ScottP

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog One of the things I love about world sporting events such as the Olympic Games, other than the displays of fantastic athleticism, is that they provide an opportunity for people to escape from oppressive regimes by seeking asylum in freer countries. The fact that this won’t be possible in 2008 because the Olympics are being held in one of history’s most oppressive nations is only one dimension of the travesty that are Olympic games in China, but at least one athlete may have found a way around the problem. Afghan runner Mehbooba Andyar is missing. The only female athlete from the violent tribal Islamic country of Afghanistan, who trained despite Taliban threats of enslavement and worse, has skipped town before the Olympic games. Andyar was training in Italy in preparation for the upcoming Olympics, but just a few days ago, she simply disappeared–with her personal belongings and passport–fueling speculation that she has run off to seek asylum somewhere. Of course, one cannot imagine any athlete leaving a Muslim country in order to seek asylum in China at the upcoming games–especially a woman. That would be ludicrous. Andyar would only trading one range of threats to her person stemming from tribal and Islamic culture for an entirely new set of tortures in the culture that brought the world foot binding and still practices coercive abortions. Somehow, apparently, Andyar knew enough about the world to plan her escape from Afghanistan before the Olympics–while she was in Europe. At least I hope so. There’s still the possibility that some hateful Muslim man or group has kidnapped her, and that she’ll turn up dead somewhere. If not, and if the young runner has made the courageous choice to try to pursue her own happiness in the world by seeking freedom from Islamism, then I wish her “godspeed!” View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Like so many people, I have thought over the coming election and studied the field of candidates. As a result of my analysis of the coming vote and especially of its historical significance, I have tentatively switched to the “None of the Above” camp. I get the sense that most people like myself who believe in America’s founding principles, i.e. individual rights, will vote Republican despite the attempts of Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, to convince them otherwise. The reasons are obvious: Obama is a Marxist. He’s so far left, it’s scary. And so, the reasoning goes, we must–however distasteful it may be–vote Republican. At least Republicans accept a mongrel form of Americanism, including the desire to defend America in an increasingly hostile world. I disagree strongly that the Republican party has any essential scrap of Americanism left in it, or that it will properly defend America if its presidential tenure is extended. So, there is no way I could vote for McCain. But I am concerned that socialism is not really dead, that collectivism can indeed continue to expand with incredibly dire consequences for America, so I could never vote for Obama either. (Libertarians please–please–move on; I have no stomach for the ultimate perversion of liberty which you represent.) So there are no options. The only choice is to strongly denounce all the available choices, and not vote. I know that Leonard Peikoff denounces this option just as vehemently as he does voting Republican, but I consider that I understand history, Objectivsm, and the role of philosophy in shaping civilizations quite well myself, and I believe that the most potent political option for promoting cultural change is principled, vocal abstention. So, once I’ve completed my final lecture in my current lecture series, The Islamist Entanglement, I’m going to switch my attention to this topic, and see if I can’t state in proper terms, why I think this is the only way to go. Meanwhile, I’m hoping people out there who are tortured about the vote will make a survey of the “None of the Above” sites and see whether or not there are already any good ones. The image that I have above, which certainly states a valid sentiment, nonetheless links to a site that I definitely do not agree with–for the simple reason that the home page refers to “American democracy.” In my view, anyone that uses the term “democracy” to describe America is so ignorant as to be criminally negligent of history. In fact, as I’ll elaborate in upcoming posts, It’s precisely because America is not a democracy that Americans should stop voting. We must reject the use of force against our fellow citizens on principle, and not voting is the only way. But it can’t just be a private act. It has to be political–as a means of sparking a “discourse” in American society about the tragic decline of our political culture, and thus allow the advocates of reason and individualism to reach a wider audience and make more of a difference. More soon. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Apparently, the International Olympic Committee is considering a ban of Saudi Arabia. Sounds good. The Olympic motto is “Citius, Altius, Fortius,” which is Latin for “Swifter, Higher, Stronger.” It is an ideal that encompasses all people, including women. An organization that stands for this ideal cannot rightly allow a member state that systematically denies equal rights to one sex, and indeed systematically oppresses that sex. Obviously, the IOC doesn’t exactly have a consistent history of standing up to the world’s worst regimes (such as the Nazis and the Soviets), but it did give South Africa the boot, and it should ban the Saudis next. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog As I was preparing my lecture on Israel–listen live tonight, I wanted to try to find an apt comparison to demonstrate just how small Israel is. A quick Google search revealed a great site: IRIS.ORG.IL (IRIS stands for “Information Regarding Israel’s Security”) that has great comparative maps. Here’s the pick of the litter: How Big is Israel–A Special Map for Americans: How Big is Israel–a Special Map for Canadians: How Big is Israel–a Special Map for Arabs: Actually, the Arab World is so big, it won’t even fit in my blog window! You can click on the map to see the original, if you like. No wonder the Arab world had so much trouble accommodating the Palestinian “refugees.” Where would they all fit? (IRIS also has a decent BLOG, but I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how to leave a comment on some of their more interesting posts. If you manage to do so, let me know how!) View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In returning to the history of Saudi Arabia in preparation for my recent lecture on the Islamist Entanglement and struggling to define the precise relationship between the United States and its so-called ally, it finally struck me what the two countries have colluded in creating. In essence the United States has adopted a feudal relationship with the Saudi monarchy. What is worse, rather than champion its distinctive founding ideology of individual rights, the US has essentially captained the re-institution of the feudal system as the basic system of international relations throughout the world. Viewed from this perspective, US actions in support of dictators, theocracies and other oppressive regimes around the world are understandable, and completely consonant with the poor treatment the US and its closer allies often reserve for each other. God help us, because we’re headed back to the Dark Ages! Want to know why this tribal barbarian is so happy? He’s just been infeuded by the most powerful lord in all of history! Feudalism, a political system found in various forms in all developing world cultures through history, but especially associated with the darkest time in the history of Western civilization, is an attempt to mitigate human barbarism not by identifying the principles required for people to live in peace, but rather by establishing a set of inter-dependencies to discourage war and to accrue short term advantages. When the feudal system originated in Europe, it was because the most powerful chieftains could not directly manage their territories during the constant war that was life in the post-Roman world. Charlemagne, for instance, was constantly running from one front to another—from the Muslims in Spain, to the Lombards in Italy, to the Germans in central Europe. Despite his martial prowess, he understood that no area that he had conquered would stay conquered for long in the religious and tribal setting of the time, so he extended the system of “stem duchies,” whereby semi-independent regional rulers were entrusted with maintaining order on the frontiers. In the south, there was the “Spanish March.” In the east, there were numerous regions such as Bavaria and Saxony, each ruled by a “dux” (a duke). To make sure that the system functioned by design, and that no part became too self-involved, Charlemagne sent envoys to every part of his empire on a regular basis. They were known as the “Missi Dominici.” The Missi were foreign to the territory they managed, so that they wouldn’t have special ties to its rulers, and they were sent to insure that imperial directives were implemented. One was a lay official, the other an ecclesiast, so that both dimensions of medieval governance could be managed. The fundamental relationship that the Missi Dominici were supposed to oversee through their “shuttle diplomacy” was the basic form of barter that defines every feudal relationship: “land for loyalty” (sometimes known as Frankish Resolution 242!) In this barter arrangement, a vassal was granted territory (a fief or “feud”) by his lord in exchange for various expressions of loyalty. Whenever the lord required an army in defense of his broader objectives, the vassal was to provide a levy of knights and peasants from his territory. In exchange the vassal’s claim to his land was sanctioned and protected by his lord. If one landholder’s claim was threatened by another it was the lord’s obligation to arbitrate the relative claims of his vassals and to interpose his military might when needed. This type of relationship existed at every level within the medieval social hierarchy, from serfs and farmers to knights, barons, counts and dukes, all the way up to kings and emperors. An important aspect of this system was that the moral legitimacy of any particular regime took a back seat to power politics. Feudalism was the systematization of “might makes right.” For instance, before Charlemagne’s reign, when Frankish feudalism was still in its infancy, Pippin—a servant of the reigning Merovingian king Childeric III—went to the Pope and demonstrated that it was he, not Childeric, who exercised real power in the kingdom. The Pope then sanctioned the transfer of power from the Merovingians to Pippin’s family, later known as the Carolingians. Childeric deposed by Pippin. (His hair is being cut in preparation for life in the monastery.) Later, when Rollo the Viking was granted Normandy by the king of France in 911, it wasn’t because he had a moral claim to it, but rather because he promised to “stabilize” a region that was otherwise subject to the very depredations that Rollo had engaged in but was now supposedly willing to forgo. (You could say he was willing to play Fatah to other the Vikings’ Hamas.) Not surprisingly, Rollo’s powerful descendants nearly toppled the French kingdom on multiple occasions thereafter. The French-Norman version of the “peace process” extended for many centuries, and only closed with the Hundred Years’ War. What on earth does this have to do with the present day? I’m sure to some of you (especially my students!) the parallels may already be evident. Before revealing the trappings of the modern feudal system, however, I still need to elaborate on how feudalism works in Part 2: False Morality, Pragmatism, and Collectivism. Stay tuned! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Powell History is proud to announce the creation of a new forum for anyone interested in history: the HistoryAtOurHouse Yahoo group. The group’s description is as follows: HistoryAtOurHouse is a forum for anyone interested in the value of a secular history education. Parents of homeschoolers and afterschoolers are especially welcome. The group serves as a complement to the HistoryAtOurHouse program and blog, but it is open to discussion of any secular history curricula and issues related to history and homeschooling. Obviously, readers of PHR are more than welcome! Join the group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historyatourhouse Best, Scott Powell View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Every culture has a barbaric past. Some are just more stylish than others. [Warning: gory details to come!] For instance Italy–the land of the Renaissance, homeland of Verdi and Marconi, was once home to the Lombards. These nasty long-bearded types had a penchant for cruelty. As one story goes, a Lombard ruler, having conquered his enemy, made a mug out of his skull, then married his daughter and forced her to drink out of the cup at their wedding! This reminds me of Shakespeare’s bloodiest play Titus Andronicus, in which Titus feeds a Goth woman a pie made from the body of her sons–themselves rapists, whose victim Titus kills at dinner to relieve her shame! Europeans definitely have a certain flair for life-hatred. But if you’re looking for real commitment, for a barbaric ancient culture that went the extra mile, It’s hard to imagine anyone topping the Aztecs. The Aztecs themselves claimed to have sacrificed 80,000 victims to consecrate the pyramid of Tenochtitlan over the course of four days. As one writer has remarked, this outstrips the rate of eradication of the Jews by the Nazis at Auschwitz! And the Aztecs did it by hand! Modern writers are pretty convinced the Aztecs were bragging, however, so I suppose that gives Germany the “edge.” Speaking of edges, how about the edge of guillotine blade? The French were definitely stylish in their barbarism, if nothing else. But when the guillotine proved too slow at lopping off heads in the French Revolution, the French put their inventive minds to work, tied hundreds to barges, and sunk them in the middle of the river. I’m not sure if this got them to barbarism’s “magic number,” which seems to be the slaughter of 20,000 by hand. This honor goes to Agha Mohammed Khan the first of the Qajars, the dynasty that would rule Iran from 1794 to 1925. When he finally captured the city of Kerman, which had supported his adversary Lotf Ali Khan, Agha Mohammed ordered all the male inhabitants killed, and had a pyramid made out of their 20,000 eyeballs! Apparently, in a letter (now lost), Agha Mohammed then wrote a letter to Robespierre, which he received just before having his lead lopped off. It read, “Your barbarians owe my barbarians twenty bucks!” View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog According to this AFP Google news story, Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party recently won 92% of the votes in the country’s municipal elections. Of course, the results were never in doubt as the NDP was able to “disqualify” opponents, resulting in a boycott by still others. Who cares? Well, consider that the British installed a puppet monarchy in Iraq in 1921, and held a bogus referendum showing that the new king had the overwhelming support of the people. Then, in a slowly building crescendo, Iraqis scratched and clawed their way to the point where they overthrew this illegitimate government in 1958. This, by the way, set the stage for the eventual takeover of Iraq by the Ba’ath Party, and the takeover of the country by Saddam Hussein. One important difference between the gradual shift taking place in Egyptian culture today and that of Iraq after 1921 is that it is being being driven not by nationalists working to displace a monarchy that collaborates with the West, but by Islamists working to displace a dictatorship that collaborates with the West. Even more ominous though is that Egypt is definitely due for a revolution. It’s coming soon. It took Iraqis about 50 years to develop the political and institutional awareness during Ottoman constitutional rule and subsequent British control to the point where they could take over the government. Egypt’s Islamists have had to endure a secular dictatorship longer than that, and the Muslim Brotherhood has been in operation since 1928 — and has roots going back to the Urabist movement of the 1870s — meaning that is likely better positioned to take over the country than any Iraqi group would have been in 1958. What is more, the Mubarak regime allows Brotherhood members to hold office as “independents,” even though the party is banned. The only reason Mubarak is still in power is his hold over the military, but one wonders how long that will last. I am convinced that Egypt will become one of the next Islamist theocracies, probably when Mubarak dies. (Here’s an interesting that shows the government’s intellectual bankruptcy, and gives you a flavor of the current political scene in Egypt.) Readers interested in Egypt’s plight, may want to check out John Bradley’s Inside Egypt, which has been called “a blistering overview of what it’s like to live in this autocratic, hopelessly corrupt society.” (I’m currently reading Bradley’s book Saudi Arabia Exposed, and although I think he is too evenhanded in his presentation, the irony is that even when he’s trying to portray so-called dissidents in the The Kingdom in a positive light, to the astute observer he ends up condemning even that segment of the population. There is simply nothing redeeming about Saudi Arabia.) For my top reading recommendations on Egyptian and Middle Eastern history, be sure to join the Powell History mailing list. The next installment is coming this weekend.) View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In my historical research on the Islamist Entanglement, I have been examining the intellectual undercurrent that runs through Middle Eastern history during the Western Ascendancy of 1683-1839 and subsequent Western Supremacy over the region. It has been a fascinating project, with far greater rewards that I had suspected. Among the most interesting characters I have found on this journey has been an Islamic intellectual named Jamal ad-Din “Al-Afghani.” Al-Afghani, so called because he claimed Afghan lineage at one point in his life, though historians are quite convinced he was actually of Persian descent, is one of the wellspring intellectuals of modern Islamic reaction against the West. Jamal ad-Din, known as “Al-Afghani” Predictably, Al-Afghani’s intellectual work contains primarily denunciations of Western imperialism and various calls to Muslims to build a proper apparatus to match the West’s superior power, such as through the creation of a Pan-Islamic union. As a reactionary and Pan-Islamist, Al-Afghani occupies a unique place in the intellectual history of Islam as a mentor of key Islamists, such as the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and through them to Osama Bin Laden. It is thus especially surprising to find in his writings passages that would thrill the most rational among us and show incredible insight into reality. For instance: “It is philosophy that makes man understandable to man, explains human nobility, and shows man the proper road. The first defect appearing in any nation that is headed toward decline is in the philosophic spirit. After that deficiencies spread into the other sciences, arts, and associations.” What is so striking about this statement is that it is true and profoundly insightful, especially when you consider that Al-Afghani would have learned about scientific history from the West when the science of history was devolving into Marxist materialism and Rankean antiquarianism. How many modern Western philosophers uphold such a conviction? Why does philosophy have such power? Al-Afghani explains: “ Philosophy is the escape from the narrow sensations of animality into the wide arena of human feelings…In general, it is man’s becoming man and living the life of sacred rationality. Its aim is human perfection in reason, mind, soul, and way of life….It is the foremost cause of the production of knowledge, the creation of sciences, the invention of industries, and the initiation of the crafts.” (emphasis mine) This are some of the most eloquent passages I’ve read from any philosopher, including Nietzsche (when he’s exalting the individual) and Ayn Rand. If only these were the answers Al-Afghani had stuck with, and the message he had transmitted exclusively to his progeny! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The United States is currently engaged in an effort to elevate Afghanistan to the status of exemplary moderate Islamic state. What exactly are the prospects for accomplishing this mission based on Afghanistan’s history and culture? The first thing to realize when broaching this question is that Afghanistan is not a nation, and barely a country. Historically, Afghanistan served as a corridor for the rampaging armies of the East moving west, of the West headed east, and of central Asia moving north or south. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Timur (a.k.a. Tamerlane) are only the most famous of foreign rulers who used this geopolitical thoroughfare to fulfill their imperial ambitions. For all recorded history, Afghanistan has either been occupied by a foreign power in full or in part, or subsisted through some interim in which foreign powers were repositioning themselves for another move. It’s for this reason that historians and those who accept the moniker “Afghan” place such great emphasis on the formation of the “Durrani Empire” in 1747. At this point, one of the region’s tribal leaders was elected King of Afghanistan by an assembly of notables. Even at this point, however, it would be an exaggeration to say that Afghanistan existed as anything other than a primitive feudal amalgam. I liken the situation in Afghanistan to France in the Dark Ages. In 987, Hugh Capet was selected by the various lords of France as king. He was elevated to the nominal role of king precisely because it served the interests of the lords, who didn’t want centralized rule. Capet’s own land holdings around Paris were insignificant compared to those of the Duke of Normandy or Duke of Aquitaine. As king he would have no real power. Ahmad Shah Durrani, chosen in 1747 as “king” of Afghanistan was in a similar position, except one could argue that Afghanistan in 1747 was quite far behind France of 987. The region had not even coalesced into permanent feudal holdings under major “dukes” or “counts”. The relationships to which Afghans adhered (and many still do adhere) were tribal, like those of the Germanic tribes out of which the Frankish kingdom first came together as Rome fell. Unlike France, however, Afghanistan never managed to experience the dynastic stability out of which a centralized monarchy could arise. Although Ahmad Shah was succeeded by his son, as Robert II succeeded Hugh Capet in France, the Durrani dynasty never experienced that long string of successes that gave the Capetian dynasty its storied place in French history. Even as the Durrani Empire was in the process of crystallizing, external events swamped its progress. In 1798, Napoleon demonstrated his intention to move on India by conquering Egypt. Then France allied with Russia in a move that might yield an overland expedition to the nascent British Empire in Asia. Because of this threat the British began to keep a close eye on developments in central Asia, and the “Great Game” was initiated. Woe be to the Afghans, who had no idea their little corner of world was viewed as a pawn in a continental chess match between world powers. The Shah of Afghanistan and his Suitors in the “Great Game” They would learn quickly enough, as the British–who judged Afghanistan to be an unworthy state–initiated the Anglo-Afghan Wars in order to achieve regime change in India’s backward neighbor. First in 1839, and then again in 1878, British armies invaded to try to transform Afghanistan into a useful buffer state. When the region proved too backward to use, but not backward enough to dismiss entirely, the British decided to strike a deal with the Russians, whose empire by 1875 had reached the Amu Darya (the river which now forms part of Afghanistan’s northern boundary. The two empires drew Afghanistan’s borders themselves, including the hated Durand Line which now bisects key Afghan tribes, imposing Pakistani citizenship on some and Afghan rule on others. (A strange result of this imperial boundary tracing exercise is that Afghanistan shares a border with China, and anyone who crosses that line headed East loses both freedom and 3.5 hours of their lives!) Afghanistan’s present borders were largely imposed upon it by Russia and Britain. Strangely, Afghanistan got off pretty easy when it came to the World Wars. In 1907, with the Anglo-Russian Entente, the Great Game came to an end. Its two contestants agreed to work together against a common threat instead. Then, as the World Wars consumed the West’s attention, Afghanistan slipped under the radar. It was so backward that nobody really bothered. Things changed however in 1947, when Pakistan was formed and the Cold War turned the region into a battleground once again. The partitioning of the region by Britain was given permanence when the United States chose to view Pakistan as a key ally of the “Northern Tier” to contain Communism. It armed that country while largely ignoring Afghanistan. The Soviets, not surprisingly, saw Afghanistan as ripe for the picking. Gradually, as the country moved from having one school in 1904, to two, three, four by WWII, “Western” ideas–including Marxism–began to percolate through the educated elite. With Soviet help, a Communist party staged a coup in 1978 and the primitive Islamic region was catapulted into the era of “scientific socialism.” Not surprisingly, the dissonance between old and new was too great, and the Soviet were forced to move in to prop up the Communist regime, lest it fail for all the world to see. From 1979-1989, the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. As Communism collapsed, a power vacuum was created, into which all the pent up Islamic tribal energies of the various peoples of Afghanistan were sucked. The country fell into Civil War, and gradually fell under the control of the Taliban. From this point onward, the story is familiar to most Americans. The Taliban regime that hosted Osama Bin Laden was displaced by Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 after the 9-11 attacks. And US forces have been there ever since. What is the relevance of this background to the present? Afghanistan has never become a true state, and it has constantly lived in subordinacy to outside powers. As a result of its history as a “highway of conquest,” as one historian put it, and its recent subordination to Britain and the Soviet Union, Afghanistan really only exhibits one cultural constant: a desire for independence. You often hear people say that the Afghans are “freedom lovers.” This is a misrepresentation. The people who live in Afghanistan are “self-determination lovers”–and with good reason! But these are not the same thing. Left to their own devices, the Afghans would make war on each other long into the foreseeable future. Their loyalties remain to the tribe, above all, and to Islam. They would not embrace political freedom and create republican institutions; they would seek to dominate each other on the basis of traditional ideas about tribal and religious life. If threatened by outside interference, they would come together, but revert to internecine feuding as soon as the threat receded. They simply don’t know how to live any differently. Can this be changed by an extended US presence? It’s possible, but not likely. Certainly, the timescale of the requisite cultural change is much longer than anyone in the Bush administration would care to fathom. First, Afghan tribalism is alive and well, and there are simply too many parts of the country that the US-supported government does not control. Second, Afghanistan is not being injected with a sufficiently deep Western outlook. Afghanistan’s so-called universities don’t teach humanities like history and philosophy. They teach computers, engineering, medicine–and Islamic Law. The intellectual framework needed to sustain free institutions is thus not being erected. The minute the US ceases to prop up the country, the weight of Afghanistan’s history and culture will cause the whole apparatus to collapse. To learn more about the story of Afghanistan, try my lecture on the History of Afghanistan as part of the Islamist Entanglement. For the most accessible reading on the subject, I recommend the Greenwood History of Afghanistan by Meredith Runion. It’s not as thorough as Martin Ewans’s Short History of Afghanistan, which is also useful, but it’s a better introduction. | Facebook | StumbleUpon | Technorati View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The HistoryAtOurHouse blog, home to news about the world’s premier homeschooling history curriculum for children, features the following recent articles: A Classic Tribute to the American Sense of Life — Ruggles of Red Gap: a “must see” movie from Hollywood’s Golden Age. In Defense of Heroification: Leutze’s “Crossing the Delaware” — Modern critic James Loewen claims history is subject to a degenerative process called “heroification.” Leutze’s Crossing, however, is entirely justified hero worship. Jefferson Outsmarts Napoleon — HistoryAtOurHouse students Dane and Hayden van Slooten present “Kid Komics.” There first rendering offers a new take on the negotiation of the Louisiana Purchase! Secular Homeschooling — What is it exactly? And what does secular history instruction look like? Enjoy! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog What if your personal library could contain the best history books ever written? Thomas Jefferson’s library at Monticello once numbered perhaps as many as 10,000 volumes. It was the largest personal collection of books in the United States of the Founding Era. When the British burned the Capitol in 1814, Jefferson offered to sell his library to the government, providing a core of new reference materials for the representatives of the still young republic. Concerning the scope of the materials offered, of which 6500 volumes were eventually purchased, Jefferson commented, “there is in fact no subject to which a member of Congress may not have occasion to refer.” (Read more about Jefferson’s library here: Library of Congress.) Of course, most of us do not have reason or occasion to amass a library of 6500, let alone 10,000 volumes. But wouldn’t it be great to have the books your really need? What if you could build a history library of only the most essential texts, which would allow you to research any important historical topic and provide you with a gateway into the vast store of human knowledge about the past? As my own collection of history books approaches the 2000-volume mark, I’ve decided to share my list of top ten books on four different crucial historical topics, for a total of only 40 books. This includes my top ten books on each of these four topics: History of America History of Europe Ancient History The History of the Middle East You don’t have to scour libraries and bookstores, and spend thousands. I’ve done that! Take advantage of my groundwork, and build a great library with only forty. Over the next weeks, I’ll be sharing with my mailing list subscribers which 40 books out of my 2000 book library I would save if there were a fire in my house! Don’t miss it! The first issue of this four-part series, I cannot live without books!–an exclusive e-zine series for Powell History mailing list subscribers, comes out this weekend. Be sure to join the Powell History Mailing List to get your recommendations, learn about Powell History products, and receive special offers for current and upcoming courses. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Although I am usually loath to recommend any history book written after 1920, when the subject matter itself postdates WWI, you simply have no choice. And, truth be told, I have read more than a handful of quite excellent histories from modern writers, despite the dreadful state of the profession, so I’m willing to give credit where credit is due. When it comes to the topic of European Union, the title I recommend is The Community of Europe by Derek Urwin. Although not quite fitting in the category of “excellent histories,” this work has many virtues. The theme of this work is European integration. No historical topic can be more relevant to anyone wanting to understand Europe’s current course. Ever since the disaster of WWII, Europeans have been trying to fashion a non-belligerent way of life amongst themselves, to create a “community” of nations. Their answer to this challenge has been the concept of “supranationalism.” In recent weeks, I have posted some of my thoughts on this topic in my essay on Europism (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 coming soon). In simple terms, supranationalism is the attempt to assert a broader collective self-identification in order to justify the creation of a “United States of Europe.” Urwin looks mostly to the bleak years of post-WWII Europe when presenting his thesis. This is a reasonable approach, because it highlights the first tentative steps of the supranationalist agenda and shows how the European Union was formed in the period of European subordinacy to the Cold War superpowers. (Especially interesting is the role of Charles de Gaulle’s anti-Americanism in directing the early progress of the Union.) The most important value of Urwin’s book is that it presents the basic progression–the story–of European integration from the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) and European Economic Community (1957) to the Maastricht Treaty of European Union (ratified in 1993). Two things are missing in this presentation: 1) The advent of supranationalism in the context of nationalism and internationalism is not sufficiently treated. To truly understand the genesis of the new approach one must understand the failure of its predecessors and how the former is derived from the latter. 2) A philosophical evaluation of supranationalism is also wanting. What the modern student of Europe needs to understand is the collectivist roots and nature of supranationalism and the collectivist responses of its opponents. Urwin provides the material for the student of political philosophy to work with, but he does not aid in the integration himself. That is up to the reader. Still, the treatment is brief and relatively accessible. Consequently, you won’t too often find that the details are distracting or discouragingly complex–especially if you have the benefit of an initial orientation through my two-lecture history of Europe in the Twentieth Century, coming soon (part of “A First History for Adults,” Part 2). [Get the full course here!] Also coming soon: Thomas Jefferson’s library had 6500 volumes it. Find out how you can be fully informed with just 40!I cannot live without books!–an exclusive e-zine series for Powell History mailing list subscribers– will help you create the ultimate history library. Be sure to join the Powell History Mailing List to get your recommendations. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Cut through the clutter in the news concerning developments in the Middle East. Find out what really matters. Tune in to Powell History Recommends Middle East Watch. Each week, I’ll be monitoring the news for historically significant events in the region’s major countries, and passing them on to you, with brief commentary about why these events deserve your attention. Noted Reformist Cleric Jailed in Iran (Associated Press) Much attention continues to be focused on Iran’s influence over the Iraqi insurgency and to its posturing over its nuclear program. Certainly these deserve attention, but any treatment of these topics has to be informed by a proper assessment of what Iran is. It is an oppressive Islamist theocracy that continually violates the rights of its own citizens by denying a fundamental principle of moral civilizations: the separation of church and state. Turkey Court Takes Politically Explosive Case (NY Times) PHR will be following developments in Turkey closely in the months to come, because Turkey’s supreme court has accepted a case that could lead to a ban on the ruling party. The AKP party, led by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, though democratically elected, has a platform that contradicts the secularist tenets of Turkey’s constitution. If it isn’t stopped by the court, another military coup is likely to occur. Egypt: Elections and Future of the Muslim Brotherhood (RightSideNews) This article runs down the current political situation in Egypt, and points to problems that are likely to occur when Mubarak kicks the bucket. Egypt’s biggest problem is that Nasserism was ideologically vacuous. The country’s run-of-the-mill state socialism is economically destructive and may very well produce the kind of widespread discontent that Truman era thinkers worried would lead to world communism. In this case, however, it’s Islamism that will profit. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Imagine a conversation that goes something like this: Person A: “Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett — at the Alamo, after twelve days.” Person B: “Washington crossed the Delaware; the Hessians, the long sleep.” Person A: “Napoleon…Waterloo.” Person B: “Napoleon — at Lodi, the Little Corporal!” In case you need to brush up on your history, the conversation went as follows: Person A: “I think I have an insurmountable problem. It’s going to be the death of me.” Person B: “When things are at their worse, you have to make a bold move.” Person A: “Honestly, I think I’m out of options this time.” Person B: “Don’t give up just yet, this could be an opportunity to make a name for yourself.” The two conversations are the same; only the latter is expressed in fully generalized terms — “universals,” whereas the former is expressed almost entirely in historical concepts. I imagine that while reading this some of my readers will immediately have been reminded of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which the crew of the enterprise attempts to communicate with an alien species called the Tamarians that uses historical concepts exclusively. In this story, when the Captain of the Enterprise, Jean-Luc Picard, greets his counterpart, he says something to the effect of “I come in Peace”–i.e. the usual Federation protocol. The answer, however, is not expressed in universal terms. His opposite number responds, “Rai and Jiri at Lungha, Rai of Lowani. Lowani under two moons…” This and subsequent exchanges are, of course, extremely frustrating for both sides. The reason is that the aliens are in effect handicapped by permanently operating on a lower level of abstraction that the humans. The only solution to the problem, orchestrated by the alien captain, is to try to forge a bond of common experiences, and thus build up a common vocabulary of historical terms around them. (The two captains are forced to work together to fight a strange creature that inhabits the planet where their ships have met.) When the individual that operates on the higher level of abstraction—Picard—is able to understand the basic mode of communication of the less advanced species and determine the universal equivalents of the historical referents the aliens rely on, he can communicate in the alien’s idiom. (The reverse would be impossible.) In the final exchange, the fact that the two species have come to understand each other is expressed by Picard, in purely historical terms, using his own name and that of the other captain and the location of their shared ordeal: “Picard and Dathon at Eladril.” The episode itself is wonderfully imaginative and satisfying. It is just one example of the portrayal of human efficacy in the series, which is especially uplifting about Star Trek: The Next Generation in general. If you’re tired of drunks, depressives, terrorists, cheating housewives, and back-stabbing reality show competitors, rent it on DVD. It can reinvigorate you with a sense of the grand and the heroic. It’s the issue of historical concepts, however, that I really want to look at. Although the idea that a space-faring culture could possibly communicate on an exclusively historical level is ludicrous, it is interesting to note that people who use general concepts do also use historical concepts in certain instances. For instance, when someone uses an unorthodox solution to solve a seemingly impossible problem, one might say he cut the Gordian knot. (This refers to an episode in the life of Alexander the Great, in which he literally cuts through a knot, which, as local legend would have it could only be “undone” by the man who would rule the world.) Another example of a historical concept that people use to this day is that of a Pyrrhic victory. When someone wins a contest or struggle of some sort, but the cost is so high that he emerges with no advantage or so crippled by the victory that he cannot leverage it, then he has won a Pyrrhic victory. He might as well have lost! (This happen to Pyrrhus of Epirus, a Greek king who’s victory over the Romans in southern Italy was crippling to his fortunes in the long run.) To “cross the Rubicon” is to make a fateful choice, with enormous consequences for yourself and others, as Caesar did when he cast the die and invaded Italy in a bid to become Emperor of Rome. These types of terms, though few and far between in current usage, represent one of a surprising variety of cognitive tools that people are able to use to grasp reality beyond general concepts. In the next installment of this series I’ll talk about why I think these terms are important, and why the fact that we don’t have more of them in the language today is a symptom of a serious problem in our culture. | Facebook | StumbleUpon | Technorati View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In my recent “roundup” of bloggers tackling history, I missed one who shouldn’t be missed. He’s one of my keenest and ablest students, ”SB”, over at One Reality. His recent post Digging for Artifacts relates to Egypt’s backward looking culture and a theme I discussed in my fourth lecture of the Islamist Entanglement: Egypt’s “sense of nationhood.” Ayn Rand coined the term “sense of life.” By that term she meant “a pre-conceptual equivalent to a metaphysics,” or an implicit sense of one’s place in reality. In my research on Egypt I’ve become convinced that Egypt exhibits a cultural-historical analog: a “sense of nationhood.” Simply put, this sense of nationhood is the view that Egyptians are a great historical nation. It is an implicit premise embedded in Egyptian thinking that extends back to its “glorious” pharaonic past, of which the ever present pyramids and temples provide a constant reminder. This self-identification also involves a 2400 year history of foreign occupation that began with an invasion by the Persians c.600 BC , and lasted through to Ottoman Rule, which ended in 1798. Egypt’s sense of nationhood is a kind of subconscious estimate of the value of the people and their past which has been a major factor directing them to where they are today. Mahmoud Moktar’s sculpture ”Egypt’s Awakening” is an allegory of its sense of nationhood. Interestingly, there is no real philosophy of nationalism in Egypt. In his essay, “Egypt’s Liberation: The Philosophy of the Revolution,” Nasser explains and exemplifies this fact. Nationalism — a European ideology — did find a receptive audience among Egypt’s intellectuals starting in the 1870s. This movement, common to many Middle Eastern countries, culminated in the formation of the Wafd party, which tried to have Egypt’s case for nationhood heard at the peace confereences of Paris in 1919. But Egypt’s sense of nationhood never took off as an ideology. The basic reason is that Egypt’s nationalists failed to achieve independence. They were stymied by a combination of British meddling and monarchical intrigue, and were politically discredited. In the wake of that failure, Egypt faced a desparate choice between two alternatives: Islamism and Nasserist military dictatorship. Although it is true to say that Nasser was more politically astute then the Muslim Brethren of the time, and connived his way into power, I think it’s fair to say that if Egyptians hadn’t felt that he was the great upholder of their “sense of nationhood,” he would not have held on to power. It was because of Egypt’s emotional baggage about its past that Nasser was able to develop himself as a cultural hero for Egyptians, and why, even after his terrible defeat to Israel in 1967, he had overwhelming popular support. (Of course, Eisenhower gave Nasser an incalculable boost, by spanking the British over their Suez Crisis response.) What is interesting about Egypt’s current position is the interplay between its sense of nationhood and Islam, the only explicit metaphysics and code of values its people widely accept. The two are incompatible and have been in constant tension since Nasser came to power. Because the latter is an all-encompassing and explicit system of ideas, and it has no ideological rivals, it’s only a matter of time before it takes over. In fact, I predict an Islamist takeover within a generation. That does not mean, however, that Egypt will necessarily succumb to participating in some kind of new Caliphate, even though Islamism is on the rise throughout the Middle East. Egypt’s sense of nationhood should continue to act on an emotional level to keep Egyptians apart from their fellow Muslims. Learn more about this topic in my lecture on the emergence of modern Egypt. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog As a teacher, I can say with confidence that the best way to make sure you understand something is to write about it. The process of collecting, ordering, and transmitting your thoughts in written form requires a greater rigor that speaking. There’s a dimension of finality to what you write that forces you to think it through just that much more. So I’m especially glad to see that some of my students out there are doing their best to tackle the material we’ve covered in The Islamist Entanglement by writing about it. One of the assignments that I’ve challenged them with has been the production of a distilled narrative integration. That’s fancy talk for the shortest possible paragraph that captures the essential storyline. So far they’ve done a fantastic job. I have a number of students who already have genuine command of the basic history of the Middle East after just four lectures, and we’ve got six more lectures to go! Others have also chosen to summarize each of the lectures for themselves as they proceed, or to pick up on particular themes. Here’s a “roundup” of interesting writing by my students around the blogosphere. Titanic Deck Chairs New blogger C. August has been especially busy with some good insights. His post EU Asserts Democracy at Turkey’s Peril looks at the fascinating conflict of Secularism vs. Islamism in Turkish culture. He also has a nice analysis of how altruism has undercut American foreign policy in his piece on A Brief History of President Doctrines. I agree with August’s evaluation of the Monroe Doctrine wholeheartedly. It is the single best foreign policy doctrine ever proposed. And the so-called “Roosevelt Corollary” is the most pernicious corruption of a crucial value to America I can think of, matched only by Roosevelt’s virulent attacks on capitalism through his “trust-busting” initiatives. Armchair Intellectual Gideon Reich writes about the current situation in Afghanistan in his post We Continue to Refuse to Win. Reich is right that the Afghanistan situation cannot be isolated from the situation in its neighbors, Iran and Pakistan. This isn’t new, of course. You here about the connections in the media all the time, but America’s leaders do continue to evade that the situation in the Middle East requires an integrated perspective–and, that the purpose of fighting a war is to win. (I’ll be looking at the history of Afghanistan in lecture 5 of The Islamist Entanglement — available in full as a separate product for only $20.) I also like how Gideon highlights McCain’s recent speech for its historical content in Bush, McCain, and Why Republicans Are Not Worth Voting For. It is indeed a myth that Republicans stand for self-interest and uniltareralism, and it makes complete sense for McCain to identify with the Truman Doctrine. Powell History Around the World! Martin Lindeskog of Sweden at egoist.blogspot.com has been enjoying the course so far. He has a post about lecture 1 on his site. (Warning, Martin–a true capitalist–has a lot of externally linked ads on his blog–it can take a while to load. I recommend his sign-up box so that you can get his posts via e-mail.) Over in New Zealand, Peter Creswell runs “Not PC,” which takes aim at political correctness in that quarter of the globe. Peter has a some nice things to say about Powell History in his post Economics and History By Essentials. Peter’s blog has a neat mix of materials from philosophy to visual art and architecture. I especially enjoy seeing his posts on Frank Lloyd Wright. Check it out! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog There so much clutter in the news concerning developments in the Middle East. How do you find out what really matters? Tune in to Powell History Recommends! Each week, I’ll be monitoring the news for historically significant events in the region’s major countries, and passing them on to you, with brief commentary about why these events deserve your attention. Here’s my first roundup: Egypt: “A battle over female circumcision” (LA Times) Islamists and conservative clerics are fighting proposed legislation in the Egyptian parliament that would criminalize female circumcision and raise the minimum age of when a girl can marry. The Islamists view the bill as an affront to Sharia law…(Full article here.) Historical significance: Egypt is a society deeply divided. The debate over the issue of female circumcision — imposed on as many as 70% of Egyptian girls — is indicative of the divide. The Muslim population is alienated from the Mubarak regime and its partly Westernized elite. And Mubarak hasn’t got long to live. When he’s gone, Egypt will become an Islamist regime within a generation. (Find out more by hearing my upcoming lecture on Egypt, as part of the Islamist Entanglement. Individual lectures in the series are available for only $20.) Turkey: “Turkish Leaders Face Court Case” (BBC News) Turkey’s constitutional court has decided unanimously that it can hear a case aimed at closing down the country’s governing AK Party. The chief prosecutor earlier filed a petition calling for the party to be banned for “anti-secular activities” (Full article here.) Historical significance: As reported here on PHR, Turkey — the Middle East’s most secular country — is in serious jeopardy of reverting to Islamism. After decades of benevolent secular dictatorship, initiated by Mustafa Kemal, Turkey has gradually become more democratic. However, because most of the population remains deeply Muslim, secularism is constantly under threat. (Learn more, by hearing my lecture on modern Turkey, available separately or as part of the Islamist Entanglement series.) Iraq: Nothing Defining Although President Bush claimed that the Iraqi government’s latest attempt to crack down on violence in Basra was a “defining moment,” nothing of significance happened in Iraq this week. In other words, nothing happened this week that tells us anything new about the Iraq situation, nor indicates that its primary actors are going to do anything to prevent Iraq from disintegrating into civil war when the US leaves. The militias in Basra will continue to operate and continue to receive support from Iran. US forces will continue to try to help the Iraqi government stand on its own, but they won’t attack Iran — the known supplier of those same militias. As the French like to say, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” – the more it changes, the more it stays the same. Iran: “A puppeteer’s tribute to Iranian democracy” (International Herald Tribune) It isn’t necessarily news, but it is an op-ed that clarifies important issues about how the Iranian “democracy” functions. Ahmedinejad may indeed be on the way out, but that won’t mean that Iran will be changing direction in terms of its regional aspirations. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In lecture 3 of the Islamist Entanglement, I presented the history of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey. I introduced this topic to my students by explaining that Turkey is by far the most westernized of all the Islamic countries in the Middle East. As such, Turkey is a kind of historical prototype–an advanced model whose development can help us predict how other countries in the Middle East might develop. Sadly, in this regard, Turkey’s history demonstrates that there is a frightening limit to how much even the most progressive Muslim countries can be expected to achieve given the interaction between the Middle East and the Western world. Turkey’s relatively advanced position stems from its history of close cultural contact with Europe. After failing to take Vienna in 1683, the Ottoman Turks were driven back across Eastern Europe, and in the wake of the “Great Turkish War,” agreed to a peace that involved the first dictated terms ever endured by that medieval superpower. Over the next century, they continued to lose to the West, most notably in the Russo-Turkish Wars of 1768-74 and 1787-92. Subsequently, their autonomous vassals, the Mameluks of Egypt, were also trounced by Napoleon in 1798. In light of all these military defeats, the Turks hit upon the need to discover the secret of the West’s superiority and began to study Europe intently. At first, the desire to learn from Europe was entirely pragmatic. The Turks were merely looking among their adversaries for the means to destroy them. However, the first ambassadors ever sent to the West by Sultan Selim III in 1793 reported back that European countries had achieved certain political advances, which, when they were copied, began to make Turkey more like the very enemies it hated. Ostensibly, Europe’s countries had moved beyond feudalism. Their centralized monarchies boasted efficient conduits of information within and between the military and civilian authorities, allowing the monarch’s tentacles of power to extend outward to touch every aspect of the state. Feudalism, an unwieldy system with unreliable arrangements of vassalage, had been replaced with standing armies and a hierarchy of professional civil servants to integrate and support them. This was believed to be the political dimension that underlay European success. Selim and his successor Mahmud II set about mimicking this apparatus, hoping that by duplicating the “technological” side of Western government, they could match its efficiency. Despite such efforts, European supremacy over the Ottoman world continued unabated. More radical reforms were needed. As it became evident that military and bureaucratic changes were insufficient, education became an area of special focus. Military cadets were sent to Europe in waves. The first secular educational institutions for military, medical, and scientific training were created. In a report of the Ottoman “Board of Useful Affairs” concerning this work, it was noted that “Religious knowledge serves salvation in the world to come but science serves the perfection of man in this world.” A more fundamental factor fueling the West’s advance had thus been identified: the emancipation of science and practical life from religion. This was not something that traditionalist Muslim authorities were willing to accept, however, or to allow to be widely implemented. Thus knowledge of the West’s secular superiority was restricted to the ranks of a small educated elite associated with the Ottoman Sultanate, and a rift between that elite and the bulk of the people developed. When asked by a scholarly committee about the religious validity of implementing a secular Western legal code for regulating commerce, the Ottoman Grand Vizir replied, “The holy law has nothing to do with such matters!” “Blasphemy!” responded the committee. Sadly, this has continued to be the response of the ulema (religious scholars) and the large, religiously submissive element of the Turkish population to this day. By the time Turkey was formed in 1923, the educated Westernized intelligentsia still constituted less than 10% of its population. Most of the people were still agricultural peasants, and still under the sway of their local imams (”priests”). Not surprisingly therefore, when Turkey’s great modern leader, Mustafa Kemal, came to power after WWI, he found that it was necessary to “force the people to be free.” He would establish a benevolent, secularist dictatorship, until a more stable foundation could be erected and the people could be entrusted to direct their own progress. Primary and secondary education were secularized. Women were emancipated, and given access to all levels of education. All symbols of traditional submission, such as long beards and headscarfs, were eliminated within government institutions. Even the alphabet and the calendar were Westernized. Given such measure, within a few generations, perhaps, the people would be ready. It may seem surprising that Kemal, and his successor Ismet Inonu, who were both oppressive dictators after a fashion, were indeed committed to freedom. They definitely crushed any opposition–often violently. Critics could be exiled, or just as likely hanged in public, while the reform program was imposed upon the people. Still, Turkey’s leaders continually tinkered with democratic forms, trying to expand the peoples’ participation in the government. Sadly, they found them still incapable of understanding and defending their own freedom. In 1950, hoping that the time had come, Inonu allowed the first free elections to be held, and the incumbent regime was removed. From this point on, Turkey’s history is a dizzying, erratic succession of democratic and military regimes, with coups almost as numerous as elections. The army, the most westernized institution in the country, has repeatedly defied the majority of the population’s wish to re-inject Islam into the government. Most recently, a democratically elected Islamic party was ousted by the military in a 1997 coup, only to be succeeded by a new democratic regime whose leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also intends a shift towards Islamism. The situation in Turkey is inherently unstable. Indeed, without a fundamentally positive shift in the culture, Turkey’s Kemalist system is likely to come to an end. However, no such shift seems likely to occur, and the United States deserves a good deal of the blame. What Turkey has needed since WWII, when it came to America’s attention, is much more than just a nuclear aegis to fend off Communism. It has needed principled guidance by the United States on how to advance the secularist program so that it can truly Westernize once and for all. Unfortunately, that’s not what it got. Truman specifically had Turkey in mind when he enunciated his doctrine. If its regime could be propped up, he believed, then the Soviets would be prevented from penetrating to the Mediterranean. Of course, Turkey was but one piece in a much larger containment scheme. If, in order to appease the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, America needed to withdraw Turkey’s nuclear shield (American Jupiter missiles) then so be it. If in 1964, Turkey planned to intervene in Cyprus, where a civil war between Greek and Turkish Cypriots was brewing, but this was deemed counterproductive by the United States, then Turkey was warned that American support against the Soviet Union was contingent upon following orders to diffuse the conflict. Throughout the past sixty years, though nominally committed to helping Turkey, the United States has done nothing but treat it as a disposable asset. How then could Turkey be expected to progress? Could it reasonably be expected to model its culture on America’s? The United States certainly hasn’t shown Turkey any special respect for its secular virtues. On the contrary, it is entirely understandable that Turkey should reject American domination and American values — a trend that began during the Ford administration — while seeking closer ties with both the Soviet Union, and especially Europe. This will probably be its undoing. The great irony of Turkey’s rapprochement with Europe is that the European Union requires democratic governments in its candidate states. For Turkey to embrace Europe’s democratic ideal, however, is to insure that the Islamist element in Turkey wins a permanent voice in its political system, and possibly even that it becomes the dominant element — as foreshadowed by the Erdoğan premiership. Turkey thus seems poised to regress rather than progress. There is no sign that it will find any new guidance from America, or that on its own, it will be able to realize the aim of full cultural secularization. Turkey has been stuck on a plateau ever since the Kemalist secularization program stopped and the country’s progress was undercut by America’s Cold War treatment of it. Now Islam appears ready to make a political comeback. What Turkey is thus likely to transmit to the Islamic world in the next generation is not the image of a successful secular Middle Eastern country, but rather the frightening picture of the partial-birth abortion of one. | Facebook | StumbleUpon | Technorati View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The following is both a hilarious parody, and a tragic reflection on the decline of American culture. American journalist Oliver Jensen is the creator of the second entry, which is based on Eisenhower’s style of delivering press conferences. The Gettysburg Address, as Lincoln delivered it: Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle- field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. The Gettysburg Address, if Eisenhower had given it (written by Oliver Jensen): I haven’t checked these figures but 87 years ago, I think it was, a number of individuals organized a governmental set-up here in this country, I believe it covered certain Eastern areas, with this idea they were following up based on a sort of national independence arrangement and the program that every individual is just as good as every other individual. Well, now, of course, we are dealing with this big difference of opinion, civil disturbance you might say, although I don’t like to appear to take sides or name any individuals, and the point is naturally to check up, by actual experience in the field, to see whether any governmental set-up with a basis like the one I was mentioning has any validity and find out whether that dedication by those early individuals will pay off in lasting values and things of that kind. . . . But if you look at the over-all picture of this, we can’t pay any tribute - we can’t sanctify this area, you might say - we can’t hallow according to whatever individual creeds or faiths or sort of religious outlooks are involved like I said about this particular area. It was those individuals themselves, including the enlisted men, very brave individuals, who have given the religious character to the area. The way I see it, the rest of the world will not remember any statements issued here but it will never forget how these men put their shoulders to the wheel and carried this idea down the fairway. Now frankly, our job, the living individuals’ job here is to pick up the burden and sink the putt they made these big efforts here for. It is our job to get on with the assignment - and from these deceased fine individuals to take extra inspiration, you could call it, for the same theories about the set-up for which they made such a big contribution. We have to make up our minds right here and now, as I see it, that they didn’t put out all that blood, perspiration and - well - that they didn’t just make a dry run here, and that all of us here, under God, that is, the God of our choice, shall beef up this idea about freedom and liberty and those kind of arrangements, and that government of all individuals, by all individuals and for the individuals, shall not pass out of the world-picture. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Here’s a link to an interesting animated overview of the history of the Middle East from Ancient Egypt to the present, which takes only 90 seconds to watch. http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf A number of things are missing from this presentation. One is evolution of the empires in question after they reach their height, such as the division of the Roman Empire, and the subsequent shrinking of the Byzantine Empire. The map shows the growth of empires at the expense of previous empires, but that creates an erroneous perspective. To be truer to the martial nature of the history of the region, it would be better to at least see the territories of the empires fluctuate to symbolize border wars and territorial losses other than those inflicted by the next major power. For instance, in relation to the Roman example, it does not show the major territorial losses incurred during the barbarian migrations in Europe. One thus gets an exagerrated sense of the power of the Byzantines as the Muslims emerge. In truth, they had retreated to a smaller Eastern territory. Another is the coexistence of empires over relatively long stretches of time. For instance, one does not get the sense from the presentation that the Byzantines withstood the Muslim advance for 800 years, or that the Ottoman Empire was coexistent with a considerable Persian Empire that it could not conquer. It would be good if the presentation paused at milestones other than the greatest extent of a particular empire, and showed the distribution of power at key times. This would help capture one of the important factors in the history of the region: the existence of competing powers and cultures over long stretches of time. Anyways, as far as oversimplifications go, it’s a good one. You probably can’t do much more in 90 seconds! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Yahoo News has an interesting article that includes a very hopeful set of predictions on the outcome of the Iraq War, where, according to at least one Middle East expert, “A reasonable outcome would find something like 30,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq for 25 to 50 years.” An good parallel is drawn in the article between the Cold War and the Islamist Entanglement (my term). “After all, the US has deployed troops in Germany and Japan for 63 years, and Korea for 57. Might Iraq, in the end, require a commensurate commitment?” It’s a good point, except that if experts think the US is merely going to be in a “cold war” with a nuclear Iran, they are off the mark–unless they are factoring in the idea that the US would be willing to live across an “iron curtain” from an Iran that has already wiped Israel off of the map. Check out the article here. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog OK. Let’s switch tracks. Modern politics is so depressing, and I’m sure we all need a metaphysical pick-me-up after thinking about Iran-Israel. I recently got two great art books for my birthday, and when I tell you that one of them was full of Victorian nudes, but that it’s the other one I’m most excited about, you’ll have some idea of how good it is! I’m talking about the best book I’ve ever seen on the art of Sir Edward Everett Millais. The book is simply entitled “Millais,” by Jason Rosenfeld and Alison Smith. (Get it here, at an amazing price, from Amazon.) Millais first came to my attention because he created some remarkable works of historical art. My favorite of these is Huguenot Lovers, which depicts an intimate moment during the St.Bartholomew’s Day massacre of the religious civil wars in France. The French Protestants, known as “Huguenots,” were to be massacred this day, by order of the royal family. Catholics were to be safely identified by the white armbands they wore. In Millais’s depiction of a great conflict of values related to this episode, a woman attempts to fasten a white band onto the arm of her lover, who, while embracing her, prevents her from doing so. In the words of the poet, Richard Lovelace, “I could not love thee, Dear, so much, Loved I not Honour more.“ Also worth a look: John Everett Milais, Beyond the Pre-Raphaelist Brotherhood. It’s has a more limited thesis, and does not offer the same comprehensive presentation as the Rosenfeld-Smith book, but it’s still nice. Also, if you can find it, Sir John Everett Millais by Geoffroy Millais has been a happy component of my collection. It’s older, so the reproductions are not quite as sharp, however. Two other books, worth a look for insight into the work of Millais For more information about Millais, you can also take in a post I wrote about another one of his works, The Boyhood of Sir Walter Raleigh over at HistoryAtOurHouse. This artist is fighting for a place in my top five favorite painters of all time! Find out why, by picking up the amazing Rosenfeld-Smith book! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Perhaps Israel’s action will come before the upcoming election! Maybe Bush and Cheney will take one huge parting shot in the “war on terror” by using Israel as a proxy–one that doesn’t require “congressional authorization”–to strike at Iran? That’s what this Washington Post editorial suggests. It states the following reasons for concern about an upcoming attack: the recent resignation of William Fallon — a general who is known as a critic of the administration a trip by Cheney’s trip to the Middle East a recent airstrike on Syria by Israel, which may signal the intention to clear a strike corridor by assessing Russian-built air defenses the presence of U.S. warships off Lebanon Israeli comments Israel’s war with Hezbollah Perhaps by “Israeli comments,” one can include the fact that there have apparently been leaks concerning an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran using bunker-buster weapons–which may have been supplied to Israel by the US as recently as 2006 expressly for the purpose of attacking Iran. If this happens, it’ll simply mean that Israel recognizes the imminence of the Iranian threat and is going to render McCain-Obama even more irrelevant by preempting any self-defeating move either of these leaders might make with regards to Iran. What worries me, however, is that these attacks will amount to “nuclear pinpricks” and thus do nothing but reinforce Islamic totalitarianism’s hold over Iran and exacerbate the long-run situation in Iraq beyond repair. View the full article