The wars commemorated on “Cinco de Mayo”

In 1862, the Battle of Puebla was fought in Mexico. Specifically, Mexican forces defeated the invading armies of France on the 5th of May. Thus, on “Cinco de Mayo,” the anniversary of this battle is today celebrated by some Mexican Americans. This is the most famous legacy of the war today. But why did the French want to invade Mexico in the first place? What can we learn from another French intervention in Mexico, which happened in an earlier decade? And how can we understand these two French interventions in Mexico … in their broader historical context? These are the questions that I will be trying to answer today. I will try to mention other nineteenth-century wars fought by either France or Mexico. By so doing, we can achieve a greater understanding of these two interventions, their connection to the American Civil War, and the “Cinco de Mayo” holiday.

Photo of Queretaro taken during the battle there – Mexico, 1867

A few problems with Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” (Volume One)

“We have further seen that the capitalist buys with the same capital a greater mass of labour power, as he progressively replaces skilled labourers by less skilled, mature labour power by immature, male by female, that of adults by that of young persons or children.”

– Karl Marx, in “Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie” (“Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”), Volume 1 (published 1867), Part 1, Chapter 25

So I recently finished reading the first volume of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital.” It seemed to me that many a fallacy could be found therein. A few examples may suffice here to show how the problems with “Das Kapital” seem to begin in the very first volume. Thus, without further ado, let me launch into some of the problems with Volume One. They include faulty definitions, self-contradictions, circular arguments, and many other problems – as I will soon show.

Karl Marx

Why your utopian scheme will never work (and may even make things worse)

How I fell in love with my homeland (the United States), particularly in early childhood

Since the earliest years of my childhood, my family and I would go to visit my grandparents’ home in California. Fireworks are perfectly legal where they lived, so we would always celebrate America’s Independence Day with some fireworks, right there in my grandparents’ back yard. It seems safe to say that I enjoyed the fireworks, long before I learned anything about the holiday that these fireworks were supposed to commemorate. As I’ve mentioned in a few other blog posts, I grew up on the stories of the American Revolution. Specifically, sometime in elementary school, I read an illustrated children’s book about the American Revolutionary War. I remember my childhood admiration for General George Washington, and my feeling betrayed by the treachery of Benedict Arnold. I may have lost some of my admiration for the fireworks (old age does that), but I still have great enthusiasm for America. And I’m still happy to watch the fireworks with family, because I know that it helps them to experience these patriotic feelings that the holiday encourages. I also love the freedom of religion that comes from our Bill of Rights, which made it possible to have a Restorationist church like my own. I also love freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the other rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. I was born in the United States in Sacramento, California – with both sides of my family having been American citizens for generations. I also grew up hearing about how one of my grandfathers had served in World War II. Specifically, my Grandpa Wells served in the Pacific as a Marine. Long before I understood just what a terrible sacrifice that was, I knew that he had put his life on the line for his country – and I knew, in some little-boy way, that this was important. My other grandfather (along with the intervening generation of my own father) got me into World War II movies. When I entered high school, these two generations on my dad’s side got me into the Civil War as well. All of these things remain lifelong interests today, and remain part of my love of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, whom I shall soon quote herein

George Washington crossing the Delaware, 1776

Why I am fascinated by British history

“That it is the right and privilege of the subjects to protest for remedy of law to the king and parliament against sentences pronounced by the lords of session, providing the same does not stop execution of these sentences.”

– Claim of Right 1689 (or “The Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland containing the Claim of Right and the offer of the Croune to the King and Queen of England”), Paragraph 41 – as passed by the Convention of the Estates, a sister body to the Parliament of Scotland

Exposure to British history (and larger British culture) in my early childhood

To some degree, I actually grew up seeing the British as the “bad guys” of the American Revolution. They were the tyrannical regime against whom we had been fighting during our war of independence. Thus, it actually surprised me to learn that the British have since become our most important allies (as I describe here). I remember being surprised, for example, at seeing British and American soldiers fighting alongside each other in various World War II movies. I grew up on many movies, historical and otherwise, that took place in the British Isles – or had British characters, of one sort or another. To some degree, that’s because Americans routinely watch a fair number of British movies, like the various Harry Potter movies of my youth. And, even in many American movies, British characters and ideas can figure prominently in the story. Playful stereotypes of the British can show them as “stuffy” and “unemotional,” while the British (in their turn) sometimes portray Americans as unsophisticated “cowboys” and “rubes.” Nonetheless, the two sides of this “great Atlantic divide” usually see each other in a more favorable light today. And, in many ways, this is as it should be. The controversies of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 are usually put aside when Britons and Americans interact, and most disputations on these subjects tend to be fairly good-natured today (although they would not have been such at the time). In high school, I was often watching movies and reading books which undertook to depict the British experience of World War II. These movies are a great contribution to the history, and I learned much from watching various British movies about their own (truly vital) role in this conflict. These included “The Dam Busters,” “Battle of Britain,” and “Sink the Bismarck!” (among others).

Why we ignore British history at our peril

“The archbishop or bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same? --- The king or queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop or bishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments? --- King or queen. I will.”

– First part of the coronation oath of British monarchs in Sir William Blackstone’s time, as quoted in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 6 (some of the oath’s wording regarding the monarch’s duty to Parliament has since been changed)

I should acknowledge that every known civilization has left its distinctive mark upon the world. But Britain’s influence upon world history, including through its daughter country of the United States, seems particularly great. In the history of the world, I hold Britain’s influence to be pretty much incomparable. In my opinion, even the influence of the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, or the Republic and Empire periods of Ancient Rome, may not quite compare to the influence of Britain. Again, the influence of the United States could be seen as being merely an extension of this British influence. It seems to have been the British Isles that gave birth to a government … answering to most of their people. (More about that later on in this post.) I understand that the influence of other civilizations is also great, and I have likewise covered some of their truly-salutary influence elsewhere. For example, I have covered India here, China here, and Japan here. I have covered Mexico here, Brazil here, and the distant African continent here. But nearly every post-Renaissance civilization has been influenced, to some degree or another, by the sons and daughters of the British Isles. Some of that influence has been good, and some of it has obviously been rather bad. But all of it has been important, in one way or another, for the history of the larger world.

Forgotten world empires: The rise and fall of the Dutch Empire

During the Enlightenment, the Netherlands were one of the world’s great imperial powers. They were then one of the freest countries in the world. They had a large measure of freedom of religion, as well as a high measure of free markets. These things contributed to make them one of the greatest powers of their time. This might seem ironic, because Holland was then (and still is now) a small country. But its robust economy gave it power far beyond its numbers. The Dutch colonial empire rose to be one of the greatest empires in the world. But, eventually, most of that empire was lost, and the Dutch Empire then went the way of many other great empires of the past. Obviously, there is a darker side to this colonial empire, as there was with every other such empire in history. But there may still be a few things to learn from their astonishing success story. And we might also be able to learn a few things from this empire’s decline and fall.

The Amsterdam Stock Exchange, circa 1670

The long-neglected contributions of New Zealand in World War II

“This is not an occasion for many words; it is a dark day in the history of the world … It is with deep regret and sadness that I make this announcement on behalf of the government [of New Zealand], and the people will receive it with similar feelings. That will not, however, affect the determination of both government and people to play their part.”

– Peter Fraser (then the acting prime minister of New Zealand), on 3 September 1939 – the sitting prime minister (Michael Joseph Savage) was then recovering from colon cancer, and was thus unable to declare war for the country for himself

The role of New Zealanders in World War II has long been neglected elsewhere …

World War II may well have been the subject of more documentaries than any other single topic in history. For example, there is the landmark British miniseries “The World at War,” and the “BBC History of World War II.” The American perspective has been depicted by Ken Burns’ “The War,” and the Canadian perspective has been depicted by “Canada at War.” And the Australian-made documentary “ANZAC” covers the Australian perspective. But that documentary has very little mention (indeed, almost no mention) of the contributions of New Zealanders – the other “ANZAC” nation. (More about that acronym here.) Moreover, I’ve been unable to find any documentary that focuses on the New Zealand perspective of World War II. If you are aware of such a documentary, please feel free to leave a comment below, telling me and my readers something about it. This popular omission is a shame, because the “Kiwis” (as New Zealanders are sometimes called) suffered much in World War II. Among the British Commonwealth nations, they suffered more than any other nation except the United Kingdom itself. That is, more than 1 in 130 New Zealanders died in World War II. This is higher than the death rates of South Africa, the United States, Canada, and even India and Australia. In New Zealand – and, to a lesser extent, Australia – Kiwi sacrifices are remembered every “Anzac Day,” on the anniversary of the 1915 beginning of the Gallipoli invasion. But the contributions of New Zealanders tend to be mostly forgotten, in almost every other part of the world. In fairness, this may be because New Zealand is a somewhat smaller nation, whose very existence is usually forgotten in some more distant parts of the world. But the unique Kiwi contributions are still worth remembering today, and have some unique drama of their own.

Wellingtons of the Royal New Zealand Air Force – England, 1939

Both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped our modern world

During the Middle Ages, much Greek learning had been preserved in the nearby Arabic world. It was also preserved in the Byzantine Empire, until that empire’s downfall in 1453. But it was only during the Renaissance that this Greek learning was rediscovered in Western Europe. The Western world thus gained renewed access to the original Latin and Greek versions of key philosophical texts. And with this new emphasis upon the older Greek learning … came an increased emphasis on the Greek methods of pursuing truth. Free inquiry had now been revived in the West, and it would be exemplified in some further progress in the years to come.

Raphael’s “The School of Athens,” a Renaissance painting that dramatized Greek learning

The Philosophers’ Meal, an Enlightenment painting of several of the French Encyclopédistes

How the Founding Fathers warned us about tyranny

“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

– John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” (published 1689), Chapter XVIII

An anecdote about how Sparta installed its “Thirty Tyrants” in Athens after a war

In 404 BC, a Greek city-state (Athens) was utterly defeated in a war. Athens had been fighting the Peloponnesian War, and the war had initially gone well for the Athenians. But the Spartans, sadly, won the war in the end. Thus, the Spartans installed their own puppet regime in Athens. It was simply called the “Thirty Tyrants.” The word “tyrant” originally meant something like “absolute monarch,” or “absolute ruler of a polis” (with “polis” meaning a “city-state”). Incidentally, the word “monarchy” comes from Greek words meaning “rule by one” – or “rule by one person.” But, as the name “Thirty Tyrants” indicates, there were instead thirty of them. Thus, the Thirty Tyrants were more like an “oligarchy,” which comes from a few Greek words meaning “rule by a few.” Incidentally, the term “oligarchy” has since come to have a negative connotation in English. As early as Ancient Greece, Aristotle was describing an “oligarchy” as the corrupted form of an “aristocracy” (which comes from Greek words meaning “rule by the best”). Regardless, whatever you call them, the Thirty Tyrants turned out to be a terrible regime. As Wikipedia puts it, “the Thirty became known for their tyrannical rule, first being called ‘The Thirty Tyrants’ by Polycrates.[footnote] Although they maintained power for only eight months, their reign resulted in the killing of 5% of the Athenian population, the confiscation of citizens' property, and the exile of other democratic supporters.” (see source) A century later (that is, in 304 BC), Agathocles of Syracuse adopted this same title of “tyrant.”

Pisistratus of Athens – who called himself a “tyrant” in this older sense, but was still popular

The French Wars of Religion: The Catholics strike back

Why did Protestantism never really catch on in France? (History gives us the answer)

Catholics are still nearly half of the population of France. Specifically, they now make up 47% of the French population, as of 2021. (see source) Another 33% of the contemporary French population identify as having “no religion.” Less than 3% of the French population is Protestant today. How did it come to be that way? Why is Protestantism such a tiny minority in France? Why did Protestantism never really catch on in France, the way that it did in nearby England and Holland? The answers seem to lie (at least partially) in the French wars of religion. These were a great victory for the Catholics. During the Renaissance, a massive civil war erupted between the French Catholics and the French Protestants. It was partly over control of the throne, because the powerful monarchies of the era had considerable influence upon the state religion. The sixteenth century was generally the era of the Protestant Reformation. In Germany, Martin Luther published his “95 Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. This led to the formation of the Lutheran churches. This was also the century of King Henry the Eighth, in the nearby British Isles. In defiance of the Pope, King Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. He thus created the Church of England in the process. And, in France, John Calvin was still alive when the French wars of religion began. The battles over the state religions in these European countries … continue to have massive consequences to this day.

Massacre at Vassy, 1562

A review of “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War”

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

– Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1865)

The first episode covers events in Reconstruction under President Andrew Johnson

In 2004, PBS released a three-hour film called “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” (not to be confused with this film). As far as I know, “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War” was PBS’s first attempt to cover this unknown (but still important) subject. This prior 2004 film used a more traditional delineation of when Reconstruction began, and when it ultimately ended. PBS’s “Reconstruction: America After the Civil War” came out in 2019 – fifteen years after the prior film. Both films start their story in roughly the same place. That is, major combat in the American Civil War was now ending with the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. We can only guess as to how Abraham Lincoln would have handled the complicated issues of postwar Reconstruction. This is because Abraham Lincoln was soon murdered by an assassin’s bullet in 1865. This meant that the task of Reconstruction would now be passed to his Southern-born successor Andrew Johnson. Andrew Johnson had remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War, but he was still a committed racist. This would have important consequences for his policies regarding the former slaves, and how they were to be treated. The first episode of this film focuses on the Andrew Johnson portion of Reconstruction. Andrew Johnson served for nearly four years, finishing the term that he had inherited from Abraham Lincoln. (He had been Lincoln’s vice president for roughly a month before that.) But Andrew Johnson soon became the first president to be impeached. For these and other reasons (too complicated to detail here), Andrew Johnson thus failed to be elected in 1868. More about the reasons for this well-deserved failure here.

Freed blacks voting in New Orleans, 1867

Is it better for hobbies to be broader or deeper?

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? I did another post tackling this question somewhat, in the context of both professional development and formal educational settings. As I said in that post, there are advantages and disadvantages to using both approaches. But, today, I’d like to focus on how this might work with one’s hobbies – at least, when those hobbies are distinguished somewhat from professional development. That is, one of the most important aspects of a hobby is just to have fun, particularly when one’s job is stressful and demanding. And, for present purposes, being a full-time student or a stay-at-home parent would count as a job. For purposes of simplicity, I am assuming with this answer that one wants to learn something while they’re engaging in their hobbies. That is, I am assuming that, if you’re reading this particular post, you’re the kind of person who enjoys learning things of one sort or another. It’s all right if you don’t want to learn very much, but I will address this particular post to those who do. (More for those who don’t in other posts.) Being a generalist and being a specialist both involve learning some new things. Moreover, both can require some minimum aptitude and intelligence (in at least one or two particular areas) to get these things right. Thus, with that said, let me now dive into the question of whether a broader approach or a deeper approach (or perhaps some combination of the two) will give you more fulfillment in your hobbies.

The gold funerary mask of Tutankhamun, a symbol of Egyptology and Ancient Egypt

What undergraduate major(s) should I choose to become a lawyer?

“The ABA [or ‘American Bar Association’] does not recommend any undergraduate majors or group of courses to prepare for a legal education. Students are admitted to law school from almost every academic discipline. You may choose to major in subjects that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school, such as history, English, philosophy, political science, economics or business, or you may focus your undergraduate studies in areas as diverse as art, music, science and mathematics, computer science, engineering, nursing or education.”

– Website of the American Bar Association – and, specifically, their page on “Pre-Law”

I once thought about going to law school. Moreover, I got a bachelor’s degree in business, which is one of the more traditional routes for entering the legal profession. But I have never so much as applied to a law school, let alone gotten in or out of one. Thus, I freely admit that I am not an expert on this topic. But it is a topic that I have thought about often over the years. I’ve read some legal classics, such as the Federalist Papers – or Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” Thus, I have some experience (after a fashion) with the law, at least in a narrow sense. Thus, I would like to offer my perspective on what kinds of undergraduate majors would be most helpful for law school.

Magna Carta replica and display, in the rotunda of the United States Capitol

To be clear, this is not intended to replace studying the ABA webpage on this subject, which is simply entitled “Pre-Law.” Indeed, I plan to quote from this page often in this particular post. This is just intended to supplement their most definitive webpage with some brief commentary of my own. I will here be focusing on the six majors that are considered to be traditional preparation for law school. This is because, with one exception, these are the relevant areas about which I personally know the most. As the quotation above shows, there are six traditional law school preparation majors. In their words, these are “history, English, philosophy, political science, economics, [and] business.” I will start with English, the only one of these subjects with which I lack any substantial personal experience. Otherwise, I will adhere to the sequence in which they mention these six subjects, giving my commentary on each of them in turn. So let’s dive into the English major first.

United States Constitution, which is still the supreme law of the land in this country

Historiography: A fancy word for the “history of history” (among other things)

It’s long been believed by the public that Marie Antoinette said the famous (or rather, infamous) line: “Let them eat cakes.” Modern historians have questioned the authenticity of this claim, and it is not at all certain that she actually said it – the debate is still ongoing. Even for those of us who do question this account, though, the claim that she said it is still a part of the history. This is because it’s been told for so long that generations of schoolchildren have grown up with the story. Therefore, the issue of whether it happened must still be grappled with, whenever the history is taught to each succeeding generation. It is part of what historians call the “historiography” of Marie Antoinette. This basically means how the story has been told ever since the original events happened – both by academics, and by popular sources. I should note that not all of these retellings have been so bad.

Marie Antoinette

A review of “Stock Frauds, Manipulations, and Insider Trading” (audiobook)

So I was recently listening to some additional presentations from an audio series about investment. This particular installment was called “Stock Frauds, Manipulations, and Insider Trading.” I found out that it was actually two presentations: one about “Famous Frauds and Stock Manipulations,” and one about “The Story of Insider Trading.” Both were as interesting as I expected them to be, and brought back fond memories of my days as a business major.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Country Music” (PBS)

Back in 2001, Ken Burns released a television history of jazz music. I was a big fan of that series when it first came out. I never imagined then that Mr. Burns would later be doing a television history of country music. But, in 2019, the series “Country Music” was released on PBS. Ken Burns’ “Country Music” is actually 16 hours long. This isn’t as long as his “Jazz” series, which was 19 hours long. Nonetheless, one can certainly learn something about the music’s history in 16 hours. There are some kinds of history that could probably be better explored in books. This seems to be because books can go into greater depth than even the longest of television histories. But you’d have to be pretty good at reading sheet music, to get much out of a book on this subject. And, even then, there’s no substitute for carefully listening to the period musical recordings. The visuals can certainly help, too, and Ken Burns is a master at finding period visuals – such as photographs and film footage from the time. But, in an inherently audio-centered subject like music, the advantages of the television medium seem to outweigh the disadvantages. The chief drawback of a television history like this one is usually its relative brevity. But, with a series that’s a full 16 hours long, this seems to be less of a problem here. You can see and hear the musical history in all its glory, and also learn something about the nation as a whole in the process.

How the Great Northern War facilitated the rise of Russia

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment both saw some major wars in Northern Europe

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment both saw some major wars in Northern Europe. They have gone down in history simply as the “Northern Wars.” I should acknowledge here that this is an international topic. Perhaps partially because of this, there is actually some controversy about what to include here in the simple term “Northern Wars.” There is even a significant controversy about the very names of these conflicts. Because of this, I will try to avoid controversial terminology like the “First” Northern War, or the “Second” Northern War. These are not internationally accepted, since there is no international standard for the nomenclature here. Thus, I will try to use neutral terms which are clearer, in an effort to avoid names that will be interpreted differently by different groups. Regardless, they would ultimately culminate in the “Great Northern War.” This was one of the greatest conflicts of the eighteenth century. In this case, the name is accepted much more widely. And it is also acknowledged that this was the largest (and last) in this great series of wars.

Peter the Great assaults Nöteborg, part of the Great Northern War (circa 1702)

A review of PBS’s “The White House: Inside Story”

“Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man [such as a president] in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 70)

We hear a lot about the “big historical events” of the American presidency. And, to some extent, this is as it should be – some events may just be more worthy of frequent mention than others. But what about day-to-day life at the White House, in either the past or the present? And what about the architectural history of the White House building itself? These are some of the questions that this program attempts to answer, in its brief two-hour runtime. This program was made in 2016, when Barack Obama was still president. (He left office on January 20th, 2017.) And, fortunately for the filmmakers, President Obama was very cooperative with them in allowing them to film various parts of the White House. As the filmmakers note in this film, thousands of people still tour the White House on a typical day, seeing rooms that are actually used for official state functions. That is, they don’t just see “show rooms,” but actual buildings that are regularly used for Washington business. They may see a dining room where a state dinner was recently held, or the Oval Office where the president does much of his business. In some ways, the White House is similar to a palace, which is on loan to whoever currently holds the office. But, if so, it’s a very democratic palace, full of American history stretching back to the country’s founding.

The White House after the fire of 1814

A review of Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” (audiobook)

In the United States, Thomas Paine is primarily remembered for his work “Common Sense,” and for some other stirring words written in his other work “The American Crisis.” (Words like “These are the times that try men’s souls.”) But relatively few have even heard of his 1791 work “Rights of Man.” The work was written in response to Edmund Burke’s 1790 work “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” To describe that work in detail would be tangential here, and I plan to do so later in another blog post. Thus, suffice it to say here that Edmund Burke was a major critic of the French Revolution, which was still going on when both men were writing these works. In this, Edmund Burke was closer to other American Founding Fathers besides Paine, such as John Adams and George Washington. Both of these men eventually shared Burke’s negative view of the French Revolution.

Thomas Paine

An overview of the New Zealand Wars

“The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the seperate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen [Victoria] of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said Confederation or individual chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.”

– Article 1 of the “Treaty of Waitangi” (1840), today considered the basis of the unwritten constitution of New Zealand

Early contact with Europeans, the Musket Wars, and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840)

European ships reached New Zealand as early as 1642. But the two main islands of what is now New Zealand were already inhabited by the Māori, as you may know. The British explorer James Cook arrived in 1769 – and, over the course of three voyages, Captain Cook eventually mapped and circumnavigated New Zealand. Of course, Māori wars predate European contact – but they took on a somewhat different character when European weapons like the musket arrived. This led to the native “Musket Wars,” which went from 1818 to sometime in the 1830s. (It’s hard to know exactly when these wars ended.) On 6 February 1840, William Hobson and his British associates signed the “Treaty of Waitangi” with some of the natives. Its anniversary is today celebrated as the national holiday of New Zealand. It is simply called “Waitangi Day” there. The local Māori tribes were convinced to sign. They had to cede many of their rights to the government of Queen Victoria, much to their chagrin. In return, Queen Victoria recognized their rights as “British subjects” (see the further quotes from the treaty below). Thus, one might say that the “Treaty of Waitangi” forms the basis of the unwritten New Zealand constitution – just as the Magna Carta forms the basis of the unwritten British constitution. But there were soon early engagements between the Māori and the British, such as the Wairau Affray in 1843.

The earlier Musket Wars, a Māori conflict influenced by the European musket

Hōne Heke cuts down the flagstaff on Flagstaff Hill at Kororāreka

The Great Turkish War: How Europe fought back against the Ottomans

In the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was making many enemies in Europe

The seventeenth century was rocked by several wars in Europe. But this century also saw a few major wars in the Middle East as well. For example, there were the forgotten Mughal-Safavid Wars. These wars were fought intermittently for many decades – before, during, and after the seventeenth century. There was also another major power in the Middle East, which was the Ottoman Empire. Unlike these other powers, it had ambitions in Continental Europe itself. The Ottoman Empire had been expanding further and further into the Balkans, and even into Central and Eastern Europe. But the Ottoman Turks were then making many enemies in Europe. Thus, the Ottomans were getting a little over-extended there. The Turks would soon be facing coalitions of several European powers – including the Russians, whom they had faced in two prior wars. The Ottoman Turks had also fought a few wars against Poland in the past, and would soon be facing the Poles again in this struggle. And some prior conflicts with the Habsburg monarchy would also be re-ignited in the coming struggle. Sadly for the Turks, there would be other enemies for them, as the Europeans decided to fight back against the Ottoman incursions. United by a common interest, their alliance would soon prove formidable to the Turks, in a conflict sometimes called the “Last Crusade.” Small wonder, then, that the Ottoman Turks would remember it simply as the “Disaster Years.” But the rest of the world would usually remember it … as the “Great Turkish War.” Like the prior Mughal-Safavid Wars, the “Great Turkish War” would prove one of the greatest conflicts of the seventeenth century. In this conflict, much of Christian Europe would band together, in a “holy resistance” to the Muslim invaders.

Battle of Vienna, 1683 – the opening battle of the Great Turkish War

Battle of Párkány, 1683 – part of the Polish-Ottoman War

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: A metaphor for the ages

Plato wrote many great works, such as his records of the trial of Socrates. Specifically, his work “Apology” alone alone could earn him a place in the pantheon of Western philosophers. But his work entitled “Republic” is different. It seems to be best known today for its near-totalitarian political philosophy. Specifically, in that work, Plato advocated a philosopher-king with absolute power. I’ve never been a big fan of this particular part of the work. In fairness, Plato was writing more than 2,000 years ago, and did not have the kind of hindsight that we have today. I have more mixed feelings about Plato’s theory of forms, another doctrine detailed in the pages of “The Republic.” It’s not a very practical theory, but it may be among the first attempts in history to grapple with the problems presented by abstract concepts, and the concrete physical examples of them. Since I admittedly lack any true expertise in metaphysics, I will refrain from commenting further on Plato’s theory of forms in this particular post. And I will instead leave the discussion of Plato’s political theory to two other posts (here and here, respectively). Here, I will instead undertake to comment on a different part of “The Republic” – one of the few parts that actually meets with my approval. Specifically, I will be commenting here on Plato’s famous “Allegory of the Cave,” one of the classic allegories of Western literature and philosophy. It can be taken broadly as a metaphor for the discovery (or re-discovery) of some kind of world, which was previously unknown or forgotten. It could also be a metaphor for political or religious conversion, or the discovery of some subculture in which one finally feels at home.

Plato