A review of PBS's “The Great War” (American Experience)

“We [the German government] intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.”

– Zimmermann Telegram (1917), one of the events that led to the American entry into World War One

President Woodrow Wilson walked a tightrope during the early years of World War One, trying to steer a middle course between full neutrality and full involvement. Of course, Americans did not declare war on Germany until April 1917, and waited even longer than that to send troops to Europe. But even at the beginning of the war in 1914, most Americans did not want the Germans to win, and some of them actually sold food (and sometimes weapons) to the Allied nations. There was a massive peace movement before America officially got involved, and PBS makes sure to cover it here. But there were also many supporters of getting involved sooner - and this, too, receives some good coverage from PBS. Among the supporters of earlier American involvement was the former president Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a major critic of Wilson for his perceived lack of muscle in this struggle - a correct perception. But Wilson was also criticized by the peace movement for supporting aid to Britain and France. Thus, he was having a hard time walking this tightrope within his own party. Unfortunately for Wilson, this balancing act would prove even harder when the Germans sank the RMS Lusitania in 1915.

Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, 7 May 1915

A review of PBS Empires “Martin Luther”

"Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen!"

- Martin Luther's "Speech at the Diet of Worms" (1521)

We take it for granted that the name “Protestant” comes from the word “protest.” But this name is a relic of a time when a “protest” against the establishment was more prominent. That establishment was then challenged by the distant thunder of revolution. It was just called the “Protestant Reformation” …

A review of Ken Burns’ “Baseball” (PBS)

“♪ Katie Casey was baseball mad,
Had the fever and had it bad.
Just to root for the home town crew,
Ev'ry sou
Katie blew. ♪

♪ On a Saturday her young beau
Called to see if she'd like to go
To see a show, but Miss Kate said 'No,
I'll tell you what you can do:' ♪ ”

– The unknown first verse of “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” (1908)

When Ken Burns' “The Civil War” came out in 1990, it was the most popular program in PBS history; and it still holds that record today. This program received significant critical acclaim, and it certainly deserved this acclaim. But when Ken Burns was asked what he was going to do next, he was met with raised eyebrows when he said “baseball.” For many people, baseball seems like something less than a “serious” historical topic; and probably seemed like a waste of Ken Burns' talent to boot. But to me, this is no “anticlimax” – this is a legitimate historical topic in its own right. You can learn a lot about the history of America by studying the history of its baseball, I think – at least, for the periods after baseball was invented. I will return to this theme multiple times in this post, as I give some related anecdotes from baseball history. Suffice it to say for now that it gives some great insights into this country; and that if you really want to understand America, you would do well to study this game in detail.

National League Baltimore Orioles, 1896

Christy Mathewson, known as “The Christian Gentleman”

A review of “The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance” (PBS Empires)

“To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:

Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness. Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence.”

– Dedication of Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532)

When people today think of the “Italian Renaissance,” they usually think of accomplishments in the arts and sciences – or sometimes, philosophy. They would not often think of power politics, or the squabbling among the Italian city-states of the time. But this era was marked by ferocious power politics in Italy, which created great turmoil on the Italian peninsula. Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” was the product of this time, and so was its disturbing view of ethics and politics. There was much to fear for Italians of this time.

The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained from banking

During this time, one family in particular rose to prominence in Italy – and more specifically, in Florence. In its heyday, this family produced kings, queens, and even three popes. That family was, of course, the Medici; but it did not start out as a royal family. Rather, it made its name through banking; and amassing wealth by means of the private sector. The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained in this way. They actually started out their ascendancy as a family of Italian merchant-bankers, and continued to be such even during their political rule. They were among the earliest bankers in Europe, and were great pioneers in the banking industry. Their depositors stored their money in the “Medici Bank,” and the Medici then loaned out this money to people who needed it. The interest from these loans actually brought great wealth to the Medici family, and allowed them to pay some small interest to their depositors as well. It helped to create the family fortune, which brought them to political prominence in Italy. Money was often the greatest weapon in the Medici arsenal, and was a great driver of the politics of the Renaissance (as it was for every other era of human history).

Cosimo de Medici, the Italian banker who became the first of the Medici dynasty

The document that changed everything in America …

When the Founding Fathers wrote the original Constitution in 1787, they were creating a document that would change everything in America, keeping a fragile union of thirteen states from descending into war debts, bankruptcy, and even armed rebellions. One uprising in particular came from a disgruntled Revolutionary War veteran named Daniel Shays, whose uprising against the government of Massachusetts had been an impetus for holding the Constitutional Convention in the first place. It did not start out as a popular document, and was opposed openly even by some of the men who had been present at the Convention. Thus, the particulars of this document were debated fiercely from one end of the thirteen former colonies to the other.

George Mason

Luther Martin

What were the particulars of this document, and why did they create such an uproar when they were first written? What relevance might its passages have today, when our world is so different from the one they inhabited 200 years ago? What was it about this document that caused it to be so successful, and which made the country that adopted it into the greatest superpower that the world has ever known? And why is this most essential ingredient to the country's remarkable success story such an obscure and forgotten secret?

In this series, I will try to answer these questions, as I talk about everything from the people that influenced the Constitution (such as John Locke, and Baron de Montesquieu) to the men that commented on it (such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Abraham Lincoln). I will try to be informative, but I will not shy away from inserting persuasive commentary at times as well. I will lay out the case for why the Constitution of the United States is the greatest success story that human politics has ever known.

A review of “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (History Channel)

Note: This is a different series from “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (which is made by the BBC).

There aren't too many documentaries out there about ancient history …

If you've ever looked online for movies about ancient history, you've probably had a hard time finding any. Ancient history isn't a popular subject for Hollywood movies (or even documentaries), and so very few programs about it have ever been made. I don't know why this has been the case, but I can probably make some guesses about it. If you make a documentary about World War II (a modern topic), you have access to actual archival footage from the period. You can get it at very low cost, and advertise its benefits to your viewers. Some of them will even prefer the gritty realism of the actual footage to re-enactments, which are just educated guesses (albeit good ones, if they're done right). Thus, you can sometimes get more effectiveness for less money, which is a real advantage in the world of documentaries. But if you depict the distant past, you are usually forced to rely on re-enactments, and the cost of these re-enactments can be steep. Consequently, many of these ancient history documentaries are never made in the first place.

This documentary is primarily a military history

An ancient history topic must thus be fairly popular before a for-profit network like the History Channel will decide to throw significant money at it. No matter how much the producers of these networks might like these topics, they usually can't justify the budget for these programs unless they think that they have a reasonable chance of recovering these expenses with some added cash flow. One presumes that the Roman Empire was considered popular enough to justify these budgets to investors at this time. If it had not been, after all, it's safe to assume that this series would never have been made. I imagine part of its appeal to the general public was its focus on military history (rather than other kinds of history). Military history has long been a popular topic with certain segments of the general population (perhaps especially the male population); and although political history is sometimes covered here, the primary focus of this series is military history. This may be the most comprehensive military history of Rome ever made for television. It has some weaknesses (which I will note later), but it's still a fine series despite these.

Relief scene of Roman legionaries marching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius – Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD

David Hume criticized social contract theory severely …

“My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. I only pretend, that it has very seldom had place in any degree, and never almost in its full extent. And that therefore some other foundation of government must also be admitted.”

– David Hume's “Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary” (1752), Part II, Essay XII (entitled “Of the Original Contract”)

Do governments require the “consent of the people”? If you think they do, you might be a believer in social contract theory, even if you don’t realize it yet. The idea that governments have actual duties to their people, and not just people having one-way duties to their governments, is at the foundation of every democracy; and is at the heart of social contract theory in every way.

United States Capitol

What is social contract theory, and why is it important?

In a nutshell, this social contract theory is basically the idea that there is an agreement between government and the people, which believers in this theory may or may not believe to have been written down on paper. In this agreement, it is held that governments agree to do certain things for their people, and that the people agree to do certain things for their society. These would include obeying the laws that their governments are actually authorized to make under this agreement – although not all laws would be authorized by these agreements, since some of these laws might be considered “unconstitutional” under its terms. (More on that later in this post – for now, I will just explain what social contract theory is at its most basic level.) What exactly the duties of each party might be is a matter of some controversy, I should acknowledge here, even among social contract theorists. Thus, I will not attempt here to specify numerous details of the duties owed by either side in this agreement. This would be too long a task for a single blog post, in fact, and would be beyond the scope of a blog like mine. Rather, I will attempt to show how social contract theory influenced the United States Constitution (since I am an American), and show how our own Constitution owes much to the English philosopher John Locke in this regard, since he was a great social contract theorist in a previous century. (For more on the basics of this theory, I will refer interested readers to another of my blog posts, which I link to here. This post will focus more on how this theory has been applied in actual practice, at least in my own country.)

Thomas Hobbes