ScottP

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog So how exactly do you choose a “Person of the Year”? Here’s more from Time’s Richard Stengel: People tend to think that choosing the Person of the Year is a scientific process. It’s not; it’s a subjective one. There’s no Person of the Year measuring stick or algorithm…We have meetings…But in the end, it has to be someone or something that feels right, something that’s a little unexpected, someone our readers will be eager to know more about. [Read the full article here.] This contradicts what was said in Stengel’s other explanation, which focuses on what is indeed a viable, objective criterion, namely historical significance. Of course, one can hardly expect modern journalists to be consistent, but what about an “algorithm” for choosing a ‘Person of the Year’? Could there be such a thing? Is it possible to objectively assert that one person is the most important person in the world at any point in time? I think it is, and I think the algorithm is in principle fairly straightforward. (The details, of course, are tricky!) One element of the calculation that makes it seem daunting at first is that it is impossible to measure a person’s full historical footprint in the present. Although one can certainly anticipate the historical import of an event or action in a journalistic context, historical significance emerges gradually, and it is most easily measured from a distance, with the benefit of hindsight. One reason for this is that the future does have a way of yielding the unexpected. Free will and unanticipated consequences mean that despite context, trends, and traditions, accidents do happen, and the truly unique or “sui generis” does appear. Both of these have affected the course of events at many junctures in history. For instance, when Corsica became a part of France in 1768 despite its close cultural ties to Italy, one could hardly have expected this minor transfer of European real estate to matter in the larger scheme of things. One year later, however, a certain Napoleone di Buonaparte was born there, whose subsequent entry into French military schools as a youth, rather than schools in Italy, changed the story of the world. If one can see the “big picture” of history, one can absorb shocks like these, and still plot out a general course for events based on fundamental trends. Even in the context of the Napoleonic upheaval, for instance, one could have predicted that a longer term struggle between the new liberal socialism of the French Revolution and the traditional monarchism of Europe would extend for generations. Such a prediction would have been based on a variety of factors, including on the one side the success of the American republic, the moderate course of England’s constitutional monarchy and its prestige on the continent, the current shocks being dealt to the decaying structure of feudalism by the Napoleonic presence throughout Europe, and on the other side the sustained ideological alignment of Russia, Prussia, and Austria during that period. Still, there’s no question that Napoleon would have been “Person of the Year” for a good 15 years running, which fact helps us to see the first basic principle that applies in the “Person of the Year” algorithm. In a word, that principle is “preeminence.” When one person occupies a place in world affairs that is incommensurably greater that all others, then the choice is easy. Applying this principle, though one might like to choose, say, Thomas Jefferson in 1801, as third President of the nascent American republic and leader of that infant nation against the Barbary Pirates–or James Madison in 1812, the fourth President, standing up to Britain’s imperial might in defense of his people’s rights, I think that such choices would have been nearly impossible to make for even the best journalist at the time–though in the long run, one could eventually revise one’s choice. While Napoleon held sway over Europe, his actions and their apparent impact on the course of civilization swamped those of any other candidate, and even if these exceptions are allowed, they still serve to highlight the rule. So preeminence trumps any other consideration, but what do you do when there isn’t a clear choice of the Napoleonic variety? What do you do when you live in a world without leaders–at least, a world without political leaders, as we do today? (continued in Part 3) View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Time has crowned Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year, with Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Hu Jin Tao of China, and General Petraeus as runners-up. In making its selection, Time has offered an interesting justification. TIME’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. [Full text here.] I agree with this basic selection criteria. As I often tell my younger history students, “Importantis the most important word in history.” Similarly, as I am wont to explain as well, when someone is known as “the Great”–as in Peter the Great, or Frederick the Great–it doesn’t necessarily mean “the Good” or “the Bad,” but it definitely means “the Important,” and that means that they deserve our attention. I do not, however, agree with the choice of Putin as Person of the Year. I certainly do not think he is good, and I do not think he is great in a historical sense either. Time proposes that he has brought “stability” to Russia, and this means that he is thereby shaping the world. The truth is, however, that Russia remains fundamentally unstable, as is plainly evidenced by the fact that the Putin regime requires constant upkeep by a corrupt and oppressive apparatus. The press is censored and dissidents are intimidated and jailed. However inconclusive, the Litvinenko case, is also indicative of the nature of the Putin system of dealing with dissent. As Time’s Richard Stengel admits, it is an “imposed” stability–which means it is no stability at all. Russia remains in transition from full Communism to what, unfortunately, it remains uncertain. Nationalism is now the main driving ideology in the culture. Putin’s rhetoric is always colored with it. It is the basic reason for his various international frictions with the United States and concurrently high popularity ratings among Russians. Most disturbingly, it is the essence of the pro-Putin Nashi youth movement. But nationalism–a collectivist ideology which upholds the reality and value of the “nation” above that of its individual citizens–always acts as a host for socialism or fascism, i.e. government control of citizens through the “national” machinery of the state. Consequently, unless there is a significant ideological shift in Russia (and I don’t see how), it will continue to be a fundamentally statist country for the foreseeable future. I suppose that is a kind of “stability,” if by stability one means constancy. But it’s not impressive by any historical yardstick I can think of. (continued in Part 2) View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Time has crowned Vladimir Putin as its Person of the Year, with Al Gore, J.K. Rowling, Hu Jin Tao of China, and General Petraeus as runners-up. In making its selection, Time has offered an interesting justification. TIME’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. [Full text here.] I agree with this basic selection criteria. As I often tell my younger history students, “Importantis the most important word in history.” Similarly, as I am wont to explain as well, when someone is known as “the Great”–as in Peter the Great, or Frederick the Great–it doesn’t necessarily mean “the Good” or “the Bad,” but it definitely means “the Important,” and that means that they deserve our attention. I do not, however, agree with the choice of Putin as Person of the Year. I certainly do not think he is good, and I do not think he is great in a historical sense either. Time proposes that he has brought “stability” to Russia, and this means that he is thereby shaping the world. The truth is, however, that Russia remains fundamentally unstable, as is plainly evidenced by the fact that the Putin regime requires constant upkeep by a corrupt and oppressive apparatus. The press is censored and dissidents are intimidated and jailed. However inconclusive, the Litvinenko case, is also indicative of the nature of the Putin system of dealing with dissent. As Time’s Richard Stengel admits, it is an “imposed” stability–which means it is no stability at all. Russia remains in transition from full Communism to what, unfortunately, it remains uncertain. Nationalism is now the main driving ideology in the culture. Putin’s rhetoric is always colored with it. It is the basic reason for his various international frictions with the United States and concurrently high popularity ratings among Russians. Most disturbingly, it is the essence of the pro-Putin Nashi youth movement. But nationalism–a collectivist ideology which upholds the reality and value of the “nation” above that of its individual citizens–always acts as a host for socialism or fascism, i.e. government control of citizens through the “national” machinery of the state. Consequently, unless there is a significant ideological shift in Russia (and I don’t see how), it will continue to be a fundamentally statist country for the foreseeable future. I suppose that is a kind of “stability,” if by stability one means constancy. But it’s not impressive by any historical yardstick I can think of. (continued in Part 2) View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Powell History is offering its most amazing set of specials ever this holiday season. There’s never been a better time to enjoy learning history! The first installment of the acclaimed A First History for AdultsTM curriculum, the 30-lecture “Story of America,” is available for $70 OFF the regular price of $449, from now until Christmas! (You pay only $379!!) Powell History’s “History of Europe”, a 20-lecture course, is now available for $60 OFF the regular price of $349, from now until Christmas! (You pay only $289!!) Finally, Powell History’s latest adult history course, “The Islamist Entanglement”, a 10-lecture course starting February 8th, is now available for $50 OFF the regular price of $249, from now until Christmas! (You pay only $199!!) [Learn more about The Islamist Entanglement at the new course webpage.] Buy one, two, or three great history courses, for yourself, or a loved one! These savings are available only until Christmas! To learn more about the Powell History philosophy, and curriculum, visit the main site. To take advantage of these holiday specials now, go the holiday registration page now! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog A good traditional date assigned as the beginning of the Age of Discovery is 1415. In that year, Portugal, having in the past century and half achieved independence from both the Muslims in Iberia and their Christian rivals Castile, initiated a new phase of exploration by conquering the Muslim trading post of Ceuta in northern Africa. One thing that strikes me about this episode in the history of Western relations with the Middle East is that during the subsequent phase of Portuguese activity, the Muslims were treated as an adversary to be defeated and then circumnavigated. In other words, Prince Henry did not advocate attacking the outposts of Muslim pirates near the Strait of Gibraltar and then settling among them to foster common values. He advocated destruction of any threats to Portugal, but then independence. After exhausting every strategic value he could from Ceuta, his focus shifted to avoiding further entanglements with these enemies, and pursuing profit to empower his native country. Under his leadership an institute of geography and exploration was founded at Sagres, on the southern tip of Portugal, and wave after wave of Portuguese ships of increasingly advanced design, sought a passage around Africa in order to establish trade with the empires of the East. The torturous progress of his explorers did not yield that route while he was still alive. They found their way past Cape Verde by 1445, and to the Guinea coast a decade later, but by the time of his death, the Equator had yet to be crossed. Tragically, Portugal’s kings were not as wise as Prince Henry. His father gradually turned away from the country’s true interest and became entangled in a crusade against the Muslims in northern Africa. Then Portugal’s next king Afonso V, who you might say “stayed the course,” abandoned further exploration in the name of religious warfare. He earned the nickname “the African” for all his efforts, but those same efforts bankrupted his country. Only after Afonso V died did his successor Joao II re-initiate exploration efforts. Under his leadership the Portuguese rounded the Cape of Good Hood in 1487/88 (more famous than the true southern tip of Africa, Cape Agulhas), and reached Asia in 1498, to subsequently enormous advantages. The tiny nation would create an empire spanning from Brazil to the Indies. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The LA Times carried an article yesterday that touched on an interesting theme relating to the importance of the history of the Middle East, and the importance of history in general. In essence, that theme is the weight of un-integrated history. As students in my current European history course (registration is always open!) are well aware, the complex and dreary chain of wars that Europeans waged on each other throughout their history provides important insight into the cultural malaise on that continent. Whence that wry English wit? Whence the French distaste for a happy ending? Whence the German “Weltschmerz” (”world weariness”)? These are all symptoms of un-integrated history, expressed in the “sense of life” of a culture. The emotional burden that people carry when they fail to integrate the past of their nation is just one of the costs of not learning from history, and really just a symptom of a more tragic reality. When history goes unlearned, as George Santayana was wont to say, the same mistake keep getting repeated. And worse yet, this iterative process of failure compounds the context of historical-psychological baggage that people carry with them. Witness the Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans in the latest round of “peace talks.” It’s been forty years since the UN Resolution 242, which proposed “land for peace.” Everybody says they want peace, but no one seriously believes they will find it now, or in the near future. The so-called “road map” put forward by President Bush sets out conditions for peace that are not being met by the Palestinians, and that no one can foresee being met. The weight of un-integrated history which everyone carrying but evading is the basic fact that the Palestinians (and their Muslim and Arab sponsor states) are morally bankrupt and have done nothing to come even remotely close to earning them statehood. The history of these people is a shocking litany of self-destructive religious fanaticism, racism, and violence. And yet they are treated as genuine partners in the “peace process.” Until the historical record of the Middle East is set straight, predicting the outcome of the latest round of peace talks is depressingly straightforward. Whatever commitments are stated will not be met, whatever hopeful sentiments are expressed will be repudiated in action; and there will be no peace. Learn the history of the Middle East with Powell History by taking The Islamist Entanglement this coming February (general registration is now open). View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Hapsburg Sandwich: Take a deep breath: In 1469, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile became joint rulers of Spain, creating a personal union for that kingdom. In 1477, Maximilian I Holy Roman Emperor married Mary of Burgundy, bringing a patchwork of states under direct Hapsburg control in central Europe. Then, these two families, so recently brought together themselves, were joined by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella’s daughter Joanna to Max and Mary’s son Philip. Their son first became Charles I of Spain, and, then, in 1519 was elected Charles V Holy Roman Emperor. Phew! Why do I call this the Hapsburg Sandwich? Well, Charles thus inherited a large portion of Europe, seen in the following map: This raised the prospect of a universal monarchy for Europe. In the middle, however, “sandwiched” by the Hapsburg lands, was a strong, unified Catholic France, possessed of a distinct national identity (born of the Hundred Years’ War), which had no intention of being subsumed by this imperial behemoth. Hence… The Anti-Hapsburg Sandwich: In 1529, the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith, laying siege to the Hapsburg capital of Vienna, leading Catholic France to ally with the Muslim Empire in 1536 in an attempt to counterbalance Hapsburg power. In 1543, a combined Ottoman and French fleet captured Nice. In 1544, the Ottomans, at France’s request, also took Naples from the Emperor. They would continue to project power into Europe for another 150 years! The Anti-Hapsburg Sandwich is thus a major historical example of Western nations being absorbed by the question of the temporary “balance of power” while discarding ideology and common values. Of course, it’s true to say that the only integrating ideology that Europeans had at the time was Christianity, and that the Ottomans did not really have the ability to conquer Europe, so one might argue that what France did might actually have been for the best–in the moment. However, viewed in its full historical context, one sees that what followed was a wholesale abandonment of principles in European foreign policy. In that regard, the Anti-Hapsburg Sandwich seems to be a watershed point. Once the Reformation had done its work of disintegrating Christendom, Europe regressed into a period of pragmatism characterized by the projection of power for its own sake. Its “grand” monarchs, Louis XIV of France, Peter “the Great” of Russia, and Frederick “the Great” of Prussia, would initiate countless wars of aggression against their neighbors and their imperial targets. And–which only made matters worse–it was at this point, when Western politics was devoid of principled guidance, that Europe became entangled by the “Eastern Question,” i.e. the question of what to do with the Middle East. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Hapsburg Sandwich: Take a deep breath: In 1469, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile became joint rulers of Spain, creating a personal union for that kingdom. In 1477, Maximilian I Holy Roman Emperor married Mary of Burgundy, bringing a patchwork of states under direct Hapsburg control in central Europe. Then, these two families, so recently brought together themselves, were joined by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella’s daughter Joanna to Max and Mary’s son Philip. Their son first became Charles I of Spain, and, then, in 1519 was elected Charles V Holy Roman Emperor. Phew! Why do I call this the Hapsburg Sandwich? Well, Charles thus inherited a large portion of Europe, seen in the following map: This raised the prospect of a universal monarchy for Europe. In the middle, however, “sandwiched” by the Hapsburg lands, was a strong, unified Catholic France, possessed of a distinct national identity (born of the Hundred Years’ War), which had no intention of being subsumed by this imperial behemoth. Hence… The Anti-Hapsburg Sandwich: In 1529, the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith, laying siege to the Hapsburg capital of Vienna, leading Catholic France to ally with the Muslim Empire in 1536 in an attempt to counterbalance Hapsburg power. In 1543, a combined Ottoman and French fleet captured Nice. In 1544, the Ottomans, at France’s request, also took Naples from the Emperor. They would continue to project power into Europe for another 150 years! The Anti-Hapsburg Sandwich is thus a major historical example of Western nations being absorbed by the question of the temporary “balance of power” while discarding ideology and common values. Of course, it’s true to say that the only integrating ideology that Europeans had at the time was Christianity, and that the Ottomans did not really have the ability to conquer Europe, so one might argue that what France did might actually have been for the best–in the moment. However, viewed in its full historical context, one sees that what followed was a wholesale abandonment of principles in European foreign policy. In that regard, the Anti-Hapsburg Sandwich seems to be a watershed point. Once the Reformation had done its work of disintegrating Christendom, Europe regressed into a period of pragmatism characterized by the projection of power for its own sake. Its “grand” monarchs, Louis XIV of France, Peter “the Great” of Russia, and Frederick “the Great” of Prussia, would initiate countless wars of aggression against their neighbors and their imperial targets. And–which only made matters worse–it was at this point, when Western politics was devoid of principled guidance, that Europe became entangled by the “Eastern Question,” i.e. the question of what to do with the Middle East. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Americans are deeply divided over the direction to take in the Middle East. Must we “stay the course” in Iraq, “cut and run,” “change course” and attack Iran, or something else–and how do we decide? This February, Powell History presents The Islamist Entanglement, the third installment in the acclaimed A First History for AdultsTM curriculum. Finally, you have a chance to understand the historical context behind the most critical foreign policy challenge of our times, and bring this knowledge to bear to help steer America in the right direction. For over 200 years the policies of Western powers have profoundly affected the development of the Middle East. Indeed, during that time, the West’s answer to the “Eastern Question” has been the single most important factor in determing the history of the region and its impact on world affairs. In the Islamist Entanglement, we will examine the how the West, and especially America, has perceived the Middle East in connection to Western interests, what policies have been attempted to mold the region according to wider objectives, and what their results have been. Without the answer to these questions, any proposal for dealing with the Middle East today is little more than a historical “stolen concept,”–a proposal torn from the context necessary to validate it, and one which probably contradicts the centuries of precedent that this context provides! So isn’t it time you armed yourself with the understanding that only history can provide? Untangle yourself from the moment, and get the “Big Picture”! Join Powell History for The Islamist Entanglement! (Classes start February 6th) You’ll get: 10 lectures, each 1.5 hours, for a total of 15 hours of instruction your choice of live teleconference instruction or digital recordings unlimited access to web-based recordings for repeat listening “fact sheets” that summarize the history of each of the major Middle Eastern nations tips and unique exercises to help you integrate and retain the material Be sure to return to PHR later today, when pre-registration opens, and save an amazing $60 OFF the regular price of $249. (You pay only $189!) Just type “Monroe Doctrine” into the pre-registration password box. DON’T DELAY, THIS OFFER EXPIRES “CYBER MONDAY,” November 26th! View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Kant’s philosophical assault on man’s faculty of reason paved the way for the historical assault on Columbus by preventing a key avenue of development from ever occuring in Western historiography. By aborting the general study of abstractions as cognitive tools, Kant prevented historians from adopting the epistemological stance necessary to define and defend the most crucial instrument in the systematization of history: historical abstractions. During the eighteenth century, history had been dominated by rationalism. The French Enlightenment thinkers had created the “philosophy of history,” which proposed to find in all historical developments a kernel of progress, driven by reason. Following the pattern of Christian thinkers who reduced everything to God’s will, or “providence,”they proposed to express all of history’s irregular gyrations in terms of a single determining principle. It was historical thinkers such as these, who advocated using historical abstractions to summarize the past. They used the expression “the Dark Ages”to capture an era where reason was suppressed, the “Renaissance” to propose a general reawakening of reason, and “the Enlightenment” to denote a period in history where the power of reason was widely manifested. To use these terms, however, required emphasizing certain facts at the expense of others, tracing certain causal progressions rather than others, and ultimately, viewing the whole story of man’s past as the variegated expression of one basic cause. Empirical historians could not accept this apparent oversimplification. While progress might be occurring in one area, such as science, they reasoned, decline might be evident in another part of a culture, such as politics. Similarly, progress in one country, such as in late seventeenth century England, where parliamentary limitations on the monarchy reached new heights, might be paralleled by decline in another country, such as France, where absolutism evolved to new oppressive levels. Or, along a different vein, an element of progress–say a great invention like the steam engine–might propel men forward in one sense, but also contain a negative dimension, such as the rise of new hardships for laborers, social tensions, and political struggles. In the name of an allegiance to the facts in all their Heraclitean complexity, the empiricists of history rejected casting the past in abstract terms. History was faced with the same basic dilemna as philosophy: to find the principle in the plethora. But before historians could even begin to take the question seriously, Kant revoked their license to do so. He announced that even the “facts” were subjective–”phenomenal”–and that all efforts to build upon this foundation could never penetrate to “things in themselves.” One major trend in subsequent historiography was to embrace subjectivity as a fundamental truth, and simply construct competing perspectives. The most influential exponent of this approach was Marx, who despite claiming a “scientific” status for his reasoning, basically cast history as a political weapon in the evolving class struggle. His followers would adapt this approach and use history as a means of promoting their own political agendas, such as feminism (”herstory”) or multiculturalism (e.g. “black studies”). The other important trend was an epistemological retreat, sounded by the leading German historian of the nineteenth century, Leopold von Ranke. If abstractions were avoided, he and his followers hoped, then the problem of relating them to the concrete data of history could also be avoided. In this ostrich-like approach, the historian was to busy himself in historical archives, where he would find unprocessed, or “primary” sources. And from these, assiduously avoiding any mode of interpretation, he might craft an unbiased narrative. The past as it really was–”wie es eigentlich gewesen,” in Ranke’s words–could be channeled without distortion, if one simply avoided trying to use if for some purpose other than simply knowing it for its own sake. That neither Ranke nor any of his followers could actually practice what they preached merely provided the first point of attack by Kant’s progeny, who were wont to point out that even if one were to allow the existence of “facts” in history, the act of organizing them into a narrative itself constituted an act of logical processing which created an “artificial” structure no less corruptive than sorting facts into periods, such as “the Renaissance,” or deploying them to support a thesis such as progress. Of course, on a deeper level, there were no “facts:” even “primary” sources involve human selectivity, and thus cannot be considered to represent “things as they were.” In the ultimate indictment, presented by Michel Foucault, both “primary” and “secondary” sources would be charged with being nothing more than the propaganda of whatever side happened to win each particular struggle in history. In the context of such an epistemological debacle, it is hardly surprising that empirical historians progressively shyed away from the use of historical abstractions like “the Dark Ages” and “the Renaissance,” leaving the subjectivists room to attack them and concoct their own replacements, such as “the Carolingian Renaissance.” Nor is it surprising that abstractions of more limited scope, but ones enmeshed in a larger context of values, such as”the Discovery of America,” should also be besieged. (Continued in Part 4.) View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In the nineteenth century, historians were desparately in need of a champion to clarify the nature of reason, and to guide them in the challenge of making sense of man’s complex past. Newton’s genius had shown the power of man’s mind to penetrate nature’s inner workings, but no one had been able to articulate on a more abstract level the nature of the Newtonian triumph in science, and explain how in could be reproduced in other areas. If historians were to pattern their work on the succesful model of the physical scientists, they would need to find a means of transposing the methods of physics into the domain of history. The way to do this, however, was unclear. The historian, for example, could not create the controled conditions of a laboratory to test his ideas, nor could the actions of human beings be reduced to mathematical principles. And yet, the challenge of deriving general knowledge from historical data is in some ways the same as that of finding general laws from observed physical phenoma. It is the challenge of transforming a plethora of concrete information, by some process of abstraction, into an intelligible system. The importance of this project was evident to the more philosophical historians. If natural science could find laws and a natural order in the physical world, could a social science not achieve the same for civilization (and thus derive the proper foundation of social systems)? Unfortunately, in their quest to give history a Newtonian clarity, historians found no worthy ally among philosophers. In the wake of the clash between the rationalists and empiricists, philosophy was at an impasse. The former group believed human knowledge was imprinted by some ineffable, non-experiential means. And sadly–despite the example of disciplined Newtonian thinking and the best efforts of John Locke–the latter group had been unable to articulate a proper alternative. Empiricism had degenerated into the skepticism of Hume. Finally, instead of a champion, the Western mind met with an insidious assailant, Immanuel Kant, in whose assessment philosophy’s aims were pronounced unattainable and the achievements of science inconsequential. Man, said Kant, is flawed by nature–he is formed of “crooked timber.” Human consciousness, he explained, is by its nature divorced from reality. It perceives reality by certain means, and because this apparatus processes the incoming information, it prevents us from gleaning reality as it really is. Any thinking we do based on such a foundation, including, for instance, the derivation of “natural laws,” is thus completely subjective, and any claim we make to actually understanding the essential nature of things is merely presumption–unless based on faith (for which Kant infamously made “room”). What then of history? More next time. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In the nineteenth century, historians were desparately in need of a champion to clarify the nature of reason, and to guide them in the challenge of making sense of man’s complex past. Newton’s genius had shown the power of man’s mind to penetrate nature’s inner workings, but no one had been able to articulate on a more abstract level the nature of the Newtonian triumph in science, and explain how in could be reproduced in other areas. If historians were to pattern their work on the succesful model of the physical scientists, they would need to find a means of transposing the methods of physics into the domain of history. The way to do this, however, was unclear. The historian, for example, could not create the controled conditions of a laboratory to test his ideas, nor could the actions of human beings be reduced to mathematical principles. And yet, the challenge of deriving general knowledge from historical data is in some ways the same as that of finding general laws from observed physical phenoma. It is the challenge of transforming a plethora of concrete information, by some process of abstraction, into an intelligible system. The importance of this project was evident to the more philosophical historians. If natural science could find laws and a natural order in the physical world, could a social science not achieve the same for civilization (and thus derive the proper foundation of social systems)? Unfortunately, in their quest to give history a Newtonian clarity, historians found no worthy ally among philosophers. In the wake of the clash between the rationalists and empiricists, philosophy was at an impasse. The former group believed human knowledge was imprinted by some ineffable, non-experiential means. And sadly–despite the example of disciplined Newtonian thinking and the best efforts of John Locke–the latter group had been unable to articulate a proper alternative. Empiricism had degenerated into the skepticism of Hume. Finally, instead of a champion, the Western mind met with an insidious assailant, Immanuel Kant, in whose assessment philosophy’s aims were pronounced unattainable and the achievements of science inconsequential. Man, said Kant, is flawed by nature–he is formed of “crooked timber.” Human consciousness, he explained, is by its nature divorced from reality. It perceives reality by certain means, and because this apparatus processes the incoming information, it prevents us from gleaning reality as it really is. Any thinking we do based on such a foundation, including, for instance, the derivation of “natural laws,” is thus completely subjective, and any claim we make to actually understanding the essential nature of things is merely presumption–unless based on faith (for which Kant infamously made “room”). What then of history? More next time. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog To my knowledge Immanuel Kant never expressed any interest in Christopher Columbus. Certainly he is not known for having done so or considered influential regarding the debate over the question of Columbus’s place in history or the discovery of America. (There was, of course, no debate on this question until the twentieth century.) Nonetheless, it is Kant who, on the most fundamental level, stands between Columbus and the historical acclaim he rightly deserves. Evidently, egalitarianism and multiculturalism are the ideologies driving attacks on Columbus. When people assert that Leif Ericson “discovered America,” they are obviously not claiming that his landing in Vinland is anywhere near as significant to history as Columbus’s voyage of 1492. They cannot, because Ericson’s efforts were absolutely barren of historical results. What Ericson proponents are really asserting is that no individual–and no discovery–is more historically significant than any other. Similarly, it would be ludicrous to claim that the Iroquois Confederacy or the Aztec Empire were bastions of individual rights, comparable to the United States. Multiculturalists do not assert this. Instead, they evade the fact that political freedom is an objective standard of value, and present Indian social systems as merely variants within a “spectrum,” “pageant”, or “kaleidoscope” of different civilizations. The intellectual roots of egalitarianism and multiculturalism in Kantianism are complex and difficult to trace, but they are there. One important aspect of Kant’s philosophical system that underlies both of these views is the idea that a man’s consciousness necessarily distorts his perception of reality. This premise empowers attackers of Western civilization against any emphasis of certain individuals and civilizations in history, by allowing them to claim that these are merely expressions of a “Eurocentric” cultural prism through which Westerners view the world. Kant’s “deontological” theory of ethics also plays a part, because it damns any valuing activity–including the valuing of historical changes–that reflect one’s interest (regardless of whether that interest is objective or not). There are other related ideas that Kant provided which underpin modern attacks on Columbus and the West, but his role in Columbus’s fall is far greater than merely the empowerment of Columbus’s enemies. Kant’s most nefarious part in the anti-Columbian intifada is his work to disarm of the defenders of civilization who should have stood at the ready to repel the anti-Western onslaught–the scientists whose job it is to define and promote the value of the agents of progress in time–i.e. professional historians. (Continued tomorrow, in part 2). View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The following excerpt is from the Columbiad, an epic poem by Joel Barlow, a member of the Connecticut Militia in 1776, and later diplomat and poet. It is the closest thing I have ever found to an objective assessment of Columbus’s place in history, and it is beautifully written: I sing the Mariner who first unfurl’d An eastern banner o’er the western world, And taught mankind where future empires lay In these fair confines of descending day; Who sway’d a moment, with vicarious power, Iberia’s sceptre on the new found shore, Then saw the paths his virtuous steps had trod Pursued by avarice and defiled with blood, The tribes he foster’d with paternal toil Snatch’d from his hand, and slaughter’d for their spoil. Slaves, kings, adventurers, envious of his name, Enjoy’d his labours and purloin’d his fame, And gave the Viceroy, from his high seat hurl’d. Chains for a crown, a prison for a world Long overwhelm’d in woes, and sickening there, He met the slow still march of black despair, Sought the last refuge from his hopeless doom, And wish’d from thankless men a peaceful tomb: Till vision’d ages, opening on his eyes, Cheer’d his sad soul, and bade new nations rise; He saw the Atlantic heaven with light o’ercast, And Freedom crown his glorious work at last… The full text of the epic poem, can be found at Project Gutenberg on-line. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The following excerpt is from the Columbiad, an epic poem by Joel Barlow, a member of the Connecticut Militia in 1776, and later diplomat and poet. It is the closest thing I have ever found to an objective assessment of Columbus’s place in history, and it is beautifully written: I sing the Mariner who first unfurl’d An eastern banner o’er the western world, And taught mankind where future empires lay In these fair confines of descending day; Who sway’d a moment, with vicarious power, Iberia’s sceptre on the new found shore, Then saw the paths his virtuous steps had trod Pursued by avarice and defiled with blood, The tribes he foster’d with paternal toil Snatch’d from his hand, and slaughter’d for their spoil. Slaves, kings, adventurers, envious of his name, Enjoy’d his labours and purloin’d his fame, And gave the Viceroy, from his high seat hurl’d. Chains for a crown, a prison for a world Long overwhelm’d in woes, and sickening there, He met the slow still march of black despair, Sought the last refuge from his hopeless doom, And wish’d from thankless men a peaceful tomb: Till vision’d ages, opening on his eyes, Cheer’d his sad soul, and bade new nations rise; He saw the Atlantic heaven with light o’ercast, And Freedom crown his glorious work at last… The full text of the epic poem, can be found at Project Gutenberg on-line. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the Ridley Scott film “The Conquest of Paradise.” The movie falls prey to the modern fixation with realism, and thereby loses sight of the power of art to dramatize the abstract meaning of history rather than relate its purely concrete chronology. That said, I am a big fan of the Vangelis Soundtrack, and especially its title track, “The Conquest of Paradise.” In this work, the full significance of Columbus’s life’s work rings out with an uncommon grandeur. It’s the kind of music that inspires you to go that extra mile, when you’re a struggling “philopreneur.” The above images link to Amazon, if you’d like to listen to a sample, and pick it up for yourself. Enjoy! P.S. I also like the versions of this track by Origen and the Pan Flute adaptation by Santiago J, both of which can be found on iTunes. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog I can’t say I’m a huge fan of the Ridley Scott film “The Conquest of Paradise.” The movie falls prey to the modern fixation with realism, and thereby loses sight of the power of art to dramatize the abstract meaning of history rather than relate its purely concrete chronology. That said, I am a big fan of the Vangelis Soundtrack, and especially its title track, “The Conquest of Paradise.” In this work, the full significance of Columbus’s life’s work rings out with an uncommon grandeur. It’s the kind of music that inspires you to go that extra mile, when you’re a struggling “philopreneur.” The above images link to Amazon, if you’d like to listen to a sample, and pick it up for yourself. Enjoy! P.S. I also like the versions of this track by Origen and the Pan Flute adaptation by Santiago J, both of which can be found on iTunes. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog The young man sits perched on a mooring post, looking out to sea, with a thoughtful gaze that suggests it isn’t the objects before him that truly have his attention, but rather a vision of something that others, if they were present, would not perceive. This young man is not, however, merely day-dreaming. His is not the unfocused, introspective look of a boy wrapped up in an inner world, or the wistful expression of an unfulfilled adolescent hoping for a new prospect. Nor is his the complexion that of a deeply troubled philosopher. His mind is not wandering, nor contemplating, but rather seeking. The purposeful quality of the young man’s stare can be seen in the fact that his focus is not straight ahead, but rather slightly to the side. It is the look of a mind that had been considering an idea, but then veered suddenly towards a new possibility, like a hunter who, without moving, catches sight of his prey on the edge of his field of view, or a warrior measuring the full aspect of an adversary before battle. His finger marks a passage in the book he has been reading, which must have excited this new state. Unlike for Vermeer’s Geographer, however, whose penetrating stare this young figure recalls, the material of past thinkers is not a foundation to support one’s independent grasp of reality, but more of a spur to new thinking. The young man’s furrowed brow invokes a certain dissatisfaction with regards to the context it represents, or at least the challenge of exceeding its limitations. Still, he retains a link to this past as he seeks a new possibility. The crux of the moment is the sighting of a difficult new truth, which his reading has made possible. And what a difficult new truth it is! The young man is Christopher Columbus, and by the power of his own independent perception, he has just gleened the possibility of a westward voyage to the Indies for the first time. This is the historical theme of the work, Young Columbus, expertly rendered by sculptor Giulio Monteverde. In capturing this moment, however, Monteverde has accomplished a rare thing. He has himself penetrated to the both essence of a man, and the philosophical roots of his ability to change the world. The man who changes history is always an independent thinker . Like Aristotle and Newton, Columbus had the ability to see all that others had seen before him, and then, of his own volition, by his own unique capacity, to see what other had not. As a final note, one of the things I find most delightful about this sculpture is that Monteverde has chosen as his subject a young Columbus, rather than a mature man. When one usually thinks of Columbus, one thinks of an established cartographer making his case before Isabella and Ferdinand, or a confident mariner on the deck of his carrack at the climax of his career. What is great about this image, by contrast, is that it sees past this usual idea to that which necessarily underlies it: the moment that truly defines the independent man, and the source of his ability to bring a “New World” into view, his conquest of reality through penetrating, rational thought. For those who have the chance, I highly recommend a viewing of this work live, which, amazingly is possible to Americans on both coasts. The original work is located at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. A very fine copy is on display at the Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco. I can’t think of a better way to celebrate Columbus Day! For more images visit the Powell History Columbus Gallery. View the full article

I don't agree that the startup of a new college with the best liberal arts curriculum ever developed is depressing news, no matter the initial enrollment figures. For one thing, you have to keep in mind just what a heroic accomplishment it has been just to get this far. There have been so many hurdles overcome already that in many regards, it's all downhill from here! You can also take heart by imagining the incredible product that the initial batch of students is going to get as a reward for taking that first, bold step. If the reported enrollment numbers are correct, then the student-teacher ratio is almost 1-1! These early students--and what a great group they must be!--will have an unprecedented opportunity to learn under expert tutelage. In this environment, the teachers will also have an unprecedented opportunity--to focus on teaching and curriculum development, as per the college's philosophy. In addition, they will be able to focus their entrepreneurial energy on development, which means the quality of the product will rise even more precipitously, and they will be able to draw more and better clients in the future. Knowing what I know about the quality of the people involved and the quality of the product, and knowing what I have been privy to concerning the school's business plans, I can confidently predict that the school will succeed. Just think of Howard Roark in his tiny office, starting out on his own, with a few, dedicated clients. Then think of him in the final scene, at the top of a skyscraper. Difficult beginnings are par for the course. So get fired up! Sincerely, Scott Powell www.PowellHistory.com

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog PHR readers may enjoy an interview I recently conducted with Tamara Fuller, CEO of Founders College. It’s available at: www.HistoryAtOurHouse.com. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog PHR readers may enjoy an interview I recently conducted with Tamara Fuller, CEO of Founders College. It’s available at: www.HistoryAtOurHouse.com. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog Astronaut to Help Launch College Winston Scott to address the first class at Founders College opening. SOUTH BOSTON, Va., Aug. 29, 2007 – Founders College today announced that former space shuttle astronaut Winston Scott has accepted an invitation to offer the keynote address when the school holds opening ceremonies for its first class of full-time students on September 9, 2007. Scott, a retired captain of the U.S. Navy, was selected by NASA for the space program in March 1992. He flew on two shuttles; first as a mission specialist on STS-72 in 1996 and then on STS-87 in 1997. During his space travels Scott logged a total of 24 days, 14 hours, and 34 minutes in space. This included three spacewalks that totaled nearly 19.5 hours. A former research and development project pilot, Scott flew the F-14 Tomcat, F/A 18 Hornet, and A-7 Corsair Aircraft. His total flight experience encompassed 20 different military and civilian aircraft. Scott earned his arts degree in music from Florida State University and his master of science degree in Aeronautical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. He currently lives in Houston and serves as vice president and deputy general manager of Jacobs Engineering and Science Group Inc. “Winston Scott is a pioneer in every sense of the word,” stated Dr. Bryan Niblett, Founders’ dean of faculty. “We are pleased that he will help us launch Founders College with his inspirational words based on a lifetime of fortitude and experience.” Scott will be part of a program that takes place at Founders College on September 9 beginning at 6 p.m. Prior to the event, Scott will be the guest at a private, informal brunch being scheduled for Founders student body and their parents. Also included in opening program will be Founders’ chief executive officer Tamara Fuller and the Founders Philharmonic Orchestra with guest soloist Jennifer Jellings. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In my very recent move from OC to Houston, my family “self-moved,” and as we trucked down the I8 and (just past Phoenix) the I10, I was struck by the sad fact that these highways have now basically become a second border with Mexico, and I was driven to reflect on what this means in terms of America’s cultural decline. During the last school year, as I was getting to the end of European history (which I taught to elementary grade children across the country) I explained some of the important differences between the Western and Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Among these, I highlighted the fact that within Western European countries, citizens had freedom of movement, whereas in Eastern Europe, not only was there an “iron curtain” keeping you in, but you also had to justify your movement within your own country to the government. This has started happening in the US as a result of the failure of our culture to answer the rightful demand for immigration. If you want to travel on the interstates near the Mexican border, you must now be prepared to justify yourself to government agents. At this point, I would rate the border patrol’s presence on these roads as relatively innocuous (kind of like the first income tax), but the fact that they are there at all is the problem. Apart from the laughable notion that the ”fix” for the apparent problem of having a porous border is to create a second far more porous one, what really worries me is that the people of America are allowing the erection of a larger and larger government apparatus (including new state and federal initiatives to crack down on employers) to deal with a perceived threat that is no threat at all. Ironically, by denying these rights to others, Americans are allowing their own freedoms to be eroded. It’s time every American stood up for el sueno Americano. It is everyone’s right, and it hurts everyone not to recognize it. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog In my very recent move from OC to Houston, my family “self-moved,” and as we trucked down the I8 and (just past Phoenix) the I10, I was struck by the sad fact that these highways have now basically become a second border with Mexico, and I was driven to reflect on what this means in terms of America’s cultural decline. During the last school year, as I was getting to the end of European history (which I taught to elementary grade children across the country) I explained some of the important differences between the Western and Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Among these, I highlighted the fact that within Western European countries, citizens had freedom of movement, whereas in Eastern Europe, not only was there an “iron curtain” keeping you in, but you also had to justify your movement within your own country to the government. This has started happening in the US as a result of the failure of our culture to answer the rightful demand for immigration. If you want to travel on the interstates near the Mexican border, you must now be prepared to justify yourself to government agents. At this point, I would rate the border patrol’s presence on these roads as relatively innocuous (kind of like the first income tax), but the fact that they are there at all is the problem. Apart from the laughable notion that the ”fix” for the apparent problem of having a porous border is to create a second far more porous one, what really worries me is that the people of America are allowing the erection of a larger and larger government apparatus (including new state and federal initiatives to crack down on employers) to deal with a perceived threat that is no threat at all. Ironically, by denying these rights to others, Americans are allowing their own freedoms to be eroded. It’s time every American stood up for el sueno Americano. It is everyone’s right, and it hurts everyone not to recognize it. View the full article

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog I don’t know if I would have been chosen to be a history professor at Founders, but just the fact that a college would have seriously considered hiring someone with only a B.A. to be a history professor shocked and pleased me. It wasn’t my nominal credentials they were interested in. They were operating on a different premise. So I decided to test them. I came right out and asked, “Why me?!“ I needed to know that everything I thought this institution stood for was real, and that something genuinely new and exciting was happening in the world of “academia.” This was last winter, and as I say, I don’t know if I ever would have gotten the job. I turned it down before it could have been offered to me, because I had resolved to follow my own path. Having fallen out of love with the business model of certain noted school I was with, and all too thrilled and terrified (entrepreneurs know what I’m talking about) by the prospect of taking Powell History as far as it could go, I was ready to leap into the great unknown, with nothing but my own vision to guide me. Still, I had heard the answer I wanted, and that was amazing in itself. Founders was interested in my credentials as a thinker. But there was more. There was another dimension to their endeavor that really thrilled me. They were interested in my credentials as a businessman. They didn’t just want to know my theoretical views on history–as an intellectual pursuit, they wanted my views on teaching–as a practical, material pursuit. They wanted ideas, and they wanted money. (They had also come up with quite an amazing package to reward entrepreneurial professors, which I can’t elaborate on.) Ever since, I have been a fan of Founders. And although I may never work there, I will always remember my interview with them as a uniquely positive experience. The people who run Founders are a special breed, and the staff they have hired, as much as I know of them, are a special group as well. In fact, they are the first corporate entity I know of that fits my model for real cultural change in the current culture. This certainly isn’t the place to go into it in detail, but that model–a work in progress–is the view that progress comes from integration–the fundamental human action. (Perhaps this view is the same or may sound similar to the views put forward by Leonard Peikoff. I am only dimly–LOL–aware of his thesis, and indeed I have deliberately avoided learning more about it in order to build an independent base of knowledge for myself by mastering history.) Whether it is the integration of Prince Henry’s practical and intellectual pursuits through his geographical institute at Sagres (the hub of the “Age of Discovery”)–or the integration of the theoretical and procedural in the legal reforms of Henry II of England–or the integration of science, engineering, and business in the advent of the oil and automobile industries thanks to Rockefeller and Ford–integration is at the heart of progress. How this connects to Founders is that to my thinking this new college represents a new kind of integration, which I don’t think Objectivists have been discussing when it comes to its importance or potential impact on the culture. It is an integration of two great positives, which to this point remain unnaturally divided by a supposed “division of labor.” These two forces for good are business and philosophy, or entrepreneurship and intellectualism. Sure there are CEOs that accept Objectivism. But they’re not selling an intellectual product. They’re selling banking services or computer chips, with the help of philosophy. What I’m talking about is philosophy, or, more broadly “intellectual values” as a product–not an “ivory tower” pursuit. I think this is new enough (correct me, if I’m wrong!) and significant enough (correct me here too, again, if I’m wrong!) to warrant a new term. The hyphenated alternatives (philosopher-businessman, businessman-philosopher, philosopher-entrepreneur, intellectual-businessman, etc.) just don’t cut it for me, especially since I want to start using the term to denote myself and my own work! It just has to be catchier! The best I’ve come up with so far is “philopreneur,” but I’m not too keen on it. So I invite everyone to put their creative side to work on a neologism! Call it the PHR Neologism Contest, if you will. If you’re intrigued by the idea, give it a shot, and may the best neologist win! View the full article