Some poetry from a friend who has a gift for it that your humble servant (outside of the haiku form) lacks...
Skin me alive.
I’ll be inside.
And you’ll not even have scratched my surface.
Rip out my insides:
I will still abide
somewhere deeper than in the pit of my stomach.
Lop off my head and more.
I’ve lost my head before,
yet always found a way to collect myself.
Grind my bones to make your bread.
I’ll rise like yeast from the dead,
exuding a heavenly aroma you’ll have to breathe.
Fee fie fo fum.
You’ve smelled my blood. You’ll make it run --
but not me, not me.
[Albert Cipriani]
Friday, April 13, 2007
On the Crusades and Learning From History Aka "Santayana's Dictum" Dept.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The following is something written last month in response to someone who had a misunderstanding of the Crusades. It may seem odd that such a subject would interest your host but aware as he is of the many people who do not know history -and how badly history is misrepresented by either the contemporary ignorant or those noxious sorts who pose as "historians" but whose actual agenda is to try to make history fit a preconceived model (usually a marxist one) which while not as bad as what the Whig historians{1} do is nonetheless just as fallacious methodologically albeit far more disingenuous (to put it nicely). Nonetheless...
It was once difficult for me to view the Crusaders as anything but self-righteous, but in light of their sincere belief that one must be Christian to avoid eternal damnation, what they did would be justified. It is only because we have a broader interpretation of who is saved and why, that we do not follow this same pattern.
Actually, the Crusaders were responding to a militant expansionist Islamic threat that was sweeping across Africa and into Europe. It had been checked in spots at times but not stopped. The Crusades were intended to stop this threat and roll it back and we know the results of that over about a three hundred fifty odd year period (and several crusades) was mixed. The Muslims were still occupying parts of Europe as late as the fifteenth century (ask Spain and France), were still militarily taking ground in the sixteenth (the Battle of Lepanto temporarily stopped them but not for long) and this went on until 1683. In other words, the Islamic military threat was a serious one for over a thousand years!!!
Now since the Vienna in 1683 they were not a threat to us and the industrial revolution gave us a serious technological edge. But that is not the case anymore and we have been seeing the past fifty years that the Islamic threat has resurfaced amongst the more extreme of the Muslim contingents.
Now it appears to me that in more democratically governed nations the overwhelming majority of the Muslims are not of this sort fortunately but I do find myself annoyed at an obvious double standard invoked by those who defend the silences of the Muslim community towards their more extremist elements as many of these same people blasted Pius XII for similar silences. And those who think there is a giant gulf between the Nazis and the extremist Muslims are not paying much attention. At least with the communists in the days of the old USSR we could to some extent communicate as they were atheists and were not interested in destroying the only life that they believed in. The Islamic extremist sorts not only do not care but they actually believe that "Allah" will reward them in the world to come in proportion to the number of people they can massacre.
We can "talk peace morning, noon, and night" as one reader suggested but it will be futile because this enemy has a long memory. And I am wondering how many of you will still be so stupid as to be chanting "give peace a chance" when your neck has the same rusty knife decapitating it as Nick Berg or Paul Johnson did. Or will you all choose to wear burkas and pray to Mecca five times a day instead???
This war on terror is not a new situation but indeed has been going on since at least the 1970's. And like the days when the Islamic hoard blew out of Saudi Arabia smashing everything in sight, these terrorist sorts have been blowing up civilian targets, civilians, and the like as well as military ones while we for the most part did nothing. President Reagan did a few things and showed backbone but even in his presidency there were a few examples where these sorts but President Carter did nothing whatsoever to let these people know that we would not tolerate this kind of crap. President Clinton did nothing of a substantive nature and even the current president's father apart from the first Gulf War did not do anything that I can recall.
September 11, 2001 brought home to us what has been going on with Americans abroad for decades. Unfortunately, the Vatican has been significantly behind in grasping the significance of what September 11, 2001 was and how it shattered the international presuppositions that had governed at least implicitly European affairs since Westphalia (roughly three hundred odd years). The only significant Catholic commentator I have seen who recognized and has written well on this matter is Sandro Magister who did so in this excellent article on Vatican geopolitics from late 2005. (It is possible that John Allen may have written on this dynamic too but if so, I have not seen it.)
President George W. Bush has done a lot of things wrong but on the matter of recognizing the enemy we are facing, he has done a decent job thus far. Certainly he has done a lot better than those nations that let themselves be bribed by Saddam to oppose actual military action in Iraq when they had voted for such things when it looked as if it would be another non-enforced resolution. (Read: Russia, France, and Germany.) He has also done a lot better in this regard that the Vatican has that is for sure. But it is to be hoped that Russia will not forget what happened to them in 2004 with the whole Breslin situation because that was their 9/11.
The enemy we are facing views peace overtures and empty threats as signs of weakness and that emboldens them. Think of their attacks on civilians as akin to the school bully who picked on the weak kids. Like the school bully, these extremist sorts only understand one thing and that is them being forced to act differently. Let us hope that other nations do not have to have their own version of a 9/11 as we did, Britain did, Spain did, and Russia did in order to realize the folly of this whole "give peace a chance" schtick. We tried that and we ignored this problem for decades. More of the same negligence will not fix it however much one may wish otherwise.
Note:
{1} Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian By Herbert Butterfield (circa October 17, 2005)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
The following is something written last month in response to someone who had a misunderstanding of the Crusades. It may seem odd that such a subject would interest your host but aware as he is of the many people who do not know history -and how badly history is misrepresented by either the contemporary ignorant or those noxious sorts who pose as "historians" but whose actual agenda is to try to make history fit a preconceived model (usually a marxist one) which while not as bad as what the Whig historians{1} do is nonetheless just as fallacious methodologically albeit far more disingenuous (to put it nicely). Nonetheless...
It was once difficult for me to view the Crusaders as anything but self-righteous, but in light of their sincere belief that one must be Christian to avoid eternal damnation, what they did would be justified. It is only because we have a broader interpretation of who is saved and why, that we do not follow this same pattern.
Actually, the Crusaders were responding to a militant expansionist Islamic threat that was sweeping across Africa and into Europe. It had been checked in spots at times but not stopped. The Crusades were intended to stop this threat and roll it back and we know the results of that over about a three hundred fifty odd year period (and several crusades) was mixed. The Muslims were still occupying parts of Europe as late as the fifteenth century (ask Spain and France), were still militarily taking ground in the sixteenth (the Battle of Lepanto temporarily stopped them but not for long) and this went on until 1683. In other words, the Islamic military threat was a serious one for over a thousand years!!!
Now since the Vienna in 1683 they were not a threat to us and the industrial revolution gave us a serious technological edge. But that is not the case anymore and we have been seeing the past fifty years that the Islamic threat has resurfaced amongst the more extreme of the Muslim contingents.
Now it appears to me that in more democratically governed nations the overwhelming majority of the Muslims are not of this sort fortunately but I do find myself annoyed at an obvious double standard invoked by those who defend the silences of the Muslim community towards their more extremist elements as many of these same people blasted Pius XII for similar silences. And those who think there is a giant gulf between the Nazis and the extremist Muslims are not paying much attention. At least with the communists in the days of the old USSR we could to some extent communicate as they were atheists and were not interested in destroying the only life that they believed in. The Islamic extremist sorts not only do not care but they actually believe that "Allah" will reward them in the world to come in proportion to the number of people they can massacre.
We can "talk peace morning, noon, and night" as one reader suggested but it will be futile because this enemy has a long memory. And I am wondering how many of you will still be so stupid as to be chanting "give peace a chance" when your neck has the same rusty knife decapitating it as Nick Berg or Paul Johnson did. Or will you all choose to wear burkas and pray to Mecca five times a day instead???
This war on terror is not a new situation but indeed has been going on since at least the 1970's. And like the days when the Islamic hoard blew out of Saudi Arabia smashing everything in sight, these terrorist sorts have been blowing up civilian targets, civilians, and the like as well as military ones while we for the most part did nothing. President Reagan did a few things and showed backbone but even in his presidency there were a few examples where these sorts but President Carter did nothing whatsoever to let these people know that we would not tolerate this kind of crap. President Clinton did nothing of a substantive nature and even the current president's father apart from the first Gulf War did not do anything that I can recall.
September 11, 2001 brought home to us what has been going on with Americans abroad for decades. Unfortunately, the Vatican has been significantly behind in grasping the significance of what September 11, 2001 was and how it shattered the international presuppositions that had governed at least implicitly European affairs since Westphalia (roughly three hundred odd years). The only significant Catholic commentator I have seen who recognized and has written well on this matter is Sandro Magister who did so in this excellent article on Vatican geopolitics from late 2005. (It is possible that John Allen may have written on this dynamic too but if so, I have not seen it.)
President George W. Bush has done a lot of things wrong but on the matter of recognizing the enemy we are facing, he has done a decent job thus far. Certainly he has done a lot better than those nations that let themselves be bribed by Saddam to oppose actual military action in Iraq when they had voted for such things when it looked as if it would be another non-enforced resolution. (Read: Russia, France, and Germany.) He has also done a lot better in this regard that the Vatican has that is for sure. But it is to be hoped that Russia will not forget what happened to them in 2004 with the whole Breslin situation because that was their 9/11.
The enemy we are facing views peace overtures and empty threats as signs of weakness and that emboldens them. Think of their attacks on civilians as akin to the school bully who picked on the weak kids. Like the school bully, these extremist sorts only understand one thing and that is them being forced to act differently. Let us hope that other nations do not have to have their own version of a 9/11 as we did, Britain did, Spain did, and Russia did in order to realize the folly of this whole "give peace a chance" schtick. We tried that and we ignored this problem for decades. More of the same negligence will not fix it however much one may wish otherwise.
Note:
{1} Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian By Herbert Butterfield (circa October 17, 2005)
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Excerpts from Classic Writings:
I note only at the outset that the Alexander noted in the text below is Alexander the Great who died three centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies. For not only the barbarous nations that bordered on Macedonia were impatient of being governed by any but their own native princes, but Philip likewise, though he had been victorious over the Grecians, yet, as the time had not been sufficient for him to complete his conquest and accustom them to his sway, had simply left all things in a general disorder and confusion. It seemed to the Macedonians a very critical time; and some would have persuaded Alexander to give up all thought of retaining the Grecians in subjection by force of arms, and rather to apply himself to win back by gentle means the allegiance of the tribes who were designing revolt, and try the effect of indulgence in arresting the first motions towards revolution. But he rejected this counsel as weak and timorous, and looked upon it to be more prudence to secure himself by resolution and magnanimity, than, by seeming to truckle to any, to encourage all to trample on him. In pursuit of this opinion, he reduced the barbarians to tranquillity, and put an end to all fear of war from them, he gave rapid expedition into their country as far as the river Danube, where he gave Syrmus, King of the Triballians, an entire overthrow. And hearing the Thebans were in revolt, and the Athenians in correspondence with them, he immediately marched through the pass of Thermopylae, saying that to Demosthenes, who had called him a child while he was in Illyria and in the country of the Triballians, and a youth when he was in Thessaly, he would appear a man before the walls of Athens.
When he came to Thebes, to show how willing he was to accept of their repentance for what was past, he only demanded of them Phoenix and Prothytes, the authors of the rebellion, and proclaimed a general pardon to those who would come over to him. But when the Thebans merely retorted by demanding Philotas and Antipater to be delivered into their hands, and by a proclamation on their part invited all who would assert the liberty of Greece to come over to them, he presently applied himself to make them feel the last extremities of war. The Thebans indeed defended themselves with a zeal and courage beyond their strength, being much outnumbered by their enemies. But when the Macedonian garrison sallied out upon them from the citadel, they were so hemmed in on all sides that the greater part of them fell in the battle; the city itself being taken by storm, was sacked and razed. Alexander's hope being that so severe an example might terrify the rest of Greece into obedience, and also in order to gratify the hostility of his confederates, the Phocians and Plataeans. So that, except the priests, and some few who had heretofore been the friends and connections of the Macedonians, the family of the poet Pindar, and those who were known to have opposed the public vote for the war, all the rest, to the number of thirty thousand, were publicly sold for slaves; and it is computed that upwards of six thousand were put to the sword.
Among the other calamities that befell the city, it happened that some Thracian soldiers, having broken into the house of a matron of high character and repute, named Timoclea, their captain, after he had used violence with her, to satisfy his avarice as well as lust, asked her, if she knew of any money concealed; to which she readily answered she did, and bade him follow her into a garden, where she showed him a well, into which, she told him, upon the taking of the city, she had thrown what she had of most value. The greedy Thracian presently stooping down to view the place where he thought the treasure lay, she came behind him and pushed him into the well, and then flung great stones in upon him, till she had killed him. After which, when the soldiers led her away bound to Alexander, her very mien and gait showed her to be a woman of dignity, and of a mind no less elevated, not betraying the least sign of fear or astonishment. And when the king asked her who she was, "I am," said she, "the sister of Theagenes, who fought the battle of Chaeronea with your father Philip, and fell there in command for the liberty of Greece." Alexander was so surprised, both at what she had done and what she said, that he could not choose but give her and her children their freedom to go whither they pleased. [Excerpt from Plutarch's Alexander (circa 75 AD)]
I note only at the outset that the Alexander noted in the text below is Alexander the Great who died three centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Alexander was but twenty years old when his father was murdered, and succeeded to a kingdom, beset on all sides with great dangers and rancorous enemies. For not only the barbarous nations that bordered on Macedonia were impatient of being governed by any but their own native princes, but Philip likewise, though he had been victorious over the Grecians, yet, as the time had not been sufficient for him to complete his conquest and accustom them to his sway, had simply left all things in a general disorder and confusion. It seemed to the Macedonians a very critical time; and some would have persuaded Alexander to give up all thought of retaining the Grecians in subjection by force of arms, and rather to apply himself to win back by gentle means the allegiance of the tribes who were designing revolt, and try the effect of indulgence in arresting the first motions towards revolution. But he rejected this counsel as weak and timorous, and looked upon it to be more prudence to secure himself by resolution and magnanimity, than, by seeming to truckle to any, to encourage all to trample on him. In pursuit of this opinion, he reduced the barbarians to tranquillity, and put an end to all fear of war from them, he gave rapid expedition into their country as far as the river Danube, where he gave Syrmus, King of the Triballians, an entire overthrow. And hearing the Thebans were in revolt, and the Athenians in correspondence with them, he immediately marched through the pass of Thermopylae, saying that to Demosthenes, who had called him a child while he was in Illyria and in the country of the Triballians, and a youth when he was in Thessaly, he would appear a man before the walls of Athens.
When he came to Thebes, to show how willing he was to accept of their repentance for what was past, he only demanded of them Phoenix and Prothytes, the authors of the rebellion, and proclaimed a general pardon to those who would come over to him. But when the Thebans merely retorted by demanding Philotas and Antipater to be delivered into their hands, and by a proclamation on their part invited all who would assert the liberty of Greece to come over to them, he presently applied himself to make them feel the last extremities of war. The Thebans indeed defended themselves with a zeal and courage beyond their strength, being much outnumbered by their enemies. But when the Macedonian garrison sallied out upon them from the citadel, they were so hemmed in on all sides that the greater part of them fell in the battle; the city itself being taken by storm, was sacked and razed. Alexander's hope being that so severe an example might terrify the rest of Greece into obedience, and also in order to gratify the hostility of his confederates, the Phocians and Plataeans. So that, except the priests, and some few who had heretofore been the friends and connections of the Macedonians, the family of the poet Pindar, and those who were known to have opposed the public vote for the war, all the rest, to the number of thirty thousand, were publicly sold for slaves; and it is computed that upwards of six thousand were put to the sword.
Among the other calamities that befell the city, it happened that some Thracian soldiers, having broken into the house of a matron of high character and repute, named Timoclea, their captain, after he had used violence with her, to satisfy his avarice as well as lust, asked her, if she knew of any money concealed; to which she readily answered she did, and bade him follow her into a garden, where she showed him a well, into which, she told him, upon the taking of the city, she had thrown what she had of most value. The greedy Thracian presently stooping down to view the place where he thought the treasure lay, she came behind him and pushed him into the well, and then flung great stones in upon him, till she had killed him. After which, when the soldiers led her away bound to Alexander, her very mien and gait showed her to be a woman of dignity, and of a mind no less elevated, not betraying the least sign of fear or astonishment. And when the king asked her who she was, "I am," said she, "the sister of Theagenes, who fought the battle of Chaeronea with your father Philip, and fell there in command for the liberty of Greece." Alexander was so surprised, both at what she had done and what she said, that he could not choose but give her and her children their freedom to go whither they pleased. [Excerpt from Plutarch's Alexander (circa 75 AD)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)