Reasonable thinking and new ideas.A blog about a varitey of topics: politics, government, philosophy, news, etc.
“The Siege of Gibraltar reveals the War for American Independence as a global war. Far from being an isolated military conflict confined to North America and affecting only those living in the rebellious colonies, the war touched the shores of Europe, the waters off India, and even the shoals of Great Britain. These engagements directed British resources away from America. And the British people, rather than sitting safe and secure an ocean away from the action, as is often assumed, were combatants who lived in fear of invasion. […]
France, after entering the fray on the side of the Americans in 1778, turned to its southern neighbor, Spain, and encouraged it to join them in the fight against Great Britain. Spain refused at first, but in 1779 it agreed to an alliance, in part because France promised to make the capture of Gibraltar a war aim. In the summer of 1779, the two countries amassed a fleet off the Spanish coast and then headed toward the English Channel with a plan to launch an invasion. They hoped to strike a decisive blow that would force England into a quick capitulation. […]
As these events make clear, North America was not the only theater of war during the American Revolution. While engagements beyond the shores of the United States may not have mattered much to the rebels—in fact, there seemed to be almost no knowledge of any of these events within America—they mattered a great deal to Europeans, especially the British whose interests and nation seemed under constant threat. Indeed, the decision by British officials to reallocate resources to fight battles in Europe may have contributed to the American success at home. The persistent fear of invasion may also explain Britons’ growing weariness with the war.”-Patrick Spero, History Now. [emphasis added]
France’s role in the American Revolution is well known, however many do not know about the global nature of the war, or Spain’s involvement. Spain’s role (even though limited) is not very well researched and an aspiring historian who is fluent in Spanish could make a living by scouring Spain’s archives and writing about Spain and the American Revolution.
(Photo: The Siege and Relief of Gibraltar, John Singleton Copley, circa 1783. via Wikipedia)
The Cuban Missile Crisis: 50 years later
“Long after the world thought the Cuban Missile Crisis had ended, with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s withdrawal of his medium-range nuclear missiles announced on October 28 — and two days after President John F. Kennedy announced the lifting of the quarantine around Cuba — the secret crisis still simmered.Unknown to the Americans, the Soviets had brought some 100 tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba… Even with the pullout of the strategic missiles, the tacticals would stay, and Soviet documentation reveals the intention of training the Cubans to use them.”
Apparently, the Soviets had second thoughts about leaving the tactical nukes behind.
“In desperation, Castro almost begged Mikoyan to leave the tactical warheads in Cuba, especially because the Americans were not aware of them and they were not part of the agreement between Kennedy and Khrushchev.- Svetlana Savranskaya, Foreign Policy.The Soviets had their own Cuban crisis: They had to take back what the Americans called the “offensive weapons,” get the U.S. to confirm its non-invasion pledge, and most importantly, keep Cuba as an ally.”
Eric Hobsbawm (1917-2012)
Anyone wanting to understand the modern world would be wise to read Hobsbawm’s trilogy of the 19th century:
The Age of Revolution, The Age of Capital, and The Age of Empire.
“No serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist … Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not true.” -Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780
The Past, Present and the Future
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from the everlasting to everlasting… The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually destroyed.”
- George Orwell,1984.
When Heritage and History Fall Victim to the Blindness of Religion
Radical Islamists are striving to not only control Muslim countries, but also their history. Actually, Islamists are trying to destroy their non-Islamic past. Pre-911, the Taliban made news when they destroyed the giant statues of Buddha that were carved into the side of a cliff. More recently, the Salafists in Egypt said that the faces of Egyptian pharaonic statues should be covered in wax. Just a few days ago, militant islamists in Mali destroyed temples that were recently named as a world heritage site.
“Salafi group reaffirms call to set Egypt’s Pharaonic relics in wax,” Sarah Sheffer, Bikyamasr.com.
“The spokesperson for the Salifist Call, Abdel-Men’em Shahat, has reaffirmed and defended a call for covering Egypt’s treasured Pharaonic relics with wax, claiming that they resemble false idols.
In comments to al-Rai al-Aam newspaper, he reaffirmed his call for “covering the faces of the Egyptian Pharaonic statues with wax because they resembled the idols that were present in Mecca… We do not want to scare the Egyptians. We want to implement Islamic Sharia as ordered by God Almighty.”
”Why the Taliban are destroying Buddhas,” W.L. Rathje, USAToday.com.
“In Afghanistan recently, supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued an edict against un-Islamic graven images, which means all idolatrous images of humans and animals. As a result, the Taliban are destroying all ancient sculptures. Explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan Province, 230 kilometers (150 miles) from the capital of Kabul… The world community — from Russia to Malaysia, Germany to Sri Lanka, and, of course, UNESCO — has expressed horror at the Buddhas’ destruction. Many Mullahs in Islamic countries condemned Mullah Omar’s interpretation as wrong-headed and damaging to the image of Islam.”
“UNESCO laments ‘tragic’ destruction of Timbuktu shrines,” ArabNews.com.
“The UN cultural agency UNESCO on Saturday deplored the “tragic” destruction by Mali fundamentalists of shrines in the city of Timbuktu that were listed as world heritage just days earlier… “Ansar Dine will today destroy every mausoleum in the city. All of them, without exception,” spokesman Sanda Ould Boumama told AFP through an interpreter from the city. He added: “God is unique. All of this is haram (or forbidden in Islam). We are all Muslims. UNESCO is what?“
Politicians have always used history to promote and justify themselves and their agendas, and to manipulate and control people. Now, history is being destroyed for the same reason.
*The title and two of the articles were taken from a series of tweets by @BobNaja.
Footnotes From History
I’ve been reading Civil War: St. Louis by Louis Gerteis. Early in the book he provides some background information to set the stage for the conflict. He writes about the influence of Jacksonian populism upon the first Missouri constitution (1820).
The Missouri constitution “held stockholders personally liable for the debts of the corporations in which they were invested. The constitution also forbade the incorporation of more than one bank in the state.”
This made me curious, so I read through the 1820 constitution, while I did not find anything about holding stockholders personally liable for the debt of corporations, it did contain an interesting section on banking.
Article 8 places some harsh restrictions upon banks. Only one bank is allowed in the state. That bank may not have more than five branches. The constitution even went as far to limit the size of banks in terms of how much capital they could raise, and required that the state be given control of half of the bank’s stock:
“The capital stock of the bank to be incorporated shall never exceed five millions of dollars at least one-half of which shall be reserved for the use of the state.”
Additionally, Missouri relied on a strict ‘hard money’ policy. As it turned out these draconian measures were too restrictive to allow the commercial sector to thrive, and merchants had to get by using a hodgepodge of currencies issued by other states (mainly Illinois). Eventually, the system collapsed in 1842 when the Bank of Illinois shutdown-it never recovered from the depression of 1837. One of the main causes the the bank’s trouble was the issuance of too much unbacked currency.
In an era of ‘too big to fail’ it may be worth resurrecting this notion of limiting the size of banks, however as history shows us, we should be careful of going too far.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned here is moderation.
Clarification on Problems Surrounding the Debt
Earlier today I shared a link to a blog post that I wrote about the national debt. This link was re-blogged (which I appreciate) by Noirworld who included some commentary that made me think that I was unclear. So I would like to take this opportunity to clarify.
First, the blog post that I shared was a follow up to a previous article that I wrote. Here are links to both articles:
1. The National Debt: Washington….We Have a Problem
