January 24, 2012

A Consensual Peace: Why the European Union Must Survive

In the past few months, many questions have arisen regarding the stability of the Euro and the future of the European Union. Deficits from the, unfortunately termed, PIGS nations (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain) as well as Italy, combined with a failed Franco-German attempt at treaty reform and Britain’s recent distancing in the form of its veto have all combined to make the idea of a European Union an uncertain one. The decriers have thus far been the most prominent in news headlines, with the detractors pointing to Europe’s fiscal and political shortcomings as reasons for either rejecting measures to strengthen member unity or as evidence that the idea of a union is altogether a failure.

However, given Europe’s 2,000-plus-year history of war, should the idea of a consensual European Union be so quickly discarded? By analyzing the histories of Europe and the European Union, perhaps some insight can be gained as to reasons for weathering the economic storm in Europe and committing to the idea of a strong, consensual, and committed European Union.

A History of War & Forced Peace

Since the time before the Roman Empire, the city states and nations of Europe have warred over monetary gain, land disputes, ethnic rivalries, and familial discord. Once Rome rose to prominence, Europeans were already well accustomed to lives of battle, and the Italian empire certainly contributed to that lifestyle. Expanding into the far reaches of Asia Minor, Rome had subdued numerous populations across Europe, forcing them under the Roman yoke and to adopt Roman customs. However, although the Roman Empire eventually created a peace that lasted for 200 years, the morality of a forced peace must be questioned. It is this theme of war, conquest, and of forced harmony that would trouble Europe for thousands of years.

After Rome fell to invasions from warlike Germanic tribes, Europe shattered into a collection of kingdoms, duchies and city states that came to define the medieval period and would serve as the seedlings to the nations of Europe today. English, French, Spanish, Scottish, and other European identities were formed in the medieval period, and these feudal peoples constantly warred at the requests of their nobility and monarchies.

Only one ruler came to any kind of significant conquest during the middle ages, and that was Charles the Great: better known as Charlemagne. Charlemagne transformed his kingdom of Franks into a respectably-sized Empire not seen since the days of classical Rome. Once again, with significant conquest came a questionably achieved peace and prosperity: Charlemagne’s kingdom birthed a period known as the Carolingian Renaissance. According to Walter A. McDougall, it was because of Charlemagne that the idea of “Europe” even exists. McDougall writes that:

[Charlemagne] succeeded in [uniting Europe] to a remarkable degree: indeed, the empire based at his capital of Aix-la-Chapelle coincided remarkably with the boundaries of the original [European] Common Market formed in 1957: France, the Low Countries, West Germany, and northern Italy . . . What few people know is that . . . an anonymous court poet bestowed [upon Charlemagne with] a still grander title. He dubbed Charlemagne “King and Father of Europe.” A continent, a civilization, had been willed into being by one man.

Moreover, that self-conscious European idea survived the crackup of Charlemagne’s empire to inspire monarchs, popes, philosophers, conquerors, and at last economists and mere bureaucrats for 1,200 years. The idea had to wait until the spiraling orgy of nationalism spent itself utterly in World War II. But then, indeed in the year 1950, the good burghers of the Rhineland town Germans call Aachen and the French Aix-la-Chapelle, established a prize to be awarded annually to the person who did most to advance European unity. The town fathers named it the Charlemagne Prize after the “King and Father of Europe” who had made their city his capital.

Of course, after Charlemagne’s death, Europe once again degenerated into warring cities states and early models of nations. Even during such periods of refinement and culture as the traditional Florentine Renaissance, there were still episodes of war.

Europe wouldn’t see unification or the potential for peace for another 400 years, when General Napoleon Bonaparte took over the Revoltionary French Government and established himself as dictator and Emperor of the French. In crafting his public image, Napoleon drew heavily classical Rome and Charlemagne: Europe’s previous two large-scale examples of empire. Lenz Thierry comments on Napoleon’s preoccupation with history and the latter of these two imperial models:

A perfect reflection of the time in which he lived, Napoleon was “obsessed with history”.  He would draw references, symbols and examples from it to justify his position and his politics and thus give his reign its place in the history of France, the Gauls right up to his immediate predecessors, including the Bourbons.  Of all the references wielded by the French Emperor, Charlemagne is, if not one of the most important, then at least one of the most consistent.

Had Napoleon remained in power long enough to secure his empire, Europe may have seen the kind of peace and stability forced upon them previously by the Romans and Charlemagne. However, a tragic campaign into the frigid throes of Russia, combined with a determined effort by Britain removed Napoleon from power prematurely and crumbled his growing European state.

As expected based upon evidence from Europe’s past, once Napoleon fell, Europe descended into a chaotic mess of political ambiguity. With the idea of old monarchies dealt a serious blow from the American and French revolutions, as well as the rise of Napoleon, nations began to redefine themselves and emerge from more cultural and folk-based notions of nationalism: the latter part of the 1800s witnessed this notion with the rise of Germany and Italy.

These nationalist sentiments carried well into the twentieth century. The twentieth century was both a catastrophic and transformative period for Europe. Only 14 years into the 1900s, the entire region was embroiled in a devastating war that reached areas well outside of Europe. World War I devastated Europe with a death toll that exceeded 15 million.

Nationalism didn’t end with the conclusion of World War I, however. These romantic notions of nation soon came to be combined with imitations of Napoleon and his desires of empire. First attempted by Benito Mussolini and later by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, military figureheads of jingoistic states brought the world once again into total war, this time casualties surpassing 60 million people.

It was the end of World War II that ideas for a new and different Europe emerged. The crushing effects of nationalism and war had shown European leaders that only true cooperation would bring peace and, equally as important, prosperity. Essentially, despots of the past, whether they Augustus, or Charlemagne, Napoleon or Mussolini all had realized the potential of a united Europe: it was their method of achieving that unification that ultimately was corrupt.

Thus, in a twentieth-century post war Europe, we see the birth of a young European Union. As the century progressed, new member states were added and the Union achieved a universal currency, the Euro. To a certain degree, Europe had achieved with mutual consent what conquerors and dictators forced upon earlier populations by sword and gun.

A Renewed Commitment, A Renewed Union

After the recent financial crisis in Europe, there have been articles exploring what might save the union. The most novel articulate that the European Union needs an “Alexander Hamilton“: the first treasury secretary of a young United States. Hamilton, in his First Report on Public Credit, explained that the people of the US should trust the Federal Government to use bonds to buy each fledgling state’s individual debt acquired during the Revolutionary War, thus creating a unified national debt. This allowed the more debt-laded states to be free of their economic woes by imparting some of the financial responsibility onto the wealthier states: after all, each state contributed to independence by sacrificing the lives of its militia and fighting the British.

While the European economic situation is similar to the one faced by a newly-independent United States, there are some differences which may make finding a solution harder. For instance, the member states of the EU have much deeper rivalries among each other which makes strengthening the European central government in Brussels difficult. Although the states in the young America certainly held antipathies towards each other on issues such as slavery, the states had never fought against each other in the same way that European nations have done since the middle ages. Whether it is, say, Germany bailing out Greece, or France bailing out Spain, or, perhaps, Britain bailing out Ireland: there are social, political and historical differences that make such economic measures highly unpopular.

One can get lost in all of the facts and figures that economists, politicians, and bloggers utilize to either argue for or against the European Union. It is difficult to understand all the complex laws and restrictions in the EU, let alone in each of its member states. But it is important that, no matter what problems the EU is facing and may face, allowing it to dissolve could be much more catastrophic in the long run.

As said, Europe has witnessed more than two millenia of near-consistent war. The European Union was established to unify the region on a consensual basis, as to prevent such war and the rise of power hungry tyrants. If the European Union dissolved, the individual nations of Europe would be open to a host of different political ideologies and figureheads; and based on Europe’s past, its future would be inevitably grim.

For instance, in many of the European member states, extremist movements exist: some have even entered mainstream politics. Others, while not holding any elected power, are more frightening based on their brazen public demonstrations. These groups, such as the English Defence League, often organize marches through various cities of their country, reminiscent of the Fascist Blackshirt marches in 1920s Italy. One such group, Casa Pound Italia, named after American poet and Fascist sympathizer, Ezra Pound, is unabashed in their self description as a “Fascist” organization, although they allegedly decry Mussolini’s later racial policies. The group is an extremist one: taking hardline stances against immigration and frequently entering the news for crimes against minorities. In the video below, Casa Pound Italia stages a demonstration in Napoli. Note the stark red, white and black flags reminiscent of the flag of the Nazi Party.

Political extremism is often in tandem with a poor economy: as a nation’s economic situation becomes worse, more political extremists emerge. Strengthening the European Union Central Government and Bank would not only improve the economy, but also do well to keep these extremists on the fringes of European society. If the EU broke apart, and certain former member states’ economies slid further into recession: who would stop these movements from once again luring the population into subservience and, furthermore, war?

Leave a comment
June 15, 2011

A Colder War: The Sino-American Economic Entanglement


For many Americans, the vast amount of United States debt owned by China appears to be the product of economic blunder by those in the United States government. As a result of this debt, the United States’ interests are increasingly tied to China’s, and any US foreign policy must, to some degree, be in line with its creditor’s. The US simply cannot act on its own accord without worrying about ramifications from China. However, if most people can plainly see the shortcomings of such a precarious policy, then certainly US politicians and lawmakers must have been able to. Therefore, the Sino-American economic entanglement begs one to ask, “why?”

There are a number of potential reasons for allowing China to accumulate so much of the United States’ debt: the immediate need for credit to conduct expensive military campaigns, funding domestic policies at home to bolster the economy, bailing out the large banks who neared oblivion in 2007-08, or perhaps just poor oversight and political ignorance. However, when understanding the degree of binding that such a deep international economic relationship creates and its potential for simultaneous economic disaster, another motive for the Chinese accumulation of US debt arises. That, by recognizing China’s unstoppable rise to becoming a superpower, America may have engaged another policy of “mutual assured destruction” in order to avoid its own demise.

The World’s First Cold War


From roughly 1947 to 1991, The United States of America was engaged in a bitter ideological struggle with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One, the beacon of a democratic Capitalism;  the other, the pinnacle of an authoritarian style of Communism: the two nations and their respective economic systems simply could not coexist in an ever-shrinking world of globalization. But in the latter part of the 20th century, a total war was not possible without promoting mankind’s extinction. As such, to quietly ensure the other’s defeat, the USA and USSR began a revolutionary “Cold War”: a war not of armies on the field, but of spies in enemy society, of technological competition and public showmanship on a global scale. These very subdued battles were meant to undermine and collapse the enemy, and to show unsure nations of the world that each’s economic modality was the sole answer to prosperity.

That is not to say that the USA and USSR were not close to a massively violent war. In fact, one of the most exciting, terrifying and, thankfully, non-existent factors of the Cold War was its alarmingly possible nuclear side. The effects of a nuclear weapon were displayed to the global community during the close of World War II when the United States unleashed its effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings completely devastated those areas, creating adverse radiological effects on the Japanese people that remain in some degree to this day. The prospect of two major world nations exacting similar–if not greater–damage multiple times over on each other’s cities created an unusual stalemate. This stalemate of fear was the root of the Cold War’s nonaggression: that if one nation were to launch a nuclear weapon, the other would respond accordingly and both nations would crumble in a mutually assured destruction.

After the USSR’s economy crumbled, the United States emerged as the sole nation to direct the global narrative. The United States was enjoying unquestioned power, an absolute hegemony: for its 50-year-Carthage had been defeated. Such power, however, did not last very long. Over the last ten years or so, the United States’ position as a leading global authority has been lessened by the remarkable success of China; the most populous nation in world.

Sino-American History: Cautious At Best



During the Cold War, it was clear that the USSR was at odds with the US. The doctrine of Communism that was the lynchpin of Soviet society called for the destruction of Capitalist societies–and there was no society that defined Capitalism more than the United States. But China’s position on the United States is a bit more complex. Because of this complexity, certain histories must be discussed to better assess the standing between the two nations.

The first instances of contact between China and the United States occurs from roughly the time of the latter’s emergence as a nation to about the middle of the 19th century. Known as the “Old China Trade“, it was during this time that merchants sailing from busy American ports, most notably from Salem, Massachusetts, began voyaging to the eastern nation to trade their exotic wares back in the US. This was the development of a friendly, but strictly business, relationship; a relationship that created wealth and jobs but did little to forge any kind of alliance. A young America was now opened to the east.

The relationship continued without much trouble well into the 19th century. However, as the United States’ economy grew around the time of the California Gold Rush, the prospect of a stable and prosperous life attracted many immigrants from China. Americans reacted harshly to this wave of immigration, essentially forcing these newcomers into ghettos that gave birth to the modern urban Chinatown phenomenon. This xenophobia extended into the Federal Government, when in 1882 President Chester A. Arthur passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, banning immigration from China as well as preventing already-resident Chinese from citizenship and employment.

Xenophobia, however, was equally present back in China. In 1899, a nationalist group called the Society of Right and Harmonious Fists began rebelling by attacking foreigners in China and forcing them into the fringes of Chinese society. In a short time, this movement, known as the Boxer Rebellion, grew larger, eventually influencing the Imperial Qing Chinese government to declare war on all foreign nations with a presence in China. This created an opposing alliance of eight nations, including the United States. The allies were the victor of the Boxer Rebellion and resumed conducting business in China, albeit with more respect for the Imperial Government’s authority.

The arrival of World War II briefly improved but ultimately had little positive effect on the relationship between the United States and China. Japan had invaded China, butchering Chinese civilians in a quest to expand its imperial hegemony. Shortly thereafter, Japan had then attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, prompting both China and the US to formally declar war. Japan was defeated, however, it was during this time that the Nationalist Republic of China became engaged in a civil war with Mao Zedong’s Communist Party, which complicated the relations with the United States. China had always been, to some degree, wary that the United States had an imperialist interest in China, and the success of the Communist Party taking over China and pushing the Nationalists into Taiwan exasperated that feeling among the Chinese.

The newly-Communist People’s Republic of China remained hostile to the United States and, furthermore, the United States refused to acknowledge the PRC as a legitimate entity, preferring to deal with the refugee ROC government in Taiwan. Conflicts in Korea and Vietnam furthered the divide between the two nations. At the same time, China did not pledge allegiance to the USSR but remained aloof and neutral. It was only until the border disputes between the USSR and China that President Nixon could begin dialogue with the PRC. This was the beginning of the modern relationship of the US and China, a reopening of the east to the west.

Since the reopening of China to the West, relations with the United States have consistently proved uneasy, although never hostile. However, one of the more modern disputes between China and the US could very well lead to such a hostility: the issue of Taiwanese autonomy. Taiwan, a Capitalist and democratic government separate–though not independent–from mainland China, has refused to submit to the PRC government and allow itself to be unified. Their refusal to be incorporated into the PRC is a major threat to a new and united Chinese superpower. Making matters with China worse, the United States is a well-known supporter of Taiwan and has even  recently supplied the island with its own weaponry. This assistance was met with extreme contempt from mainland China as China has stated its willingness to declare full-scale war with the United States in the case of Taiwanese declaration of independence.

For the time being, the Taiwan question is under control due to its own domestic policies. The current President of the ROC in Taiwan, Ma Ying-jeou, hasn’t pushed for greater independence but, rather, stated his long term goal to be the unification of Taiwan and the Mainland. While his unconventional beliefs may disappoint some in Taiwan who favor a greater autonomy from China, it has, at least, subdued the need for war.

As it were throughout most of its 200-year-old relationship with the United States, China remains, at best, a distrustful business partner cloaked in mystery.  An ideological gap between the two nations has existed consistently throughout their history–that China views America as having ulterior imperialist motives, and America views China as xenophobic and and unwilling to embrace its highly valued institutions of democracy and Capitalism. This gap, though not nearly as divisive as the historic one between the US and USSR, still is an important factor and Sino-American relations remain lukewarm. The question remains; why surrender economic freedom to a shaky ally?

Predicting Threats


Shortly after the collapse of the Japanese Empire and the end of World War II, the very deep ideological gaps between the Allied Powers became glaringly obvious. As it were, these differences between the US and Russia were already cast during World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution: it was a coalition that included the United States who invaded Russia on the unsuccessful side of the Czarist White forces. Those differences, however, had been mostly swept aside to form a combined effort against Nazism and Fascism–two movements that hated Capitalism and Communism equally and called for their simultaneous destruction.

With Fascism, Nazism, and Imperial Japan out of the way, Europe and Asia became areas that needed not only structural rebuilding, but also economic. Therein began the problems that provided the foundation for Cold War. Just a year after the fall of Japan, Deputy Chief of Mission to the USSR George F. Kennan composed an unrelenting assessment of the problems that the Soviet Union would cause the United States. Some of Kennan’s words were as follows:

. . . The rest [of Soviet doctrine] may be outlined in Lenin’s own words: “Unevenness of economic and political development is the inflexible law of capitalism. It follows from this that the victory of Socialism may come originally in a few capitalist countries or even in a single capitalist country. The victorious proletariat of that country, having expropriated the capitalists and having organized Socialist production at home, would rise against the remaining capitalist world, drawing to itself in the process the oppressed classes of other countries.” It must be noted that there was no assumption that capitalism would perish without proletarian revolution. A final push was needed from a revolutionary proletariat movement in order to tip over the tottering structure. But it was regarded as inevitable that sooner of later that push be given.

. . . Lenin, had he lived, might have proved a great enough man to reconcile these conflicting forces to the ultimate benefit of Russian society, thought this is questionable. But be that as it may, Stalin, and those whom he led in the struggle for succession to Lenin’s position of leadership, were not the men to tolerate rival political forces in the sphere of power which they coveted. Their sense of insecurity was too great. Their particular brand of fanaticism, unmodified by any of the Anglo-Saxon traditions of compromise, was too fierce and too jealous to envisage any permanent sharing of power. . . . No other force in Russian society was to be permitted to achieve vitality or integrity. Only the Party was to have structure. All else was to be an amorphous mass.

. . . It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet regime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and, weakening of all rival influence and rival power.

Although the Soviets’ extraordinary antipathy for Capitalist economies was known inside the USSR, it was Kennan’s assessment that revealed the massive obstacles the two nations would face in the future of a global world. Because of his insight, the United States was able to quickly acknowledge a serious threat and prepare for Cold War with Russia, knowing that attempts at coexistence were futile.

China: A Threat or a Partner?

By shedding its more economically-Communist characteristics, China has emerged a global economic powerhouse. For years in the United States, there have been rumors that China would surpass the West as an economic superpower.  Those rumors, however, became a harsh reality in the past year with the most recent economic analysis of China, which led to the conclusion that the Middle Kingdom will be the number one global economy by 2016. They certainly have benefitted from the inclusion into global Capitalism: China’s poverty level has gone from 80% of its population to only 10% in roughly 20 years.

The reasons for such a rapid expanse are mainly attributed to China’s deliberate manipulation of its own currency in order to benefit the export of its goods while crippling the exports of US products to its own shores. This self-serving economic policy was not predicted by the US when President Nixon laid the foundation for China to enter the global economy, nor when President Clinton reopened communications after a period of sanction. In fact, Henry Kissinger recently sat down with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria and admitted that China’s propulsion into world dominance was not predicted when they opened talks.

With such an unsettling rise and threatening economic strategy, the United States may have been superficially treating China as a friend, but in reality keeping themselves prepared for China as a threat. In fact, Gwynne Dwyer of Walrus Magazine has provided an incredibly startling analysis of 21st-century US foreign policy that shows the Western giant forming a “noose” of alliances around China. This policy includes the 2005 military alliance between India, the second-most populous country in world, and the United States. The US has also recently resurrected older and seemingly outdated alliances in Southeast Asia–right at China’s doorstep. Dwyer states:

It’s been coming for some time now, as witness America’s determined attempts to re-militarize its long-standing ally, Japan. Tokyo ended half a century of refusing to send troops overseas into war zones by committing a small contingent to the US-led occupation of Iraq, and last February it redefined the Taiwan Strait as a “common strategic objective” of Japan and the US (implying that its forces would join the US in resisting any Chinese attack on Taiwan). The six aircraft carriers, forty submarines, and 190 other surface ships of the US Pacific Command (PACOM), based in Hawaii, already dominate the western Pacific, and there have long been large numbers of US troops (currently about 80,000) based in South Korea and Japan. Recently, the forward deployments have been growing: the command headquarters of the US army’s 1st Corps, with responsibility for ground operations in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, is slated to transfer from Washington state to Camp Zama, south of Tokyo, while the USAF is proposing to move the 13th Air Force’s long-range bombers and tankers from Guam to Yokota airbase in Tokyo.

Washington is busily reviving old alliances and forging new ones throughout Southeast Asia. Thai, Malaysian, Singaporean, Indonesian, and Filipino forces regularly perform manoeuvres with American troops, and a US-led exercise in Thailand last year even saw Mongolian soldiers show up. Also last year, the first high-level discussions between the US and Vietnamese armed forces were held since the fall of Saigon in 1975. Admiral Thomas Fargo, the commander of PACOM, visited Hanoi and Saigon in February 2004 “to build on the US-Vietnam defence relationship,” and by November Vietnamese defence minister Pham Van Tra was in Washington to see Donald Rumsfeld.

These alliances, combined with the funneling of weapons to China’s domestic rival Taiwan, as well as the United States’ support for the Dalai Lama and Tibetan independence arouse suspicion that the two nations’ friendly demeanor is but a political ruse. In fact, China has had no qualms threatening the United States and asserting its own hegemony. When concerned with the issue of Taiwanese independence, a top Chinese General Zhu Chenghu stated that China would not hesitate to intiate a Nuclear “first-strike” strategy and seek to destroy “hundred of United States cities”. This General, while not speaking on behalf of the Chinese Government, was not reprimanded or forced to retract his statement. Making matters worse, it has been recently revealed via Wikileaks that the United States has threatened China with military action over the recent development of its anti-satellite and anti-ballistic missile programs.

With recent events between the opposing superpowers looking so grim, Sino-American relations could very well deteriorate into full-scale war. Unfortunately, if China and the United States were to engage total war, the effectiveness of modern-day weapons could very well threaten the existence of civilization and mankind. Like the nuclear stalemate between the US and the USSR throughout the 20th century, instruments of total disaster which ironically prevented such a war, the economic entanglement between the two powers may be the 21st century’s policy of mutually assured destruction. Although China’s near-majority possession of United States debt puts the upcoming superpower in a position to compromise the US economy, at the same time the global economic system rests almost entirely on the prosperity of the United States. Furthermore, consumers in the United States form a majority of the buyers of China’s exports; shattering the United States’ economy would not only severely affect nations around the western world, but China’s livelihood as well. This stalemate may, in fact, not have been an economic blunder by the United States but, rather, one of the most genius instances of foresight and methods to prevent catastrophic war.

Addendum: June 16th, 2011

Further displaying the United States’ desire to strengthen relations with Southeast Asia, the United States Department of State’s Foreign Service Institute has recently announced vacancies for language instructors of several Southeast Asian Languages. The vacancy post reads:

Calling all U.S. citizens interested in language training programs! Apply for FSI’s Supervisory Language Training Specialist vacancy by the May 23rd closing date! Professional Proficiency or higher in Burmese, Indonesian, Khmer, Lao, Malay, Tagalog, Thai, or Vietnamese is preferred.

Addendum: June 20th, 2011

Senator (AZ) John McCain just finished a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the recent governmental change in Burma. His speech emphasized the need for a close and friendly relationship with Burma’s newly democratic government. Among the topics covered, relations with China were by far the most prevalent, with the word “China” being used 28 times. Also notable was his emphasis on the importance on maintaing a link to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which consists of several nations that are in close proximity to, if not bordering, China.

Leave a comment
March 1, 2011

Culture in Revolution: The Future of a New North Africa

With the successful protests in Egypt, resultant resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, and the impending collapse of Gaddafi’s 40 year reign in Libya, viewers around the world are wondering what the future holds for these, and other, ancient nations. The removal of the Mubarak and Gaddafi regimes could very well lead each country to either feast or famine; that is, a stable democracy that will thrive for decades to come, or a new governing body more corrupt than the one it replaces. But, what are the factors that determine whether a country’s revolution will set its future narrative in glory or tyranny? It would seem that in revolutions of the past, the sound commitment to a rebellious nation’s historic cultural identity is a key factor in the creation of both a moderate and successful new era. That if a nation chooses not only to revolt against its own government but its very identity, then often that nation falls into despair or, at the very least, fails to create anything stable or worthwhile. This notion–what I label the cultural vacuum phenomenon–may very well decide the path of a future North Africa and Middle East.

 

The United States: Moderation and Success


The separation of the American colonists from their British government in 1783 is arguably the most successful revolution in history. Although much blood was shed in the eight years of fighting between Minuteman and Redcoat, the colonies successfully severed ties from Great Britain without any great travesty to become 13 independent and united states.

One of the reasons for such a decisive departure was that America’s revolution was inherently moderate and did little to genuinely threaten the global status quo. Yes, the revolution chipped away at Britain’s hegemony over the world, but it was an aging hegemony that began to decline with the hefty costs of the Seven Years War just a decade or so prior. Yes, the creation of the United States did usher in a new era of Democracy and modernity, but the power of monarchs in Europe had been slipping since the 1600s with the execution of absolute ruler Charles I.

Furthermore, the colonies’ fight to be to a unified nation was moderate because life in post-Britannic America changed little. There was now a President Washington and a Federal Government but the people still uttered the same English words, ate the same foods, wore the same clothing, celebrated holidays in the same fashion and, most importantly, were still committed to a free market economy. These cultural and economic traditions were directly inherited from Britain and so America’s break was much less drastic than it could have been. Simply put, America did not create a cultural vacuum by revolting against itself. Newly independent Americans respected their British roots for the most part and continued business as usual, only with new management.

There were fringe Francophiles (Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were some of the more notable ones) who held more hostility towards, and called for a greater departure from, British culture and the island nation itself, but they were less popular in major American cities and, furthermore, changed their minds once revolution in France took a much more tyrannical turn. By remaining similar to the largest power in the western world, the United States was able to flourish and to later become the dominating power that it would be in the twentieth century.

 

France: A Vacuum For Tyranny


Inspired by the recent success of the American revolution, in 1789 the French revolted against King Louis XVI and faced a much harder struggle than their American brethren. For one, the United States rebelled against a power both foreign and distant. The French faced a tyrant right in their own homeland; an inept ruler whose mismanagement starved the people and yet, still had plenty of supporters willing to defend the Ancien Régime.

Difficult or not, the public succeeded in changing Louis’s absolute rule to that of a constitutional one, similar to Great Britain’s monarchy. However, the French revolution soon diverted from moderation and the revolutionary elite began calling for Louis’s arrest and eventual execution.

The execution of Louis XVI horrified the western world, especially the United States–whom Louis supplied with substantial financial and military support in their earlier revolution. The shocking regicide raised a red flag that France was looking for something beyond jobs, food, and the moderation of the king’s power. Soon, dialogue in revolutionary France changed from embracing freedom to that of ushering in a new era of man, an era that would completely break from anything and everything associated with the past.

Herein was the problem. France, by revolting against a French monarch and French aristocracy–institutions that had been in power since the fall of Rome–was revolting against itself. France essentially began cutting off its nose to spite its face; a new governing body was established to root out and destroy any sympathizers to the nobility, any traitors to the revolution, and anyone who disagreed with France’s new, frightening direction. France was slowly deconstructing every aspect of its past identity and soon created a void to be filled by anything with power.

At the head of the cultural deconstruction was a modest looking lawyer named Maximilien Robespierre. He stressed that secret, internal enemies were much more of a threat than the several other foreign nations waiting to invade France. He, and the rest of the revolutionary extremists, spared no one who was suspected of threatening the revolution. Executions, often but not always by guillotine, were wanton; it is estimated that between 16,000 and 40,000 French men, women, and even children were executed during France’s Reign of Terror. Maximilien Robespierre, with his demagogic speech and call for butchery, was one of Europe’s very first dictators in the modern style; Robespierre was the ultimate in predecessors to Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler.

By destroying everything and anything that had to do with its pre-revolutionary history–the indiscriminate destruction of beautiful castles, manors, churches and monasteries, the execution of anyone who looked at the past in even a marginally favorable manner, even the creation of a new calendar and religion–France opened itself up to tyranny. Robespierre, by wiping France’s cultural slate clean, had allowed for the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte: a delusional, egotistical, and Romanophilic leader who declared himself “Emperor” and engaged the world in a series of catastrophic wars. After Napoleon’s fall, France was victim to many more crises of cultural identity: reinstating the Bourbon monarchies, creating several Republics, reinstating Bonaparte successors to the Imperial throne, and so on. In fact, France’s current and Fifth Republic has only existed since 1958. One cannot help but wonder if France will see a future Napoleon IV or a Louis XXI somewhere down the line.

 

The Future of North Africa


It is unclear what the future holds for Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and the other nearby African and Middle Eastern nations currently struggling with tyrannical government. Egypt has shown signs of both sides: on one hand, the people showed a great respect for their nation by cleaning up after themselves and guarding their museums and artifacts from looters. Noble actions such as these are the definition of preserving a nation’s identity during a time of great turmoil. On the other hand, the currently-in-power Egyptian military has warned the people of  ”internal enemies” conspiring against the revolution–words that directly echo the sentiments of a blood-thristy Robespierre. Also troubling is the recent removal of by-laws from the Muslim Brotherhood’s English website. These by-laws preached for the creation of a new civilization and world order. Worrying statements that indeed suggest the future for North Africa could be dim.

Leave a comment
December 24, 2010

A Second Coming of Constantine: The Decline of Theism in Western Civilization


“By This Sign Conquer”: Emperor Constantine Outside of York Minster, the location of his initial crowning

“[Polytheists] celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion.” – Constantine I, Emperor of Rome

It is Christmas time around most of the Western World: miniscule white lights, red ribbons, and pine-themed laurels adorn our bustling streets and buildings. As the beginning of December saw a rise of menorahs decorating streets and shops, the frosty commercial windows of late December now feature Santa, elves, and reindeer. The bitter cold outside has not dampened holiday spirits but, rather, enlivened them and brought people together. In the United States, there is another, somewhat frustrating, reminder that December has arrived: the ongoing debate between those who say “Happy Holidays”, and others who opt for the, more traditional, “Merry Christmas”.

The philosophies behind the two opposed sayings are easy enough to comprehend; Used as a catchall phrase, “Happy Holidays” does not assume a passerby to be of any particular faith, let alone a Christian, and celebrator of Christmas. Those who utter Merry Christmas insist on continuing to do so, preferring not to alter what they have heard for years without issue. In some cases, the more fervent supporters of Merry Christmas accuse the Holiday camp of trying to undermine Christianity as a whole. As silly as the concept of a mere saying destroying an entire religion may sound, the emergence of “Happy Holidays” does display, to some degree, the civilised world outgrowing the tall tales of religion.

How many of us who live comfortably in a modern society actually celebrate the divine birth of Christ as the most important time of the year? After all, that is the root of Christmas, is it not? Jesus of Nazareth was born in a tiny manger (no room at the inn), proclaimed King of the Jews, and later instructed man on morality with the supposed word of God. I suspect that the number of us celebrating that story during Christmastime is likely to be a small number–most of us simply need a festive time of year to be generous and good-hearted to our fellow man in a world that is exceedingly merciless and cruel.

Wishing someone a “Happy Holiday” is not only a culturally neutral phrase, but also a subconscious acknowledgement of the fact that Christmas is not so much about Christ, but man’s desire for good will. Moreover, it is because of the shedding of Christ from Christmas that has the “Merry Christmas” supporters riled–a fear of change and a fear of a world that no longer needs the stories of Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam. The root of this holiday, though at first glance superficial, is, in actuality, a monumental religious feud between progressive and reactionary.

Perhaps the more conservative well-wishers need not worry about any religious watersheds as history, once again, shows that mankind has already experienced such a dilemma and emerged relatively unscathed. In the 4th century AD, the Roman Empire had begun to show signs of decline. A long tradition of greed and mismanagement by corrupt emperors combined with unrest and rebellion in many of Rome’s far-reaching provinces had threatened the unity of the empire. Only when a gifted young man was crowned Emperor in York, England did things start to turn around for Rome.

By This Sign Conquer

It was July 306 AD in York, known as Eboracum in Roman times. The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and the mightiest era of Rome had since passed 300 years prior. What was once a vibrant, powerful form of government–initiated by Julius Caesar and perfected by his adopted son, Augustus–had degraded into a bureaucratic and flaccid system riddled with multiple “Caesars” and “Augusti”. That year, Constantius, co-Augusti of the empire, lay dying; he his rule was soon at end. Constantius sent a local Celtic leader to deliver the news that Constantine would be the new emperor. In the area now outside of York Minster, Constantine was proclaimed Emperor of Rome.

His newfound authority did not come without question; the empire was not universal in its acceptance of Constantine’s rule. The various territories under Rome sided with either Constantine, or his brother-in-law and rival claimant Maxentius. For six years, there were disputes to the imperial throne, and in 312 AD, Constantine’s struggle with Maxentius turned into a full-scale civil war.

This war should have been, by historical standards, a common clash for power as both kings and emperors have had fight or manipulate for control–long before the Roman era, and long after. However, during the preparations and mobilisation for battle, something extraordinary happened to an anxious Constantine. In the sky above the sun, Constantine saw the symbol of a cross beaming its light down to him along with the words, “In hoc signo vinces”, or “By this sign conquer”. At that moment, Constantine realised that the recognition of one, Christian, God would ensure his victory and imperial authority over Maxentius. He embraced Christianity and had the “chi rho”, one of its earliest symbols, adorned on his armies’ military regalia.

The two armies met at Milvian Bridge, just outside of Rome. Maxentius’s army was fitted with all of the proper polytheistic imagery that had decorated the legions of the past; a sharp contrast to the peculiar symbols adorning Constantine’s forces. The Battle of Milvian Bridge was a quick and resounding victory for Constantine, as Maxentius lay dead in the Tiber River.


The Battle of Milvian Bridge by Giulio Romano. Note the angels and heavenly light guiding Constantine’s army.


A Christian Emperor?

To fully appreciate Constantine’s abandonment of the Roman gods it should be understood that in 312 AD, most subjects in the Roman Empire were polytheists; Christianity was a mere cult from the east, both tiny and bizarre. The polytheistic system was deeply rooted in Roman society and their gods had existed for almost a thousand years prior. The earlier Greeks had inspired the tales and figures of the Roman religion, and earlier eastern religions inspired the Greeks. During Constantine’s rise, the Roman religion was as revered as Christianity is today.

It is certainly shocking that a Roman emperor converted to a small, cultish religion, and that he seemed to be empowered by some divine force in battle. Even more shocking was that Constantine essentially influenced the entire Western world to accept, and even embrace, Christianity as a religion. He ended all laws persecuting Christians in the empire, and returned land and property taken from them during prior harsh reforms. Christians we no longer forced into gladiatorial combat, tortured, or abused, as the emperor was now one of them. Furthermore, Constantine began a massive project of erecting churches and places of Christian worship, and he even built an entire city in the image of his new, Christian Rome. Breaking with almost all of the old traditions, styles, architecture, and religion, Constantine created Constantinople: a new capital of the Roman Empire.

Many Christians, and certainly those of other monotheistic faiths, do not realize the debt of gratitude they owe Constantine. Without his conversion, Christianity and Judaism may have remained small cults, eventually to be stamped out by intolerant future emperors. Constantine’s skillful rule, conversion, and commitment to Christianity changed the world he lived in, as well as those of his subjects: the Constantinian era of the Roman Empire was a milestone in western religious and cultural history.

Science

Christianity has been a major religion in our world for thousands of years now. Despite its inherently positive messages, Christianity has had its share of violence and shameful episodes. The dark areas of its past have, to a degree, rendered its lessons contradictory to those who find themselves questioning its veracity. Furthermore, much of Christianity and other faiths are becoming irrelevant as our society changes and makes new discoveries as time progresses. The advance of science in the last few hundred years has not only revealed truths about our universe that Christianity did not even think to answer, but even flatly disproved teachings of the bible that were assumed truths for many.

On our small planet, there are chapters that occur through its history; epochs that rise and later fall. Christianity may not be immune to time’s unwavering erosion. As precious as the many gods of Rome were to the Romans, their time had come when both Constantine and Roman society decided they were no longer fit to be worshipped in their world. There very well may be a day when Christianity is no longer an assumed part of everyday life; it will inevitably become a relic of past. Science will continue to answer questions not yet conceived of as humankind moves through time awaiting the meaning of everything. If there was a leader from the past who could so gracefully usher in a new era for man, then there very well could be a future atheistic or agnostic president; one who is committed to science and sees to its advancement and universal acceptance in the world. But until that day, have a Merry Christmas.

Leave a comment
November 15, 2010

Fascist Aesthetes: The Music and Imagery of Laibach


It’s been nearly 70 years since the threat of fascism was extinguished by a combined effort from the democratic West and the oddly-fascist-yet-communist East. As time distances the present from that surreal, almost unimaginable period and other milestones take its place–the conflict between the US and USSR, the war in Vietnam, terrorism in the Middle East–the memory of fascism becomes dim for many young people around the world.

However unfortunate for justice, most of us today cannot remember the horrors unleashed on the world by the war and fascism; and it is because of that fact that the art of fascism can be explored in a more unaffected and remote manner. Without feeling the pain, humiliation, and loss that many in the middle of the 20th century experienced, the aesthetics of totalitarianism are able to once again please the eye, being devoid of its rightful negativity. The emotions that fascist aesthetes invoke are identical to those utilized at fascism’s birth, before the attrocities began; those being the combinations of nationalism, art, order, beauty, and horror. Such notions are what addicted many European peoples to the institution of totalitarianism, and allowed them to turn a blind eye to the saber rattling and wanton butchering that began shortly thereafter.

One such group revisiting the aesthetics of fascism is an industrial rock band from Slovenia. The group, called “Laibach”–which is the German word for Slovenia’s capital, Ljubljana–has been in existence since 1980,  appearing in and exaggerating the garb of WWII-era fascists. Their representations are purportedly ironic, although the line is quite blurry. The group prides itself on this inability of the public to discern the truthfulness of their characters. But when asked if they possess a genuine adulation for the fascist regimes of the past, one member responds, “we are fascists as much as Hitler was a painter.” The quote seems direct enough, yet still has a faintly wafting scent of Naziophilia.

The Music

Laibach’s overtly fascist appearance is an exaggerated one, which makes it possible to believe them to be ironic. Conversely, their music is different in that the messages, which parallel the messages of fascism, are much more subtle. The songs are not so much racist, rather, the music is about political issues and life. This subtlety makes it complicated to believe in their irony, as one would have to go to great lengths to really learn the mechanisms of fascism and what it professed. The notions expressed in the lyrics and music videos make their message seem all the more genuine.

Laibach – Life is Life

Laibach’s Life is Life is one of those subtly fascist songs. Lyrically, the song encourages a greater contribution for the social good/state, something which was a requisite of fascism. Furthermore, the song celebrates life in a robust and positive way, which, to most, seems very un-fascist. However, a key component of the fascist male was the bold celebration of life and all of its aspects, be they beautiful or ugly (the ugly included war and violence as natural phenomenons). For instance, Benito Mussolini wrote in 1935 that:

The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of the despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, life which should be high and full, lived for oneself, but above all for others—those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after.

Laibach echoes this very statement, singing that “When we all give the power / We all give the best / Every minute in the hour / We don’t think about the rest”. This selfless devotion to the state and, furthermore, the complete apathy for the individual, is the crux of fascism . Mussolini wrote further on self-apathy in the context of violence and sacrifice for the state:

This anti-pacifist spirit is carried by Fascism even into the life of the individual; the proud motto of the Squadrista, “Me ne frego” ["I don't give a damn!"], written on the bandage of the wounded, is an act of philosophy not only stoic, the summary of a doctrine not only political—it is the education to combat, the acceptation of the risks which combat implies, and a new way of life for Italy.

The rewards for this devotion are supposed to be great, as in the second verse, Laibach continues “And we all get the power / We all get the best / When everyone gives everything / Then everything will get / Life is Life!”

Knowing the extent of Laibach’s fascist aesthetic, this was, no doubt, a conscious expression. Combined with the imagery of the video–the fascist uniforms, the Alpine setting, the stag’s head rising in the center of the frame–Life is Life is undeniably fascist, either as a joke or a genuine celebration.

Laibach – Anglia

What can’t be said about Anglia’s imagery and message? The song and video are a visceral filleting of England’s politics and monarchy. In the video, an elderly woman cooks a traditional English breakfast of fried eggs, Heinz beans, and rashers while God Save the Queen echoes above. Just then the woman, apparently representing the Queen, descends into a dimly-lit room containing prisoners bound in a fetish-styled manner. The “Queen” teases these nude prisoners with the English fare, while Laibach sings “So you still believe you’re ruling the world / Using all your tricks to keep the picture blurred / Scatter your enemies, confound their politics / So you still believe you’re ruling the world / God save your gracious Queen / Long live your noble Queen / God save your gracious Queen / God save you all!”

It is Laibach’s Anglia that makes believing the irony very difficult. The song is very cutting against one of the world’s more moderate nations, blowing England’s former global dominance way out of proportion. The encouragement of animosity towards England and the status quo was a highly popular tactic of Hitler, Mussolini, the Nazis and Fascists. And as much as these regimes loathed Communism, their hatred of the Anglo-American west was confoundingly deeper. Later in the song, Laibach’s message ventures beyond mere generalization into the personal, continuing, “So you still believe you’re superior / And all other nations are inferior / Any sedition hushed, rebellious Scots crushed / So you still believe you’re superior”.

There are 30 years worth of music in Laibach’s repetoire; to analyze all of it would require much time and unemployment. I am still unconvinced that Laibach’s act is complete irony, their messages are so extensively fascist, so complete in their representation and package, that I cannot help but believe them to be genuine. They are either one of the most genius satirists of modern art and politics, or one of the most ugly neo-fascist groups hiding their true convictions under the veil of the ironic.

Leave a comment
October 3, 2010

Should the Maize Fail: America’s Corn Dependence and a Victorian Famine


King Corn

One debate gaining prominence in the United States today concerns the use of a particular sweetener in our foods. High fructose corn syrup is an artificially produced sweetener from the extractions of corn, a replacement for imported and natural cane sugar. The reasons for this debate are that the effects of HFCS on the body are unclear; the product is suspected to be linked to America’s alarming obesity rate due to the body’s purported inability to process it. Whatever the truth may be, the use of HFCS illustrates a wider phenomenon in the United States: our culinary dependence on corn.

More widely produced in America than anywhere in the world, in 2007 the United States harvested 332,092,180 tons of corn versus the entire European Union’s 62,852,922 tons. A look to the ingredients label on most any packaged food product sold in the US will often show an ingredient comprised of, or somehow tied to, corn. For instance, something as basic as red meat has its ties to corn. In the United States, most cattle are fed an unnatural diet solely of corn; a diet which adversely affects the cow’s health and requires the use of antibiotics which then enter our own bodies when eaten. One may not initially realize that something like meat would be so reliant on corn, but the extent of corn usage in the US is truly surprising. Food Inc., a movie investigating the food industry in the United States, revealed that corn is an ingredient in or linked to foods such as ketchup, cheese, twinkies, batteries, peanut butter, Cheez-Its, salad dressing, Coke, jelly, syrup, artificial sweeteners, juice; the list goes on. In America, corn is king.

An official trailer for the movie “Food Inc.”, which reveals America’s extreme reliance on corn

Aside from the possible health effects of a mostly corn-based diet, there could be a much greater risk to relying on one sole crop for food production. Ireland’s history shows that such a risk is quite real, and that the after effects would be devastating. As an analysis of such a risk, and as a warning against America’s culinary habits, this entry of MediumHistorica will examine the Potato Famine which occurred in Ireland in the mid-nineteenth century; a famine that ravaged an entire people and drastically changed the demographics of not one, but several nations.

An Gorta Mór

In 1845 a plant disease called Phytophthora Infestans, or the Late Potato Blight, swept into Ireland and began rotting the potato crops. For any other industrialized nation of the period–the United States, Great Britain, or even France–this would’ve only slightly altered the diet of the populace. Ireland, however, was a much different case. Under British administration since 1801, a variety of factors made the native population of Ireland both poor and heavily reliant on the potato.

The path to poverty and single crop reliance in Ireland was gradual but essentially forced. When Oliver Cromwell took power in Britain 200 years prior, he had conducted a series of brutal campaigns against the Irish; the British soldiery wantonly butchered Catholic civilians in order to bring the neighboring island under Cromwell’s control. These campaigns removed swathes of the native population, and allowed for more affluent, protestant immigrants to come from Britain. A divide began in Ireland that saw bitter and destitute Catholics living among prosperous Anglicans who held the Irish in contempt.

Struggles and violence continued throughout the course of the next century, and eventually the Catholic lower classes found themselves in dire straights. Catholics were barred by law from owning land, had no voting rights, and were unable to hold public office. Protestant land owners, who possessed vast tracts of land and palatial estates, were often vacant from their property and it was the responsibility of the Irish peasantry for the estates’ wellbeing.

Essentially a ressurrection of feudalism, the Irish lower classes were not only required to keep the properties in good condition, but also to tend to the livestock, as well as the planting and harvesting of crops. “Payment”, for the Irish, was a small parcel of land that was theirs while they continued to work for the landowner. The Irish were the peasantry of industrial Europe; working for the right to be tenants on a tiny section of land. By the nineteenth century when Great Britain officially took control of Ireland with the Act of Union, there was a very distinct apartheid present.

The potato was initially a blessing. A hardy, filling crop that grew well in small areas, it was the primary source for nutrition in the Irish diet. Unfortunately, the conveniences that made the Irish rely on the potato contributed to their hardship. The Irish had no other abundant source of nutrition.

The effects of the blight were devastating. In 1845, half of the nation’s potato crop was wiped out. Even worse, the blight affected the germination of the potatoes and so in 1846, with up to 75% of the potato crop devastated, few replacement seeds were able to be planted. The starvation worsened; a quarter of the entire Irish population either perished or had fled abroad to other nations for a better life, such as the United States and Great Britain. Thus began the Irish diaspora: a radical change of demographic back home in Ireland and abroad.

A diagram showing the sharp decline in Irish population during the Great Famine.

Tenants to Genetics

Both corn and the potato are quite similar in some ways; they are cheap to produce, are dense alternatives to grains, and are calorie rich. Both are versatile in that they are a malleable food and can be made in a variety of ways; milled down and made into bread or simply cooked, buttered and eaten as they are. Unfortunately, they also share a striking similarity in that, in both the past and present, people rely on them almost exclusively for nutrition. A destruction of the corn crop in the US today could bring about similar misery as the potato failure did in 1840s Ireland.


The idea is not that much of a stretch. We have a lot of technological advances today in the United States, and one of those advances  in the field of science is the genetic modification of food. The effects of genetic modification are still being debated: new tests emerge every so often supporting or decrying the practice. But tampering with the natural production of corn leaves a future that is uncertain. It has been proven that genetically modifying corn affects the crop’s germination, as well as the germination of non-altered corn crops nearby. What if, in our quest to produce a corn crop impervious to pesticides and disease, we ultimately destroy the sole crop our nation’s food products rely so heavily on? With over 40,000 products at a local supermarket that have a association with corn, how would we cope with a corn crop failure?

I am no scientist. The answers to these questions cannot be answered in a blog. But what can be better analyzed is the way our leaders and businesses handle our nation’s diet. Before we invest so much faith into a cheaply grown crop, and furthermore tamper with its very makeup, perhaps we should look at Ireland’s dismal past and learn from their mistakes. Perhaps we should pay more attention to the food sold in our supermarkets and begin to introduce more variety into our diets; not just market the same basic ingredient in different ways. Otherwise, American History could very well have its very own chapter called The Great Hunger.

Leave a comment
May 17, 2010

The 2010 United Kingdom General Elections: A Historic Struggle of Class


In the aftermath of one of the closest elections in British post-war history, the United Kingdom 2010 General Election results saw the Conservative Party gain more seats than the previously-in-power Labour Party, ending their 13 year domination of British politics. This victory for the Conservatives and their necessary coalition with the Liberal Democrats comes with an impassioned outrage from a great many British and Northern Irish subjects.


The 2010 United Kingdom General Election Results. Areas in blue voted Conservative, red for Labour, yellow for Liberal Democrat, and other colors for minor parties such as Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein.

A Clash of Class

 Much of the antipathy is centered around the idea of an oppressive, privileged, upper-class Conservative Party coming to dominate British politics and ruining what progress the Labour Party may have made. Although Gordon Brown’s popularity waxed and waned, he was certainly an insightful leader, concerned with the well-being of the less fortunate in the UK and beyond. There are fears, legitimate or not, that the Conservatives may cut many of the middle and working class programs created during the 20th century, such as the National Health Service created by Nye Bevan.

David Cameron, the new Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, is often at the forefront of the criticisms. Accusations of Cameron are usually of the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing-type; that Cameron is fraudulent in his appearances as a common British subject. His opponents point to his upbringing as well as his policies to show these purported faults, and why his governance would be a disaster for the United Kingdom in the 2010s.


A Conservative Party billboard featuring David Cameron. The billboard is defaced with a common criticism of Cameron–that he attended the very exclusive and upper-class private school, Eton.

These criticisms towards the upper class are not restricted to politics; most societal hang-ups in Britain are centered around class, and have been for quite some time. But from where does Britain’s fascination with class stem? Do these class divisions extend back further than the Thatcher era, World War II, or even the Victorian Age? In actuality, the entrenched divisions between the upper class and middle and working classes are rooted much, much earlier: in Britain’s early medieval past. These inequalities essentially descend from the Norman Invasion of 1066. This installment of Medium Historica will examine the roots of class conflict, beginning with William and the Normans, and tracing the shifts and changes throughout the course of British history.

An English-dubbed French production on the history of William I. The narrator appears to be of landed class (see: ascot), and makes a point to claim his direct lineage to a Norman noble and earlier Vikings (“the king of France invited ‘us’”). The narrator also takes great liberty with the historical accounts, such as claiming that a younger Harold swore the crown of England to William in Normandy; a theory highly disputed by historians.


William I: Progenitor of Class Inequality in Britain

In 1066 William, Duke of Normandy, prepared for war and set sail in order to successfully take the crown of England. Just prior to William’s invasion, England was a loose confederation of Saxon earldoms under the tutelage of King Harold. While ignoring the complex rota of kings and their shifting territories prior to Harold’s arrival, it is important to mention that Harold was the last Anglo-Saxon King in the vast expanse of English and British history.

With the victory of the Normans and crowning of William the Conqueror came an England solidified as one kingdom, stronger than ever before. Soon after gaining sovereignty, William had the entirety of England inspected to every last detail; houses, farms, the number of sheep on each plot of land, and so on, were all meticulously documented in what was called the Domesday Book. William wanted nothing under his newly forged realm unaccounted for.

The problem was that, although England was technically united as one nation, there were two separate demographics now present on the island. The Anglo-Saxon residents who had resided in and defended England for 600 years were now the conquered subjects of a new, powerful, foreign-speaking minority. Norman soldiers  who helped William defeat Harold at the Battle of Hastings,were granted titles and huge tracts of land in England; thus initiating Britain’s modern system of heredity and land-holding elites.


Anglo/Norman society as explained in the Domesday Book

Despite the growing divisions between the Anglo-Saxon peasantry and their Norman overlords, there was never a full-scale rebellion from the former against the latter. William was a ruthless leader who never allowed dissidence to grow into open revolt. For instance, when Anglo-Saxons in the north around York showed resistance against his new leadership, William sent his armies and conducted a scorched earth policy, destroying homes and livestock. The cruelty shown in the north was a punishment for disobedience and a warning to the rest of his realm. The Anglo-Saxons willfully endured the Norman yoke, never to reestablish an Anglo-Saxon monarchy. The rule of a king from the same stock as the people died one violent day with Harold Godwinson on the battlefield of Hastings in 1066.

A Phantom Menace


Angevin Empire under Henry II around 1172

William I eventually passed on, but his initial conquest opened the door for generations of kings from Normandy and nearby who would come to rule England. Once the Norman male branch died off, the crown of England simply passed to a related family from a different region of modern-day France; that being Anjou. The Angevins took over from where the Normans left off, and after them the Plantagenets, then Lancastrians, and Yorkists. Those descended from the Anglo-Saxons, however, were restrained to peasantry. When feudalism slowly outgrew itself, the peasants transformed into a lower class.

The connection between the privileges of the nobility and landed classes to the arrival of the Normans was not a popular concept in Medieval England. By the 1500s, a new era of struggle emerged, distracting most away from any class concerns. Whatever feelings of injustice that British commoners could devote to their social standing was occupied with Henry VIII’s shocking religious crusade. The destruction of the Catholic Church in England plagued the island with religious conflict throughout the reigns of Mary I; Elizabeth I; James I; Charles I; to Oliver Cromwell and beyond. Concern over the inequalities of class initiated by foreign Norman invaders waned with the constant warfare in the 1300s and 1400s, as well as the ecclesiastical troubles England had experienced in the 1500-1600s.

However, towards the end of the 1600s a milestone in English history occurred that would placate religious strife on the island and set the stage for class discussion. The arrival and crowing of William of Orange as King of England began a new era Britain.

Another King from Across the Sea


William of Orange

The turmoil between Catholics and Protestants, for the most part, ceased with the arrival of King William III in 1689. This new kingship would essentially create the spark for later discourse in regards to who was truly “English”. William was a protestant from Den Haag in the Netherlands who had assumed the crown of England; essentially putting an end to the Stuart restoration and their Catholic sympathies. Despite the Stuarts’ divisive sympathies to Catholicism, they were rulers from Scotland whereas William and his successive house of Orange-Nassau were foreign-born. England was, once again, subject to foreign rule. Although most were happy to have the religious question settled and a Protestant monarch securely on the throne (William banned any future possibility of Catholics obtaining the English crown), there was still the issue of William’s foreign birth.

Thus began an era of racial questioning as to who was English. In 1697, Daniel Defoe, famed author of Robinson Crusoe, wrote “The True-Born Englishman” in defense of William’s heritage. Defoe’s poem satirized those who claimed England was a place solely for Anglo-Saxon descendants. Some of the more notable passages read:

The Romans first with Julius Cæsar came,
Including all the nations of that name,
Gauls, Greeks, and Lombards, and, by computation,
Auxiliaries or slaves of every nation.
With Hengist, Saxons; Danes with Sueno came,
In search of plunder, not in search of fame.

Scots, Picts, and Irish from the Hibernian shore,
And conquering William brought the Normans o’er.
All these their barbarous offspring left behind,
The dregs of armies, they of all mankind;
Blended with Britons, who before were here,
Of whom the Welsh ha’ blessed the character.

…

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

…

‘Tis well that virtue gives nobility,
How shall we else the want of birth and blood supply?
Since scarce one family is left alive,
Which does not from some foreigner derive.

As the 1700s passed along and the Victorian age neared, England saw the rise of a new concept; albeit one that was perhaps a 600 or 700 year anachronism. This concept was Saxonism — the idea that the rightful inhabitants of the island of Britain were ones of Germanic, Anglo-Saxon heritage. This concept alienated the historic Normans and their descendants as outsiders, deepening the divide between the commoners and landed classes.  A clear example, and one of the most famous, is  Sir Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe. Published in 1820, Scott’s story involving a Robin Hood of Locksley is centered around a Norman regime set against a heroic Saxon class. These themes of Norman vs. Saxon popularized by Scott remain prevalent in tales of Robin Hood even today.

Saxonism continued well into the nineteenth century and became such a popular philosophy as to invade noteworthy areas of public society. For instance, in British politics, the historic Saxons became the demigods of democracy to Radicals and Chartists. These Members of Parliament were fixated on the racially centered ideas of Saxonism, and attributed all of Britain’s historic advances to a Saxon commitment to freedom. Conversely, the Normans represented the ills and oppression of Britain’s lengthy history. The Normans were tyrannical migrants from France; and France was England’s historic rival and was also linked to Catholicism (another historic rival); Catholicism was linked to Rome; and Rome was a Saxonist’s premier historic oppressor. The actual Saxons were Germanic, and thus never conquered by Rome: evidence to British Victorian Saxonists of their strength and democratic resolve.

Dr. Peter Mandler of Cambridge, expert on early modern and modern English national identity, confirms in a personal email some of the links during this period between the upper classes and the Normans. Mandler replies:

Patrick – Yes, the political valencies [of Saxon and Norman concepts] are strong. It’s partly of course that the landed elite was thought to be ‘French’ (even sometimes by themselves – the Seymour family started to call themselves St. Maur in the mid-19th century!), but also that [Saxonism] was an explicitly democratic ideology.

The progressive Radicals, who fought for political change in Britain, identified with some kind of vaguely allegorical Saxon democracy–which was unrealistic. Those of a more conservative disposition who favored the Monarchy and nobility linked themselves to a Norman heritage. But the Victorian Saxonists were no valiant group, fighting for equality against a privileged Norman elite. They, too, oppressed, and used their theories on race and lineage to marginalize a people beneath them. For the Saxon in Victorian Britain, his enemy was not only the Norman above him, but the lowly Celt beneath him.

Saxonism Dies, Leaves Ugly Legacy

Perhaps better saved for another topic, it is enough to say that the prejudices against immigrants from Ireland and the Scottish Highlands were much more commonplace among Saxonists than any vitriol against the nobility. But regardless, Saxonism became so prominent in Victorian Britain that when science began to flourish, it became a scholarly and serious area of study. The once innocent ideas of Saxonism combined with subjects like phrenology and anthropology to produce racial theories in England quite similar to those of the later Nazi Germany. Furthermore, the English had toyed with abominable social polices, such as eugenics: Saxonists even proposed that neighboring Ireland be cleansed from whomever was “Celtic”–convenient for them when the potato crop failed in the 1840s and removed 25% of the native population.

But as the century faded away, new discoveries were made that proved subjects like phrenology were inaccurate and baseless. The frightening advance of racial science in Nazi Germany would kill the issue in Britain completely. After the realization of the Holocaust and Germany’s Aryan policy, touting a pure, “Germanic” heritage in England was far from OK. As such, most in Britain have either forgotten or rejected the fact that current class divisions are, in fact, stemmed from the Norman invasion. The institutions and oppression introduced by William the Conqueror onto England created an enduring atmosphere of privilege, hierarchy and inequality that is still felt keenly to this day. A simply walk down the streets of Tang Hall in York, followed by a visit to Chatsworth or Carlton Towers in the country, will show that there are still class inequalities that are very real and have come to be a way of British life.


Leave a comment
May 6, 2010

Arizona Senate Bill 1070: Unlawful Immigration and the Fall of Rome


Arizona Senate Bill 1070

In April of 2010, The Arizona State Senate passed a bill that would effectively curb illegal immigration into the state, and also allow for the removal or detainment of illegal aliens already found present. However, the passing of the Arizona Senate bill brought widespread protests due to its purported discrimination and racial precedent. Those protesting the bill claim that Arizona law enforcement can now check immigration status based upon the color of suspects’ skin, the language they use, and any other factor that an officer deems suspicious of unlawful immigration. To opponents of AZ SB1070, the very prospect of such legislation goes against what makes America America: a melting pot of cultures united by values of freedom and equality.

Supporters of the bill raise the concern that Arizona’s unlawful immigrant population is higher than most of the states in the nation and as such, reform must be immediate and uncompromising. Their concerns may be valid, as the population of unlawful immigrants in Arizona is roughly the size of the entire city of Boston. Not limited to merely numbers, those supporting Senate Bill 1070 claim that along with illegal immigration comes a rise in crime. Arizona is a state that borders Mexico, and is subject to a high amount of drug and human trafficking from the neighboring nations to the south. These illegal operations unsurprisingly bring accompanying violence into the state. One incident in particular that fueled the creation of the bill was the drug-related murder of a legal border rancher and his dog.

But the goal of this blog is to not take a firm stance on issues like the Arizona Senate Bill, nor to influence the reader to any specific stance either.  Rather, this blog will attempt to parallel a historical scenario to the issue d’jour and hopefully provide some guidance for the reader to draw their own conclusion. As such, this entry in particular will explore the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, and its relevance to America’s immigration debate.

The Roman Empire and the Beginnings of Change



The extent of the Roman Empire, 125 AD


Hardly anyone, even the most ignorant to history, can deny that Rome was a powerful and highly influential empire. We can see the remnants of its culture all around us on a daily basis: on our money, our buildings — even the name “Capitol” derives from the Roman “Capitoline Hill”. Their lasting culture is no doubt a testament to their extraordinary expansion, as Rome’s military supremacy was stunning. Rome grew from a mere Italian farming village into a vast Empire  of marble, stretching into the throes of Africa and Asia. But the Roman reign, though not by any means short-lived, was not everlasting. What ultimately began in 753 BC and transformed into a world power in 509 BC, ultimately crumbled in the late 400s AD. Tribes from — the never conquered — Germania migrated at will throughout Europe and undermined Rome’s rule, until the Empire eventually dissolved and no longer had the power to dictate the stretches of land it once could.


The migratory patterns of invading Germanic tribes


There is some debate regarding the manner in which Rome “fell”. The traditional school of thought presents a placid Rome prior to the 400s AD which was violently destroyed by invading Germanic tribes. This scenario can be found in Bede’s EcclesiasticalHistory of the English People, a text written in 731AD which details the conflicts of post-Roman Britain between Romano-Britons, Celts, Picts, Saxons and Angles. One of the more recent scholarly works reinforcing this traditionalist view is that of Bryan Ward-Perkins in The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization.

Perkins is an intriguing scholar in that, aside from being an accomplished historian, he is also an archaeologist. In his work on Rome, Perkins decries the lack of archaeological evidence in other  studies on the Fall of Rome, and therefore undertakes the task himself of collecting such data to support his conclusion. By showing with archaeological finds –such as the degradation of high quality pottery and housing — how the quality of life differed between a pre-Germanic and post-Germanic Roman empire (94-121), Perkins’s case is convincing that the conversion to a new Romano-Germanic era was not a comfortable one, nor one of a gradual transition.

But the modern conclusions developed for a reason. Often they are based on new findings unavailable or overlooked by previous scholars. These theories postulate that the break up of the Roman Empire was not a clear shift from white to black, but rather a slow transition of white to a light gray, light gray to medium gray, medium gray to dark gray, and a dark gray to the blackened, ashen remains of what was once empire. I find this to be the more believable of the schools. For instance, Jill Harries in Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome AD 407-485, sets out to prove that the fall of Rome was not a quiet event to everyone, but rather that Sidonius Apollinaris, Roman aristocrat and Gallic land owner, was well aware of the catastrophe.

While Harries’s thesis is to prove that some held a feeling of catastrophe, I find that the obverse commentary derived from her thesis says a lot more: that the majority of commoners were simply unaware or put up with a gradual social change in Rome. It’s understandable that a high-ranking noble would notice a distinct difference in a shift of power, but the majority of the empire’s denizens simply went about their daily lives. But what does this all have to do with The United States and Arizona’s tough policy on immigration via Senate Bill 1070? Gradual social change.

Rome Did Not Break – It Grew Apart

It’s important to understand the post-Roman world before making any such parallels. In this 5th and 6th century world, there was no England, France, or Germany after the enfeeblement of Rome. These nations did not rise up against the eternal city, design a unifying flag, elect a king for their people, and declare themselves independent states. It was more of a snail’s pace of social change that simply made being subject to Roman authority irrelevant. Once the Germanic tribes settled in, they themselves became more “Roman”, but the way they adopted Roman methods and customs wasn’t quite the same. For instance, Classical Latin slowly evolved into Vulgar Latin, which in turn mixed with other languages to become old French, Occitan, old Castillan, old English, and so on.


One of the key problems that opponents of unlawful immigration cite is the language barrier that those crossing the border into the United States create. In the history of lawful immigration to the US, non-English speaking immigrants were forced to conform by learning English. Learning the language was necessary to gain citizenship. The right to citizenship provided a right to work and make income, and a byproduct of learning English was assimilation into US culture. Without any necessity to acquire legal documentation, immigrants from Mexico and Central America have simply carried on the customs they were familiar with in their former nations, specifically in this case the continuance to speak Spanish.

As it were different tribes, each with their own customs, that settled into various parts of the empire, Roman law shifted and became less unified among the settled areas. Tribes would either attempt to amalgamate, or conquer, but in either scenario if was often a Germanic leader in the new region. This is what essentially broke down Rome and set in place the age of feudalism; of medieval nobles and kings, drawing their lineage from these new, non-Latin rulers. There was no longer a single language to bind these remote areas together, and once the unity of law broke down, Rome’s authority had vanished. Gaul (modern-day France) transformed into a mishmash of separate kingdoms, as did Spain and Britain; and these multitudes of duchies and kingdoms were the product of the earlier migrating tribes.

The late-Medieval geography of France. The multitudes of duchies and kingdoms can be directly traced to specific Germanic tribes which invaded Roman Gaul almost 1,000 years prior.

One can make certain parallels between the influx of undocumented Latin-American immigrants to the United States and migrating Germanic tribes into the Roman Empire. Both host nations acquiesced to the permanence of their new residents, and both underwent drastic-yet-gradual social change. Our packages, telephone and computer services, and billboards now prominently feature Spanish or a Spanish alternative. The de jure minimum wage laws have been altered in such a way that an undocumented worker can claim no right to such benefits, and companies are more than willing to save on overhead by jumping at their employment. There is a movement, briefly supported by President Obama, to reform the immigration laws in order to better accommodate those who defy the current policies. However, in April, Arizona took a direct stand against the influx of undocumented workers. This is directly at odds with the complacency the US has held in the past. But could there be ramifications for trying to turn back an already-changed society? One of Rome’s final Emperors attempted a similar policy.


Figure iv: A map showing the amount of illegal immigrants in the US, broken down by state population. Note the migratory patterns: the geographical convenience of the Southwestern US, Texas, and Florida as they are easily accessible, as well as the economic draw of the affluent and job-rich Northeast.


A Bill Fit for Justinian


While unity in the western part of the now-defunct Roman Empire was a thing of the past, the Eastern Byzantine half remained intact, affluent, and also free of Germanic influence. Ruled by separate Emperors for some time, the East rarely concerned itself with the affairs of the West until the rise of Byzantine Emperor Justinian. During his reign, the Western Roman Empire had long been divided and ruled under several Germanic Kings.

But Justinian saw himself as an anachronistic Emperor; the kind from a Roman past where the East and West were one. Taking it upon himself to reclaim the West, Justinian first set out to conquer the Vandal-ruled North African kingdom. After successfully bringing North Africa under his tutelage, Justinian then went on to conquer Italy from the Ostrogoths, and parts of Spain from the Visigoths. Justinian had successfully reunited Rome and Constantinople into one Empire.


Justinian’s initial Byzantine expansion in red, and his later western conquests are shown in orange.


It was a short reunification; for after Justinian’s death, Italy was lost to the Germanic Lombards and Africa and Spain fell to invading Muslims. The measures Justinian took to reshape a land that had slowly evolved for 300 years were impressive but ultimately futile. In fact, Bryan Ward-Perkins claims that the Western Roman Empire and culture would have been reborn under the Ostrogoths, but Justinian had ultimately shattered any rebirth by his military conquests (58). Perkins claims that:

If events had fallen out differently, it is even possible to envisage a resurgent western empire under a successful Germanic dynasty. Theodoric the Ostrogoth ruled Italy and adjacent parts of the Danubian provinces and Balkans from 493; from 511 he also effectively controlled the Visigothic kingdom in Spain and many of the former Visigothic territories in southern Gaul, where he reinstated the tradition Roman office of ‘Praetorian Prefect for the Gauls’ based in Arles. This looks like the beginnings of a revived western empire, under Germanic kings. As things turned out, all of this was brought to an end by Justinian’s invasion of Italy in 535. But, given better luck, later Ostrogothic kings might have been able to expand on this early success; and — who knows? — might have revived the imperial title in the West centuries before Charlemagne in 800.

Today

America is not Rome. But those who have been crossing the border and slowly changing American culture over decades surprisingly resemble migrating Germanic tribes who effected gradual cultural changes in the Roman Empire . Perhaps we should take the route of immigration reform, and allow some kind of medium between latin immigrants’ amalgamation into American culture and the allowance of American culture to change and adapt to its new residents. In time, this could affect the unity of our nation — areas vastly more hispanic would be drastically different from those maintaining an Anglo-European culture, but perhaps not. It is unclear what the effects of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 will be, a measure very Justinian in nature. It may hurt our unity more than embracing new waves of immigration would, and have the opposite result from what was intended. Only time and a good historian will be able to tell.

Books:

Harries, Jill. Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome, AD 407-485. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Sherley-Price, Leo, trans. Bede: An Ecclesiastical History of the English People. London: Penguin Books, 1990.

Ward-Perkins, Brian. The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Leave a comment
March 27, 2010

A Crisis of Demographics in Israel & Palestine: A Look to Quebecois History for Guidance

In 1763 Great Britain had won the Seven Years’ War against France. With the resultant Treaty of Paris, Britain maintained its American territories and all of Canada was surrendered by the French. This vast area increased the size of British North America and the tiny island’s empire as a result. That is, however, not to say that the transfer of Canada from France to Great Britain was an easy transaction.

It was a precarious situation because of the social differences between the two powers. For starters, most of the people living there were French. And one can be certain that the lingua franca of Canada was just that: La lingua Franca – French. I can’t imagine that governing Canada by an English-speaking minority was an easy task, or one that went over well with the locals. Even more divisive was that the French population in Canada were predominantly Catholic, while their new English government was not.

These differences faced by the French Canadians and their British administrators are similar to the Israel/Palestine divides today. A land owned by Britain prior to the end of WWII, the State of Israel was created in 1948 in order to give the, recently devastated, Jewish people a homeland. While there certainly was a sizable Jewish population in the British Mandate of Palestine at the time, the majority of the locals were Arabs: a people with a different language and religion than their newfound Jewish administrators.

Ignoring the, fairly well-known, proceeding tumult from that point to today, Israel still faces the issue of the future of its nation. Some want total Israeli control of the remaining Arab areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Others propose a, more utopian, one state solution blind to race or religion. There are also attempts to form two completely separate states, one Israeli and one Palestinian, although the road to this has been undermined by perpetual back-and-forth violence from both sides.

But, as it was Great Britain that laid the foundation for conflict in 1948, maybe the solution lies in British-Canadian history. When Britain had inherited Canada from the spoils of war, they had initially tried to force the people to assimilate into British culture. French residents of Canada who did not leave became subjects of the British Crown, and in order to hold public office were required to reject the Catholic Faith. After realizing this ethnic policy was not working, the British passed the Quebec Act in 1774. This granted Canadians the free practice of Catholicism, allowed for the French legal system to continue in Canada, and provided for the preservation of French culture. Some of the exact text was as follows:

IV. And whereas the Provisions, made by the said Proclamation, in respect to the Civil Government of the said Province of Quebec, and the Powers and Authorities given to the Governor and other Civil Officers of the said Province, by the Grants and Commissions issued in consequence thereof, have been found, upon Experience, to be inapplicable to the State and Circumstances of the said Province, the Inhabitants whereof amounted, at the Conquest, to above sixty-five thousand Persons professing the Religion of the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established Form of Constitution and System of Laws, by which their Persons and Property had been protected, governed, and ordered, for a long Series of Years, from the first Establishment of the said Province of Canada;” be it therefore further enacted by the Authority aforesaid. That the said Proclamation, so far as the same relates to the said Province of Quebec, and the Commission under the Authority whereof the Government of the said Province is at present administered, and all and every the Ordinance and Ordinances made by the Governor and Council of Quebec for the Time being, relative to the Civil Government and Administration of Justice in the said Province. and all Commissions to Judges and other Officers thereof, be, and the same are hereby revoked, annulled, and made void, from and after the first Day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five.


But the societal differences of Canada were not entirely remedied by a paragraph or two in a mere document. With Britain being the lawful parent nation of Canada, waves of British immigration occurred and this complicated matters further. Now Canada had a large mix between Catholics and Anglicans, Francophones and Anglophones. Soon the once-French areas of Canada became split socio-culturally, with the two regions coming to be known as Upper Canada and Lower Canada. In the adjacent map you will see the lower orange portion bordering the US, this was “Upper Canada”. The larger and more northern green area was “Lower Canada”.

The divide went even deeper, beyond language and religion. As the Quebec Act allowed for the preservation of French culture, this meant that French Canadians could keep their economic system. The economies of Upper and Lower Canada were drastically different and this created a host of problems. Upper Canada consisted of wealthier British and United States immigrants. These Anglo-American residents were committed to the free market economic systems of their former nations, and were eager to modernize Canada as such. Unfortunately for them, the residents of Lower Canada were living under the more French feudal/agricultural system. This economy was anachronistic and held Canada back from any significant economic advances.

Soon the “backwards” French Canadians were drawing the ire of their British counterparts. Englishman John Lambton, the 1st Earl of Durham was sent by the British Crown to Canada to survey the population. In his Report on the Affairs of British North America, Lord Durham establishes that the French Canadians are an entirely separate race from their British neighbors. When violence began to emerge between the two demographics, Durham suggested that the solution lie in overwhelming the French population with a massive influx of British immigration, a culture he suggests is better.

One doesn’t need to be a scholar of history or politics to draw parallels from this situation to the one in Israel and Palestine today. That Jewish complaints of their Arabian counterparts as violent, backwards, and economically lagging are surprisingly similar to complaints of the French Canadians by the British. Israel is struggling to be a leading, world-class nation — much as the residents of Upper Canada wanted their country to be — and complicating that goal are the quarrels with neighboring Arab Muslims that have been continuing for decades.

However unfortunate for modern day Israelis, harmony in Canada did not flourish until after full-scale rebellion. The French lower classes of Lower Canada organized, and rebelled against their overseas masters in 1837. In a surprise twist of history, the Upper Canadians saw this as an opportunity to break free from Britain altogether and joined the French Patriotes a year later.

Unlike the earlier and successful American Revolution, the Canadian one failed. In the aftermath, Britain took a firm stance to end the social discord between Upper and Lower Canada by merging them into one state: The United Province of Canada. This new province would eventually serve as the foundation for what is today’s Canada, but the nation, no matter what its size or name, has always been respectful of the remaining French culture within Quebec. This can be seen by a simple visit to Montreal or Quebec City, where road signs, restaurant menus, and everyday business is conducted in French and English is the minority.

Perhaps this is the best solution for Israel and Palestine: that Palestine would work best as a province within the nation of Israel. That Palestinian road signs, restaurant menus, and business affairs would be printed and conducted in Arabic, the people still be able to maintain their Muslim heritage, while at the same time remaining a part of a larger Jewish state. This would require a very firm-but-fair Israeli stance, where they would have to annex both Gaza and the West Bank, and at the same time allow Muslim Arabs to serve in the public sphere and have the same rights as Jews. And while violence rarely produces anything to be proud of, Israel may need a Palestinian uprising before it can rightfully claim these areas as its own, or otherwise lose their authority altogether.

Leave a comment
March 11, 2010

Colonial Politics in Modern America: The Tea Party Movement and the Need to Acknowledge the Federalist Party



Contemporary United States politicians often mention our historic “American values.” These values supposedly hearken back to what our Founding Fathers wanted for the future of this nation. The underlying message is almost always to avoid large government. These values, gallantly fought for by America’s first leaders, are to set us apart from more corrupt nations, in which supporters often present Europe in contrast. Modern politicians and pundits back these claims with abstract history to give their arguments more veracity. Essentially, our modern interpretation is that Washington, Revere, Hancock, Adams, Jefferson, and any man who fired a gun at an enemy in a red coat, meant for us to be free of a cumbersome bureaucracy.

This is, perhaps, best displayed by the current Tea Party Movement: a group of conservatives who have taken the name of a historical milestone. By taking such a name, The Tea Party Movement likens the oppressive government of King George III to the Obama administration; a government purportedly overstepping constitutional bounds. One self-proclaimed member describes that they are dissatisfied with the “unconstitutional, liberal, socialist, progressive, ungodly policies of the federal government.” The name “Tea Party”, though, is an odd choice because the historic participants in the Boston Tea Party were not protesting taxation itself, but taxation without their representation in Parliament.  Although these consistently off base claims will offer a clear image to future historiographers of our time period’s atmosphere – something that’s important to those who appreciate the twists and turns of history – the idea that big government and taxes are contrary to America’s founding principles is simply incorrect and distorts factual history. The idea of a strong federal government is not anti-American and was not anti-American during the time of a fledgling United States.

As much as the Tea Party movement wants to believe to the contrary, their ideals are only a fraction of colonial sentiment. The anachronistic clothing and funny hats may convince a child or layman to history, but during the initial decades of the United States, antipathy for a federal government was only shared by the Democratic-Republican party. This was one single party, in which both today’s Democratic and Republican parties branched out from. I suppose if anyone ever mentions to you that Democrats and Republicans today seem the same, you can reply that they actually were from the 1790s to about the 1820s.

Before the split of the Democratic-Republicans, the Federalist Party was an existing rival group who supported, created, and ensured the survival of a strong United States Federal Government. The Federalists were a party, based mostly in the northern areas of New England and New York, responsible for creating our standing Army, Navy, Coast Guard, banking system and United States Constitution. You can see how the current Tea Party protestors inaccurately perceive colonial history by their claims that the Constitution is an anti-governmental document. Ironically, the actual anti-government Democratic-Republicans were against having a Constitution at all.

If colonial America did not put faith in the success of a powerful and central government, we would not be a united country today enjoying the wealth and success that we have come to assume to be the antithesis of governance. On a side note, it was the same mentality of eschewing central government which persisted to protect “States’ rights” as a means of preserving slavery. This famously led to the Civil War; in which the progressivism and stern governance of Lincoln saved the unity of this country.

As for what the more notable of the Founding Fathers may have wanted, The Federalists were no strangers to their membership. Their roster boasted the likes of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton (pictured above on the $10 bill), John Madison, and John Jay. George Washington, though not an official member due to his being President, and therefore neutral, ideologically agreed with the Federalists. These are same Founding Fathers in which politicians today, such as Mitt Romney, claim disdained government. But with such famed membership and important accomplishments, why have the Federalists faded from popular memory?

The reasons for this interpretation are not entirely clear. One could be relatively safe in guessing that the threat of Communism during the Cold War and that charismatic right-wing leaders, such as Ronald Reagan, shifted Americans’ behavior and self-image to the right. America joined the Allies in WWII to fight Fascism, which was the antithesis of Democracy. It was only shortly after the Allied Victory that America’s concern with preserving Democracy became eclipsed with a preservation of Capitalism in the face of a threat from the USSR. The US’s foreign policy included attacking democratically elected far-left governments, while arming brutal dictators committed to a capitalist economy. Regardless, it is entirely possible that the Cold War transformation of America could have changed its interpretation of colonial history and why the focus on a party committed to a strong, watchful, central government may have lost favor in the United States.

But the Federalists haven’t been completely forgotten in contemporary America. However, unfortunately, their legacy has been misinterpreted. As an ideological rival to the – more liberal – American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a conservative group of lawyers and law students took the Federalist name over 25 years ago. With a membership of over 20,000 practicing attorneys, The Federalist Society attempts to link the colonial Federalist Party with conservative ideals. With a silhouette of James Madison as their club’s symbol, the society is directly invoking the Federalist Party of old to their modern-day cause.

The only conservatives I can think of that would somewhat agree with the old Federalists are the NeoCons; conservatives more concerned with financial and corporate success than any domestic issues. This is because the Federalist party was composed of a great deal of Northern bankers and businessmen, as opposed to Southern farmers and plantation owners. NeoCons, though, cannot completely identify with the Federalists as their business practices are often at odds with the regulations that our Federal Government sets, such as immigration policies, minimum wage, environmental standards, and so on.

The true history of the Federalist Party and early United States needs to be better represented in the social and political spheres of American life today. I think the real silent majority of today acknowledges the benefits of central government, but remains silent because of the stigmas America places on left-wing thought (see: pinko). Perhaps the American left also needs a nationwide, progressive, grassroots organization – like the Tea Party Movement. I do not often commit myself to one political side or the other, but I would enjoy a movement that shows the world that it is perfectly American to want an efficient and powerful central government. Maybe, amid all the dissatisfaction with our current Democrats and Republicans, the spirit of John Adams, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton will be resurrected with the return of a newly invigorated Federalist Party.

2 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.