's heart and mind is set upon waging war, one had better be extremely good at it.

A better strategy would have been to maintain a naval blockade and simply wait for the South to return, with the single condition being the abolition of slavery. Lincoln instead committed the North to an immediate invasion which led to great loss of life and wealth and bitterness for generations to come. Lincoln was not, after all, a great President. A great President would have brought the South back without hundreds of thousands of casualties. It was entirely within the realm of possibility.

World War Two was completely necessary due to the nature of the enemy: evil and very powerful, posing a threat to civilization itself. Europe embodies progressive civilization. A world without Europe is unthinkable; and more to the point, a world without England or France, both beacons of democracy, is unthinkable. Look anywhere else in the world and it is difficult to find countries where free speech is sacred and human rights are respected, with the exception of the New World and Europe. Whether the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justified or not is debatable, but of less importance than the ultimate victory in both theaters of war (Atlantic and Pacific) of the Allied Powers. The Axis Powers represented the closest approximation to absolute evil the world has seen in modern times. There can't be much question about whether the Axis Powers would have used nuclear weapons, had they developed them. The mistakes made prior to World War Two have to do with a failure by the West to appreciate the threat posed by Hitler and the advisability of stopping a growing problem early in its development.

The Bush Administration attempted to draw a parallel between Saddam Hussein and Hitler, which is laughable at best and never really caught on with the American public.
techlorebyigor is my personal journal for ideas & opinions