In part 1 yesterday I related the history of the Mexican Expedition of 1916 and as promised, I will make it relevant. While we don't have a carbon copy of 1916 today we a have similar situation. The Government of Mexico and the drug cartels are engaged in a de facto civil war. We have this Treaty of Westphalia notion of the sovereignty of nations and internal matters. As long as what happens in Mexico stays in Mexico we have no business interfering. This breaks down when what happens in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico and their problems become our problems. If Mexican internal strife compromises our national security we have a right to step in and at least end the threat to us.
As things unravel in Mexico we see hard gang violence spill north into the US. In southern California gangs have started to fight an insurgent campaign against police anti-gang units, even using IEDs. Mexico's problem is our problem now.
I just want to take a minute from the article to congratulate the Mexico Government for permanently end gun violence in their country by total disarmament of the populace.............. oh............. scratch that......... They say statistics don't lie but statisticians do and that's whats going on when certain politicians tell us 90% of the guns used by the cartels come from the US. Its actually more like 17%. If anything the guns flow the other way with the drugs onto our streets. Mexico doesn't have a leg to stand on whining about a few of our guns ending up there when they export huge amounts of illegal machine guns and urban terrorism to us if they won't lets us help them end the cartels.
I don't think the Mexican Government really wants our help. Currently they allow only a small number of unarmed law enforcement advisers in Mexico. We could do so much more. We could provide all kinds of logistical support, money, paramilitary training, advanced weapons and our vast electronic intelligence capability etc. We have had a lot of success sending military advisers to other cartel ridden countries. In the late 80's Pablo Escobar's narcoterrorism destroyed the ability of Colombian Government to do much of anything about him. The US sent Delta Force to create and train a special task force to shut down the Medellin Cartel. The task force hunted down and killed Escobar and dismantled his cartel, all without US personnel using their weapons.
What I am starting to get at is that if the Mexicans have lost control (they pretty much have) and are unable to bring the situation under control soon (they can't) then they need to let us help put down the cartels and end the threat to us. It won't be easy for the Government to admit to needing help from big brother but if the situation continues to get worse we will have to get involved at some point, whether the Mexican Government agrees or not. Of course, that assumes there will be a Government left at that point. At the beginning of 2009 the US State Department listed Mexico as one of the two countries most likely to undergo a revolution that year. Since then its gotten worse.
If we get to the point we have to intervene it won't matter if Mexico "allows" us to or not. History shows that America can have its way with Mexico, although sometimes we get preoccupied by other things like World War I or Iraq and Afghanistan. To recap history, in 1836 Texas became the only (future) state to have kicked a country's (Mexico) butt on their own. In 1848 Mexico made the double mistake of not only invading the US but also at the same time invading Texas (after the 1836 war and later skirmishes one would think they had learned not to mess with Texas, but apparently not.) The US went down and cleaned their clock and showed restraint, only taking Texas permanently, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah as well as parts of Oklahoma, Colorado and Wyoming. In 1914 during the Mexican Revolution Mexican forces attacked 9 US Sailors in Veracruz guarding US citizens and property. As a result, the US took the city in street to street fighting and held it for six months. In 1916 the Mexican Government was unable to stop Pancho Villa from conducting cross boarder rails and burning American towns so we sent the Army down there. We spent more time fighting the Mexican Government than chasing Pancho Villa; because apparently they didn't understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Nevertheless, we stayed until we entered World War I and sent the Army to France.
Am I advocating an Afghanistan-style invasion? NO. But we need to take an active role in unscrewing Mexico now so we don't have to take drastic action later. It would benefit America by curbing crime, it would benefit the Mexicans in many ways. In fact, the only people who would not benefit are the cartels. The cartels think this is a horrible idea.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Philosophical Review: Plato's Apology of Socrates
I was rummaging through my philosophical book collection and thought it might be a fun to write a review on philosophical texts from time to time. If anyone wants my opinion on a particular document just let me know and I'll read it and share my impressions. Just like with History there is an academic way to write about philosophy but unlike with History where I choose to ignore it I don't actually know it because I only took the most basic Philosophy class and we didn't write papers. Philosophy majors will have to put up with my layman's style or go write their own paper. This turned out a ton longer than I thought but I promise its worth it.
I want to do Plato's Apology. To get a few things out of the way first in this sense Apology comes from the Greek word apologia, its Greek title, when means defense speech in a legal proceeding. As Plato often did in his writings it's Socrates speaking words Plato wrote later. Sometime he uses this to present his own ideas as if they were Socrates's. We don't really know what happened at the trial. Another student of Socrates, Xenophon, wrote his own Apology that was very different. To be fair to Plato, Xenophon wasn't actually in Athens at the time. He signed up as a mercenary for a coup attempt against the Persian Emperor that went horribly, horribly wrong and was desperately fleeing across Southwest Asia with the most powerful army in the world chasing him at the time of the trial. For simplicity I am just going to go with it and write as if Plato was the court stenographer. For direct quotes I'll give you the Sephonopolis citations which are standard in all editions.
Background:
A few years earlier Athens lost the 27 year Peloponnese War that absolutely wrecked Greece and primed it for the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great to crush it. The War was fought by a coalition of democratic cities led by Athens and a coalition of oligarchic cities under Sparta. When Athens was starved out by a siege the Spartan Army occupied the city and installed an Oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants. Also, I am originating unconfirmed rumors that when the Spartans marched into to the city center of Athens in unison they shouted "THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!" Pass it along.
As a landed citizen Socrates fought as a Hoplite heavy infantryman in several important battles and from all accounts fought bravely. Other important background notes include the trial of the Ten Generals. After a naval victory a storm approached and the commanders failed to launch a rescue attempt as a result. The men were tried as a group instead of individually because the masses were whipped up in a fury even though this was against the Law. Also, the Thirty Tyrants tried to implicate as many other citizens as possible in their crimes to defuse guilt to as many as possible.
Socrates was charged with impiety, not believing in the gods the city believed in, and corrupting the young, a charge sadly missing from our legal system. I decided not to give a blow by blow summery because that was boring even me but rather I will pick out salient points of philosophy and examine them. Early on he tells the story of a childhood friend who went to the Oracle in Delphi to ask Apollo, the Greek God of Wisdom, if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. When his friend returned with the response that there was not, Socrates became troubled and sought out a politician, a craftsman and a poet. He found they knew lots of things he didn't but noted that they weren't as smart as they thought they were. They thought that because they had mastered one thing they had wisdom in all areas, which they didn't. Socrates concludes that the meaning of the Oracle's response was that while other men might know things he didn't, he at least knew he didn't and was therefore teachable. The first step to wisdom is a willingness to learn and an open mind.
As we go along Socrates starts to get into what he thinks the roll of a philosopher should be and how he goes about it and this is where things pick up. Socrates relates that if you had horses you would send them to a horse breeder who could tame and refine them into being the best and most useful horses possible. His question then is if we do that for horses why shouldn't we do that for people? As Socrates goes on he will make it clear that he sees his purpose in life to be like that horse breeder for the men of Athens and help them develop their souls.
Interspersed in here he is cross-examining his accusers and making them look foolish. At 28-b he responds to any who wonder if he regrets his life's work now that he is on trial for his life with is excellent retort. "You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look only to his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man." After mentioning Achillies' actions in revenging the death of his cousin, knowing full well it would cost him his life, because he knew it was what must be done.
We pick up again at 28-e. "This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: whenever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best, or has been placed by his commander, there he must remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace. It would have been a dreadful way to behave, men of Athens, if, at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, I had , at the risk of death, like everyone else, remained at my post where those you elected to command he ordered me, and then, when the god ordered me, as I thought, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others, I had abandoned my post for fear of death or anything else. That would have been a dreadful thing, and then I might truly have justly been brought here for not believing that there are gods, disobeying the Oracle, fearing death, and thinking I was wise when I was not. To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils."
I know I promised to summarize and not transcribe but some of these passages are so beautiful I can't help myself. The first thing to go over is where he relates it to battle. As a Hoplite he, like all land owning middle class, fought in a phalanx formation where heavily armored men with spears pack as tightly together as possible and move as one. As long as everyone stays in place its almost impossible to break. However, one man fleeing can cause the formation to collapse and the battle to be lost. Two of the battles he mentions fighting in were utter routs. Veterans of those battles who routed were sure to have been in the 1000 man jury. This marks the beginning of Socrates' questionable defense strategy of insulting the jury as much as possible.
Socrates then balks at a plea deal of an acquittal in exchange for giving up philosophy and explains his method of walking up to people with the following. Note I switch out the word Athenian with American and city with country because I think its more powerful that way. "Good Sir, you are an American, a citizen of the greatest country with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" He says if anyone disputes his accusation he won't go away until he has interrogated them to his satisfaction. You can begin to see why he is unpopular, someone who runs around full time calling people immoral is bound to piss some people off. If there is one thing he is good at it's pissing people off. Just in case he was not inflammatory enough he starts to explain that this behavior is why he is god's greatest gift to Athens. I am not making that up, he actually explains how being a kind of a jerk makes him the greatest divine gift of all.
To add insult to injury he brings up the trial of the Ten Generals. The way they did the trial was illegal and when Socrates, as a member of the council, voted against it he was nearly arrested and executed along with them. He also points out that since then everyone recognized they shouldn't have done what they did. Socrates brings up the period of the Thirty Tyrants and an instance when he and others were summoned to arrest someone for summary execution and at risk of his own life refused to do it because it was wrong. Apparently he thought telling a jury they were morally inferior to him was a surefire way to be found not guilty. Next he brings up that most of the time when someone is on trial they drag their family with them to weep and wail and beg for mercy to get out of it with a purely emotional strategy. Then he notes he didn't do that because he thinks its wrong, cowardly and corrupts the legal system.
When he is found guilty by a slim majority and the trial moves into the sentencing stage he tells them they are idiots for convicting him. Then he tells them that if the punishment is to fit the crime Athens should give him a mansion and a stipend so he can keep "blessing" them as the gods greatest gift to Athens. Also he tells them again he will never give it up as long as he lives.
When they give him the death penalty he tells them they will so live to regret it and those who voted for him to be killed will forever have his blood on their hands and live with great guilt. Later on he passes up several opportunities to escape and willingly drinks hemlock to see what death is like. This is what I call going out in style.
OK, now to step out of the text. As I noted at the beginning, this was written later and may or may not be accurate. I hope it is because I think the whole thing is great. Regardless of its historical accuracy there is a strong philosophical theme of standing by your principals no matter what. Socrates was concerned with ethics, i.e. becoming a good person. For him the welfare of the soul is far more important than worldly honors or possessions. However, unlike the ascetics that were common both then and now (most religions have some form of monasticism) he doesn't actually condemn material possessions. What he does condemn is the pursuit of them at the expense of the soul. Back to my favorite quote at 29-e, he asks the rhetorical question "Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" For him worldly things become immoral when our pursuit of them takes priority over everything else. I once heard the saying that "Money is good servant but a bad master." A scripture from the Book of Mormon comes to mind, Jacob 2: 18-19, "But before ye seek for riches seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good-to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted."
I can't remember which pre-socratic philosopher it was but one of them lived in a tub in the town square naked, often masturbating and whining that it was so unfair that hunger could not be similarly relieved but rubbing the belly and no I didn't make that up. We know that while Socrates cared little for worldly things he didn't go without them. We know he had a wife and children and also that he was a land owner because he served in the Athenian Army as a Hoplite which was only open to the land owning middle class. Plato by contrast came from a very wealthy family and served as cavalry, which was only open to those who could afford a war horse.
I think Socrates brought up the trial of the Ten Generals to make the point when you give up your principals and give in to external pressure who will live to regret it and to point out how he is able to live guilt free because he has moral fortitude. Socrates is held up and glorified as an ideal man, honest, true and faithful to virtue till the end. An interesting point to ponder is whether or not the story has a happy ending. The book A man for all Seasons covers the story of Thomas More, who was executed for not condoning the apostasy of Henry the VIII. Interestingly book ends with the quote "It is better to be a dead lion than a live mouse." and the film adaptation says "It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion." I am not sure why the movie flipped the moral of the story but I digress. In the end Socrates dies, but as he made clear earlier, holding in place where you ought to be and doing what you ought to do till the end is the greatest example of virtue. I think that if he had caved in and survived this it would have been the greatest Greek tragedy of all.
I want to do Plato's Apology. To get a few things out of the way first in this sense Apology comes from the Greek word apologia, its Greek title, when means defense speech in a legal proceeding. As Plato often did in his writings it's Socrates speaking words Plato wrote later. Sometime he uses this to present his own ideas as if they were Socrates's. We don't really know what happened at the trial. Another student of Socrates, Xenophon, wrote his own Apology that was very different. To be fair to Plato, Xenophon wasn't actually in Athens at the time. He signed up as a mercenary for a coup attempt against the Persian Emperor that went horribly, horribly wrong and was desperately fleeing across Southwest Asia with the most powerful army in the world chasing him at the time of the trial. For simplicity I am just going to go with it and write as if Plato was the court stenographer. For direct quotes I'll give you the Sephonopolis citations which are standard in all editions.
Background:
A few years earlier Athens lost the 27 year Peloponnese War that absolutely wrecked Greece and primed it for the Macedonian army under Alexander the Great to crush it. The War was fought by a coalition of democratic cities led by Athens and a coalition of oligarchic cities under Sparta. When Athens was starved out by a siege the Spartan Army occupied the city and installed an Oligarchy known as the Thirty Tyrants. Also, I am originating unconfirmed rumors that when the Spartans marched into to the city center of Athens in unison they shouted "THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!" Pass it along.
As a landed citizen Socrates fought as a Hoplite heavy infantryman in several important battles and from all accounts fought bravely. Other important background notes include the trial of the Ten Generals. After a naval victory a storm approached and the commanders failed to launch a rescue attempt as a result. The men were tried as a group instead of individually because the masses were whipped up in a fury even though this was against the Law. Also, the Thirty Tyrants tried to implicate as many other citizens as possible in their crimes to defuse guilt to as many as possible.
Socrates was charged with impiety, not believing in the gods the city believed in, and corrupting the young, a charge sadly missing from our legal system. I decided not to give a blow by blow summery because that was boring even me but rather I will pick out salient points of philosophy and examine them. Early on he tells the story of a childhood friend who went to the Oracle in Delphi to ask Apollo, the Greek God of Wisdom, if there was anyone wiser than Socrates. When his friend returned with the response that there was not, Socrates became troubled and sought out a politician, a craftsman and a poet. He found they knew lots of things he didn't but noted that they weren't as smart as they thought they were. They thought that because they had mastered one thing they had wisdom in all areas, which they didn't. Socrates concludes that the meaning of the Oracle's response was that while other men might know things he didn't, he at least knew he didn't and was therefore teachable. The first step to wisdom is a willingness to learn and an open mind.
As we go along Socrates starts to get into what he thinks the roll of a philosopher should be and how he goes about it and this is where things pick up. Socrates relates that if you had horses you would send them to a horse breeder who could tame and refine them into being the best and most useful horses possible. His question then is if we do that for horses why shouldn't we do that for people? As Socrates goes on he will make it clear that he sees his purpose in life to be like that horse breeder for the men of Athens and help them develop their souls.
Interspersed in here he is cross-examining his accusers and making them look foolish. At 28-b he responds to any who wonder if he regrets his life's work now that he is on trial for his life with is excellent retort. "You are wrong, sir, if you think that a man who is any good at all should take into account the risk of life or death; he should look only to his actions, whether what he does is right or wrong, whether he is acting like a good or bad man." After mentioning Achillies' actions in revenging the death of his cousin, knowing full well it would cost him his life, because he knew it was what must be done.
We pick up again at 28-e. "This is the truth of the matter, men of Athens: whenever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best, or has been placed by his commander, there he must remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than disgrace. It would have been a dreadful way to behave, men of Athens, if, at Potidaea, Amphipolis and Delium, I had , at the risk of death, like everyone else, remained at my post where those you elected to command he ordered me, and then, when the god ordered me, as I thought, to live the life of a philosopher, to examine myself and others, I had abandoned my post for fear of death or anything else. That would have been a dreadful thing, and then I might truly have justly been brought here for not believing that there are gods, disobeying the Oracle, fearing death, and thinking I was wise when I was not. To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know. No one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all blessings for a man, yet men fear it as if they knew that it is the greatest of evils."
I know I promised to summarize and not transcribe but some of these passages are so beautiful I can't help myself. The first thing to go over is where he relates it to battle. As a Hoplite he, like all land owning middle class, fought in a phalanx formation where heavily armored men with spears pack as tightly together as possible and move as one. As long as everyone stays in place its almost impossible to break. However, one man fleeing can cause the formation to collapse and the battle to be lost. Two of the battles he mentions fighting in were utter routs. Veterans of those battles who routed were sure to have been in the 1000 man jury. This marks the beginning of Socrates' questionable defense strategy of insulting the jury as much as possible.
Socrates then balks at a plea deal of an acquittal in exchange for giving up philosophy and explains his method of walking up to people with the following. Note I switch out the word Athenian with American and city with country because I think its more powerful that way. "Good Sir, you are an American, a citizen of the greatest country with the greatest reputation for both wisdom and power; are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" He says if anyone disputes his accusation he won't go away until he has interrogated them to his satisfaction. You can begin to see why he is unpopular, someone who runs around full time calling people immoral is bound to piss some people off. If there is one thing he is good at it's pissing people off. Just in case he was not inflammatory enough he starts to explain that this behavior is why he is god's greatest gift to Athens. I am not making that up, he actually explains how being a kind of a jerk makes him the greatest divine gift of all.
To add insult to injury he brings up the trial of the Ten Generals. The way they did the trial was illegal and when Socrates, as a member of the council, voted against it he was nearly arrested and executed along with them. He also points out that since then everyone recognized they shouldn't have done what they did. Socrates brings up the period of the Thirty Tyrants and an instance when he and others were summoned to arrest someone for summary execution and at risk of his own life refused to do it because it was wrong. Apparently he thought telling a jury they were morally inferior to him was a surefire way to be found not guilty. Next he brings up that most of the time when someone is on trial they drag their family with them to weep and wail and beg for mercy to get out of it with a purely emotional strategy. Then he notes he didn't do that because he thinks its wrong, cowardly and corrupts the legal system.
When he is found guilty by a slim majority and the trial moves into the sentencing stage he tells them they are idiots for convicting him. Then he tells them that if the punishment is to fit the crime Athens should give him a mansion and a stipend so he can keep "blessing" them as the gods greatest gift to Athens. Also he tells them again he will never give it up as long as he lives.
When they give him the death penalty he tells them they will so live to regret it and those who voted for him to be killed will forever have his blood on their hands and live with great guilt. Later on he passes up several opportunities to escape and willingly drinks hemlock to see what death is like. This is what I call going out in style.
OK, now to step out of the text. As I noted at the beginning, this was written later and may or may not be accurate. I hope it is because I think the whole thing is great. Regardless of its historical accuracy there is a strong philosophical theme of standing by your principals no matter what. Socrates was concerned with ethics, i.e. becoming a good person. For him the welfare of the soul is far more important than worldly honors or possessions. However, unlike the ascetics that were common both then and now (most religions have some form of monasticism) he doesn't actually condemn material possessions. What he does condemn is the pursuit of them at the expense of the soul. Back to my favorite quote at 29-e, he asks the rhetorical question "Are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?" For him worldly things become immoral when our pursuit of them takes priority over everything else. I once heard the saying that "Money is good servant but a bad master." A scripture from the Book of Mormon comes to mind, Jacob 2: 18-19, "But before ye seek for riches seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good-to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted."
I can't remember which pre-socratic philosopher it was but one of them lived in a tub in the town square naked, often masturbating and whining that it was so unfair that hunger could not be similarly relieved but rubbing the belly and no I didn't make that up. We know that while Socrates cared little for worldly things he didn't go without them. We know he had a wife and children and also that he was a land owner because he served in the Athenian Army as a Hoplite which was only open to the land owning middle class. Plato by contrast came from a very wealthy family and served as cavalry, which was only open to those who could afford a war horse.
I think Socrates brought up the trial of the Ten Generals to make the point when you give up your principals and give in to external pressure who will live to regret it and to point out how he is able to live guilt free because he has moral fortitude. Socrates is held up and glorified as an ideal man, honest, true and faithful to virtue till the end. An interesting point to ponder is whether or not the story has a happy ending. The book A man for all Seasons covers the story of Thomas More, who was executed for not condoning the apostasy of Henry the VIII. Interestingly book ends with the quote "It is better to be a dead lion than a live mouse." and the film adaptation says "It is better to be a live mouse than a dead lion." I am not sure why the movie flipped the moral of the story but I digress. In the end Socrates dies, but as he made clear earlier, holding in place where you ought to be and doing what you ought to do till the end is the greatest example of virtue. I think that if he had caved in and survived this it would have been the greatest Greek tragedy of all.
Quick Note
I am starting to cash posts so that instead of getting seven posts in under 24 hours (like on Saturday) I have something to post on days my muse is out to lunch. Hopefully things will be more consistent now.
Why so little about my personal life?
There are innumerable blogs on which the author chronicles their daily life, and I try to stay away from that on here. To be honest I thought about starting this off by using the literary device of saying a reader asked me I don't about my personal life much at all, prompting this response. But since my reader knows they didn't ask me that I was afraid of getting called on it and losing you. So I am admitting that this is unsolicited just like everything else on here.
In a nutshell I don't because I don't consider it important and because its personal. Everything I write I write because I think it’s important. I am not saying I think I am worthless of that no one cares because I know that's not true. I just don't think it’s the best use of my time. I want my reader to engage their mind thinking about ideas. I don't see how the individual ins and outs and ups and downs of my life will accomplish that where as what I do might.
When I think of the writers who have really influenced me, like Plato, Edmund Bruke, Livy, Patrick Henry, Niccolo Machiavelli, Adam Smith, Kim du Toit, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Victor Davis Hanson and yes, even Karl Marx* (*Note: not everyone is one the list because I agree with them,) none of them did so by cataloging their day to day life. They wrote about ideas that made me think. Thanks what I want to do for you the reader.
In the end, you will get to know who I am far better than if I gave you every detail anyway.
In a nutshell I don't because I don't consider it important and because its personal. Everything I write I write because I think it’s important. I am not saying I think I am worthless of that no one cares because I know that's not true. I just don't think it’s the best use of my time. I want my reader to engage their mind thinking about ideas. I don't see how the individual ins and outs and ups and downs of my life will accomplish that where as what I do might.
When I think of the writers who have really influenced me, like Plato, Edmund Bruke, Livy, Patrick Henry, Niccolo Machiavelli, Adam Smith, Kim du Toit, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Victor Davis Hanson and yes, even Karl Marx* (*Note: not everyone is one the list because I agree with them,) none of them did so by cataloging their day to day life. They wrote about ideas that made me think. Thanks what I want to do for you the reader.
In the end, you will get to know who I am far better than if I gave you every detail anyway.
Historiography
Upon reading the title my reader(s) entered one of two categories: either someone who knows what Historiography is or someone who is reading the entry. Since anyone reading obviously doesn't know what historiography is I'll explain. Historiography is the most boring topic on earth. I am not making that up. Historians, you know, the kind of people who get excited reading about the inner squabbling of Dutch merchant guilds in 17th century Amsterdam find historiography boring. Historiography is the study of the study of History. You heard that right, its the history of people writing history. In the Dr. Seuss book "Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are." he tries to imagine the worst possible fates that could befall someone, Dr. Seuss accurately describes historiography in action in the part about the Bee Watch Watch Watcher Watcher. In fact, I am starting a rumor that the entire inspiration for that book was Dr. Seuss learning what historiography is. Pass it on, its highly possible.
Why then do historians write them? Why is a paper considered worthless garbage if it doesn't start with one? Because its important. Our perceptions change with time and it can be helpful to learn how people in the past thought about the past. One quick example before I get on to my topic, I remember when I was five my parents taking me to see the annual reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. Now we celebrate that battle as perhaps the most important event in our history. But the first commemoration on the anniversary wasn't until the 1820s. A politician running for office drug out the last surviving veterans to honor them for their deeds. One cynical observer at the time remarked that even if there were no survivors the candidate would have exhumed the bodies from the graveyard so he could publicly honor them.
I know macro-historiography sounds boring enough to kill but in the spirit of full disclosure I feel I need to go there. The how and why of writing history has shifted dramatically since the first historians invented the concept. There is such a thing as Academic History that we teach in our universities and that I was trained in. What I write on the blog is not academic history style and I admit that. For one, I write in narrative format as opposed to the more neutral academic tone. I don't usually get into the details of historical disputes (you should thank me because that's historiography.) Technically history is supposed to be an unbiased quest for historical truth but that's just not how it is. Actually I think the biggest kritik of academic style is that its pretentious in claiming to get to the actual truth when we openly admit that our writing will always be a bit biased. Since the mid-19th century History as a discipline has been trying to get itself classed as a social science and the fact that it by nature can't be observed dispassionately or lend itself to repeatable experiments using the scientific method are a few of the many reasons it isn't.
Livy was a very important Roman Historian who was a friend of Julius Caesar. He wrote Ab Urbe Condita, a 142 volume history of Rome that covered its first 745 years. The fact that his work was used heavily as a source by Edward Gibbon, one of the fathers of modern history, in his six volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is even more impressive when you consider that out of 142 volumes only 35 survive intact. However, were Livy writing today he wouldn't be able to get his articles published by any self respecting academic journal. That's because Livy spells out at the very beginning that he is writing history in order to provide moral instruction to what he sees as a morally decaying Rome. He tells a lot of myths about the early days of Rome which he may or may not have made up. If you want to see what I am talking about check out my post on Jacques-Louis David, who painted lots of paintings to give moral lessons using stories from Livy.
That's pretty much what I do except I go one step further and try to relate it to today's politics. I use a conversational tone to reach laymen bored with other history writing so history is more accessible. Perhaps its best to describe what I do as more using History instead of writing History.
Why then do historians write them? Why is a paper considered worthless garbage if it doesn't start with one? Because its important. Our perceptions change with time and it can be helpful to learn how people in the past thought about the past. One quick example before I get on to my topic, I remember when I was five my parents taking me to see the annual reenactment of the Battle of Lexington. Now we celebrate that battle as perhaps the most important event in our history. But the first commemoration on the anniversary wasn't until the 1820s. A politician running for office drug out the last surviving veterans to honor them for their deeds. One cynical observer at the time remarked that even if there were no survivors the candidate would have exhumed the bodies from the graveyard so he could publicly honor them.
I know macro-historiography sounds boring enough to kill but in the spirit of full disclosure I feel I need to go there. The how and why of writing history has shifted dramatically since the first historians invented the concept. There is such a thing as Academic History that we teach in our universities and that I was trained in. What I write on the blog is not academic history style and I admit that. For one, I write in narrative format as opposed to the more neutral academic tone. I don't usually get into the details of historical disputes (you should thank me because that's historiography.) Technically history is supposed to be an unbiased quest for historical truth but that's just not how it is. Actually I think the biggest kritik of academic style is that its pretentious in claiming to get to the actual truth when we openly admit that our writing will always be a bit biased. Since the mid-19th century History as a discipline has been trying to get itself classed as a social science and the fact that it by nature can't be observed dispassionately or lend itself to repeatable experiments using the scientific method are a few of the many reasons it isn't.
Livy was a very important Roman Historian who was a friend of Julius Caesar. He wrote Ab Urbe Condita, a 142 volume history of Rome that covered its first 745 years. The fact that his work was used heavily as a source by Edward Gibbon, one of the fathers of modern history, in his six volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is even more impressive when you consider that out of 142 volumes only 35 survive intact. However, were Livy writing today he wouldn't be able to get his articles published by any self respecting academic journal. That's because Livy spells out at the very beginning that he is writing history in order to provide moral instruction to what he sees as a morally decaying Rome. He tells a lot of myths about the early days of Rome which he may or may not have made up. If you want to see what I am talking about check out my post on Jacques-Louis David, who painted lots of paintings to give moral lessons using stories from Livy.
That's pretty much what I do except I go one step further and try to relate it to today's politics. I use a conversational tone to reach laymen bored with other history writing so history is more accessible. Perhaps its best to describe what I do as more using History instead of writing History.
A Clear and Present Danger From the South: Part 1
I want to talk about a mostly forgotten footnote of history for a minute. On the Blog I don't torture my reader(s) with history gratuitously; there is always a point I am trying to make. I don't think I will get to it today hence naming this blog part 1.
In 1916 Mexico was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Pancho Villa led his revolutionary Villista's in the north of Mexico while Emiliano Zapata led in the south. While technically called a revolution, by this point it was more of a civil war between generals without a legitimate government. With this high volatility the US did the only prudent thing and looked to protect its own interests while things sorted out. The US supported different generals at different times as the situation developed. In 1914 the US Navy captured and occupied the port city of Veracruz for six months because US Sailors protecting American citizens and property came under attack from the Government troops there.
In 1916 however, Pancho Villa started targeting Americans. In January his men took 17 American railroad workers and shot them. In March Villa was screwed over by his arms supplier in Columbus, New Mexico. In response Villa attacked the town and the military detachment there. They killed 18 Americans, wounded 8 and burned the town down. In response to the violence Woodrow Wilson ordered John Pershing to lead a military expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition saw the first use of the airplane by the US Military, Curtiss JN-4s were used for reconnaissance.
There was not much direct action taken against Villa's forces. Not surprisingly, the one engagement of the Villistas of note involved George Patton, Patton doing all of the killing (a general and two body guards) with his ivory handled revolvers and then Patton carving notches into them. Actually, US forces mostly fought forces loyal to the "government". Apparently Machiavelli's maxim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not well known in Mexico.
In 1917 Pershing and his forces were withdrawn due to the entry of the US into World War I. Pershing would lead the American Expiditionary Forces in France. The arrival of American Doughboys at the critical Second Battle of the Marne broke Germany's last offensive and with it, Germany's last hope for victory. George Patton was the first officer assigned to the new US Tank Corps and literally wrote the book on US armored forces. Sporadic fighting would continue on the border between National Guard troops and Villistas for a few more years. Pancho Villa eventually lost but was pardoned by the Government and later (probably) assassinated by it.
Pershing would publicly claim the operation was a success but had more than a few things to say in private. He complained that Wilson put to many restrictions on him, leaving him unable to complete his mission. Pershing admitted to being "Outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."
Clearly, Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War and later commanders in Vietnam could sympathize with being in a situation where political leaders put so many restrictions on the military as to make victory unattainable. The Korean War has never ended and every few years skirmishes break out and a few people die. Only a few days ago in fact, a South Korean Navy ship sank near contested waters due to an explosion. Though officials won't speculate on what caused the explosion the North Koreans have a habit of shooting artillery into that area at random, and had been doing so earlier in the day. 46 S. Korean Sailors are missing and feared dead. MacArthur argued strongly for taking the war into China to secure complete victory and was relieved by Truman because of it. Right or wrong, we didn't win the Korean War and people are still dying.
But that's a side issue. Tomorrow or the next day we get to what I want to discuss.
In 1916 Mexico was in the midst of a bloody revolution. Pancho Villa led his revolutionary Villista's in the north of Mexico while Emiliano Zapata led in the south. While technically called a revolution, by this point it was more of a civil war between generals without a legitimate government. With this high volatility the US did the only prudent thing and looked to protect its own interests while things sorted out. The US supported different generals at different times as the situation developed. In 1914 the US Navy captured and occupied the port city of Veracruz for six months because US Sailors protecting American citizens and property came under attack from the Government troops there.
In 1916 however, Pancho Villa started targeting Americans. In January his men took 17 American railroad workers and shot them. In March Villa was screwed over by his arms supplier in Columbus, New Mexico. In response Villa attacked the town and the military detachment there. They killed 18 Americans, wounded 8 and burned the town down. In response to the violence Woodrow Wilson ordered John Pershing to lead a military expedition into Mexico to capture Pancho Villa. This expedition saw the first use of the airplane by the US Military, Curtiss JN-4s were used for reconnaissance.
There was not much direct action taken against Villa's forces. Not surprisingly, the one engagement of the Villistas of note involved George Patton, Patton doing all of the killing (a general and two body guards) with his ivory handled revolvers and then Patton carving notches into them. Actually, US forces mostly fought forces loyal to the "government". Apparently Machiavelli's maxim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not well known in Mexico.
In 1917 Pershing and his forces were withdrawn due to the entry of the US into World War I. Pershing would lead the American Expiditionary Forces in France. The arrival of American Doughboys at the critical Second Battle of the Marne broke Germany's last offensive and with it, Germany's last hope for victory. George Patton was the first officer assigned to the new US Tank Corps and literally wrote the book on US armored forces. Sporadic fighting would continue on the border between National Guard troops and Villistas for a few more years. Pancho Villa eventually lost but was pardoned by the Government and later (probably) assassinated by it.
Pershing would publicly claim the operation was a success but had more than a few things to say in private. He complained that Wilson put to many restrictions on him, leaving him unable to complete his mission. Pershing admitted to being "Outwitted and out-bluffed at every turn." and wrote "when the true history is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turned back at the first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover, like a whipped curr with its tail between its legs."
Clearly, Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War and later commanders in Vietnam could sympathize with being in a situation where political leaders put so many restrictions on the military as to make victory unattainable. The Korean War has never ended and every few years skirmishes break out and a few people die. Only a few days ago in fact, a South Korean Navy ship sank near contested waters due to an explosion. Though officials won't speculate on what caused the explosion the North Koreans have a habit of shooting artillery into that area at random, and had been doing so earlier in the day. 46 S. Korean Sailors are missing and feared dead. MacArthur argued strongly for taking the war into China to secure complete victory and was relieved by Truman because of it. Right or wrong, we didn't win the Korean War and people are still dying.
But that's a side issue. Tomorrow or the next day we get to what I want to discuss.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
On Christianity
I started this blog to talk about things that interest me. Growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints I have been a life long Christian. I have decided every Sunday to write on topics salient to Christianity. I am not completely sure what form these will take, some Christian theological topics interest me and some contemporary Christian issues interest me as well. It should be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
