In defense of Ronald Reagan: Helping the mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan War

During the Reagan administration, we were allied with both Iraq and Afghanistan …

In the Ronald Reagan era, America had two allies that seem somewhat ironic today: Iraq and Afghanistan. In the twenty-first century, America would later go to war with both of these countries. Thus, some have perceived a contradiction between the earlier alliance and the later hostilities. But to me, it would seem that there is a common theme running through both of these policies, which is American national interest. I will attempt to explain this interest in this post, and show why Reagan's support for the mujahideen was both justified and worthwhile.

Three “mujahideen”  in Asmar – Afghanistan, 1985

A review of PBS's “Walt Disney” movie

“We're not trying to entertain the critics … I'll take my chances with the public.”

– Walter Elias Disney

It's not often that you see art and commerce combined into one person. For whatever reason, most artists are lousy businessmen, and never really get the hang of the game of business. But Walter Elias Disney was an exception to this rule. He was a brilliant artist and a brilliant businessman. And by “art,” I don't just mean the visual arts, although Walt Disney had some helpful experience in hand-drawn animations that would be useful to him later on. All of movie-making is an art, it would seem, and Walt Disney excelled at this art. Although he started out drawing some of the animations himself, he quickly realized that there were others around him who were much better at this than he was, and he made sure to hire them. But his real talent was for directing, and he made one movie after another from very early on in his adulthood.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: Latin America

If the Cold War were a chess game, Latin Americans were often the pawns …

Long before the Cold War began, American president James Monroe had introduced the now-famous “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823. This doctrine said, in essence, that “the American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” (Source: Monroe Doctrine, 1823) Theodore Roosevelt later added a corollary of his own to this doctrine in 1904, in response to the Venezuelan Crisis of 1902-1903. This “Roosevelt Corollary” basically said that “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” (Source: Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904)

Fidel Castro visits United States, 1959

Keeping European powers (like the Soviet Union) out of the New World …

The United States has not always adhered to this doctrine, but it has often been involved in Latin American politics under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (and the original, for that matter). During the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually supported left-wing regimes throughout Latin America, and were thus interfering in the Americas. True adherence to the Monroe Doctrine thus required that we try to keep them out of the Americas, and prevent communism from gaining a foothold in our own “backyard.”

Map of Latin America

A review of Ken Burns’ “Mark Twain” (PBS)

“I was sorry to have my name mentioned as one of the great authors, because they have a sad habit of dying off. Chaucer is dead, Spencer is dead, so is Milton, so is Shakespeare, and I’m not feeling so well myself.”

– Mark Twain, in a “Speech to the Savage Club,” 9 June 1899 (about ten years before his death)

I should give a disclaimer that I’ve never read a single book that Mark Twain wrote. I watched a movie or two based on “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” and have often heard of his masterpiece “Huckleberry Finn.” But since I didn’t take Honors English in high school, I was never required to read any of his works (although I have heard bits and pieces of them). But I have often been amused by some of his quips, and have admired the quality of his language despite this. Nonetheless, I don’t claim to be an expert on Mark Twain, and can give only a layperson’s view of this documentary. I shall leave the literary criticism to reviewers more qualified to engage in it.

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” that philosophy has sometimes degenerated into 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

A review of Simon Schama's “The Story of the Jews”

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy,” Chapter 7, Verse 6 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history …

Before watching this series, I had watched another documentary by the same filmmaker, which was Simon Schama's “A History of Britain.” Since Mr. Schama is also British, this was a television history of his own country, and was an inside perspective. This film is similar, because Simon Schama is Jewish, and can thus give an inside perspective on his own ethnic group. He is clearly familiar with the Hebrew language, and he displays this fluency at a number of times throughout this series. But as it turns out, not all ethnic Jews are of the Jewish faith, so there is thus a difference between being ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, and religiously Jewish. Mr. Schama is clearly ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish, but may not be religiously Jewish. Thus, he has struck some as an odd choice to make this series. But considering how many ethnic Jews would match this description, it seems like it works for me. If you want to learn more about their faith, this film will give you some useful background; but you might actually be better off turning to some other source, for this particular kind of information. This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history, and pays only minimal attention to the history of Judaism. Nonetheless, it is still quite good for what it does have to offer.

How did the Cold War lead to the Space Race?

“Poyekhali!” (“Let's go!”)

– Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, at the moment of the Vostok 1 rocket launch that first sent him into space

An anecdote about the German rocket scientists, and whose sides they were on in the Cold War

At the end of World War II, it turned out that the best rocket scientists in the world were in Nazi Germany. As Nazis, these scientists had been using their skills to send V-2 rockets tearing into London (and other Allied cities). But after the war, they would be drafted into the rocket programs of their respective conquering nations, and end up using these rockets for more peaceful purposes. The lucky ones worked for the Western Allies, and particularly for the Americans. But some of them were in East Germany, and thus had to work for the Soviet Union instead (a somewhat harsher fate). For both sides, these German scientists would form the core of their future rocket programs, and thus participate in the Space Race on one side or the other of this coming conflict. The boundaries of the Cold War – which went through postwar Germany – thus decided which side they were on in this conflict, and many of them would rather have chosen the West if they'd been able to do so. The Space Race was thus destined to be an integral part of this coming Cold War.

Wernher von Braun, one of the most famous of the German rocket scientists (who was on the American side)

A review of PBS's “Silicon Valley” (American Experience)

This documentary focuses on a historical company called “Fairchild Semiconductor” …

I was expecting this movie to be about Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and the desktop computing revolution of the 1980’s. But I was wrong. This movie focuses on a historical company called “Fairchild Semiconductor International.” It was founded in 1957 as a division of “Fairchild Camera and Instrument,” a company based on the East Coast. But Fairchild Semiconductor was based in San Jose, California; in the area that would later become “Silicon Valley.” This area was actually an entrepreneurial haven, long before it acquired the name of “Silicon Valley.” Fairchild Semiconductor was a pioneer in the development of transistors and integrated circuits. Thus, it was also something of a pioneer in the computers industry, back in the day when NASA and the military accounted for more than half of the computers market. It was a true trailblazer, but it is virtually unknown today. This film gives it a thorough treatment, and thus takes a good look at the budding computers industry of this time.

A review of Michael Wood's “The Story of China”

“Representing the will of the people of the entire nation, it has formulated the organization law for the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, elected Mao Tse-tung as chairman of the Central People's Government … [hence follow the names of the vice chairmen and the committee members] … to form the Central People's Government Committee, declared the founding of the People's Republic of China, and decided on Peking as the national capital.”

– Proclamation of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, 1 October 1949

I had seen a number of Michael Wood films before seeing this series, including “The Story of India” and (The) “Story of England.” I had enjoyed these two films greatly, but I think that I may have enjoyed “The Story of China” even more than these other two epic histories. This series has more of a unified narrative than “The Story of India” does, and doesn't seem as much like a collection of random anecdotes about its subject. Although it is not a political history, the cultural history that it focuses on is woven together into a fascinating narrative, and has the effect of teaching the viewer much about China.

Confucius and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have often quoted from various philosophers to make their point. European philosophers are not the only ones to be so quoted. Asian philosophers are also quoted, including the Chinese philosopher Confucius. Confucius was a great religious leader, as well as a great philosopher.

Confucius

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: North Africa and the Middle East

If there's ever been a peaceful period in Muslim history, the Cold War was not that period …

If there's ever been a peaceful period in Muslim history, the Cold War was not that period. During this period, the Muslim world was something of a battleground, in which the Islamic countries were pawns in a great superpower chess game. The Muslim world encompasses many places – among them South Asia, which actually has more Muslims than North Africa and the Middle East combined. But they do not form a majority in this broader region of South Asia. By contrast, around 90% of North Africa and the Middle East are Muslims, and the same is actually true of Central Asia as well. Since I discuss Central Asia in another blog post about the Soviet war in Afghanistan, I will not do so here. And since I have discussed the South Asian part of the Cold War in another blog post, I will not do that here, either. Here, I will just discuss the traditional power centers of the Muslim world, which are North Africa and the Middle East. Many (but not all) of these conflicts would involve the new state of Israel as well.

An Egyptian artillery piece captured in the First Arab-Israeli War, 1948

The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily designed to be legally sound …

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

– Abraham Lincoln, in his Letter to Horace Greeley (August 22nd, 1862)

On September 22nd, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued what is sometimes called the “Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.” In it, he basically said that if the Southern states were not back in the Union by New Year's Day 1863, then he would free their slaves. (The actual Emancipation Proclamation came on New Year's Day itself, when he actually did so.) One commentator actually said that it's “the dullest thing you ever read.” With two possible exceptions, neither one has any soaring rhetoric or ringing phrases, and “here was a guy who could do that,” as this commentator said. Why did Lincoln choose not to do that with the Emancipation Proclamations (and there are actually two of them)?

First reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln

How Congress can give legal permission to be a “pirate” (er, “privateer”)

“[The Congress shall have the power] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water ... ”

- Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the United States Constitution

First of all, what's the legal difference between “piracy” and “privateering”?

In prior times, it was common for governments to grant official permission to raid the shipping of their nations' enemies, and allow them to be “privateers” in their nation's service. Things that would otherwise be considered “piracy” would be considered legal in this time if they had the official “letters of marque and reprisal” to allow them to do it. Privateering under a “letter of marque and reprisal” was protected by law, while things that were considered “piracy” were illegal even then.

East Indiaman Kent battling Confiance, a privateer vessel commanded by French corsair Robert Surcouf in October 1800

“Letters of marque and reprisal” are just official permissions to engage in these actions

Why do I mention this? Because there's a part of the Constitution about granting “letters of marque and reprisal” to privateers – or rather, two parts about it – which might be worth going into here. I should first note that “letters of marque and reprisal” could sometimes be shortened to just “letters of marque.” In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton sometimes used the great Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” as a source for his arguments. (For the details of this, see this blog post about it.) I will thus try to use his same source, when I derive a good legal definition of “letters of marque and reprisal” for our purposes. In the “Commentaries,” Sir William Blackstone wrote that “the sufferer must first apply to the lord privy-seal, and he shall make out letters of request under the privy seal; and, if, after such request of satisfaction made, the party required do not within convenient time make due satisfaction or restitution to the party grieved, the lord chancellor shall make him out letters of marque under the great seal; and by virtue of these he may attack and seize the property of the aggressor nation, without hazard of being condemned as a robber or pirate.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 7)

Sir William Blackstone

Influences on the Constitution

Introduction: The document that changed everything in America …

When the Constitution was written, there was a lot going on at that time! The questions of this series. My aims in this series.

Interior of Independence Hall

Influences on the Constitution

The Constitution itself, and the story behind it

The Constitution itself, and the story behind it

Debates over the Constitution, then and since

Debates over the Constitution, then and since

Cold War crises: Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and “Able Archer 83”

“Is this a game, or is it real?”

– Quote from “WarGames” (1983), a fictional movie about a close call with nuclear war, which came out a few months before the first of these real-life crises

The Soviet Union shoots down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 …

In 1983, a Boeing 747 aircraft took off from JFK International Airport in New York City on the 30th of August. Its planned destination was Seoul in South Korea, but it was scheduled to make a stop in Anchorage, Alaska, and routinely did so on the following day (the 31st of August). But the aircraft actually never made it to its planned destination, because it was shot down the next day on the 1st of September. It was flying over prohibited Soviet airspace. The Soviets thus mistook it for an American spy plane, and sent up a Sukhoi SU-15 interceptor aircraft to shoot it down. The interceptor did the job with air-to-air missiles, and the aircraft quickly crashed into the Sea of Japan, near Moneron Island west of Sakhalin. All 269 passengers and crew were killed, including a United States Congressman from Georgia named Larry McDonald. Two weeks later, on the 15th of September, the Soviets actually found the wreckage under the sea; and in October, they even found the flight recorders. But they kept all of this secret for the next ten years, not releasing any of this until 1993. (I borrow some of the wording for this blog post from various parts of Wikipedia, which I must acknowledge here as a source.)

HL7442, the same plane that was shot down as “Korean Air Lines Flight 007”

A review of “The Dark Ages” (History Channel)

The term “Dark Ages” usually refers to the Early Middle Ages, if it is used at all …

People once used the term “Dark Ages” to refer to the entire Middle Ages. But now, when the term is used at all, it usually refers to just the Early Middle Ages – that is to say, the centuries immediately after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. A number of people today have actually objected to the use of the term “Dark Ages” itself. But although the History Channel acknowledges the prevalence of this objection, it obviously does not agree with it, as it seems to make clear in this documentary. Whatever you call this period, though, it is clear that the fall of what Westerners today call the “Roman Empire” left chaos in its immediate wake.

How did Sir Edward Coke influence Sir William Blackstone?

In 1481 or 1482, Sir Thomas de Littleton wrote a then-famous work called “A Treatise on Tenures.” More than a century later, Sir Edward Coke commented on this work, by writing “The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England, or a Commentary on Littleton” in 1628. More than a century after that, Sir William Blackstone discussed Coke’s work in the first volume of his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1765. Coke is the person that Blackstone cited the most in the “Commentaries.” In this great work, Blackstone thus wrote a brief summary of Sir Edward Coke’s writings, to set up his esteemed source (whom he would use often throughout his work). He prefaced this summary with the following praise:

Sir Edward Coke

Lord Chief Justice Coke was “a man of infinite learning in his profession”

“Some of the most valuable of the ancient reports are those published by lord chief justice Coke; a man of infinite learning in his profession, though not a little infected with the pedantry and quaintness of the times he lived in, which appear strongly in all his works. However his writings are so highly esteemed, that they are generally cited without the author's name [footnote].” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Introduction, Section 3)

Sir Thomas de Littleton

Blackstone's summary of Sir Edward Coke ...

Blackstone then gave his brief summary of Sir Edward Coke's writings:

“ … the same learned judge we have just mentioned, Sir Edward Coke; who hath written four volumes of institutes, as he is pleased to call them, though they have little of the institutional method to warrant such a title. The first volume is a very extensive comment upon a little excellent treatise of tenures, compiled by judge Littleton in the reign of Edward the fourth. This comment is a rich mine of valuable common law learning, collected and heaped together from the ancient reports and year books, but greatly defective in method.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Introduction, Section 3)

Sir Edward Coke

Why do we give patent-holders monopolies on the production of their product?

“[The Congress shall have the power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 8 of the United States Constitution

Some say that it is “obscene” or “outrageous” to have life-saving technologies at our fingertips, which are expensive by reason of a patent monopoly. Patents involve monopolies which (admittedly) have some drawbacks to them, at least in the short term. Why, then, does society allow them? I will try to explain in this post.

What is “corruption of blood, or forfeiture” from an attainder of treason?

“The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.”

– Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

The Constitution prevents Congress from “extending the consequences of guilt” beyond those who have actually committed the crimes …

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison once quoted a portion of the Constitution saying that the Congress shall have power “To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) He then commented upon this section, saying that “As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) Corruption of blood just meant impeding someone from inheriting, or passing on property to their own descendants as heirs, on account of a crime that they had committed (usually treason). It thus punished others besides the person guilty of the crime.

James Madison

The primary function of government is to protect our most basic rights

“And these [rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles ; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty ; and the right of private property : because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.”

– Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 1

Sir William Blackstone believed that the most important function of government was to protect our basic rights, especially our three most basic rights. “The rights themselves thus defined by these several statutes ,” he said, “consist in a number of private immunities.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1) These immunities, he said, were formerly, “either by inheritance or purchase, the rights of all mankind ; but, in most other countries of the world being now more or less debased and destroyed, they at present may be said to remain, in a peculiar and emphatical manner, the rights of the people of England.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1)

Sir William Blackstone

Our most important rights are personal security, personal liberty, and private property

Blackstone added that these rights “may be reduced to three principal or primary articles ; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty ; and the right of private property” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1). Furthermore, “the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1) Thus, an examination of these most basic rights would seem to be in order here. The very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries” is called “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals.” In it, he sets forth his theory of human rights. All quotations from the “Commentaries” in this particular blog post are from this first chapter of the first book. This volume was first published in 1765. This first chapter gives great insight into how he viewed human rights.

Coat of arms of Great Britain, 1714-1800

A review of “Japan: Memoirs of a Secret Empire” (PBS Empires)

Japan's initial contact with the West in 1543

In the year 1543, a Portuguese trading ship arrived in the Japanese island of Tanegashima. Its passengers were the first Europeans to set foot in Japan. From a European perspective, they “discovered” Japan; but from an Asian perspective, they were not the first people to “discover” these islands; since these islands had been inhabited for centuries by that time. An ancient civilization resided here, with its own language, culture, and religions. At least one of its major religions (namely, Buddhism) had been imported from outside, but its Shinto religion was native to Japan itself. To those who lived in Japan, their empire was no “secret.” But to the people back in Europe, this island was indeed a “secret empire.” The European empires were equally “secret” to the Japanese, of course; and to the Japanese, these Christian Europeans were something of a novelty; and so were the strange goods that they carried.

Japanese painting depicting a group of Portuguese foreigners

Early trade with Europeans, including in weapons

The Portuguese carried valuable cargo that they wanted to trade for the Japanese goods. Both sides were eager to engage in this trade, as it turns out, and so Japan's first contact with Europeans established a long relationship with the West. This relationship would not always be as friendly as it was here, but the strange European imports have long fascinated the Japanese. The most important of these imports at this time was the musket. The Japanese realized very early on that these European weapons were very powerful. The Europeans were willing to sell them these weapons for a price, and certain tribes in Japan took them up on this offer. The ones that “got in” on this trade the earliest were able to dominate the other tribes via these weapons, and so these weapons had a massive effect on Japanese internal politics. This documentary starts at the moment of initial contact in the sixteenth century, and continues on through the end of Japanese isolationism in the nineteenth century. Internal Japanese politics are also covered, of course, but there is also a strong emphasis on Japan's complicated relationship with the West.

Various antique Tanegashima muskets

Some parts of the Constitution mention “Indians” or “Indian tribes” …

“[The Congress shall have the power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution

When people today talk about the original Constitution, they often mention specific clauses that are relevant to black history. These include the Slave Importation Clause, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the Three-Fifths Clause. When people today talk about the civil rights amendments, they often mention the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment (and rightfully so). But when they talk about minority history, they seldom discuss the clauses specific to Native American history, even though the words “Indians” and “Indian tribes” are mentioned in three different clauses from either the original Constitution or its amendments.

Constitution of the United States

It is important to be clear on this point: there are actually no clauses in the Constitution that mention Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, or Pacific Islander Americans by any of their specific names. There are clauses specifically about African Americans, but none that mention them by name (even by names like “blacks”). However, three clauses from either the original Constitution or its amendments mention “Indians” or “Indian tribes” by these names. Thus, I would like to go over all of these clauses here, and show what the “supreme law of the land” has said about the legal status of Native Americans.

Charles Curtis (the 31st Vice President of the United States),

who was of Kaw, Osage, Potawatomi, French and British ancestry – served 1929–1933