Book Thoughts: A DISTANT MIRROR

A DISTANT MIRROR, by Barbara Tuchmann is a compelling look at the 14th Century. It takes you beyond the major players into the "people on the ground". Granted, the major players are a big part of the narrative, but for once you get a feel for the impact on the "ordinary folks". Reading a high school textbook, you miss so much of what really happened. I, for one, did not realize that the Black Death was not a one time occurrence. Yes, it wiped out a tremendous amount of people in one year, but it came back in smaller waves over and over again.

The rulers of that era played the game of Monopoly, using their children(usually the girls) as pieces of power brokering. Giving a 6 month old girl in marriage to a 28 year old king or prince has it's share of issues. War seemed to be more of a way to gain financially or to serve as a means to attain glory than anything else. The rulers would pillage their own people to gain financially, whether by taxes or actual pillaging.

What I found most aggravating was the role the Church played. They didn't seem to REALLY care about people, just about money and power. I found also that several of the tenets of both Protestant and Catholic Church today were devised during this time period. That is not a compliment and truth be told, the politics within both the Protestant and Catholic Churches today rival those of the 14th Century.

I came away from the book both enlightened and angry. Enlightened in the sense that I felt I understood a great deal more of history. Angry because I felt lied to by the textbooks and by the church. It certainly gave me a whole new way of seeing the present and future in relation to the past. I feel better for it, even though betrayed by those who randomly, it seems, have taken the title historian. If we whitewash the past, are we helping ourselves? How is it that we seldom hear about the advances they made, instead we are led to believe that the past is bad and the future/present is good? Being in Europe, their sense of history, reflected in the refusal to destroy past in order to "bring things up to date" is refreshing. The past gives us a sense of permanence in a changing and volatile world. We need that.

DANGEROUS GAMES: Book Thoughts

Margaret MacMillan, in her book, DANGEROUS GAMES says "out loud" what those who have spent time studying history have thought for a long time. Discussing the uses and abuses of history can be a volatile subject. What country wishes to be indicted for using history to manipulate their citizens. Too many times history is used as rationale for doing things that should never have occurred. On the other hand, history can be used to help understand other nations and cultures. One of the difficulties I deal with is seeing using history as reason to be arrogant to the rest of the world. Is it really the responsibility of the U.S. to arrogantly take the position of "world policeman" when so much is not under control within its own borders? How can we attempt to force other nations to "see it our way"? What would be our reaction if things were reversed? We arrogantly assume that everyone should have a democratic government without considering their unique circumstances. It has not really been all that long since Europe has left the feudal/clan type of governing and some of Europe still operates a great deal under that umbrella. If the clan approach has difficulty getting along with each other, how do we expect them to be able to agree as a whole on a national level? If we look at Afghanistan or a good share of the Middle East, we find the clan mentality. Why can't a war be won in these areas? Because you are fighting a feudal war not a war for national democracy. These people just want to be left alone and see our attempts a "making life better" as attempts to take away what they have and are used to. A good share of these people are the equivalent of serfs and peasants, with very little education and skills. The danger in messing with their culture is to create an economic imbalance and/or collapse. Do we really have the right to tell another nation how to live?

What happens when a nation says, "We owned a certain chunk of land in 1088 B.C. and we want it back since we had it before the current owners."? Do we take the land from one and give it to another? What if Spain wanted California back? Or the American Indians the U.S.? Haven't we done that in past cases? Why do you think Palestine is so uncomfortable with Israel? It seems that just like those who have no children, feel themselves expert at raising them, it is easier to tell someone else how to do things than to have someone else tell us those things.

I agree that history should serve the function of preventing repeats of negative outcomes, but if it isn't used judiciously, it serves to not just repeat, it is used to rationalize stupidity. I'm sure that it would not be "politically correct" to admit that the real reason we went to war is to stimulate our own economy,or because we have a vested interest, but it would sometimes be the truth. The United States brags that it has never started a war, but that is subject to interpretation, depending on the definition they used when beginning the engagement. Besides, sometimes "poking a sleeping snake" enough causes it to strike sooner or later. Granted, some of the governments of other nations are not "up to our standards", it is not our job to mess in their lives. We preach human rights and such to others, but have problems at home. Perhaps the best option would be to "take the log out of our eye", so we can see to" remove to speck of dust" in another nation's eye.