I'm sure its more complicated than that, but I have a dim memory of a Sophomore year English class teacher who said that Leo Tolstoy thought that the tide of history and other external factors were far more important than the deeds of people such as Napoleon. This was in reference to Tolstoy's book War and Peace that we somehow had to read during the ten-week academic quarter.
I see little reason to deny that people are influenced by their times. On the other hand, there are some people who are far more capable than most others in altering the direction of history significantly. Culture, technology, all the rest of the package they might use or resist on their road to greatness because they can, while the rest of us cannot or do not.
What brings this to mind are two fairly recent biographies written by Andrew Roberts. One is about Napoleon, the other deals with Churchill.
Note that I didn't write "Napoleon Bonaparte" and "Winston Churchill" in the previous sentence. That's because I assume most readers know exactly who I'm referring to. That's because they were great men. One doesn't need to approve of what they did to agree that in several respects they were superior to most of their contemporaries.
Napoleon is generally acknowledged as being a military genius, though he eventually began making military mistakes. He had the sense to understand the political situation in France as the Revolution faded and was able to seize power while still a young man. He also was an intellectual, widely read and interested in a variety of fields. He didn't have to bring scholars along when he invaded Egypt, but did so. One result of that was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the recognition of its importance. Then there is the Code Napoleon, the basis for law in many parts of Europe.
Churchill's accomplishments were less wide-ranging than Napoleon's. His greatest deed was altering the course of World War 2 by not seeking peace with Hitler after France fell, while shoring up the morale of the British public. Otherwise, he was a prolific writer, a fearless soldier who killed men in battle, an adventurer newspaper correspondent, and a politician who held many of the most important British government positions at one time or another.
How many of us have anything near Napoleon's and Churchill's skill-sets?
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Monday, January 21, 2019
Media Prepping for Mortality: Ginsburg and MacArthur
As I write this, I have absolutely no knowledge of the state of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health.
Unfortunately, someone at Fox News goofed, airing a notice that she had died. As noted here, the network apologized. I haven't followed this matter other than being aware that it happened. But I don't doubt that there were folks out there accusing the network of wishing she actually was dead.
Aside from the slip-up, the people at Fox were simply doing what larger journalistic organizations do: preparing for certain future events. A newspaper such as The New York Times has probably hundreds of canned obituaries ready for use when needed. When a famous person dies, they simply add a few sentences citing the date of death and perhaps some surrounding circumstances.
And if the person is well known such as Justice Ginsburg, headlines are prepared. I know this from past experience.
In March of 1964 I was in Tokyo for a week's temporary duty at Stars & Stripes, the armed forces overseas daily newspaper. At that time General Douglas MacArthur was in failing health, and a S&S staffer was walking across the newsroom with a dummy front page with two-plus inch type announcing "MACARTHUR DIES."
As it happened, he hung on for nearly another month, but that headline or something similar was eventually used.
Unfortunately, someone at Fox News goofed, airing a notice that she had died. As noted here, the network apologized. I haven't followed this matter other than being aware that it happened. But I don't doubt that there were folks out there accusing the network of wishing she actually was dead.
Aside from the slip-up, the people at Fox were simply doing what larger journalistic organizations do: preparing for certain future events. A newspaper such as The New York Times has probably hundreds of canned obituaries ready for use when needed. When a famous person dies, they simply add a few sentences citing the date of death and perhaps some surrounding circumstances.
And if the person is well known such as Justice Ginsburg, headlines are prepared. I know this from past experience.
In March of 1964 I was in Tokyo for a week's temporary duty at Stars & Stripes, the armed forces overseas daily newspaper. At that time General Douglas MacArthur was in failing health, and a S&S staffer was walking across the newsroom with a dummy front page with two-plus inch type announcing "MACARTHUR DIES."
As it happened, he hung on for nearly another month, but that headline or something similar was eventually used.
Friday, January 18, 2019
A Modernism Hypothesis and Thoughts on Social Class
I recently came across this item on the Internet having to do with the idea that Modernism was a snobbish reaction to increasingly literate lower classes becoming aware of and appreciating the then-current art scene. That is, the upper-class elite needed to protect its status by downgrading art that was becoming too popular and promoting new forms of art that were more difficult to understand in terms of everyday visual experience.
It's a cute hypothesis. But not the whole explanation for the rise of Modernism, and probably a lesser factor than the reasons usually set forth in art history books and articles.
Nevertheless, there is truth that upper classes tend to defend their status in various ways, one of which is by contrasting their lifestyle with those of supposedly lesser groups. Taste in art could be one such item in the contrast package, though hardly the dominant one.
As for the concept of "class," for a long time I've had difficulty with the term. On the one hand, it's an easy word to capture normal societal differences in wealth, education, occupation, consumption patterns and so forth. On the other hand, historically in Europe there were hereditary titles that elevated some families from the rest of the population. This was not a rigid system such as Hindu castes. Men could become ennobled by a king for various reasons including military performance, so the system was permeable.
A problem I have is that here in America where social class is of the permeable variety, some intellectuals and politicians use the word "class" to imply that American society is more socially rigid than it is. Worse, those same intellectuals and politicians tend to promote conditions that lead to increased rigidity here. An example of this? The seemingly reasonable requirement for an educational attainment level for being considered for a job. When too strictly applied, some people having considerable merit are denied the opportunity to demonstrate how they can perform.
It's a cute hypothesis. But not the whole explanation for the rise of Modernism, and probably a lesser factor than the reasons usually set forth in art history books and articles.
Nevertheless, there is truth that upper classes tend to defend their status in various ways, one of which is by contrasting their lifestyle with those of supposedly lesser groups. Taste in art could be one such item in the contrast package, though hardly the dominant one.
As for the concept of "class," for a long time I've had difficulty with the term. On the one hand, it's an easy word to capture normal societal differences in wealth, education, occupation, consumption patterns and so forth. On the other hand, historically in Europe there were hereditary titles that elevated some families from the rest of the population. This was not a rigid system such as Hindu castes. Men could become ennobled by a king for various reasons including military performance, so the system was permeable.
A problem I have is that here in America where social class is of the permeable variety, some intellectuals and politicians use the word "class" to imply that American society is more socially rigid than it is. Worse, those same intellectuals and politicians tend to promote conditions that lead to increased rigidity here. An example of this? The seemingly reasonable requirement for an educational attainment level for being considered for a job. When too strictly applied, some people having considerable merit are denied the opportunity to demonstrate how they can perform.
Friday, January 11, 2019
Malta, Then and Now
Malta is interesting, even though it is a small place. That's probably because of its strategic location in the Mediterranean Sea. A fleet based there can dominate sea traffic passing between Gibraltar and Suez, not to mention many other routes crossing the gap between the Italian toe and Tunisia.
The islands have been inhabited since prehistoric times, conquered now and then (the local language is Arabic-based), and besieged when the Knights of St. John and when the British ruled. Depending which aspects of Malta's history appeal to one's sense of history, it makes for a fine short-stay tourist destination.
I happen to be a military history buff, and many photos in my reference library's books show Royal Navy warships in Valletta's magnificent harbor. So naturally that and old-town Valletta were the places in Malta I wanted to visit.
The day I was there in the Fall of 2017 it rained heavily. I didn't even take my camera from its pouch. A year later I returned and the weather was good and I took dozens of photos. Alas, the Royal Navy is gone, but below is a then-and-now pairing looking towards the harbor entrance from Valletta. The "then" photo might have been taken 1860-1880.
The islands have been inhabited since prehistoric times, conquered now and then (the local language is Arabic-based), and besieged when the Knights of St. John and when the British ruled. Depending which aspects of Malta's history appeal to one's sense of history, it makes for a fine short-stay tourist destination.
I happen to be a military history buff, and many photos in my reference library's books show Royal Navy warships in Valletta's magnificent harbor. So naturally that and old-town Valletta were the places in Malta I wanted to visit.
The day I was there in the Fall of 2017 it rained heavily. I didn't even take my camera from its pouch. A year later I returned and the weather was good and I took dozens of photos. Alas, the Royal Navy is gone, but below is a then-and-now pairing looking towards the harbor entrance from Valletta. The "then" photo might have been taken 1860-1880.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)