Divides

I am not here to tell you the Truth. That's not what historians do. At least, according to the basic zeitgeist of modern (or rather post-modern) historians. There are still professors at my school who teach as if This Is How Things Were Period. They are all retiring in the near future. Historians create historical documents ABOUT the past, within the context of their present circumstances. I cannot separate who I am from my perceptions of what has gone on before.
If you've read this blog long, you know I don't like it when people claim to have "the Truth." It delegitimizes the perspectives of others and in general, tends to be incredibly arrogant. "Authenticity" is a very sticky subject in historical circles. People engage in tourism (cultural voyuerism if one wants to be a bit more snarky) and they want the authentic experience. They'd rather get a sombrero from Mexico, because somehow that's more authentic. Of course, it isn't just the outsiders who do this. Going back to this sombrero example, think how much art, posters or other Mexican created cultural symbols use the sombrero, because it represents "who they are." Or think of our conceptions of Native Americans. Beads, feathers, buckskin...as if they weren't allowed to modernize. People rose up in protest to hear the Makah were using guns to hunt whales, because it wasn't "authentic" hunting. It's still Makah hunting in traditional Makah hunting waters, all they did was change tools. Caucasians don't ride around in horse-drawn carriages. Does that make them unauthentic?

Most of the time, authentic can be defined as "that which agrees with what we already think we know." When my Public History professor teaches Pacific Northwest History, he is frequently criticized for not giving the "authentic" story of Lewis and Clark. That is, the story the students are familiar with.

This is where things get messy. It should not be understood that I think there is no correct, or most correct version of history. My professor knows more about the Oregon Trail than his students do. When he says "Lewis and Clark were [pretty much dicks] and their relationship with the Native Americans was not as pleasant as most text books make it out to be," he has good reason. That doesn't make his word the Absolute Truth, but quite simply, his evidence is stronger than theirs. People are frequently bothered by the lack of concreteness in history, much as they are in philosophy. As humans, we want to KNOW.

~~

That was a very long winded way of reaching what I really wanted to talk about. It's been interesting to note how many things discussed in my classes come up in "the real world." In Public History, I just read about Ken Burn's documentary "The Civil War" and last night I was watching Thursday's Daily Show, and Jon talked about how Virginia has named April "Confederate History Appreciation Month." This, along with some conversations with my partners-in-crime (read: housemates) got me thinking.

The Civil War is an incredibly complex, emotional and all around terribly tragic issue of American History. Every level, at every point, there is a multitude of interpretations. The origins of the war, the reasons it continued, the roles of the government and the soldiers on both sides and race and gender...it really can never be over-emphasized just how dense this subject is. And, like virtually all Civil Wars (in fact, I think in some ways it's part of the definition), there was no real "winning" and no clear cut good guys/bad guys. Hence, the tragedy.

So, Confederate History Appreciation Month. Like every other aspect of the War and it's aftermath, this has very mixed thoughts. On the one hand, I freely admit that, in the North (where I am decidedly from), the Confederates have been largely dehumanized. This is truly unfortunate, because certainly there were brave men defending themselves, their homes, their way of life, things they believed to right. It is good to remember that they, too, were Americans and that their loss of life was needless and sad. If this was being used to say, encourage people to read diaries or journals, to do research or to be involved in historical study, I would be all for it.

That's not, however, what it's being used for. At least, as far as I can tell. The main issue comes from the Causes of the Civil War, something that is hotly contested to this day. It's like the Grey Ladies said:
"Can't say I've ever been too fond of beginnings, myself. Messy little things. Give me a good ending any time. You know where you are with an ending."
There is never one reasons wars start. And not everyone fights for the same reasons.
When the Governor of Virginia announced why he was proclaiming this month, he never once mentioned slavery. When asked about it, he said that he wanted to focus on the "war aspect of it." Yet he seems to be ignoring a major reason for the war itself.
Again, messy territory. There is a clear political bent when discussing the causes of the Civil War. Depending on where you are from, it usually boils down to one of two things: Slavery (North) or Federal versus States Rights (South). I maintain that both of these were true, along with the very important role of economics (after all, much of the South was a slave-based economy). And it's easy to overstate any of these causes, but I think some things are worth pointing out.
The Southern slave-owning states WERE the Federal Government when the war was brimming. They controlled all three branches of government. They specifically said that the federal government was more important than state government. When the Northern states said they would not comply with some federally passed mandates (such as: If you find an escaped slave in the North, you must return him/her to the South), the Southern-controlled Federal government through a fit. It wasn't until they lost power with the election of Lincoln that they (the legislators) started spouting off about State rights. So at the governmental level, there was quite a bit of hypocrisy, and I don't think they really cared about State-rights. I'm sure many of the soldiers did, I'm sure that's why they joined the Confederate army. But considering that the war started BEFORE they started utilizing that sort of rhetoric, it can't be said that that was the only or even main reason for the war.

I remember, when I was younger, one of my neighbors said Lincoln was the worst president ever, because he allowed us to go to war. I remember being really upset by this, but unable to defend the 16th president. Now, we can tell from looking documents from the time that the war would have started even had Lincoln not been elected. Really, it was his predecessor who allowed us to go to war by not acting when the trouble started brewing. It wasn't like Lincoln was a huge proponent of social justice. He was as racist as many of the Southern Democrats (who were, at the time, the most conservative party), but he wanted to keep the country together. And he did, and for that, he should be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.

From what I can tell, and again, I'm not down in Virginia, I can't say with certainty, but it does seem like these "Big Bad Federal Government shoving its will down the throats of the Poor Little States" is the narrative being pushed by those in power. This was the story written in Southern history text-books at the turn of the century, and to this day. If the Texas Education Board has its way, I'm sure that's what most of our textbooks will say. Again, this is an incomplete picture, and one which gives a false impression. This has much more to do with current political climate, considering which states are the ones pushing it (read: conservative/"right wing" states). Some of it is playing on Southern pride, which isn't a bad thing to have as long as you recognize that much of Southern identity was based on the subjugation and inhumane treatment of other people.
And that's not to say that the North is blameless. Hypocrisy is/was rampant there as well. The North didn't take action, was extremely flakey when dealing with the fundamental issues which led up to the war, did not mind benefiting from the South's economy and in fact helped to perpetuate the slavery system. Like I said before, there was good and bad on both sides.

Which leads me to my (hopefully) final point, not totally connected, but worth bringing up. When I lived in the dorms, my friend and I went to a meeting concerning a certain controversy. A young man had moved in and all of his housemates had a flag that represented their heritage. I believe one had a Union Jack, one had an Irish flag, and so on. He hung the Confederate flag, as he was from the deep south (Alabama, I think). This flag was visible through the window and caused a great upset among the other students, particularly of the African American community. The meeting was to discuss symbolism and meaning and responsibility.
In the young man's defense, as soon as he found out he was offending people, he moved the flag so that it was only visible in his room. He never intended to hurt anyone and he was very apologetic without giving up his pride or identity, which I don't believe anyone was asking him to do. Some of the African American students related why it bothered them: they remember, not as long ago as we'd like to think, when seeing that flag meant danger for them, meant that there were people who did not perceive them as human and would likely try to hurt them. It represented pain and humiliation and fear. to the young man who put it up, it was just remembering where he came from and the values he associated with it: strength, bravery, morality, individualism, hard work, etc. It can't be said that either side was "right" because symbols are, by definition, interpretive. I thought the young man displayed great sensitivity.
For my part, I'm wary when I see people displaying the Confederate flag. I was in class with someone who had a patch of it sewn onto his backpack, which meant wherever he went, people could see it. Now, I'm totally open to the idea that it meant something very specific to him, and he is completely entitled to that belief. However, it also seems that he has decided that his interpretation is more important than anyone else's, that he is somehow "more right" than they are. I actually think he was just being a troll and wanted people to fight with him, which is why I never asked him about it (I'd seen him pick fights with people over less). I think it is important to be conscientious of the effect our words, deeds and mannerisms has on others, of how we can give off the wrong impression (intentionally or no) and that they too have the right to their interpretations.

I don't know if you've learned anything here. To be honest, I think I lost my thesis statement somewhere in this mess. But I hope it at least got you thinking.
People are complicated. War is complicated. There are a variety of reasons we do what we do. Rarely, should we say one reason is more important or valid than another. That doesn't mean we get to ignore the ones that don't fit the narrative we want.

Clash of Opinions

So, just went to see Clash of the Titans. My thoughts will probably not surprise anyone. It was very shiny, the action was good, there was an acceptable amount of cheese and...it was not a good movie. Well, it was not a great movie, certainly in the tradition it theoretically stems from.

First, it should be noted that the script was written independently, the director didn't even want to CALL it Clash of the Titans. It was supposed to be a totally different story, but the studios knew they'd make more money with a "remake." Furthermore, as many of my cohorts noted, it felt like there was a lot cut-out.

My father, upon hearing some of my initial comments, asked some insightful questions, which I will copy/paste here.

"Want to hear more - was it because the hero was in cropped hair and had an australian accent or because they monkeyed with original mythology and revised the stories? And really, is that so bad? Don't mythologies evolve over time and don't they serve the needs of the time and the societies in which they are told? Given the disparity between ... See Moreancient pagan Greek culture and our post Christian Western culture - aren't there numerous cultural gaps that are bridged easier by revising the story for our audiences to better relate or understand? Just asking."

To the first issue: To be honest, I don't care that poor Sam Worthington is forced to play the same character all the bloody time. Well, I doubt he's forced, I mean, he's basically Mr.BadassSciFi Guy now, and who wouldn't want to play those sorts of roles? If I could get type cast as a sword-weilding hot-chick, preferably one with snappy comebacks, believe me, I would not be bothered. And it's not like anyone else had even remotely Greek accents. Actually, I approved of a lot of the costume choices, the full togas, the rich fabrics. The only one I didn't care for was some of Io's outfits. A world of WTF for that thing that looked like she hooked a rug around herself.

For the second, and really more intense criticism, my good friend, and fellow history/mythology lover, Z, was visibly bothered by some of the alterations made to the "original"/"traditional"/known myths. This is thoroughly understandable, because they "monkeyed" a LOT. The Pegasus (or in this case, Pegasi) had absolutely no basis in the literature and the origins of Perseus were nudged a bit.

[Edit: It has been pointed out to me that, quite correctly that the story regarding Medusa was actually "correct" and so I apologize for not being more explicit about the plurality of Medusa's origin stories. Here is the Wiki entry.

In one version of the Medusa myth, Medusa who was very beautiful and very arrogant, boasted that she was even more beautiful then the goddess Athena. For this Athena became wrathful and cursed her that anyone who looks at her face would be turned to stone. In a late version of the Medusa myth, related by the Roman poet Ovid (Metamorphoses 4.770), Medusa was originally a beautiful maiden, "the jealous aspiration of many suitors," priestess in Athena's temple, but when she and the "Lord of the Sea" Poseidon lay together in Athena's temple, the enraged virgin goddess transformed her beautiful hair to serpents and made her face so terrible to behold that the mere sight of it would turn men into stone. In Ovid's telling, Perseus describes Medusa's punishment by Athena as just and well-deserved.

/end Edit]
The reason this is so frustrating is because the source material is already SO rich and epic, there doesn't seem to be any reason to change it. Quite simply, it couldn't be 'improved.' And I admit, it didn't seem to help much. They could have kept their basic storyline intact and maintained a closer version of the mythos, particularly Perseus and his birth.

There is another aspect though, that softened the frustration blow for me. There is no TRUE version in Greek mythology. Even in their own time, they maintained contradictory versions of their religion. Aphrodite has two different origin stories, yet the Greeks were not concerned by this conflict. To them, it was more important to keep everything, rather than risk losing even one. So, yes, the evolution of the story, the changing...it's actually very Greek.

What DID bother me is related to the last statement my father made.
A great deal is made in the movie, about sin and redemption. And of course, the entire premise is people being angry with the gods, wanting to rise up and say they wanted no part, and after all, didn't the gods really need them?

This is a VERY post-modern idea. It would never even OCCUR to the Greeks to question their place in the universe in respect to the gods. Like the "climate of opinion," there was a certain way they understood things to work. That the gods need worship to survive is very much a 20th century invention, masterfully penned by the likes of Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett and other people with funny accents.

However, this is another place where they (perhaps inadvertently) maintain a highly Greek tradition. There is no real conception of "sin" as Western Post-Christ people would understand it. However, the notion of "hubris" is very important to Greek legend. Most of the time, when a human is punished, it is for this flaw, for arrogance, for their presumption. Ajax is not punished for raping Cassandra, he is punished for doing so inside Athena's temple, at the very foot of her statue. Arachne is punished for competing with Athena, even though Arachne's weaving is superior and she wins the competition. Belleraphon is loved of the gods until he decides to take Pegasus to be with them. Time and again, the theme of pretentiousness and then destruction comes up in Greek mythology. "Pride goeth before the fall," as the Bible says. So, in that way, the movie does a fine job. The humans get all uppity and a lot of them die for it.

So there is my paradoxical review of Clash of the Titans. I can't say they got a lot "wrong" since there is no right, but they certainly ignored traditional literature, or else chose to alter it for reasons I did not quite understand. However, they got a lot of the SPIRIT of the lgends right, though that may not have been intentional.

From a technical standpoint, I was a bit disappointed that the special effects were not more hardcore. Considering that the original Clash of the Titans is one of those huge moments in science fiction/fantasy where special effects were taken to a whole new level, I hoped that this would at least try to keep up. It didn't need to be Avatar, but I expected better than The Mummy Returns. As someone said though "It was the longest metal music video ever!" Seriously, you could use virtually any shot as power metal album art, and should.

~Peace out~

The ups and downs of Change

There is something I've noticed when it comes to explaining to people what I do as a historian. Or rather, what historians do in general, as I can only count myself as one in the loosest of terms.

The issue revolves around the term 'revisionist'.

To some, revisionism is a bad thing, and usually this stems from Presentism...that is, forcing or overlaying our values on individuals in the past and interpreting their actions through our current system of values and understanding. This is what's known as Bad History. As in, you're doing it wrong. For example, Lincoln wrote in his journals about a close friend of his, recounting tales of falling asleep nearby, and so on. Dumb people wanted to interpret this as Lincoln being a closet homosexual, ignoring all evidence to the contrary (though his wife WAS pretty crazy). That's because in our society, guys don't talk like that, and they certainly don't describe cuddling with their friends.
But one, they also didn't have internal heating like we do. I would not be surprised if people got in close in all sorts of ways we'd raise our eyebrows at just to keep warm. Secondly, their notions of masculinity would be quite different from ours, so this would likely not be seen as any kind of threat to his hetero-ness. Third, he was like 12. I mean, really.

It is understandable why people would be wary of scholars and their historical 'discoveries' given some of this unfortunate mishaps. They did the same thing with Richard I...assuming that because he did not have children, he must have not lain with his wife, Berengaria. This is in direct contradiction to the NUMEROUS accounts of Richard raping and pillaging pretty much everywhere he went. The man liked the wenches.

The downside of having this wholly negative view of alternative interpretations however, is that it blinds us to the true point of revising.

When you write a paper and you find that there is better evidence, or a better way to put forth your argument, you revise your paper. That's just part of good scholarship. History and science and to some extent, philosophy is the same. People sometimes criticize scientists for changing their explanations but I have always viewed this as a strength of those doctrines. After all, if science was always so dogmatic, we would never have an Newton or an Einstein, people who fundamentally challenged our understanding by being wiling to let go of formerly preconceived notions.

From a religious point of view, is it not true that we interpret sacred texts differently now than we did fifty, a hundred, five hundred years ago?

Change can be good when it is an improvement. But of course, change is also frightening, which is where individuals truly become wary of new historical evidence, especially regarding people they admire and respect.

First, one must look at what 'evidence' means. Historians are like detectives, piecing together what was from what remains. This is, by definitions, always an incomplete picture, otherwise we wouldn't still be doing it. As new pieces come in, sometimes in contrast to previous pieces, they are evaluated on their strengths. Primary versus secondary sources. Analyzing why the sources were created (for example, a diary is a great primary source, but one must keep in mind that if the individual knew the diary would be read, how might that affect his or her writing?) and so on.

All nations have heroes. This is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. And the flaws, the sins, the mistakes that they made does not mean they are bad people.
Humans are multi-layered creatures, we have both good and bad, we make decisions in ignorance and are judged by those with the benefit of hindsight.

George Washington was not, I believe, a bad person. He did, however, own slaves, something I consider morally wrong. You could argue that this was just 'how it was at the time', but that is not a valid argument to me. For as long as there has been slavery, there have been those who stood against it. There is ample evidence of those, even during the times of Washington and Jefferson making arguments and protesting slavery. They would have certainly been exposed to such ideas.
More importantly to me personally, things are morally wrong regardless of time or society. Some things more so than others obviously. I wouldn't call those who choose not to eat certain food silly because it WOULD be wrong for them, according to their beliefs. But there are some things where you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is okay, and almost all of these involve evils against other people. Slavery, rape, murder...it was wrong 200 years earlier, it's wrong in any other culture. At least, in my moral code, and it would take a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

But there are people who believer we shouldn't talk about Washington's slaves, or how Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during Civil War (though that made much more sense, given the circumstances) because that would tarnish them somehow.
The problem with this is you have no stripped these individuals of what makes them great. They are not great icons, or great statues. They are great MEN and men are full of errors. It is DESPITE these faults that we consider them great because they are so clearly human like us.

By changing that, we also deprive children of the sense that despite their own faults or errors of the past, they can achieve.

~~~

The second problem, which comes up a lot in the education sphere of history is making it one dimensional. Everyone has an argument. Everyone is pushing something. This doesn't have to have some nefarious agenda, but we all believe or interpret stuff a certain way and of course this will affect how we talk, even subconsciously.

Unfortunately, I just remembered I have Christmas shopping to do so I will go into that on our next episode. :D

A Note on Art

Art is a transcendental concept, I think. It rises above nationality, creed or religion, above social class and circumstances. Art is transitory, amorphous as a child of Nereus and just as desirable.

Most of all, art is universal.

There is, I personally believe, an understood, though frequently unconsidered agreement between the Artist and the Public. But first, a few terms.

Art, in this case, refers to anything the Public deems it is. This means that what is considered art now, will not be art later, and what was scoffed at in its creation is now lauded as classic. This will be readdressed later. Art can include anything visual, auditory, tactile...anything the individual experiences sensually (as in, through the senses).

The Public is exactly what it sounds like, the people, the general consensus, thems that talk. In this way, art is incredibly democratic, for good or ill, though with many, many revolts and revolutions.

I think Art is such a sticky and amalgous (no, that's not a word) subject because its very nature changes when its status changes.

I will give an example to explain my point.
Recently, I was reading the blog of the great Neil Gaiman who was answering a reader's question about whether his blogging on his life and writing process made him more accountable to the Public who now had easier access to him. He (the reader) cited George RR Martin who seemed to be doing [everything in his power to avoid writing this novel and doesn't he owe it to his Public to finish this?] (paraphrased) to which Mr.Gaiman had the single greatest reply I have ever heard come from an Artist:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

~~

This is something of an unfortunate side-effect of the information/net age, though I think the entitlement mindset was always there. The Public feels the Artists are obligated to feed their insatiable hunger for Art. What they don't apparently remember is that Artists are People too (sounds like a button slogan) and in actuality owe them NOTHING. The contract is between the Artist and the Editor/Gallery Owner/Commissioner/Record Label...not you. It is their (the artist's) prerogative if and when you get their work.

Which brings us to Form 1 of Art. As long as he/she is working on it, the Art belongs to the Artist. No one else has the right to judge, critique or interfere with it while it is in this Form/Stage. They can change it, destroy it or put it out.
Should they take the third option, Art takes on Form 2.

Any Art that is PUT OUT THERE, that is, made available for mass consumption (published, hung in a gallery, recorded on a record) it belongs to the PUBLIC. The Artist is still credited, still respected but how their art is received/perceived is up to the Public. This is why the status of Art can change from era to era, because though the Art piece is the same, the Public changes.

This leads me to several conclusions.

1) If Art belongs to the People...if it is there for them to critique, love, be affected by...then they are allowed to do what they want with it. This is why people getting up in arms about musicians who do cover songs aggravates me. If the original musician did not want their work covered, they should not have recorded it and made it available for others. In a similar way, if you are only writing 'for yourself', don't expect to get published. The strongest way I can think of putting this is: The Artist has no rights. This may seem cruel, if not downright blasphemous, but I believe it is necessary for Art to reach its ubiquitous state. It's like the essence has to be released into the aether.
That being said, we are totally allowed to blast an artist for a terrible cover, but you do that based on the merit of the cover itself and if it sucks, not on the fact the cover exists.

Likewise, think about movies. I understand that Alan Moore is understandably full of hate considering the treatment of his work in Hollywood. But I also think he's got too tight a hold on it. It's Out. Yes, it should absolutely be treated with respect and I wish more had, but the fact that someone makes a movie of it? That is their right as a member of the Public.

And Art is open to interpretation. What the artist intended, what they meant when they created the piece...does not HAVE to match what the Public receives as the meaning. This is why Art can be so personal to the individual. Which leads to my second conclusion.

2) The Bible should not be considered a Work of Art.
Yes, it has some beautiful poetry, marvelous imagery. But if you are going to make the argument that it is the Word of God, and that it holds actual Truths...that is, NOT being open to interpretation...then this is not Art. It is a message, just like this blog is a message, or a text is a message. From Sender to Receiver. Yes, every single person is a Receiver and yes there WILL be interpretation which is actually a good thing in some cases, I think. If you believe all the Bible is open to interpretation, that it is up to each individual how they take it, then feel free to call it Art. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

This doesn't mean that Art can't contain truths, simply that it has more to do with the Public's perception of truth, and not the Artist's intention.

Any thoughts from the studio audience?

Metablogging

Recently, a friend of mine asked why I talk about politics so much. I had to stop and think for a while, because 1) I never thought about it in terms of talking about politics and 2) that's not what the purpose of this blog is. After some discussion, it was determined that we simply approached the subject differently, but it made me consider what and why I write. Though I'm sure this will be quite apparent to all of you, I thought I should address it anyway.

I'm going to deal with the second question first, because it is the simplest. Blogging, like most role-playing games and joint stories, is inherently selfish, bordering on vain. You want to have your words read and considered and usually care more about that than reading others, usually simply because of time. I think it is a sign of maturity of the circle of bloggers I read and read me that this is less of an issue and we all are quite faithful readers. This is also why I consider blogging a perfectly valid expression of thoughts, because while there is certainly stupid people out there, if you find a good group, it can be a way to have mature discussions.

I've talked about a lot of things on this blog, usually something I'm passionate about, which is why it's somewhat limited to books, faith, music, nerdom, and what my friend identified as politics. All of these tend to be viewed through a philosophical lens, because that's how I approach things. The potential downside of course is that this means I am not REPORTING, I am INTERPRETING, which of course means that someone else could interpret the same set of "facts" differently. This can make discussion seem rather irrelevant because neither of us HAVE to be "wrong", we simply think about it differently. So it seems to have a "Why bother" element. I admit, I haven't got a great answer to this, so maybe some of you have thoughts on the matter. I don't want to just be spewing my opinion as if it is more important than anyone else's, which is why I'm always encouraging discussion.

I keep this blog because writing something down means you have to take ownership of it. It allows me to analyze my own thoughts and opinions and also not to have to repeat myself countless times when someone asks me what I think. I just direct them here. Though, I admit, most of you have to hear me talk about it beforehand anyway since I'm sorting my thoughts out loud. So, uh...apologies for all the repeats.

~~~

Now, for the other, slightly stickier question.

I do not think I talk about politics. I talk about people. If I was going to talk about politics, if I gave two hoots about it, I would watch the news. But I don't. I watch pundits and commentators. Why? Because I care less about what has happened and more about what people THINK about what's happening. And then I comment about what I think about what they think. I'm like a pundit to pundits. That's one reason that I see them all as a giant sitcom, because really, it is all so satirical.

For example, I absolutely do not CARE what Glenn Beck believes. What I care about is HOW he expresses himself (which as far as I can tell is the rudest, most moronic way possible) and how he talks to, about and with other people. It's the HOW and WHY more than the WHAT.

It interests me more when people, not parties, not political branches, but PEOPLE are being hypocritical, or holding double standards or being just plain stupid. It's true, I pick on the Republicans more for this, but that is for two reasons.
1) I was raised Republican and though I don't identify with either political party (again with the not caring about politics), it offends me that the way I was raised, the things I believe are being so twisted by people who claim to believe the same thing, yet fail to act like it at every turn.
2) At least in recent days, the party is so lost that one can't help but oscillate between pity and fury at their unending BS and stupidity and all around douchebaggery.
For example, Dick Cheney (the most aptly named man ever, I maintain) said he would much rather take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
Colin Powell's great sin of course was endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain. For this, he's been blasted, called a traitor and been told he should just go to the Democrats. Let's review. Colin Powell is a highly decorated general who has served our country with distinction. Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air who spews hatred from his smoking nostrils for three hours a day, who couldn't cut it on television and thus is consigned to radio. Colin Powell gave good, well-thought out reasons for why he was following Obama. Both Cheney and Limbaugh ignored them all and just chalked it up to race. In response, Powell said, very reasonably and without much emotion, "Well, that's unfortunate". If anyone attacks Limbaugh, he verbally shreds them, their family and any housepets. Even people who HATE the previous administration really respect General Powell, he was liked by both parties (not always, but a decent amount, more than many others) and even now, he is an eloquent, reasonable voice in a time of confusion, where being loud is more important than being right.
Yet, Cheney thinks the Republicans need Limbaugh more than Powell? Srsly, WTF? He is seriously out of touch, if that's the case. Even more so, apparently anyone who disagrees, or who doesn't 1000% follow the party line is a heretic, and that's a surefire way for any party to get blasted to bits because they are so stuck in their ways, they're incapable of adapting or seeing past their own prejudice.

But see...I've said nothing about policies, practices or other aspects of politics. I'm talking about people being dumb.

Now, it is a valid point that it is pretty much impossible to disentangle the people from the politics. That's what they talk about, that's what people will know them for. I understand this, and like I said, I didn't disagree with the person I was talking to. I simply mean that I don't THINK about it in terms of politics. I'm looking at the why's, not the what's.

One last point. I was asked if it bothered me that so many people get their news from these commentators who seem to be deities dictating what the flock of sheep should believe. And yes, it does, but I don't blame the commentators for that. I don't think pundits get their jobs because they want to be the Metatron. Sure, it can evolve to such, but I don't think that was the original intent. Like me, they are just people who are attempting to interpret the events around them. It is up to the public to either listen or not, to act on that opinion or not, and it is ESPECIALLY up to them to do their own research, to consider critically what is being said.

It is so much easier to confirm "facts" these days, with all the information on the internet, and things being recorded as to be double checked. That's why people have to take ownership of what they say.
What is harder to nail down is truth. The truth comes from the why, the interpretation, the philosophy behind. That's more of what people argue about and that's one reason it's so hard to come to a compromise and conclusion on it. There are just so many considerations and so much has to be viewed from the individual's point of view that it's nigh impossible to take the perspective of others.

It is easy to despair under all of this. Easy to fall into the Why Bother. But I think the act of talking about it in itself is a worthy enough endeavor, and it doesn't matter if we ever come to a conclusion. I don't think it would be necessary. Just the fact the discussion is there is enough for me. But that's just me and my personality, and everyone is different.

I hope that this cleared up any questions, whether vocalized or not. Hit me up with more!

~C

The short guy probably had it right...

EDIT: The captive slaves of the Spartans were called 'Helots' not 'huknos', I was thinking one word and typed another. I fixed it now.

Note: This is probably going to be one of those posts where I know more or less what I want to say, but because the topic is so amorphous, it is hard to really communicate well. There is no thesis statement, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm not even sure I have a point. This post will probably be very stream of consciousness, so please bear with me.

As interesting as history is as a story, the very philosophy behind it is just as fascinating to me. Like all stories, there's usually room for interpretation, but rarely do the interpretations have such far reaching consequences (except in the case of religious texts). Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying, "History is a set of lies agreed upon by the victors." There is undoubtedly a grain of truth to this, on both the small and large level. Take Women's history. Now I'm sure a lot of people get aggravated that there are entire classes just focused on Women's history but that's because ours is one of the first generations that has even LOOKED at it. Before, it was assumed they either didn't have one or it would totally match up with Men's. If you were to look at a certain period in history solely from the point of view of men, and then do the same with women, no doubt you would get a different story. It's about what's emphasized, prioritized and outright ignored. Both have truths to them, both have gray areas of belief.

John Stuart Mill, great man though he was, was wrong about history. He said (paraphrased): "These nations[referring to India] have no culture, and therefore, no history. This is true of almost all of the East."
Because their culture did not look like his, he didn't recognize it as civilization. How many times may this have happened, and how many stories may have gotten lost because of it? I think this is a serious flaw in our education system, that we get so focused on American History (which is frequently white-washed past recognition), as if all of history was just setting up for the creation of the United States that we forget there's an entire world outside. And when the rest of the planet is talked about, it is usually in reference to us.

This is another inherent problem with history. For as long as the stories have been passed down, they have usually been used to engender nationalism or pride. It is awfully hard to remain objective when you want to make someone (or large groups of people) believe something about themselves.

But then, no history is wholly objective. The writers are human and therefore have flaws, and the readers are likewise without perfection. I think that's one reason it says in 1 Corinthians 13, "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face."
There's much we don't understand, it is obscured from us, and I personally am looking forward to seeing it all laid out later (much later, please).

Okay, so far we've shown: History changes depending on who is telling it (who may be focused on some things more than others, and who may simply be ignorant of other aspects), and because there is usually an agenda, it is difficult to say any of it can be taken totally on faith. That doesn't meant we should disregard it or consider it unimportant. It is simply something to be aware of.

Phew, glad we got that all set up. Now to what I actually wish to talk about. ^.^

Like I said, the philosophy is almost as interesting as the actual stories, and like philosophy, history is full of contradictions. Things everyone knows but doesn't always think about. Often, it is just the difference in wording. But words have power, and shape our perceptions and therefore our actions.

Why is it that:

You can be a freedom fighter...or an 'anarchist' rebel?
A crusader...or a terrorist?
A strong, effective leader...or a dictator?
A great general and tactition...or a cruel, inhumane bastard?

What's the difference? Sometimes it is easier to say, but often we are on very shaky ground. Most of the time, the only difference is whose side you're on.

Some context: For Christmas, I received a bunch of books written by the same author, historical fiction about ancient Greece and Rome. Currently I'm reading one about Xenophon, which has been really interesting because it's a period that I'm not really familiar with (though I know about what came before and then what came after). But it got me thinking about how we, in the present, think about people in the past.

A Tale of Two Cities in the Ancient World:

Once upon a time, there were two very powerful city states. They were named Athens and Sparta. Athens was the cultural center of the known world, militarily strong because of her navy (being right near the sea), and a huge trading post. Great minds, philosophical and scientific, flocked to her, and at the time we're looking, she had the first fully functional true democracy, under the leadership of Pericles. Well...true democracy in the sense that all free white men could vote and had a say. However, Athens looked around to its neighbors and literally conquered them through democracy. They became more and more powerful by subjecting other free cities, "for their own good." (Sound familiar anyone?)

Meanwhile, there was Sparta. I personally, consider the brilliance of Sparta in their social system. They had few legal punishments (obviously rape and murder, and stealing was punished, normally because you were stupid enough to get caught), instead they relied on social ostracization. Sparta had once conquered their rival and had taken all the people captive as slaves. 'True Spartans' were called Spartiates, and there were relatively few of these compared to people who just lived in Sparta, and then the helots(or the captive slaves). Now, if you know you're outnumbered by people who would kill you if they could, you would make a military society too. That's why the Spartan war-culture continued so long after they had stopped making war, they had to be always on guard against those within their own borders. And once a year, they got to go crazy and kill as many of the helots as they wanted. Fun people huh?
But back to their social psychology. Spartiate men all lived and ate together in Barracks. It was like The Big Kids table. If you showed cowardice (the highest crime in Spartan Society), you were stripped of your Spartiate status, and could no longer eat or live there. It was a huge disgrace. In this way, the Spartans ruled themselves through internalized values. No one had to be physically punished because they did it themselves. I think that's pretty innovative.

So both cultures had their good and evil, just like any other. Spartans treated their Spartiates very well, regardless of whether they were male or female. Well, women were more respected and got to have a greater say in politics, though they couldn't formally hold office. They were able to participate in Olympics, but this was mostly because healthy women create healthier children so it wasn't really due to any kind of enlightenment. But Sparta was pretty backward when it came to other things. Because they had slaves to do their work, they didn't advance technologically. Their houses were not particularly comfortable (more like mud huts than anything else), and it was once said 'No wonder Spartans are so willing to die on the spear. Better that than to live on their food'. They were strong people in that they adhered ardently to their beliefs, and with the exception of the one country that they more or less accidentally 'won', they had no interest in conquering anyone else.
At the same time, Athens encouraged new levels of higher thinking and we find the beginnings of deductive reasoning, the scientific method and great leaps in science and art. Plus, the formalization of democracy is an important contribution. But the Athenians were pretty full of themselves and felt the need to spread their greatness to others who didn't ask for it.

And so like what so often happens, the true evils of any people comes forth in war. Sparta didn't participate in the first Pelloponnesian War because they didn't like leaving Sparta for fear the slaves would rise up. But the second, which lasted for 27 years, would have tragedies on both sides.

It is during this time that my books starts. Sparta won the Second Pelloponnesian war, and installed a puppet government, known as the Thirty Tyrants. This was a huge leap from true democracy to a strict oligarchy and the Athenians resented it. Spartan philosophy didn't work on such a large scale. It was fine for their city-state, but they couldn't enforce it well on others. For one thing, they liked winning, but they didn't really like conquering.
(Note: This is all based on my personal understanding. I get my information from classes, books and talking with professors because I assume they know what they are talking about. As I've said, history is usually open to interpretation and has often been embellished if not outrightly made up. So I could be wrong on some of these points, especially motivation. Please don't think that I assume everything I say is gospel truth, I am completely open to the idea I could misunderstand these things.)

Man, that was a lot more background than I meant to give. And all from memory too ^.^ Dr.Nuzum (my Prehistory teacher) would be so proud.

So what this has done is made me think about our double standards. Take the movie 300. Obviously, only loosely based on historical fact, and I don't use it as a real reference point, but it DOES speak to our present perception. And a lot of it is right, at least philosophically. Spartans were the best hoplite warriors of the time (hoplites are foot soldiers). And they really did fight off an overwhelming number of Persians to allow for the rest of the army to escape (yeah, covering for someone else running away isn't quite as romantic, but it does show a level of self-sacrifice).
The Queen, Gorgo, was actually a really fascinating figure, someone who greatly interested Herodotus, the father of history. She is the main reason we know about the battle of Thermopylae, as she wrote extensively. Leonidas was a great king, he introduced many reforms and improved the lives of his people (I personally consider that a plus for a ruler). But we have this over-simplified view of the Spartans I think, just as we do of many other peoples and individuals. We, Americans, and probably humans in general, are drawn to people who are the best at physical prowess. Take team names. My school mascot is a Viking. Vikings were smelly, gross and often terrible human beings. Yet, we glorify them. Look at most teams. Heck, the Forks High School team is called the Spartans. No one wants to be called the Athenians because they were known for their mental abilities and despite our great enlightment (/sarcasm) we don't value that nearly as much as the ability to swing an ax into someone's face. It's just as we like winners, no matter how they achieve that rank.

Something I've always wrestled with is how we judge individuals, and if we even have the right. I've talked to a lot of people about it, especially my dad and Dr.Nuzum (who is a historiographer and so usually understands where I'm coming from).
What do we judge? The action, the consequences, the motivation? If they were a total douchebag, but did good things for their country, are they excused? What if they did good things for their country but at the expense of another country? I suppose that's the philosophy of Political Science.

Take three of my favorite subjects: Richard, Coeur de Leon, Alksandr of Macedon (also known as Alexander the Great) and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Richard was one of the ten greatest generals of all time (as far as I know). He inspired much in his men, and his people loved hearing of his victories.
But he also bankrupted his country to fund the Crusades, and obviously his victories came through killing people closer to their own country than he was to his. I highly doubt he really cared about liberating the Holy City. He loved making war, he was good at it, and any excuse would have worked. He was known for raping women and then passing them around to his men for their depravations. In his defense, that was expected of him, though it hardly excuses him morally.

So which column do we put him in? Should we even try? Perhaps we don't have the right, as we weren't there. But then, we have to live in a world shaped by these actions, which gives us some leeway. If Sparta and Athens hadn't more or less destroyed each other, Phillip of Macedon would have had a much more difficult time defeating them and Alexander the Great would likely never have risen and the world would certainly be different.
Alexander unified formerly disparate nations and paved the way for the Roman Empire who for all of its evil, did much for the world, including setting the stage for the birth of Christ. If Alexander had lived past 33, who knows what he could have accomplished, for good or ill? But in his time, he perfected his father's improvements in hoplite warfare and reshaped the map. People became aware of the world around them better. When Rome came, they also built on this, creating the Latin Rule, which made them come to new nation-states as colonizers, not conquerors and is one of the main reasons they were as powerful as they were for as long as they were (an empire that literally lasts 1000 years is not to be sneered at).

More directly than either of these perhaps is Napoleon. Much that is in the world today can be traced to him, including the rise of Nationalism (and come of its consequences, such as Abolitionism and Feminism). The Napoleonic Wars greatly altered Europe and many of the colonies (such as Haiti). Napoleon was definitely egotistical, but he was also a great general and understood psychology to the extent that he perfected nationalism to help keep the French people in line and to this day they have few figures they love as much as him.

I know I'm talking in circles, but that's how I think about these things, there is always a thought and then a counterthought.

Were these great men? Were they good as human beings or are those in authority answerable to a different set of rules? Jimmy Carter was probably one of our most moral presidents but he failed as a ruler pretty hard. Herbert Hoover was one of the most hated, but he didn't really do things wrong, he just didn't do much of anything. Johnson WANTED to do a lot of great things, he had a lot of good intentions, but he's mostly remembered for getting us stuck in Vietnam.

Or look at it another way:
During World War I, we saw the formalized conceptualizing of Total War. One of the components of Total War is the Homefront. Every individual is involved, man, woman, child, with the war machine. And therefore, there are no civilians. It because acceptable to bomb cities, towns...If you destroy their suppliers, if you demoralize their soldiers...you win. The Blitzkrieg, Nagasaki...Terrible atrocities done in the name of victory.

But if it WORKS...it's considered good strategy. The Assyrians ruled through fear because they did terrible things to those who rebelled against them, including babies on spikes. But it worked right? Does that justify it? That's a dramatic example but we can see it other places. It's war right? The rules change. But when the OTHER side does it...it's barbaric, it's evil, and that's why we have to stop them. The double standard continues.

If we do it, we're Liberators. If They do it, they're terrorists. How dare Russia invade democratic Georgia? Oh, we invaded democratic Iraq? Well...that's hardly the same thing.

I'm not ragging on the US, but pointing out a problem with humanity in general. As a species, we tend to suck hardcore when it comes to fighting with each other.

There was a line, at some point, someone must have said 'We should never go past this point. This is the worst we should do, because after this, it becomes morally unnacceptable'.

I think that point was passed a long time ago. Now we can destroy the world 80 times over with nuclear weapons, and even better we have MACHINES to do it. The only benefit is that war is no so horrid, we are discouraged from doing it because of how awful the cost would be. But there's always a button pusher, always someone who considers the ends justifying the means, and our children will have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Because someone decided that killing each other more efficiently was a good idea. And then someone else, and then someone else...and no one stopped them. And they thought they were doing the right thing.

So how do we judge THEM? If their intentions were, if not pure, at least in the best interest of those they considered important, could we say they were evil? Or just misguided? Einstein said one of his greatest regrets was helping with the Atom bomb. But he had been told that the Germans already had one and the only way to preserve peace was for America to have one too. He was lied to, plain and simple. Does that excuse him?

A lot of good things have happened in our world. So have a lot of evil things. And so many many things we don't know about anymore.

So what's the point? I told you, way at the beginning that I didn't have one. Remember that far back? ;)

We are all actors in history. What we do changes the world, whether we see it not. So take care and consider your decisions because someone else will likely have to live with the consequences.