Tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, archduke of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and his wife. Sure, there was a genuine conspiracy to kill him, but in the end it came down to one man, Gavrilo Princip.
When he shot Archduke Ferdinand, it set into motion the deaths of untold millions. World War I was just the beginning of it. Trench warfare, chemical weapons, tanks, machine guns, all created to fight a war which need never have happened. Men were mowed down by the numbers trying to fight an old-style war with modern weapons. Empires fell, revolutions changed countries, borders were altered. When it was all over everybody said it was the war to end all wars and set to ensuring it would never happen again. To that end they wrote the Treaty of Versailles, putting the screws to Germany. Had they but known what they were doing they would have done anything else.
Thanks to that treaty, Germans spent the next 15 years simmering in resentment, culminating with the rise of a former Austrian corporal who was always mindful of what came to be known as the stab-in-the-back legend, the idea that Germany didn't lose, their politicians simply quit. Yes, World War I was instrumental in the coming of Adolf Hitler. Perhaps you've heard of him.
So now we have World War II and more untold millions killed, finally ridding ourselves of the future potential for disaster by totally destroying Europe and dividing Germany for the next 45 years. Except that we didn't rid ourselves of anything, because World War I was also instrumental in the ascension of the Bolsheviks and the formation of the Soviet Union. They also killed millions, as did we through the proxy wars of Korea and Vietnam, along with several other skirmishes through proxy states and the like.
So, what can one man do? Gavrilo Princip might not have been the person that created the political environment that ultimately precipitated vast death and destruction lasting to the present day, but he was the catalyst for it. Don't ever underestimate your potential. You too can change the world. Only in your case, try not to kill the wrong guy.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Resolved: The Civil War Was About Slavery
Today I came across the commonly-offered argument that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but "states rights", a term that has regained currency in recent years. I consider this to be extraordinarily disingenuous, an attempt to whitewash history. And whitewash is definitely the term to use in this case.
The reason, of course, is because the war was about states rights. Unfortunately for the people who argue that, they never finish the thought. The end of that is "to own slaves". That's right, the Civil War was about the southern states' right to retain the "peculiar institution" of slavery. To argue otherwise ignores the known history of the abolitionist movement and everything leading up to the Civil War. Should we ignore the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision? Should we ignore the aftermath of the war, when the South fought Reconstruction tooth and nail until it was ended as a result of the compromise that installed Rutherford B. Hayes as the President? How about Jim Crow, Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal, the "Lost Year" in Little Rock, and the necessity to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
Shall I go on? I didn't even scratch the surface of the virulent racism in this country, both before and after the Civil War. But we are expected to believe that the Civil War was about non-specific states' rights that were being abridged by the northern states, ones that have never been named? Sure, we ought to just take their word for it in this case.
The Big Lie: it works everywhere it's tried. Goebbels had nothing on the good ol' boys. Only in this case, it's a lie that doesn't go away. It didn't die with a Confederate defeat, it didn't die with integration, it didn't die with legislation. And it's still passed around as absolute truth.
There is only one bit of good news: anybody who says it identifies themselves as a racist and an idiot. And that's no lie. Thank God for small favors.
The reason, of course, is because the war was about states rights. Unfortunately for the people who argue that, they never finish the thought. The end of that is "to own slaves". That's right, the Civil War was about the southern states' right to retain the "peculiar institution" of slavery. To argue otherwise ignores the known history of the abolitionist movement and everything leading up to the Civil War. Should we ignore the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Dred Scott decision? Should we ignore the aftermath of the war, when the South fought Reconstruction tooth and nail until it was ended as a result of the compromise that installed Rutherford B. Hayes as the President? How about Jim Crow, Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal, the "Lost Year" in Little Rock, and the necessity to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
Shall I go on? I didn't even scratch the surface of the virulent racism in this country, both before and after the Civil War. But we are expected to believe that the Civil War was about non-specific states' rights that were being abridged by the northern states, ones that have never been named? Sure, we ought to just take their word for it in this case.
The Big Lie: it works everywhere it's tried. Goebbels had nothing on the good ol' boys. Only in this case, it's a lie that doesn't go away. It didn't die with a Confederate defeat, it didn't die with integration, it didn't die with legislation. And it's still passed around as absolute truth.
There is only one bit of good news: anybody who says it identifies themselves as a racist and an idiot. And that's no lie. Thank God for small favors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)