"To compensate a little for the treachery and weakness of my memory, so extreme that it has happened to me more than once to pick up again, as recent and unknown to me, books which I had read carefully a few years before . . . I have adopted the habit for some time now of adding at the end of each book . . . the time I finished reading it and the judgment I have derived of it as a whole, so that this may represent to me at least the sense and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it." (Montaigne, Book II, Essay 10 (publ. 1580))

Friday, April 27, 2018

Iron Kingdom - The Rise and Downfall of Prussia 1600-1947 (Christopher Clark, 2006)

(688 pages)

Rather lengthy, but always interesting.  Helpful in thinking about "Germany" (which always gets confusing).

Prussia starting as just one of many smaller states (if one of the larger ones) in what remains of the Holy Roman Empire.  Austria later emerges as single largest force within HRE.  Russia at varying strength over the years but often looming as a dominant force (with Poland in or out of existence as a buffer state).  France to the west; Napoleonic era creates continuous turmoil.

Prussia emerges as a not-quite-major player in 17th century while benefiting from a series of long-serving and quite competent rulers (Frederick William (the Great Elector (reigns 1640-88)); Frederick I; Frederick William I; Frederick II (the Great - reigns 1740-86).  Picks up territory via various devices.  Helps that Prussia is an Elector in the Holy Roman Empire selections.

Author points out how Prussia has been portrayed - primarily in the aftermath of World War I - as a monolithic enterprise - single-mindedly given to efficiency, militarism, ruthlessness; dominated by the eastern Junker aristocracy (deeply conservative); etc.  This author explains that things were much more complicated than this view (which had propaganda uses).

For one thing - there were significant divisions within Prussia, and between Prussia and the balance of Germany.  Prussia included Polish (Catholic) provinces plus western provinces that weren't all that well assimilated.  Bismark's 1860s defeat of Austria - followed by victory over France in 1870 - led to Prussian leadership across a mostly-combined Germany - but it was a very short time period up to 1914 - lots of variation persisted among the German areas.

I also see references that Humboldt's education system was designed to create state-serving drones - this description sounds much different.  Enlightenment concepts took root, all seems quite promising; but fundamental tension between king's control over the military, and the way elections and civil matters were handled - never resolved.

Germany's position as a crossroads didn't help - constant threats from east and west - the two-front concerns of World War I and II had existed for centuries based on real problems.  Keeping a large standing army was helpful for maintaining independence and influence, but downsides.

Recommended.  Gift from PJr/Nedda.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

A Forgotten Empire, Vijayanagar - A Contribution to the History of India (Robert Sewell, 1900)

(291 pages)

Gift from Chris and Dharma.

Author was a British civil servant with interest in Indian history; his book pulls together information about a powerful empire in southern India named Vijayanagar which rose and fell from 1316 - 1614 (dates approximate); author also includes information from two Portuguese contemporaries who visited.

I learn that the main ruins are in a town (UNESCO site) named "Hampi" - it looks quite amazing on Google Earth.

Interesting on many levels.  For example - so much of the action is happening right around 1500 - close in time to Columbus, Martin Luther, Charles V - so much dramatic stuff happening simultaneously.

Much conflict between Islamic forces and Hindu forces - Islamic groups pushing down from the north; author speculates that Vijayanagar came together as southern India groups recognized the need to combine forces to fend off the threat from the north.

Also interesting - the Portuguese making their presence felt - while quite significant, I didn't get the impression that they were balance-tippers the way whites tended to operate in say Mexico and Peru.  Probably because the indigenous armies were so huge, or at least reported as such.

As with so many successful empires (or family businesses, for that matter) - dynamic, charismatic, successful leaders in the early going; then things start to slip.

The chroniclers (Islamic and Western both) report huge armies (complete with cavalry and elephants), temples, city walls, festivals - and admit a reader might be skeptical of the reported numbers - I wonder exactly how large these were.  Really large, I'd guess.  Certainly would require incredible organization, tax-collecting capability, wealth - even if numbers are somewhat exaggerated - to muster anywhere near the kind of forces described.  Whatever the facts, it must have been pretty impressive.

So much driven by religious differences - or perhaps just land/power grab by persons of a different religion?  Hard to tell where that line falls.

The quoted Muslim sources, and the English author - both tend to discuss Hindu practice in terms of heathens, idols, etc.  While describing religious practices (temples, fasting, dietary principles, feast-day celebrations, etc.) that in many cases would seem right at home in a Christian setting.

Very focused on kings and battles, also life at court.  A little more daily-life stuff would have been good.  But:  I liked it.

Thursday, April 05, 2018

The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature (Steven Pinker, 2002)

(453 pages)

Book club selection (via Lon; session held 1 April 2018).

Pinker currently in the news in relation to a new book on the Enlightenment (which I've not read).  As one might expect, reactions seem to track political leanings.

I found this earlier book quite useful, quite interesting.  Author describes three beliefs that have taken root - the Blank Slate; the Noble Savage; the Ghost in the Machine.  Goes through the background of each, and how each has been adapted for various ends. I do catch myself relying, explicitly or implicitly, on all or elements of these three beliefs - perhaps the highest value of this kind of book is that it occasionally helps the reader to "catch" oneself when this happening.

Much of it is the "nature vs. nurture" discussion - for various reasons a large number of academics and politicians downplay the "nature" part - genes, heredity, whatever - he theorizes as to why so many cling so fiercely to viewpoints that defy common sense and what I think we can say is human experience.  All is not subjectivity!

I continue to believe that the notion of "original sin" seems basically correct.  Civilization is fragile.  Humans have overcome bad tendencies but those tendencies remain inside everyone, in varying mixtures.  (By "bad" I probably should say "techniques we evolved to deal with then-circumstances.")  It's a short step to regression.  The good news:  on the whole, progress has been impressively positive.

Something that strikes me:  it's very hard to definitively "know" anything (specifics of nature/nurture being one of many examples). We need to be super careful about how much we know or ever can know.  Much "science" is just surveys and group testing, ugh.  Replication failures abound.

We live in a strange era - where influence of genes, gender, etc. is aggressively denied - yet everyone knows it's there.  Denying or hiding data will backfire (may help explain 2016 election, for example) - yet "no-platforming" is spreading.  Oddly, the "party of science" halts discussion of race, gender, climate, etc.

Sometimes I think the oddly excessive feelings on these topics, the no-platforming, the public shaming of heretics, is new.  But then I think of Galileo; reading a Prussian history where 19th century students are behaving similarly; all the religious fighting over the centuries; live-and-let-live seems inexplicably difficult!

Something that is new: surfeit of what one commentator calls "Intellectuals Yet Idiots" - highly educated but nonproductive types - throughout history, societies weren't wealthy enough to maintain all that many IYIs - exceptions would be royal siblings, folks in monasteries - and it was hard for them to reach an audience in any event.  Now IYIs are everywhere; two main effects that will sustain the madness:

1. Colleges, and now governments and corporations - filled with Diversity Coordinators, and Rape Counselors, and Whatevers - their jobs depend upon emphasizing group differences and injustices.  (Of course there are plenty of historical and current injustices, but there also is an increasing cure-is-worse-than-the-disease problem.)

2. Folks needing to write a "new" thesis for PhD or whatever - a broken system, too many of them, often trying to stand out, no one ever has or will read these papers - but they are embedded in the academy.

Be gentle and of good cheer and keep conversing!