Nicholas Kristof wrote an interesting comparison of the Roman Emperor Caligula and the American President Donald Trump. See "There was once a great nation with an unstable leader", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2017-08-26.
See the comments for ideas on how much this is true and how much the current U.S. is more resilient.
For more on Caligula, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula.
Showing posts with label empire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empire. Show all posts
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Saturday, January 07, 2017
Charles M. Blow on the fall of democracies
Charles Blow is deeply worried about Trump’s presidency and what it will do to American democracy. See “The Anti-Inauguration”, New York Times, 2017-01-05.
"Spend part of the day reading about the rise and fall of empires and how it always seems far-fetched and inconceivable until it actually happens. There are many books that address this topic, but if you want something shorter, try Andrew Sullivan’s 'Democracies End When They Are Too Democratic,' a counterintuitive meditation on how tyranny can spring from populism, or my colleague Paul Krugman’s 'How Republics End.’"
These two articles do take time to read, but if you care about a democracy for the many as opposed to a kleptocracy for the few you will be rewarded with some thoughts for protecting and enhancing democracy.
"Spend part of the day reading about the rise and fall of empires and how it always seems far-fetched and inconceivable until it actually happens. There are many books that address this topic, but if you want something shorter, try Andrew Sullivan’s 'Democracies End When They Are Too Democratic,' a counterintuitive meditation on how tyranny can spring from populism, or my colleague Paul Krugman’s 'How Republics End.’"
These two articles do take time to read, but if you care about a democracy for the many as opposed to a kleptocracy for the few you will be rewarded with some thoughts for protecting and enhancing democracy.
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh?
One of the ways that people control a narrative is by defining the terms. The more the terms are favorable to their narrative, the more they get others to “dance to their tune”. Both Daesh and “conservatives” have been controlling the narrative to their respective audiences.
What’s this Daesh? It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS). Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead. One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow. Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.
Look at this another way. Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity. By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.
Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh. See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day). The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark. It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.
Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh? Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam. The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians. As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.
But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?
In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire. It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender. Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace. In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle. That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier. Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army. Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.
Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country. That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.
These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.
First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country. The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe. The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons. Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner. Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”
The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power. It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.
Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government. The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe. That fight still goes on.
Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding. However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country. The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.
Out of this chaos has come Daesh. Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region? A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”
Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East. Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh? These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh. They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees. But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh
What’s this Daesh? It is the Arabic term for the group that calls itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), or just the Islamic State (IS). Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota and a Muslim, refuses to use these “Islamic” descriptions and uses Daesh instead. One, Daesh does not represent the Islam that Ellison and many others follow. Two, Daesh does not like this name which is somewhat of a pejorative in Arabic.
Look at this another way. Daesh represents Islam no more than the Coo Coo Clucks Clan represents Christianity. By the way, many letter writers say that all Muslims should speak out against Daesh; they forget that many Christians did not openly criticize the Coo Coo Clucks Clan.
Many Muslims are speaking out against Daesh. See the article about Rep. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, the other Representative who is a Muslim speaking out against Daesh (see CQ Roll Call, 2015-11-17, also published in the Duluth News Tribune the next day). The article stated that Ellison and Carson shared the same religion as the terrorists; this is way off the mark. It is like saying those who call for punishment of gays share Christianity with those who believe “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
Also, by the time you read this, my friend M. Imran Hayee should have his own take on Daesh published in the Duluth News Tribune.
Why are “conservatives” the lackeys of Daesh? Because Daesh wants a war with “Christianity” and anybody else who doesn’t share their corrupted view of Islam. The “conservatives” think that the U.S. is the Calvary of the movies and will save the wagon train from the bandits or the Indians. As “Leader of the Free World” with the mightiest army in the world, the U.S. will crush anybody who is not for “freedom”.
But what is the reality of the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a “moral” force such as Daesh?
In 1775, a ragtag army took on a heavily trained army of a distant empire. It took some years, but with the help of another empire they forced that army to surrender. Then a much better trained U.S. Army took on lightly-armed groups of a widely-dispersed populace. In the next century, the U.S. military joined several other countries in defeating an opposing army in a long-drawn out struggle. That led to the same defeated army being reconstituted under a dictator far worse than the Kaiser of two decades earlier. Again the U.S. joined several other militaries to defeat this dictator and his army. Half-way around the world the U.S. military joined several other militaries to defeat an Imperial military.
Then with the confidence from that war the U.S. fought an army that tried to unite a country under its dictator rather than the dictator of the other half of the country. That other half did move to a democracy that is prospering compared to the invading half which has been living under a brutal line of paranoid dynastic dictators.
These military successes led to a confidence that has not been fulfilled since.
First, the U.S. thought it could fight a guerrilla army that knew the language and had willing and unwilling support from a large portion of the country. The U.S. could never be sure who was friend and who was foe. The U.S. had to leave for a variety of reasons. Ironically, that same country is now a trading partner. Even though the government is still run by “godless” Communists, it seems to have taken to heart the Christian dictum “forgive those who trespass against you.”
The U.S. did have success in defeating a “ferocious” army that was more bluster than power. It did leave the dictator in power, but the U.S. did accomplish the goal of getting the dictator’s army out of the country he invaded.
Next, the U.S. took on fighters in a strongly religious country that had a very corrupt government. The U.S. could never tell for sure who was friend or foe. That fight still goes on.
Then the U.S. took on the dictator with the “ferocious” army again and sent him into hiding. However, for a variety of reasons, the country became splintered into several factions and no local politician has made any serious attempt to unify the country. The U.S. tried supporting the government against its antagonists, but like the army of 1776, the antagonists are scattered throughout the populace.
Out of this chaos has come Daesh. Who does the U.S. have as allies in the region? A military dictatorship and the country that promotes Wahhabism, the unforgiving variety of Islam that created Daesh, an Islam that ignores “As Allah forgives you, forgive others.”
Now we have “conservatives” who are “liberal” with dropping bombs in the Middle East. Are they just playing into the hands of Daesh? These “Christians” want to keep out Muslims who are fleeing Daesh. They are afraid that terrorists might come in with the refugees. But by dropping more bombs and by refusing refugees, might we just reinforce Daesh’s claim that there is a Christian war against Islam?
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2015-11-25 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/24/6304_are_conservatives_the_lackeys_of_daesh
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Do we reap what we sow?
History is filled with “what ifs?” What if the Normans hadn’t invaded England? What if Columbus hadn’t sailed across the Atlantic? What if England had included the colonies in Parliament?
We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results. Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history. One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.
I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.
Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention. It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves. Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).
If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed? Probably not. For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South. And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South. Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves? Thereby reducing the market in slaves? We really don’t know.
In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests. The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires. They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace. Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed. With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.
If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”? We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.
But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers. This punishment had two different serious consequences.
In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started. Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies. The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.
In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created. Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies. It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were. The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye. In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat. Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi? Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?
Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11. How many Iraqis died because of this war? It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before. And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.
Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side. I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us. And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.
All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.
“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton
If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.
After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.” I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally. My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”. Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow
We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results. Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history. One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.
I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.
Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention. It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves. Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).
If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed? Probably not. For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South. And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South. Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves? Thereby reducing the market in slaves? We really don’t know.
In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests. The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires. They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace. Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed. With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.
If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”? We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.
But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers. This punishment had two different serious consequences.
In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started. Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies. The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.
In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created. Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies. It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were. The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye. In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat. Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi? Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?
Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11. How many Iraqis died because of this war? It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before. And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.
Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side. I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us. And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.
All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.
“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton
If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.
After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.” I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally. My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”. Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)