Tearing Down Statues
As the tearing down statues hype dies down in the mainstream media, there have been no real solutions. Much of this has been because the people who argue the loudest have no idea about what is really going on. This has led to calls for taking down Mount Rushmore or statues of the the American founding fathers because they may be offensive to some groups. This argument, of course, misses the whole point.
History has shown us that the winners get to put up statues and monuments. That's just how it is. This is important to the argument because of the specific statues targeted for destruction. We are taking down confederate statues.
For those not aware of American history, the confederacy lost the Civil War back in 1865. It wasn't just a close loss either. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman led the troops that burned much of the confederate infrastructure with his scorched earth policies. He also accepted the surrender of many of the confederate officers he encountered. This is a total defeat of the confederacy.
Many of the statues appeared a century later during the civil rights movement. Many southern white people didn't like that they were being forced to drink from the same water fountains as people with more melanin, so they balked. They wanted to remember back when blacks were property. This is why they put up the statues, not to commemorate their embarrassing total defeat.
Today, white supremacists like symbols, such as the confederate statues, as rallying points for their nonsense. These "people" have an affinity for losers such as themselves, as evidenced by their connection with nazis and the confederates. Since we discourage losers from getting too uppity, we are removing these focuses. Again, the statues are of the losing side, so we were really very nice about letting the losers have them in the first place.
What does that have to do with Mount Rushmore? The "it might offend someone" argument is never valid because you can always find someone who will be offended. The question you have to ask is, "Is the monument created to commemorate the people who won?" As sad as it is that we've nearly wiped out the indigenous peoples here, the natives cannot be said to have won in the big scale. The monument stays.
Some people will claim about life not being fair. What they really mean is that life is horrifically fair and they just don't like it. Part of life being harsh is that there are wars and someone wins and someone loses. After the war, the winners get to do what they want and the losers have to cope.
White Supremacists are Idiots
White supremacists are idiots. Except for them, everybody seems to know that. The usual argument about why they are idiots tends to discuss skin color and how that is not a good measure for a person. Today, I would like to try a different angle, maybe one even they can understand.
A big white supremacist rally took place in Charleston, South Carolina this weekend. There was violence and death. As a response, other groups have held protests across the country. Some of those groups oppose the supremacists, while other support them. The whole thing is likely to continue a while, but since everyone there is American, it's likely to simmer down so everyone can regroup.
During the white supremacist rally, did any of them stand up and demand to demonstrate calculus, like Newton and Leibnitz showed them? No. Did any of them offer to create a vaccine for smallpox, like Edward Jenner? Did any they demand to invent anything at all? No, they don't want to do anything that they think make white people so great. I wonder how many of them have ever heard of Jenner or Leibnitz.
Well, you may say, that's not really fair. How could they be expected to know every white person in history who did something notable? It would require lots of education or something.
Okay, let's talk about something they are likely to know. How many of them carried british flags? You didn't see any british flags? But Great Britain had an empire that stretch across the globe. The Brits conquered damned near everybody at one point or another, and it wasn't that long ago. If the white supremacists can't be expected to know individual white people, surely they should know an entire empire of world conquering white people.
How about French flags? Napoleon conquered almost all of Europe. That should count for something. How about Russian flags? The nordic Rus tribe are still an important ethnic group in the ruling of Russia; it's where the name "Russia" comes from.
You say you didn't see any flags of these particular white empires? Well, what flags did you see? Oh, those.
That's another reason why white supremacists will always look stupid. There are two main flags, along with variations, that they use: the Nazi flag and the confederate flag. Yes, I know that the flag we call the confederate flag was not the official confederate flag back during the American Civil War. However, this a century and a half later and when someone in America says "confederate flag" we all know they mean the stars and bars nonsense.
So, with a long history of notable white people and nations, the white supremacists use the flags of two groups that were thoroughly trounced by other people. The Nazis were utterly defeated on their own turf. Now, their symbols are illegal in their homeland. That's how badly they were beaten.
As for the confederates, Sherman burned as much of that nonsense as he could. If Andrew Johnson hadn't sold out his country by letting the southern states back in without fixing any of the trouble, that could have stayed burned. Instead, they were allowed to run around unpunished like naughty toddlers yelling, "The south will rise again!" They really need a spanking and a time out.
So, to reiterate the point, these people can assume to idiots because they rise up wrapped in all the glory of completely defeated other people. With all the other symbols they could have used to try to prove their point, they picked the worst ones. These people are stupid.
No More Weapons for Syria
President Trump cancelled a CIA program to give American weapons to anti-Assad Syrian rebels. For an assortment of reasons, this is both a very good think and a real jerk thing to do. I'll explain.
Assad is the dictator of Syria. In theory, the United States does not like dictators and would prefer to help rebels who plan to rise up and install a democracy. It doesn't always work out that way, but it's the noble idea. Supposedly, that's what we were doing in Syria.
We also have a rule that we will not assassinate the leaders of recognized countries. It's considered very impolite and just isn't done. Note that this does not include leaders of groups we consider terrorist or criminal. It also doesn't include a ban on encouraging the locals to assassinate people. We Americans are a civilized bunch.
Syria is a complex issue. It has its dictator, and it has rebels. However, there isn't just one group of patriotic rebels that we can describe as plucky. Instead, there is a host of factions, among them are forces from the Islamic State (called DAESH). The group that the United States has been arming is actually a collection of allied groups who are fighting Assad and DAESH and probably a few other factions as well.
To make matters worse, Assad has the military support of the Russians and there are reports of the Iranians supplying somebody in the fight. What a pickle!
One of the problems in this is that DAESH has been getting their hands on the weapons we send. In some cases, the rebels we support change sides. In other cases, they just lose the weapons or the weapon caches to DAESH troops. Either way, the Islamic State ends up with fresh American arms.
For those of you who know me, you know that I have very clear ideas on violent conflict. You know that I say you should do everything reasonable to settle issues peacefully. It is only when peaceful resolution is not possible that you resort to violence. Once the decision is made to use violence, the violence must be horrible, immediate, and decisive. If it's not, you just end up dragging out the war and resulting in far more people suffering. You cannot be a nice guy at war.
This leaves me with four levels of conflict from which to choose.
First: All Out War
If we really want to go into a country and support the locals in violently overthrowing their recognized government, we should go whole hog. This is my philosophy that once you decide on violence, the nicest thing is to make it so decisive and brutal that it minimizes the suffering of the survivors.
Second: Selling Weapons
If aren't going to go to war, but we are sympathetic to the cause of the rebels, we could always sell them weapons. Presumably, a group large enough to have the means to buy weapons (cash up front, no credit) has a reasonable chance of victory in their war. It is likely that they will be the next recognized government of that country and we can get on their good side early.
Third: Thoughts and Prayers
If we support the group, but they do not have the resources to actually stand a chance, we should not get involved. This may sound cruel, but it isn't. If they don't stand a chance, but we aren't going to go to war for them, they are probably going to lose. If we give them weapons, it will just take them longer to lose. The longer a war goes on, the more damage is done. These people have been struggling all this time and the survivors are just going to end up back where they were.
Why is this Good and Bad?
The reason that the decision to stop the arms shipments is that they should not have started anyway. Having fresh weapons just prolongs the fighting. Since we are not going to get involved enough for them to have a chance to win, we are just stretching out their suffering.
That's also why this is bad. We already started arming them and were their ally and not we are ditching them in the thick of it. What if you had a buddy who said he would back you up when you were being threatened in a bar, and then that same friend walked away when you started getting your backside beat. That may be the smart thing for the buddy to do, but you are going to hurt because of it. It would have been better for the buddy to say he wasn't going to help from the start, but encouraging you and then leaving is a jerk thing to do.
Without fresh weapons, these folks will be defeated quickly. The dictator who wins will know who they are and is likely to punish them. Since the rebels we were arming were also fighting DAESH, it is likely they will face retribution from that side as well. These people are screwed.
Learning the Lessons
After something like this, we have to ask not only what we can and will learn from it, but what will others learn as well. Our own lessons are easy: we won't learn anything. Sure, we could learn not to get involved if we aren't going in to win, but that is unlikely. We could learn the answer to the question, "Why do they hate us after everything we did for them?" That's not going to happen either.
There are some who will look at this and not ask whether it was a good idea. Instead, they will say it is an example of Trump being Putin's bitch-monkey. It will be viewed from the perspective how it can be used in American politics instead of viewed as the death of rebels that we set up and then let fall.
As for the rest of the world, the lesson will be clear. Many will see this and learn that help and friendship from the United States is fleeting and fickle. They will see that you cannot trust the U. S. and that you have to get what you can but not rely on it. They will learn that we are real jerks sometimes.
The big question, of course, is what did you learn?
The New Persian Empire
Sometimes, my brain decides that it wants to hold a particular image of things. This is normal and most people's brains do the same thing. What concerns me is when my brain decides to have a concrete image of something in the future. That's what happened in the case of New Persia.
Today, what remains of the Persian Empire is the nation of Iran. The empire itself was more or less a thing from about 550 b.c.e. With a few minor breaks for invaders who disrupted everybody (Mongol hoards, for example). Their last emperor, referred to in the West as the Shah, was deposed in the late seventies and dies in exile.
There is still an exile government called the National Council of Iran. Their main goal is to overthrow the actual sitting government of Iran. That doesn't seem to be going too well, and I wouldn't expect too much from it.
The actual current government of Iran is an Islamic theocracy. Though they are fairly harsh from a western point of view, they aren't as radical and wildly destructive as groups like the Islamic State. However, the Iranian government does not get on well with western powers, particularly the United States. It seems that when the Iranians got rid of the Shah, who was pretty much a dictator, the U. S. and the British helped put him back in power and he promptly dealt with all the people who overthrew him. When they kicked the Shah out a second time, they captured the American embassy, leading to what we call the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Today, we still don't get along with Iran. To the West, the Iranian government are fundamentalist whackos who want nuclear weapons. The the people in charge of the current Iranian government, the Americans are a bunch of degenerates who destroy, kill, and corrupt anybody and everybody. Sure, there are citizens in both countries who are more moderate ("discomfort to the infidels!"), but the official positions are hostile to each other.
As much as we may dislike the government of Iran, we have to admit that Iran is one of the more stable countries in the middle east. This could have something to do with the fact that a huge majority are Shia Muslims and all other religions add up to a tiny minority. Also, the culture is strongly influenced by the long-standing Persian culture and less by the more tribal Arabic culture found neighboring countries.
Back to my imaginings, though, and I see a time in a century or so where Iran has expanded to encompass more of the old Persian Empire. I see their borders extended westward to take in almost all of Iraq (leaving a sliver of the north to the Kurds who would be too much trouble to fight). I also see that border taking a chunk out of the east side of Saudi Arabia, and maybe a little sliver out of the southern border of Turkey.
How could this happen? Why would the U. S. and its allies allow such a thing? I'm not sure yet. I have a few guesses, but that's all they are. There are two major points that affect the American response.
First, if Iraq becomes more unstable it would be reasonable that the Shia people there would ask for assistance from their Shia neighbors in Iran. Much like Russia's recent annexation of Crimea, this would give Iran a reason to march into Iraq to protect "their people" living there and then choose to stay. If the result was a sudden increase in stability in the region, it would be hard to argue against it and Iran's borders would be permanently stretched.
Help from the Dragon
It has already been seen that China been extending its reach into the Middle East, coming in through Pakistan and wanting partnerships further in. It would be easy to see them backing Iranian expansion. If nothing else, this would irk the U. S., but, more importantly, it gives them better access to Middle Eastern oil reserves. The American government may be willing to push back against Iran, but doesn't want to pick a fight with China at this time.
The second thing I see happening is a reduction in interest from European countries. Many countries in Europe have pinned their hopes on renewable energy sources with less pollution. They don't want to rely on oil for anything. More importantly, they don't want to have to deal with refugees from the Middle East. Anything that keeps the peace where the refugees come from will be somewhat welcome. If Iran is involved in stabilizing the region, even through expansion of its borders, many Europeans will see that as a good thing. The English may be the exception, but they are sort of responsible for a lot of the turmoil there in the first place.
Help from the Bear
The third thing involves Russia. Russia likes to annoy the Americans easily as much as the Chinese, if not more. They also tend to be more comfortable with dictatorships and harsher forms of government. We see that now in Syria where Russia has sided with the dictator instead of the rebels fighting him. Note that the U. S. is on the side of the rebels. If there is an agreement for the Russians and Iranians to fight the Islamic State, the Americans won't be in a position to do much about it. That hard-line coalition can move into the Islamic State held areas, set up a "peace keeping" force and just settle in. The Russians, with memories of Afghanistan, would probably be willing to let Iran have the real control of the area.
If Russia really wants to be sure of its welcome in the Middle East, they just have to come down in favor of a Palestinian State. If they say the current nation of Israel was created by the British Empire and other western countries (over guilt about the actions of the Nazis), they are basically saying Israel is not a valid nation. The rest of the Middle East will welcome the Russians with open arms.
If these things come to pass, the borders of Iran would expand as described above. Over time, I also see their hardline regime being mellowed by the practicalities of actual life. They will still be an Islamic theocracy for the next couple of centuries, but what that means may change with so many people to rule. They will have to adapt to interacting with the rest of the world, starting with Russia and China. As their isolation crumbles, some of their cultural defenses will crumble too. As we saw with the Soviet Union, you can get more change with blue jeans and burgers than you can with ballistic missiles.
The Romans learned early on that conquered peoples have to have a path to becoming full members of your society. When the new Persia opens up schools that teach the Persian language (as spoken in Iran) instead of Arabic, the culture will change, but change can happen in lots of ways. Their own culture will have to make small concessions to be be more open and inclusive. If not, their new empire may not last more than three centuries.
So, that's the image in my head. That's what I see as a stabilizing occurrence in the Middle East. That's what I foretell about the New Persian Empire.
The Lessons of Brexit
A little over half of the United Kingdom just voted to leave the European Union. The fallout is still to be determined, of course. Though I don't actually have any say in the matter, not being British, I still think of leaving as a stupid move. Someone I know argues that the Brits have simply voted to maintain their sovereignty and that is a good thing. That argument misses the point.
Imagine that you have a tray in front of you and on the tray there is a fork and there is a flower. You are presented with the choice to either smell the flower or to stick the fork in your eye. You may say that it is your right to choose. I will not argue that point; it is definitely your right to choose. However, if you choose to stick the fork in your eye, I am going to call you a moron. (Actually, I probably won't use such a family-friendly word.)
Having sovereignty doesn't automatically require that you be be separate. You have the right to get into cooperative partnerships that benefit you. Choosing to break such partnerships just to spite your partners is probably not in your best interest. It earns you the same respect that you would have gotten from sticking a fork into yourself.
Since the vote, reports of racial and xenophobic crimes have increased in England. That tells you a bit about the ones who really wanted to get out of the E. U. At that point, you may want to ask yourself if you want to side with those people. If you have to ask, "Those people are really horrible; am I one of them?" you may want to rethink your position.
You may be wondering what business it is of mine. That's a good question too. Here are your answers. First, as you may have heard, this exit has caused great disruption to the world economy. An economy only works if everyone is playing by the same set of expected rules. When the rules change, people get nervous and stop playing. In this particular case, no one knows what the new rules are going to be yet. It is going to take a while for all of this to settle down.
Second, rises in nationalism, particularly when accompanied by xenophobic violence, has had a bad history on this planet. It wasn't that long ago that perfectly rational people elected One-Nut to power. (Technically they elected his party to power and the party elected him chancellor and things just got a little crazy from there.) It doesn't take much to stampede normal people into wholesale, stupid violence.
The third reason this concerns me is that many of the people who voted to leave have characteristics of loud, angry people in the United States. I have to wonder if this encourages the locals or if they can learn from the Brits. In general, I don't associate learning with these particular people. There is a good chance that we could have a little exit from good sense of our own.
Regardless of where you stand on the Brexit, or the upcoming American elections, you can probably agree that people should do some thinking before they vote. Representative government works best when the voters are informed about the subject or person they are voting on. Fortunately, I have enough nihilism in me to not worry about it too much.