A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)

To say that the relationship between Islam and the West is sometimes troubled would be something of an understatement. Since the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christians and Muslims have often made war on each other. As it turns out, their sometime antagonism has roots going back deep into the Middle Ages; and some conflict between them still persists today. The most controversial episode in this long history may still be the medieval Crusades, where the Roman Catholic Church sent its soldiers into the Holy Land, ostensibly to help the Byzantine Empire to protect itself from the “Muslim invaders.” Their assistance had ironically been requested by the Byzantine emperor Alexios, whose empire had another form of Christianity – namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But despite their common ground, the relationship between the Orthodox Byzantines and the Catholic Crusaders was somewhat troubled at best, and not just because of their differing versions of Christianity. The Catholic Crusaders were, of course, arriving there more for their own benefit than for that of the Byzantines. Nonetheless, the Byzantines could not afford to offend their Catholic Crusader allies; and so they were unfortunately caught in this crossfire during much of the First Crusade (and afterwards, for that matter).

What does this documentary cover, and what does it not cover?

But after they conclude their discussion of the First Crusade in this documentary, there is virtually no further mention of the Byzantine Empire. After this, the story focuses mainly on the Crusaders and the Muslims – which are both good subjects, but nonetheless somewhat incomplete here. To be sure, this documentary is divided into two parts, and the first part is dedicated to the First Crusade. The second part covers both the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade, but does not really go into any of the others. After the Third Crusade, they mention that there were some campaigns on and off for the next century. However, they do not mention how many there were, by the time these campaigns ended in 1291. In all, there were nine crusades; and this documentary does not cover the last six of them. There is thus a lot of missing territory that I would have liked to see covered here. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the first three crusades were the most important ones, and thus (perhaps) the most worthy of being told for a television audience. Given that I know of few other documentaries covering any part of the Crusades (besides their bonus episode about the Knights Templar), it would thus seem that this documentary doesn't have a lot of competition from any others in this regard. Thus, I won't complain too much about this. Whatever its flaws, this documentary would seem to be a good starting point; and the information therein is also quite good. Thus, my overall assessment of it has tended to be positive; and I also found it to be quite entertaining as well.

Battle of Hattin, 1187 - the turning point of the Crusades

A review of Ric Burns’ “The Pilgrims” (PBS)

“Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; [we] Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid … ”

– The Mayflower Compact, 11 November 1620 by the old calendar (or 21 November 1620 by the new calendar)

I grew up with the story of the Pilgrim Fathers, who settled at Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts (and not in Virginia, as they had originally intended). It is one of the great stories in American history, but it was not the beginning of the English colonies on this continent. Before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620, there was a settlement in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. But this Jamestown settlement wasn't anywhere near as successful as the later Pilgrim settlement. Both were racked by starvation and disease that claimed many lives, but the Pilgrim settlement survived, when the Jamestown settlement did not. Some brief comments about the Jamestown settlement may thus be warranted here, to give you an appreciation of what the Pilgrims did (although their success was marred somewhat by their relations with the Indians, in the ways that I will note soon).

Some brief comments about the Jamestown settlement (and the PBS documentary about it)

Regarding the Jamestown settlement, I actually purchased another documentary called “Secrets of the Dead: Jamestown's Dark Winter” (also by PBS). This voyage did actually land in Virginia, as they had originally intended (unlike the Pilgrim voyage, which landed in Massachusetts). But sadly for me, this Jamestown documentary was more focused on the archaeology involved than on the history. Thus, it is not to be construed as an actual “history” of the Jamestown settlement. The focus here is on the archaeological examination of the human remains found there. For example, they were able to show in this documentary that the grim stories about resorting to cannibalism at Jamestown were actually true. Although this was gross, it was certainly dramatic enough; but it did not satisfy my craving for the human story of what happened there. There was some passing mention of John Smith and Pocahontas, for example, but most of the story centered on the body of a teenage girl whose real name is unknown (although they call her “Jane” to identify her as a Jane Doe.) The definitive documentary about what happened at Jamestown, it would seem, thus has yet to be made at the time that I write this. By contrast, this documentary about “The Pilgrims” was much better; although it was not without some revisionist elements that I will note later on in this post. For now, I will just say that I found it to be entertaining despite its revisionism, and would recommend it to others anyway.

Some thoughts about philosophy education

“[I] am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the god; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which the gods have attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me …”

– Socrates at his trial, as recorded in Plato's “Apology”

I am not the sort of person that you would expect to be an advocate for philosophy education. I am a card-carrying member of the religious right, and I am aghast at the liberal indoctrination that so often passes for “education” today. Moreover, I disapprove of the “ivory-tower academia” into which philosophy has sometimes degenerated today. Yet I am a vigorous advocate of philosophy education. Why?

Socrates, who is quoted above

A review of “Paris 1919: Inside the Peace Talks That Changed the World”

“[There shall be a] Surrender in good condition by the German armies of the following war material: Five thousand guns (2,500 heavy, and 2,500 field), 25,000 machine guns, 3,000 minenwerfer, 1,700 airplanes (fighters, bombers - firstly, all of the D 7'S and all the night bombing machines). The above to be delivered in situ to the allied and United States troops in accordance with the detailed conditions laid down in the note (annexure No. 1) drawn up at the moment of the signing of the armistice … ”

– Armistice of 11 November 1918, following World War One

This film is more journalistic than historical, and seems to lack a coherent narrative …

In 1964, the BBC made a landmark documentary called “The Great War.” It may still be the definitive television history of World War One. This is because it interviewed some of the veterans of this war, and is one of the greatest history documentaries ever made. But it had one major weakness, which was that it stopped at virtually the moment of the Armistice. Thus, it contains nothing – and I mean nothing – about what happened after it. Although this has been covered by some other documentaries (notably the CBS television history of World War One), the definitive television history by the BBC contains nothing about it. Thus, I've long been interested to see something about the effects of the war, and the Paris Peace Conference following the war's end. This seemed like a reasonably good introduction to it, so I got a copy of this documentary for Christmas. I found that it was a good production – made by the National Film Board of Canada, incidentally. But it was not the definitive coverage that I expected it to be. Its style seems to be more journalistic than historical, and seems to lack a coherent narrative.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: Angola

The United States actually considered intervening in an African country called “Angola” …

During the Cold War, the United States actually considered intervening in an African country called “Angola.” Few Americans have ever heard of it, and few had heard of it at the time. But it was a battleground in the Cold War, where the local Africans were pawns in a great superpower chess game. The conflicts would eventually involve South Africa as well, and a region trying to become independent from South Africa. My primary topic will be Angola, but this will also involve (among other things) an examination of a different conflict in South Africa. These conflicts would start out as unrelated to each other, but they would eventually be joined together. Just as a Japanese war with China had earlier become joined with the European part of World War II, so did these conflicts become joined with each other. They would eventually become part of a larger worldwide conflict – namely, the Cold War. These conflicts would eventually involve the support of foreign superpowers, troops from overseas nations, and thousands of deaths in seemingly endless combat. They involved some of the largest battles on the African continent since World War II.

South African troops on patrol near the border, early 1980s

A review of “12 Angry Men” (1957 movie)

“You've listened to a long and complex case, murder in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake. If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused – uh, a reasonable doubt – then you must bring me a verdict of ‘Not Guilty.’ If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused ‘Guilty.’ However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused ‘Guilty,’ the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave responsibility.”

– The judge in “12 Angry Men” (1957), in one of the earliest scenes of the movie

Some comments on this movie, and how I personally prefer it to the 1997 remake …

In 1954, the screenwriter Reginald Rose wrote a teleplay that was to debut on CBS. The teleplay was “Twelve Angry Men,” and it would soon become a classic. It aired on September 20th, 1954, and was soon adapted for the stage in 1955. But the most famous adaptation of the play was the 1957 movie, starring Henry Fonda in the lead role. There was another movie that updated it somewhat in 1997, forty years after the original film came out. The remake has many positive virtues, including a more ethnically diverse cast. The original film has an all-white cast, although both films had an all-male cast (at least for the twelve jurors). Both films have superb acting, and I think the acting quality is just about neck-and-neck for these two movies. But in some ways, I still tend to prefer the earlier version, because it had much less profanity. The 1957 version had maybe two swear words in the entire movie. The 1997 version is filled with profanity, and earned a PG-13 rating for this reason. This is not really my cup of tea, and makes me want to avoid the remake for the most part.

A brief overview of the plot (warning: may contain spoilers) ….

Every version of this story seems to work well as a drama – at least, for those versions that I have seen. But the movie is also philosophically interesting in many ways. It is not just about twelve characters who happen to be thrown together for a few hours of intense debate – the movie also tries to profile our jury system as a whole. The movie is an interesting character study, because the characters bounce off of each other throughout the movie, debating the complex details of this particular case. But the movie also shows that what can seem “cut-and-dried” at first is seldom quite as straightforward as it seems. (I must give a spoiler alert for this next part, for those who have not seen this film.) Testimony that seemed credible at first is thrown into serious question later on, and witnesses that seemed reliable no longer seem to be such in the end. At first, eleven of the jurors think that the boy really is guilty, and only one of them initially votes “not guilty.” But eventually, this lone juror converts all of the others to his point of view, and convinces them to vote for the defendant’s acquittal. Before the movie finishes, issues of prejudice, incompetent legal counsel, and the default presumption of innocence all come into play. The movie makes the point that the jury system was supposed to be impartial, and is not supposed to be based on charm or demographics – or any other ultimately irrelevant factor.

A review of Rafael Lapesa's “Historia de la lengua española”

“We hope that this book, which knows how to say the important and say it well, contributes to spread linguistic knowledge that usually receives so little attention.”

– Ramón Menéndez Pidal, in the “Prólogo” (or “Foreword”) to this book, 1942 (translation mine)

The title translates in English to “History of the Spanish Language”

So I recently finished reading a book about the history of the Spanish language – written almost entirely in Spanish. I say “almost,” because there are a few exceptions to this, which I will note later in this post. (But I'm getting ahead of myself … )

General comments about the history of the language itself

The Spanish language has a long and rich history. It is a source of endless fascination to me, with written records stretching back into the time of the Roman Empire – and beyond. It's a story of political and social change – of religious and literary ideas, which have had a vast influence on Western history. It's a story of a language that would become one of the most spoken languages on Earth, with 460 million native speakers at the time that I write this (see source). This is more than 5% of the world's population, and more than any other language in the world except Mandarin Chinese. But it's also a story of human beings – of people who are always reinventing themselves (and their language) to change with the times, and filling their culture with new life and new energy every day.

First page of the Castilian epic poem “El Cantar de Mio Cid,” which is referenced often in this book