So finally we approach the end of the history of 17,000,000,000 years compressed into 10 weeks - surely many details had to glossed over to accomplish this!  History holds interest for me if the stories are compelling.  Well, there are plenty of compelling stories, some inspiring, others horrifying.  Knowing that mere cataloging of facts is not feasible due to storage and time constraints, the choice of which items to catalog is limited given the need to narrow the focus. We are then left with a subject matter more resembling philosophy than a "hard" science.  And once we stipulate this and sign on for it we can enjoy the ride.

Strayer assembled his collection of stories for his own reasons, but the impact of the collection on the reader is bound to be as varied as the reader's own life, or endlessly varied.  It is easy to read histories and find a dreary litany of sins and crimes.  These are there for the finding, in plenitude!  But why can one reader get depressed by this while another is energized?  The depressed reader is more likely to echo the sadness documented in history.  There is another factor at work which is quite appropriate for NDNU - faith.  Faith is what enables one to read about the indignities of the world, even the scourging and execution of Jesus, and still see a more positive outcome ahead.

The in-class discussion about what lies ahead after the modern era touched on many things but not much on evolution.  Society is evolving, quite rapidly in fact, and this involves some serious growing pains and dramatic fits and starts. We often focus on the one step back without recognizing the two steps forward which preceded it. The second coming, the end times, the apocalypse, these things are not, cannot be known to us.  The person of faith believes in a promise from God, that things are getting better.  We can't always see it, that's why it's called faith!  If we choose to believe the words, those things will come "like a thief in the night." 

The chapters on the religions of the world managed to capture some facts about the people involved in large movements without giving much thought to what impels men in this direction to begin with.  While people do have imaginations, does this account for the nearly universal quest for greater understanding of the universe and one's roll in it? Or for love itself?  We observe the animal kingdom exhibiting some aspects of caring for offspring, even affection among members of the animal community but does this explain love?  Love is these things but is also far more than them.  The existence of God has great explanatory power as well as great predictive power.  The only thing keeping it from meeting the hallmark of a science is the lack of an empirical body.

Strayer and other historians bear a responsibility to present their collections of historical facts in such a way as to inspire the readers, not discourage them. To be purely lurid in recounting history makes one the equivalent of popular movies which alternately titillate and overwhelm the senses while rarely offering a message of hope.

Hope is all well and good on its own but we also have the responsibility to act.  Our actions can be the actualization of our hopes.  In class the question came up "What will the future historians make of our acts?" While this is highly speculative, if they can say we acted sincerely, wisely, intentionally, lovingly, then we have nothing to worry about. Being judgmental is a part of human nature but who's judgment is most important to the person of faith, God's or some unspecified future historian?

As our path through history leads us closer to the present we finally have the opportunity to comment on things that may have even happened in your own lifetime!  The past and the present are getting closer although like asymptotic lines approaching the horizon they will never actually meet.  It's worth remembering that our actions in the present are fashioning our combined futures in the same way that our progenitors built the arena in which we act.

While man has always had a dark side to his history a major distinction must be drawn between the actions of the lone criminal and the state-sanctioned and coordinated mass depredations which dwarf the power of the individual.  The organization of society has made possible the organization of killing.  All the wars of conquest, all the violent suppressions of dissent, all the reigns of terror, all the search for enemies have been optimized and scaled up to monstrous levels.  The only hope for mitigating this sad history is in the realization by all men of the brotherhood of all men.  When men see themselves as men and not as citizens, members, or subjects of nations, kings, religious movements, or ideologies the power of these groups to mobilize people for killing will be broken.

There is the bitter irony of looking at some of these horrifically evil governments and ascribing best of intentions to them.  In one sense the problem is not with the governments as they are simply doing what governments do very well - accumulating power, cementing control, growing inexorably larger and reaching ever farther into the live of people.  In this sense the problem begins with people of good intention who made a fatal error in expecting government to somehow do something other than what they are by nature inclined to do.  This is the fatal flaw behind all the totalitarian excesses frequently cited, the Nazis, the Fascists, the Soviets, the Red Chinese.  In all these cases there was a core of zealots all too happy to use the hammer of government to impose their personal vision upon the world by any means necessary but they were enabled by a passive populace who were enamored of the idea of letting a government take charge of protecting their liberty and well-being when this is really the peoples responsibility.  I go so far as to say this way of thinking is tragically mistaken and can never end well for people.

The horrors of the 20th century are the horrors of the total state writ large, unleashed upon a world which seems unwilling to face the truth about this abusive relationship. There are many who not only refuse to learn anything from the mistakes of the past but are determined to double down like crazed gambling addicts.  Along with the recognition of the brotherhood of man we can only be saved by an increased embrace of self-determination and a rejection of the hollow promises of the state.

Revolutions are less to be preferred to evolutions.  The frustrations that mount up and eventually spill over in revolution get out of control and risk unleashing even more unfortunate results than what they are revolting against.  I'm partial to the American Revolution but like all revolutions it has had some unfortunate consequences also. 

The American Revolution is striking for several reasons which distinguish it from other revolutions of note.  First, the extent of the violent fight itself was more confined to combatants and we don't hear the stories of mass brutal reprisals from the British - given the potential propaganda value of such incidents it is telling that they are not a part of our shared cultural legacy.  The civilian populace didn't face the "reign of terror" so much a part of the process or aftermath of many revolutions.  The pro-British Americans were under some pressure from the revolutionaries to be sure, and some fled to Canada or Britain for comfort.  We don't hear about mass roundups of either side to be exterminated.  The US and UK have strong relations since those times so it is understandable that unpleasant histories might be suppressed, but historical truths do have a way of being kept alive in small pockets and resurfacing from time to time.

The next great distinction is the vision of the founding fathers in crafting the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.  Every revolution has a manifesto but few are as thoughtful and constructive as the Declaration of Independence.  Being formulated in such an analytic, dispassionate way it served as a brake on the typical bloodlust evinced by revolutionaries on the recently toppled.  The argument has been made that the founding of the US was not benefit to the indigenous people or to the slaves - to this I can only counter "how much better would those parties have fared under colonial rule?"  The British didn't have a spectacular record of treating the Indians well, and while the British abolished slavery earlier than the US did, they were able to do so in such a way that the upheaval was mostly felt in the colonies, not in their homeland.

Whether by some quirk of their national character, or denied expedient circumstances, the British did not exact a heavy tribute from the newly formed US in the manner of the French treatment of Haiti.  The Haitians have never recovered.  This can be attributed to many things- neocolonialism, racism, or the failure to establish a system of private property rights which would enable wealth creation in a fashion similar to the US.  The Haitians shook off nominal French rule but replaced it with servitude every bit as onerous. The first time I heard of Toussaint Louverture, his name was the title of a track on a Miles Davis album.  This aspect of history is not taught in public school.

The French Revolution was the first great example of the forces of the mob, once unleashed, turning on themselves with a vengeance, at a vast human cost.  The scale of the bloodletting was not to be seen again until the Russian and Chinese Revolutions much later.  The French thirst for bloody vengeance made any early, peaceful end to the tumult impossible. The message writ large in this history is a warning of about mob rule, the lack of a check on ambition, and the ability of the best intentions to bring ruin to a nation.

Compared to national revolutions it seems inappropriate to use the same word applied to the Industrial Revolution.    While this societal transformation displaced a large number of people from their traditional ways of life and overturned an established order, it was not a violent overthrow.  The Industrial Revolution was the start of man's liberation from a life of toil.  Man should always know work and the character-building benefits of it, but he also needs free time for rest, play, worship and self-improvement.  The one caveat to all this, and applicable to political revolution too, is that man's wisdom and benevolence has not kept pace with his technology.  When this finally happens through evolution, not revolution, men can know lasting peace and prosperity.

The noted distinctions between oriental and occidental, or Asian and European culture and history, can be reduced to a critical factor – individualism.  The Asians tend to be focused on the greater society while the Europeans developed a culture of the individual.  This is a simplification because just as not all Asians are conformist drones, not all Europeans are rugged individuals either.  But, just as any myth or stereotype contains a germ of truth, there is something to this argument which bears investigation.

Racial homogeneity is a frequently cited factor in the more-social orientation of the Asian cultures.  This orientation does run quite strongly through the cultures of China, Japan and Korea.  Close scrutiny of their histories shows us however a multitude of leaders.  The argument is made that the dynasties of China were a force for a cultural homogeneity unknown in Europe of that period.  This is not to say that they were immune from conflicts, insurrections, and intrigues very similar to those experienced in Europe.  Somehow the contention that Chinese history is somehow more unified persists.  I will readily concede that one bit of evidence in support of this assertion is the relative lack of competing languages present in the territory of greater China compared to panoply of languages throughout Europe.

The European cultural model is proposed to have evolved differently due to the competition resulting from a multiplicity of nations states with shifting borders.  The question is whether this is an example of correlation or causation – what came first, a predisposition to individualism or an environment amenable to greater liberty from a central authority?  The empirical evidence is that Europeans managed to maintain distinct national identities even throughout the various wars of conquest and empire which populate their history.

In direct contrast, the Chinese experienced a greater sense of being Chinese in a large context unlike the Italian who might be able to acknowledge living in Europe but is nonetheless an Italian.  The concept of being a European is a geographical association, or a matter of political alliances (which history shows us are subject to frequent shifting) more than an identity to be embraced by a whole society.

The Europeans (and by extension, the Americans) developed the concepts of natural rights, private property, and individual liberty in ways which the Chinese never did.  It remains to be seen whether the current or future generations of Chinese will make this transition form society-centrism to individual-centrism (the reverse of this may be speculated, and even desired by some.  As a champion of the individual over the state, my personal disposition would find it regrettable if the west were to be more like the east in this regard).

“When goods don't cross borders, armies will" is a well-known quote attributed to Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850) (although in some dispute as evidence suggests that was actually written by Otto T. Mallery (1881-1956)). This quote is a perfect epigram for the discussion of the various historical trade roads: silk, sand and water. The superiority of trade to warfare as a means to cross-pollinate cultures is nearly self-evident but if the reader wishes to consider this notion as merely unsubstantiated opinion then the conversation has reached an impasse. The aftermath of warfare has historically been at least a partial rapprochement between different tribes, nations, or peoples but at a horrific cost. Whatever positive outcomes have resulted from the mingling of the conquerors with the conquered, trade is the means of achieving these same beneficial consequences with much less pain.

If all this seems obvious to the casual observer then the question must be raised, “Why do rulers let war happen?” The answer is found within a quirk of human nature which finds expression in rulers – it may even be an inevitable derivation or consequence of the very concepts of rule and rulers. This quirk is the compunction to control others. When this compunction has been firmly rooted in the psyche of a ruler, the ruler is as bound to it as is the lowly subject of the realm. Mobilizing a society for war is the ultimate act of control.

Rulers fear the independent trader. The native-born trader is able to escape the grasp of the ruler, at least until his return when, laden with foreign treasures he may buy favor. His return also harbors the possibility of importing foreign ideas which may be inimical to the reigning powers. The foreign-born trader must be allowed safe passage from the dominion lest risking a declaration of war from the trader’s own nation (not that the ruler cares about the well-being of the expatriate as other than as a political pretext for intrigue). Of interest in this connection is the case of Marco Polo and his reception in the Far East. Here we see the value of the distant foreigner as a novelty and an amusement for the king’s pleasure. The very independence of the trader is anathema to the control-bound ruler, the trader's freedom of travel is a rebuke of the ruler's need to control that save travel.

Free-ranging is not without its own risks which include banditry, exposure, disease, and possible ruin. A key distinction here is that these risks are voluntarily undertaken by the trader for the possible rewards incumbent on successful completion of the mission. This stands in stark contrast to the compulsory nature of conscription, military service, and the imposition of taxes and duties to fund the military adventures of the rulers.

The shrewd ruler utilizes the means at his disposal, whether propaganda, appeal to nationalism and xenophobia, or portraying his person as the embodiment of his people or the gods, to forge a collective mindset completely at odds with the independent trader. The trader may seem to be out only for himself, and indeed his self-interest is a powerful motivator in its own right, but for all that he effects positive exchange without recourse to violence. A seeming paradox is the way that the self-directed trader brings prosperity and harmony as by-products of his trading activity initiated for solely selfish reasons while the ruler talks of unity and strength while his plans put into practice actually spell misery and death for those under his sway!

I was thinking that sustainability issues could play a part in the quantity of bloodshed evident in man's history. The obvious connection is the competition for natural resources (particularly fertile land and fresh water) which drove, at least in part, the wars of conquest. A tribe or state with desirable and poorly defended land is an easy target for an aggressor concerned with acquiring these assets. Killing the losers in this conflict relieves any necessity for feeding them or otherwise diverting resources away from the victor. At the very least, putting the vanquished to work as slaves might increase the yield of the land enough to cover the carrying costs of those extra mouths to feed.

That all seemed obvious enough, but how to explain deadly cruelty enforced against one's own people as practiced in ritual human sacrifice, especially on the scale of the early Mesoamericans. Not to excuse it, but it is understandable that a despot seeks elimination of his adversaries and potential rivals. A political prisoner is an added cost burden, a dead prisoner carries no more fixed costs with the possible exception of becoming a cause celebre through martyrdom. Something deeper is at work in the case of ritual human sacrifice. We saw the Egyptians and Chinese burying servants or slaves to accompany their dead leaders in their afterlife journeys. Implicit in this practice is the fact that there was a surplus of available bodies to fill this duty call. If human life were dearer, not only in a sentimental manner but in terms of the survival value for society at large we would likely see much less cavalier dismissal of living humans.

As an offering to "the gods," human sacrifice has at least a(n) (arguably faulty) logical basis. Then the question becomes "how much sacrifice is needed to achieve the goal," the goal being a good harvest, victory in battle, whatever the cause du jure may be. Once power is in the hands of the priest class, whether through the merging of political ends with the ends of priest-craft, or through some sort of collective mindset which provides a positive feedback loop reinforcing the perceived rightness of such courses of action we see the institutionalization and expansion of killing.

It was interesting to consider the seminal thinkers in light of this topic. While they were outwardly linked by connection to subsequent religious movements (or more properly a philosophical movement in the case of Socrates) there is one of them which jumps out at me as an exception. "The Prophet" Mohammed was not only involved in proselytizing, he was quite militant about it. Some of the other major religions feature lesser degrees of proselytizing but Islam as promoted by Mohammed himself was a major turning point in the function of war itself. No longer was conquest solely about the rivalry for food and water (which in turn led to considerations of power and security) but conquest in the name of religion was introduced. The rationale for war expanded from the arguable rational (at least inasmuch as a logical case can be built in support of) to the irrational, understood in this context to mean the province of faith, of the zealot and not strictly comprehensible prima facie.

Empires are a bloody business.  The great enterprise of conquest requires tremendous capital to get off the ground.  Treasure and a surplus of population are needed to man an army.  In one sense empire building can be seen as evidence of man’s ingenuity given the planning and logistics involved at the outset, in the strategic arena above the tactical level which has distinctly different characteristics.  As in mobilization for extensive public works there is a need for focusing the efforts of many to serve the ends of few, even the ends of one, be it king or general.  Besides the obvious imposition on the soldier, war is a tremendous imposition on all of society with the losses of men, the squander of treasure, and the general diversion of energy away from more productive pursuits.  But somehow this mobilization occurs.  A population is convinced, cajoled, seduced, compelled and brought to believe that somehow their war of conquest will bring more in return than is lost in the process.

War of conquest has served over time to mix peoples of different backgrounds and to broaden the cultural influence at work within any given society.  While this can be viewed as a benefit it is hardly the only, or best way to achieve this.  Free peaceable trade and travel meet this end without violence and the lingering feuds which outlive conquests.

The inescapable connection is evidenced between warfare and the rise of the state.  Many arguments are put forward about the state being a vital defender, including Stayer on page 118.  However, the state is most vigorous in defending its ruling elites.  Besides warfare, the state is ruthless with rivals among its own populace. As for the rest of society it is hard to say their lives would be any more dangerous without the existence of the warfare state. It is interesting to speculate about will be possible when man’s ingenuity is directed completely towards life enhancement instead of warfare.

It is relatively easy to understand the conceit and power-lust which motivates leaders.  It is a far more interesting question to consider what it is that makes people fall in with war.  People generally love their own families, those that don't are considered criminally insane.  Societies will evolve when a broader recognition of the family of man takes hold and supplants the earlier vestigial hatred of the outsider.  Religion is one possible mechanism to steer man in that direction, however religion must avoid the temptation of imitating the state and pitting its adherents against the non-adherents.  Only when religion can rise above sectarianism can it truly deliver a harmony based on a family of man implying brotherhood of all men under one father.  

The question for me is this: does being civilized just mean living under the control of a state?  If this is so then it follows that prisoners are the most civilized of us all!  I counter that civilization is instead an individual status.  From this it easy to reason that a civilized society is one in which a certain critical mass of individuals have evolved into civility.  Unanimity is not required but plurality is.  One may be a in a civilized minority amidst a barbaric majority - a condition which may describe our present situation, or be a minority barbarian in a largely civilized society.  Viewing the dichotomy this way conserves a respect for the individuals involved, the sort of respect which states sadly lack in most cases.

Studying the history of these conflicts is best viewed as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.  As an end unto itself it is a dreary litany.  As a means to seeking ways to do better next time it is more helpful.  It is also a valuable reminder of what to avoid, which behaviors will invariable end badly, and the sad legacy of unchecked ambition and power.  The fact that this pattern has been repeated wherever people have settled is proof of our common humanity, or at least certain impulses which are shared.  The one bright spot in all this is that same ingenuity of man.  Even now ethics, philosophy and religion are influencing man, there is a moral evolution running alongside the evolutions of civilizations and technologies albeit these evolutions don’t always run in lockstep.  The existence of a temporal lag between these different evolutions does not mean that they aren’t happening.  It can be difficult to focus on the bigger picture in light of the relative length of time for evolution to unfold but given the timeline analogies considered last week it is clear that the pace of change is accelerating in a manner reminiscent of Moore’s Law.  The scale still exceeds an individual’s lifespan but the pace of change has brought about incredible progress in an amount of time practically insignificant to geologic time, or deep history.