Another Reason Not To Buy Bottled Water

I was very interested to read in the Wall Street Journal awhile ago about how cavities are becoming more common in children's teeth. It seems that at least part of the reason is that more kids are drinking bottled water and guess what? Bottled water does not contain fluoride. Fluoride helps prevent cavities.

Of course, bottle water is stupid anyway. Why pay $50 a gallon for something you can get from the tap for about half a cent? And at least here in the U.S., what comes out of the tap is pretty much every bit as good as that stuff in bottles.

And then there's the environmental aspect. What needless damage is done to the environment by production of all that packaging and the shipping?

If you really feel like you need to have that water bottle close at hand at all times, just fill it from the tap and reuse it again and again. You'll be doing your pocketbook, the environment, and your teeth a lot of good. Plus, you'll be striking a blow against stupidity.

Different Meanings of Water to Soldiers, Sailors

Gen. Douglas MacArthur was many things, but one thing he was not was closed-minded. I'm reading American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964 by William Manchester and it is filling in a lot of history that I know little about in detail.

I came across an interesting discussion of how soldiers view bodies of water versus how sailors view the same. Here's what Manchester had to say.

Another commander would have been intimidated by the immensity of the Pacific, but the General, remembering the horrors of 1918, when the huge armies had been wedged against one another in bloody stalemate, regarded the vast reaches between Melbourne and Tokyo as opportunities. Despite his distrust of the navy, he was quick to appreciate the difference between soldiers' and sailors' attitudes toward bodies of water, and to come down hard on the side of the admirals. At West Point he had been told to regard rivers and oceans as obstacles along which men could dig in, forming lines of resistance. At Annapolis, he knew, midshipmen were taught that streams and seas were highways. By adopting their concept, he could open up his theater to some of the most stunning campaigns in the history of warfare.

Interesting concepts, and difference of views, no?

Here's another point of interest. Douglas MacArthur's father was a hero of the American Civil War, while MacArthur himself was a hero of World War II. Now, how can that be, when nearly 80 years separated those two conflicts?

Very simple. Arthur MacArthur was known during the Civil War as "the boy general." He was leading troops into battle at an age when most people today are graduating from high school. His son, Douglas, was himself a hero of World War I, and was actually retired from the army when World War II began. He came out of retirement to lead the battle in the Pacific.

Pretty dang interesting.

Was "Virginity" Over-rated?

Why the preoccupation with virginity? I mean like in ancient Rome and Greece, with examples such as the Vestal Virgins and all.

It occurred to me while reading about ancient Rome that the term "virgin" may have connoted something other than what we think of today.

Here's my thought: In reading John Lord's Beacon Lights of History, Vol. 3 he speaks of the sculptors and painters and their depictions of the beautiful "virgins" who were their models. For example, Lord writes "Zeuxis is said to have studied the beautiful forms of seven virgins of Crotona in order to paint his famous picture of Venus."

That's when it struck me that in those times, another word for women who were not virgins was commonly "mother."

Lacking birth control, having sex pretty much ensured pregnancy. And with pregnancy you generally get the loss of the flawless female form. Thus, if you're looking for the very picture of youthful beauty you perforce must look for virgins. It has nothing to do with a woman's sexual activity, but everything to do with the results of that activity. You might easily substitute the word "maiden" for "virgin" and retain the true meaning.

That puts a different spin on our understanding of what the ancients considered important. Her so-called moral character was not at issue, only her figure. Or maybe I'm totally off base. But I found it to be a pretty dang interesting thought so I figured I'd share it with you.

What Made Possession "Nine-Tenths of the Law"?

Remember how it bugged you when your brother took something of yours and when you demanded he give it back he would tell you that "possession is nine-tenths of the law"? Where did that come from? And who says it's nine-tenths as opposed to seven-tenths or something else?

I can't provide specific answers to those questions but I think I can shed some light.

In Beacon Lights of History, Vol. 3, by John Lord, the author discusses the concepts of ownership in ancient Rome. First off, at least in early Rome, the father was master of all, and his wife and children could not truly own anything; it was all his. This right of ownership included the family members themselves and the father could kill his son with impunity, if he so desired. Thankfully, over the course of centuries, the Romans moved away from that extreme.

As for property of the non-family-member type, ownership carried the implicit right to transfer the object to another. Two things were required for this to happen. First, the owner must consent to the transfer. Second, the actual delivery must be made. As Lord states, "Movables were presumed to be the property of the possessors, until positive evidence was produced to the contrary."

So clearly, if you had something in your possession, under the law you had the strong presumption that you were the owner.

But it goes beyond that. Lord also explains that the concept of prescriptive easement was in practice way back in those days:

A prescriptive title to movables was acquired by possession for one year, and to immovables by possession for five years. Undisturbed possession for thirty years constituted in general a valid title.

So you may have acquired something through shady means, but if you can hang onto it it becomes yours. There's nothing precise implied in the "nine-tenths" wording, but the gist is clear. You're in a much stronger position trying to hang onto something than trying to take something from someone else.

Who Knew Draco Was So Draconian

Etymology is something I've always found highly interesting--or pretty dang interesting, if you will. Do you ever stop and wonder where some of these words we use come from? That's etymology.

In reading Beacon Lights of History, Vol. 3, by John Lord, I came across the etymology of the word "draconian." Of course, the definition of the word is "rigorous; unusually severe or cruel."

Well, turns out that in ancient Greece there was a fellow named . . . drum roll . . . Draco. And Draco was appointed to compile an unstructured collection of court rulings into a coherent set of laws. Draco did as he was asked but, as Lord explains:

Draco's laws were extraordinarily severe, punishing small thefts and even laziness with death.

Wow--punish laziness with death! It kind of makes you wonder how many Athenian teenagers managed to live to adulthood!

Lord adds that:

The formulation of any system of justice would have, as Draco's did, a beneficial influence on the growth of the State; but the severity of these bloody laws caused them to be hated and in practice neglected.

It was not until Solon several decades later, that an acceptable code of laws was assembled.

So there you go: draconian.

Don't Trouble Me With Legalities: the Susan B. Anthony Trial

Susan B. Anthony was tried and convicted in 1872 because, as the court made a point to stipulate, "at that time she was a woman" and she had cast a ballot in the recent election. Of course, women were not allowed to vote at that time. The story of the trial is found in An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony. (Note: this is the third in a series of posts. You may want to start at the beginning.)

As I discussed earlier, her attorney made the argument that, adhering to the wording of the U.S. Constitution, women were eligible to vote. What's more, in another portion of the book, an address by Matilda Joslyn Gage, the speaker noted that at the U.S. Constitutional Convention, "its delegates were partially elected by women's votes, as at that date women were exercising their right of self-government through voting, certainly in the States of Massachusetts and New Jersey, if not in Georgia and Delaware."

After her indictment, but before the trail, Susan Anthony spoke at a number of gatherings to explain her actions and the thinking behind them. Her remarks included the following.

But, it is urged, the use of the masculine pronouns he, his, and him, in all the constitutions and laws, is proof that only men were meant to be included in their provisions. If you insist on this version of the letter of the law, we shall insist that you be consistent, and accept the other horn of the dilemma, which would compel you to exempt women from taxation for the support of the government, and from penalties for the violation of laws.

She then offered examples where this principle had been put into practice, among them this one.

Miss Sarah E. Wall of Worcester, Mass., twenty years ago, took this position. For several years, the officers of the law distrained her property, and sold it to meet the necessary amount; still she persisted, and would not yield an iota, though every foot of her lands should be struck off under the hammer. And now, for several years, the assessor has left her name off the tax list, and the collector passed her by without a call.

These cases were, however, the exception. Women were taxed and were held to penalties for violation of laws.

Returning to Matilda Joslyn Gage's speech, she argued that:

We brand this prosecution of Miss Anthony by United States officials, under claim of provisions in this act, as an illegal prosecution--an infamous prosecution, in direct defiance of national law, dangerous in its principles, tending to subvert a republican form of government, and a direct step, whether so designed or not, to the establishment of a monarchy in this country. Where the right of one individual is attacked, the rights of all are menaced. A blow against one citizen is a blow against every citizen.

Clearly, at least from our 21st Century perspective, these were compelling arguments. It would seem they would have been just as compelling in the 19th Century. How is it then that Susan Anthony and the three election inspectors were found guilty?

It was a very simple matter. The judge in both cases, one Ward Hunt, threw out the legal arguments as rubbish, leaving only the question of whether Anthony had knowingly cast a vote she had no right to cast.

Considering that she had consulted beforehand with some of the leading legal thinkers in the country, and that they had agreed that the Constitution did ensure women's right to vote, this would seem to have been a real issue.

But not in Judge Hunt's opinion. He took the extraordinary step of informing the jury that rather than allowing them to deliberate on this issue, he was ordering them to return a guilty verdict. And without any of the jurors saying one word, that verdict was entered.

Was there an appeal? Absolutely. However, under the laws in effect at that time (I have no idea if they are still in effect today, but I doubt it), the only appeal allowed was to the same court that decided the matter. Surprise, surprise, Judge Hunt did not reverse himself.

And thus it was another 48 years before the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed and women finally were accepted as voting members of the nation. Now that is a story I consider to be pretty dang interesting.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Law to Let Us Vote: The Susan B. Anthony Trial

The trial of Susan B. Anthony was peculiar from the start in that she was tried under a federal statute on an issue for which there was no federal standard. This was a twist her attorney tried ably, but unsuccessfully, to exploit. (Note: Because this blog displays in reverse chronological order, you might want to go to the first post in this series and start reading there.)

As noted in An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony, it was the states that determined the qualifications to vote, not the federal government. Consequentially, all the feds could do was to say "if you violated the mandates of your state, we--not they--will prosecute you." Never mind that what was legal in one state was not legal in another and this federal statute could not possibly be enforced consistently from state to state.

What was the federal government doing poking its nose into what presumably should have been purely a state matter? Recall that the year was 1872, just a few years after the Civil War. Those who had taken up arms against the federal government were disallowed from voting. The law invoked against Susan Anthony made it a crime to vote if you knew you were not permitted to do so.

So the crux of the charge would seem to be, did she vote knowing full well that she had no right to do so?

No big deal. Everyone knew women did not have the right to vote, right? Wrong. Very, very wrong. In fact, the argument made by the suffragettes was based--solidly--on the language in the U.S. Constitution. For the most part, the Constitution talks in terms of "the citizen" and "the people," with no specification that the citizen or person at issue was male or female, or black or white, for that matter. In just a few instances the words "he" or "his" or "him" are used but that was the common language of the law and was never otherwise construed to refer directly and solely to men.

For example, the fact that citizens were required to pay taxes did not exclude women, even though no legislation specifically included them in that obligation. Likewise, criminal laws applied equally to women, though that was never stated explicitly. In fact, the only instance where this male vocabulary was deemed to mean men and men only was in the business of voting and serving on juries.

Think about that for a minute and imagine the legal arguments that this could lead to. I'll delve into those in my next post.

Read Part 3

Women's Right to Vote: The Susan B. Anthony Trial

The battle in the U.S. for the right of women to vote ended long ago, with the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

How many of us today have any inkling of the issues and arguments that comprised that struggle? We just accept that of course, the Constitution did not originally give women the right to vote, just as it did not declare that all Blacks were free. It took Constitutional amendments to bring them about.

Allow me to refer you to An Account of the Proceedings on the Trial of Susan B. Anthony as an exceedingly dang interesting rebuttal of such notions. (Just as a pretty dang interesting aside, I had a couple college classes with a young woman whose name I came to learn was Susan B. Anthony. On questioning, she confirmed that the famous SBA was her great-grandmother.)

I will first lay out the facts of the case so all may be clear on the matter. In the fall of 1872 Susan Anthony and a number of other women registered to vote in Rochester, NY, and then did vote in the November election. Anthony and the others were charged with voting illegally, due to their being women and women not having any such right. Additionally, the three election inspectors who allowed these women to cast ballots were charged with breaking the law by allowing them to vote.

Anthony was tried first, the inspectors next. All were found guilty. Charges were dropped against the other women. It was not until 1920, 48 years later, that the 19th Amendment was ratified and the women's suffrage matter was finally closed.

This story is far too much for a single post, so I'll break it into several. For now, let me just say that its' not only pretty dang interesting, it's pretty dang inspiring. Come back soon and read more.

Read Part 2

One Man's Myth Is Another Man's Religion

"Myth" is defined, in part, by the American Heritage Dictionary as "A traditional story presenting supernatural beings . . ." But let's really get down to it. When we're speaking of Roman or Greek mythology what are we really talking about? Their religions. And what defines them now as mythology? Simply the fact that no one believes in these religions any more.

So I'm reading Bulfinch's Mythology: The Age of Fable . Thomas Bulfinch was a 19th Century American writer who felt that many literary references were beyond the general public because many readers were not conversant with the historical subjects they referenced. So he wrote a book intended to be very accessible to the general populace that would help them understand these references when they encountered them. And he seems to have been pretty successful in his intent.

The bulk of the book is devoted to discussions of the Greek and Roman mythologies, that is, religions, and it closes with a discussion of the Norse mythologies, or religions. It's what comes in between that I find pretty dang interesting.

Chapter XXXVII is titled "Eastern Mythology - Zoroaster - Hindu Mythology - Castes - Buddha - The Grand Lama - Prester John." You get the picture. As a good Christian, Bulfinch didn't really care that these religions were still alive--he didn't believe in them so that made them myths.

Now, that's not to dump on Christians. I would have to assume that at some point some Buddhist or Muslim or someone of some other religion has written a book discussing popular myths such as Christianity, Judaism, whatever.

I ran into something very similar to this many years ago when I went in on a job interview. This was pre-internet so all I had to go on was a very short ad printed in the newspaper. There was little way for me to know that the organization where I was going was a conservative Christian organization. But I found out when I got there.

Sitting in the waiting room for about half an hour I had time to peruse their materials. There was a lot about cults. Cults such as those Jim Jones people who commited mass suicide with poisoned Kool-Aid. Cults such as the Mormons. Cults such as Unitarians and Catholics.

Hey, if you have the TRUTH and everyone else is wrong, facts are just facts, right? You bet. But what happens when you and your minister don't quite see eye to eye 100 percent of the way? Is he just a cultist, too? Or are you?

Guerrillas Tested British Resolve in Boer War

Everyone has heard of the Boer War, but how many of us actually know anything about it? I guarantee I knew very little until I started reading The Great Boer War by Arthur Conan Doyle. Yes, that Arthur Conan Doyle, of Sherlock Holmes fame. And that's a story in itself.

It seems that Doyle (Conan Doyle?) was already a well known writer at the time of what was actually the Second Boer War. He wanted to see it for himself and tried to enlist in the army, but the generals were skeptical about having a famous writer in their ranks. Ultimately, he was allowed to join a field hospital operation, and it was his exemplary service in that capacity that earned Sir Arthur Conan Doyle his knighthood. Pretty dang interesting all by itself.

So let me try to abbreviate this pretty drastically. The Orange Free State was an independent country. The Transvaal was an independent country. Natal was a British colony. The Dutch settlers, or Boers, were very conservative religiously and socially, and in the Transvaal they were afraid that the influx of workers from around the world would overwhelm their numbers and wrest political -- and social -- control from the Boers.

Under the leadership of Paul Kruger (as in Krugerrand) the Transvaalers heaped enormous taxes on the newcomers and passed laws making it practically impossible for them to become citizens. Because many of these workers were British, the Brits did not take kindly to what they considered mistreatment and exploitation of their people. They tried to bring international pressure on the Transvaal but to no avail. Meanwhile, the Boers were known to be arming rapidly, in anticipation of some conflict with Britain.

Understand, of course, that this is all as told through Doyle's eyes, a loyal Brit, so there is probably another side to it all.

Anyway, one thing lead to another and the British sent troops to Natal to protect against aggression from the Transvaal. The Transvaalers considered this aggression and struck first, along with troops from the Orange Free State, with which Britain had no quarrel.

Ultimately, it was a matter of the Dutch settlers wanting all of South Africa to be under Dutch hegemony or influence, not British.

Long story short, the British won after three years and incorporated the Transvaal and the Orange Free State into the Republic of South Africa. But what happened during those three years?

The Boers had early successes because they were prepared. The Brits had some catching up to do. Eventually, though, the might of the British empire was more than the Boers could resist. Except that long after the fight appeared a lost cause, Boer commandos and guerrillas continued the fight. And the British public got restive. They started asking why they were continuing to sacrifice their sons and their tax dollars for this never-ending battle.

In the end, it was probably just the low population numbers that allowed the British to force the end of the conflict after only three years. Most of the populations were rounded up into relocation camps and the Boer fighters could ill afford losses of personnel even if they won a battle. Had the fighting continued for the length of time the U.S. was in Vietnam or has been in Iraq, public opinion may have forced a different outcome. But the Boers lacked the manpower to continue fighting, and the war was won before the British public got totally fed up.

As for the book itself, Doyle is obviously a talented writer, so it's very readable. On the other hand, he touches on practically every battle and a great many of the skirmishes in the entire war effort and that gives a bit tiring at times. Nevertheless, it's a very interesting read and I would definitely recommend it.

Even the Indians Had Church/State Conflicts

OK, fourth and final remarks on Canyons of the Colorado, John Wesley Powell's account of his boat trip down the river in 1869, since renamed The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons.

We all know that separation of church and state is an important element in our system of government, and the degree of separation in some countries varies from 0% to nearly 100%. Do you have the idea that this sort of conflict is something born of advanced societies? Guess again. Take a look at what Powell had to say about the tribal politics of the Zuni peoples he encountered.

In addition to the secular government there is always a cult government. In every tribe there are Shamans . . . In many tribes, perhaps in all, the people are organized into Shamanistic societies: but that these societies are invariably recognized is not certain. The Shamans are always found.

The purpose of the Shamanistic institutions is to control the conduct of the members of the tribe in relation to mythic personages, the mysterious beings in which the savage men believe . . . It is deemed of prime importance that such deities should be induced to act in the interest of men. Thus it is that Shamanistic government is held to be of as great importance as tribal government, and the Shamans are the peers of the chiefs . . . but always there is a conflict of authority, and there is a perpetual war between Shamanistic and civil government.

Politics and religion. Apparently you can't live with them and you can't live without them!

Good Eatin' Down in the Canyon

Who knew you could find so much of interest in such an old book. This is my third post about John Wesley Powell's book Canyons of the Colorado, now renamed The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons. This time we're talking culinary arts.

In 1869, Powell and his men floated the Colorado River from Green River, WY, more than 1,000 miles down to the mouth of the Grand Canyon, the first persons ever to do so. Native Americans still largely ruled the area he went through, although there were some settlers at this point.

Powell tells this amusing story of some time they spent with the Indians:

After we have partaken of goat stew and bread, a course of dumplings, melons, and peaches is served, and this finishes the feast. What seem to be dumplings are composed of a kind of hash of bread and meat, tied up in little balls with cornhusks and served boiling hot. They are eaten with much gusto by the party and highly praised.

Some days after we learn how they are made: they are prepared of goat's flesh, bread, and turnips, and kneaded by mastication. As we prefer to masticate our own food, this dainty dish is never again a favorite.

OK. I don't think I need to expand on this.

Recycling History

Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon are Anasazi Indian ruins that today draw large masses of tourists. They are historical and are protected and no one would consider tearing them down.

Such was not always the case. In Canyons of the Colorado, now renamed The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons, John Wesley Powell tells of a ruin they visited as they floated down the river:

. . . here stood an extensive ruin not many years ago. Some portions of the pueblo were three stories high. The structure was one of the best found in this land of ruins.

Now get this:

The Mormon people settling here have used the stones of the old pueblo in building their homes, and no vestiges of the ancient structure remain.

Oh man. Can you imagine? I mean, you can't blame the settlers. Here was a lot of perfectly good building materials ready to be used. But think of Mesa Verde and imagine it being dismantled to build settler homes. What a loss.

John Wesley Powell Describes How Kit Carson Conquered the Navajos

You can't really imagine the courage it took for John Wesley Powell and his men to float the until-then unexplored Colorado River until you read his report of the trip, Canyons of the Colorado, now retitled The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons. They started out with four boats and had two left at the end. Four men gave up the quest before it ended, convinced that death was too likely an outcome.

But the rest did make it through, and their journey is well worth reading about.

Aside from the trip itself, the book contains a number of pretty dang interesting sidelights, and I will discuss them here in a series of posts. This first item has to do with Kit Carson, a celebrated (among the whites) scout, who it seems the natives of the region has good reason to consider in a much less appreciative light.

Powell opens the book by setting the stage, discussing the topography and history of the region traversed by the river. One subject he touches on was the white man's triumph over the original inhabitants of the land, the Navajos.

Powell tells this story:

After the acquisition of this area by the United States they (the Indians) became disaffected by reason of encroaching civilization, and the petty wars between United States troops and Navajos were in the main disastrous to our forces, due in part to the courage, skill, and superior numbers of the Navajos and in part to the character of the country, which is easily defended, as the routes of travel along the canyons present excellent opportunities for defense and ambuscade. But under the leadership and by the advice of Kit Carson these Indians were ultimately conquered. This wily but smart frontiersman recommended a new method of warfare, which was to destroy the herds and flocks of the Navajos: and this course was pursued. Regular troops with volunteers from California and New Mexico went into the Navajo country and shot down their herds of half-wild horses, killed hundreds of thousands of sheep, cut down their peach orchards which were scattered about the springs and little streams, destroyed their irrigating works, and devastated their little patches of corn, squashes, and melons: and entirely neglected the Navajos themselves, who were concealed among the rocks of the canyons. Seeing the destruction wrought upon their means of livelihood, the Navajos at once yielded.

Wow. We all know that the whites basically came in and stole the land from the Indians, and we've read about Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears, but this is another stain that I had never heard of. "OK, you won't let us just take your land away from you? Fine, we'll destroy your civilization. How do you like that?" What in the world made those people think they had any just reason for doing this? Sometimes it makes you ashamed to be an American. Enough said.

I Thought the Civil War was Over

Here's an interesting and disturbing thought: apparently for a sizeable number of people in the U.S. south, the Civil War is not over, it's just in remission. Now, I spent some years growing up in Tennessee and I'm familiar with the phrase "The South will rise again," but I didn't think anyone took that seriously. More than that, I've always had the impression that Southerners are among the more patriotic folks in this country.

According to this book I just read, Confederates in the Attic, there's a lot more below the surface south of the Mason-Dixon Line than most of us think. This book by Tony Horwitz, subtitled "Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War," is largely about the reenactors who dress up as Union and Confederate troops and stack reenactments of Civil War battles. However, as the author researched his subject he found a lot more than he bargained for. Here's the passage from the book that I find most chilling:

After the quiz, I went with the Curtises and a couple named the Crowders to a Southern-style restaurant chain called Morrison's. We loaded our trays with un-Confederate heaps of cornbread, fried chicken, mashed potatoes and collard greens. I was about to shovel in the first bite when Violet Crowder loudly cleared her throat. Then she turned to her four-year-old son, Warren. "Lord," he intoned, "we thank thee for this meal and especially for the great and wonderful Confederacy."

. . . (skipping a couple paragraphs)

Her son sat quietly completing a connect-the-dot picture of the rebel flag and filling in a coloring-book map of America: gray for the Confederacy, blue for Union, green for border states. "Warren," his mother said, "tell this nice man from Virginia, is there anything you hate more than Yankees?"

"No sir! Nothing!" he shouted.

All right, these are people in the 1990s (the book was published in 1998) who are raising their son to worship an entity that ceased to exist 130 years before, and to hate his fellow countrymen. These people are members of a group called the Children of the Confederacy and which, says the author, "was designed to prep youngsters for Confederate citizenship in rather the way that Future Farmers of America readied teenagers for agricultural life." The group has a 16-page "Catechism" with gems such as this:

Q. What was the feeling of the slaves towards their masters?
A. They were faithful and devoted and were always ready and willing to serve them.

Are you getting queasy yet?

Maybe it's because I live in Colorado, where racial harmony is very much the norm, but I really had no idea that racism is still so prevalent in other parts of the country. Horwitz goes into that quite a bit, telling about his discussions with Blacks, Whites, red-necks, liberals, and everyone else. The picture he paints is not pretty. The one bright hope he touches on is that for the younger generations the issue of racism is receding. Perhaps in the last 10 years it has receded even further.

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination for president it will be interesting to see just which states he takes in the election. If he wins in the South I'll feel a lot more optimistic than I did when I finished reading this book.

Random Interesting Tidbits from WWII France

I just finished reading The Collapse of the Third Republic, by William Shirer, about how the government and military of France came to be so weak and divided that Nazi Germany could sweep in and conquer the nation in just one month. This is a book that is hard to put down but it is also hard to keep reading at times because it is downright painful to witness the short-sightedness and timidity that led to bloody catastrophe.

I'm not going to get into that; you can read the book yourself. It's worth reading.

What I want to make note of are just a few of the surprising bits of information I ran across in the book.

For example, when France was on the verge of collapse they continued to have one of the strongest navy fleets in the world. Great Britain was extremely worried about those ships falling into German hands. The French were guaranteeing the British that they would never allow that to happen, but considering all the other failed guarantees France had given in so many other situations, it is not surprising that the British were a bit doubtful.

Winston Churchill was not timid. He gave the order for the seizure of all French vessels possible and sinking of the rest if that were the only recourse. Most were seized with little bloodshed but at Mers-el-Kebir, in French Algeria, the two navies fought a lop-sided battle that resulted in the sinking or destruction of all but one of the French ships in the port. The French soon capitulated to Germany and the Petain dictatorship made common cause with Hitler.

That led to another of the points I want to note. With the French government at Vichy now on the side of the Axis powers, the Nazis were able to walk into the French African possessions. This of course was the setting for the Humphrey Bogart/Lauren Bacall flick "Casablanca." When the time came for the British and American troops to invade North Africa, the French fought them. Approximately 1,500 French and a like number of Americans killed each other in that initial battle. Sort of like if the Kuwaiti military had fought the U.S. military when the Americans came in to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

Lastly, I remembered from childhood that Charles De Gaulle was the leader of France at that time. During the period the book covers he was a colonel and then a general, and he did not capitulate, but rather went on to lead the French resistance (I'm not clear on details here, haven't read about that yet). I guess I just assumed that he became president after the war and that he headed the Fourth French Republic.

Well, not exactly. First off, De Gaulle did not immediately become the French head of state. He eventually did become the last Premier of the Fourth Republic and then he became the first President of the Fifth Republic. Apparently they rewrote their constitution again at that point. I'm only assuming that the government of France today is still the Fifth Republic.

So those are the particular things that struck me. Of course the whole book really struck me. Everything is so clear in hindsight but there are always at least a few people who see it clearly in foresight. If only it weren't so difficult to figure out who those people are and who they are not.

The Euro to Be a Failed Currency?

Now I find this extremely dang interesting. According to a column in the April 21, 2008, issue of Forbes magazine, there is some possibility that the whole common currency thing in Europe is failing. That is to say, the Euro will fail and the countries over there will revert to their old currencies, i.e., the franc, the deutsche mark, the lira, etc. Who knew?

The writer, Avi Tiomkin, is described as a "macroeconomic adviser to hedge funds." The gist of his argument is that different countries want and need different things economically, and it is these tensions that will ultimately lead some countries to abandon the euro and return to what they used before. He begins the column stating that

It is only a matter of time, probably less than three years, until the euro experiment meets its end.

He also states that

Along with the steep selloff that will precede the disintegration of the high-flying euro, other markets will be shaken.

He then goes on to recommend that investors should

Gradually start to hoard dollars and short the euro. Another strategy is to sell investments in Italy and Spain and buy German fixed-income assets.

I don't know about you but this is the first I've heard of this. Not that I'm some big investor to take measures to prepare, but I never dreamed something like a currency in use in such a large area even could fail. You live and learn, I guess. I know I'll be watching with interest in the next three years.

A Digression Just To Make Some Money

I'm going to do this just because I can. If you're not interested just ignore this particular post. Besides, making a bit of cash this easily is pretty dang interesting to me.

Everyone is familiar with PayPal, right? That company that lets you send and receive money via the Web? Well, they now have competition. Apparently Steve Case, one of the cofounders of AOL, has started this thing called Revolution Money Exchange, and for everyone who signs up before May 15 gets an immediate $25 in their account to spend, withdraw, or whatever they want to do. So you can't lose, right? And I checked it out--they are legit. They're a registered bank and you do have to give them your social security number, as you do with any bank account. Then, if you refer anyone else to them who signs up you get an extra $10.

So here's the link. Just click on the image to get started. Do it if it appeals to you. Either way, I'll be back to regular posts after this one.

When The Jews And Muslims Were Friends

I mentioned last time that I was reading Christianity and Islam in Spain, A.D. 756-1031, by Charles Reginald Haines, and that the Jews of Spain aided the Moors in their conquest of that country. Here's some more on that subject.

The persecution of the Jews by the Gothic Spaniards naturally made them the implacable enemies of the Christians. Being a very numerous colony in Spain--for Hadrian had transported thither many thousand families--the Jews gave the Arabs very effective help in conquering the country, both by betraying places to them, and garrisoning captured towns while the Arabs went on to fresh conquests. Consequently the relations between the Jews and Moslems were for a long time very cordial, though this cordiality wore off in the course of time. . .

In France the prejudice against the Jews shewed itself very strongly among the clergy, though Louis I and his wife Judith favoured them. They were generally ill-treated, and their slaves were induced by the clergy to be baptized. Thereupon they became free, as Jews were not allowed to have Christian slaves. But it must be admitted that the Franks had reason for disliking the Jews, as it was well known that they sold Christian children as slaves to the Moslems of Spain.

Wow. That last remark is one of the things I often find most interesting in reading old texts. This is one of the things that makes Haines especially interesting as a writer. He shows his prejudices openly and yet still manages to view the overall picture with amazing objectivity in light of his prejudices. Did the Jews really sell Christian children to the Moors as slaves? I have no idea, but it sounds like one of those urban legends that everyone knows but no one can prove or find a source for. Still, considering how badly the Jews were treated it wouldn't surprise me if it happened at least once or twice. Vengeance leads people to do pretty outrageous things some times.

Anyway, all things must pass and a bit later Haines notes that:

The good understanding between the Jews and the Arabs with the gradual process of time gave place to an ill-concealed hostility, and at the beginning of the twelfth century there seems even to have been a project formed for forcing the Jews to become Moslems on the ground of a promise made by their forefathers to Mohammed that, if in five centuries their Messiah had not appeared, they would be converted to Mohammedanism.

Of course, when the Christian retook Spain the Jews were in a bit of a bind. The Christians still hated them and now they had the added impetus of the Jews' collaboration with the Moors. Interestingly, the Jews of Toledo appear to have pulled a fast one in 1085 when the Christians reclaimed that city. Says Haines:

They waited on Alfonso and assured him that they were part of the ten tribes whom Nebuchadnezzar transported into Spain, and not the descendants of those Jerusalem Jews who crucified Christ. Their ancestors, they said, were quite free from the guilt of this act, for when Caiaphas had written to the Toledan synagogue for their advice respecting the person who claimed to be the Messiah, the Toledan Jews returned for answer, that in their judgment the prophecies seemed to be fulfilled in Him and therefore He ought not by an means to be put to death. This reply they produced in the original Hebrew. It is needless to say that the whole thing was a fabrication.

A little fast footwork there, wouldn't you say?

Eventually, the Inquisition murdered and drove out all the Jews from Spain, with the exception of those known today to have continued their rituals in private while publicly accepting Christianity. The remaining Moslems were also killed or driven out, and you have to give Haines credit that he states, "The story of the treatment of Jews by Christians is indeed one of the darkest in the history of Christianity."

Christians Had Suicide Martyrs, Too, With Important Differences

Picture a religious sect willingly bringing death upon themselves, with the idea of becoming martyrs and ascending immediately to their heavenly reward. Meanwhile, those they consider their oppressors shake their heads and wonder what is wrong with these people that they do not seem to value life. That may sound like Iraq or Israel or other places in the Middle East today but it also describes what was happening in Spain in the 800s, and those seeking their own deaths were Christians.

Most educated people know that Spain was ruled for several hundred years by the Moors, before they were driven out and Christianity regained the upper hand. Now, as an aside, although I learned about the Moorish period many years ago it was not made clear to me until much later that these "Moors" were what we today call "Arabs," in this case, the Arabs of northern Africa. But heck, back then it was not clear to me that these "Hebrews" we learned about in Sunday School were what we today call "Jews." Learning and understanding are gradual processes.

It would be natural to wonder how the Christians fared under their Moorish masters during those centuries, and that is just the topic of the book I'm now reading, Christianity and Islam in Spain, A.D. 756-1031. Written in 1889 by Charles Reginald Haines, a Brit, this book displays the author's prejudices but on the whole is surprisingly objective.

For example, Haines makes the point repeatedly that despite the questionable writings of some Christians of the time, the preponderance of credible evidence shows that the Moorish kings were surprisingly mild and enlightened in their treatment of their subjects. Jews in particular led good lives under the Moors. It seems the Christians had treated the Jews so badly that when the Moors invaded, the Jews welcomed them and helped them in their conquest. But the Christians were not badly treated. As long as they obeyed the laws they were left unmolested.

This is not to say they were treated as equals, and had no valid complaints. Apparently it was somewhat similar to the way it used to be in the U.S., particularly in the South, where Blacks were second-class citizens and often were treated scornfully and with some malice by the Whites. But -- importantly -- they were not persecuted. They were left free to practice their religion as they saw fit. The exceptions were the occasional times when the Christians revolted and their revolts were put down violently.

The key in all this was the issue of obeying the laws. You could be a Christian and freely practice your religion, but then as now, the Moors/Muslims considered it an offense punishable by death to mock or scorn their god or their prophet. And in case you are repulsed by the idea of modern Muslims beheading their victims, rest assured that this is nothing new. Beheading was how it was done more than 1,000 years ago. Just part of the culture, apparently.

Along about 823 A.D., however, a number of Christian monks and nuns decided that their faith required them to point out to the Moors the error of their ways. The Moors had no desire to kill a bunch of people and tried to be lenient, but when their leniency only brought on greater insults and blasphemy their patience ran out and they obliged the would-be martyrs.

This stirred up a lot more clerics and eventually even non-clerical Christians to do the same. The movement built and finally subsided only after the leading recruiter for these would-be martyrs was himself put to death.

There are two essential differences between these martyrs and today's Muslim martyrs, who are also trying to serve their god and get an express ticket to heaven in doing so.

First, the Christian martyrs in Spain weren't taking anyone with them. They weren't causing death and destruction to anyone but themselves.

But secondly, and very interestingly, their fellow Christians did not condone what they were doing. The matter was debated in the high councils and it was agreed that anyone deliberately bringing death upon him or herself was not a true martyr, and did not warrant an express ticket to heaven. In fact, the act was deemed very un-Christian because it showed the sin of pride.

It was an abuse of words, said the party of moderation, to call these suicides by the holy name of martyrs, when no violence in high places had forced them to deny their faith, or interfered with their due observance of Christianity. It was merely an act of ostentatious pride--and pride was the root of all evil--to court danger. Such conduct had never been enjoined by Christ, and was quite alien from the meekness and humility of His character.

Returning to modern times, I recently read with interest an article that said that the very conservative Muslims may prove to be the undoing of the Muslim suicide bombers. It seems they feel that blowing yourself up without the approval of your parents or your spouse is a show of disrespect and does not conform with Muslim law. Maybe there's hope for the world.