And then he writes of art and politics in the Muslim world, and closes his chapter on Iran’s Safavid dynasty with a welcome optimism:
Such was Persia, such was Islam, in this last flowering of their power and art – a civilization profoundly unlike ours of the West, and at times contemptuously hostile, denouncing us as polytheists and materialists, laughing at our matriarchal monogamy, and sometimes coming in avalanches to batter down our gates; we could not be expected to understand it, or admire its art, when the great debate was between Moslem and Christian, not yet between Darwin and Christ. The competition of the cultures is not over, but for the most part it has ceased to shed blood, and they are now free to mingle in the osmosis of mutual influence. The East takes on our industries and armaments and becomes Western, the West wearies of wealth and war and seeks inner peace. Perhaps we shall help the East to mitigate poverty and superstition, and the East will help us to humility in philosophy and refinement in art. East is West and West is East, and soon the twain shall meet.This has an unwarranted hopefulness to the 21st Century eye. The chief tensions in the world are between this same East and West, and the battle lines often seem to be forming even as weapons of unimaginable destruction become symbols of national pride and preservation. It’s easy to dismiss this sunny outlook as symptomatic of a happy time that died with Kennedy in 1963 and with three thousand civilians in 2001 and a hundred times between and since.
– Will Durant, 1961
But his words are still true. The thing about history is it does march on, and it does so at its own pace. As divided as we are from the Muslim world, we are also more closely intertwined than ever. We drive much the same cars, and watch much the same televised news, only with differing editorial controls. Compared to modern men, they were nearly different species who slew before the gates of Vienna in 1529 and 1683 or died in their thousands at Lepanto in 1571. Today, the youth of all sides communicate with each other via devices in their pockets more easily than their parents did with their own neighbors. The twain soon shall meet for certain; sadly, that profound meeting will at first be through war, which no collection of men ever really tires of.
9 comments:
I disagree. It sounds like fear mongering.
Which does? Me, or Durant?
You.
I'm not the history scholar that you are, but I was just thinking your conclusion is obviously correct--there will be more wars. When and where don't seem that clear based on what you wrote here. So, what's the purpose?
It's interesting, though, to consider the different courses of National security policy, or of International politics given different visions of the future. You could argue that the vision of a rosy future might cause complacency, on one hand, or the possibility of the self-fulfilling prophecy on the other.
The self-fulfilling prophecy might well materialize even if it is of peace. That's what "give peace a chance" actually means. Of course, not forever. Humans. Whatever we are individually, we are hopeless as an historic force.
I did end on a pessimistic note. If I were inclined to rewrite, I'd add more hopefulness.
But peace is never a self-fulfilling prophecy. Peace happens when people aren't out there trying to make things happen. While people are singing give peace a chance, someone else is mustering the forces to solve some problem or other and you know where that leads.
And the tensions being built up are absolutely leading to a major war. The weird thing is when I think of ways to prevent it, they kind of line up with what our government has been doing. Small wars can prevent big wars and are certainly to be preferred. But that's crazy talk so feel free to ignore it. :)
But peace is never a self-fulfilling prophecy. Peace happens when people aren't out there trying to make things happen. While people are singing give peace a chance, someone else is mustering the forces to solve some problem or other and you know where that leads.
That's not really fair, Don. There are "activists" who sing songs, and there are politicians, of various ilks, and others who are too busy or tired to do anything after they get home from work. However, what do you mean, peace is never a self-fulfilling prophecy? There are plenty of examples of peaceful periods in history that were made possible by leaders who held that vision and headed that direction in their policies. That it doesn't last forever is just one of those unfortunate realities. Nothing lasts forever, not even a war.
Define "make things happen," which is what you say precludes peace. There is no way to conduct the affairs of a country, make things happen, that won't result in a war?
When leaders head "that" direction, what really happens?
I'm too Sunday-morning-ish to not cop out on the rest of the discussion. Maybe the fact I've been reading about the 1500s and 1600s has colored my outlook.
I dunno, I look at Iran and Russia and China and the U.S. and this shrinking world and, being a pattern reader, even if I cannot articulate it I see inescapable trouble, though to be truthful the Americans are doing a fair job minimizing and redirecting it. After all, better a series of small wars and being thought war-mongers, than actually have the Big One.
When leaders head "that" direction, what really happens?
Peace? I would agree it is scarier and most likely more difficult to manage a peace than a war, if you are inferring we should be distrustful of peaceful strategies. I would not trust Palin with peace any more than W, for example.
After all, better a series of small wars and being thought war-mongers, than actually have the Big One.
Invoking the image of the "Big One" to persuade is one example of fear mongering.
Pattern reader? Mark Twain said that once a cat sits on a hot stove lid, he won't do it again, but neither will he sit on a cold stove lid.
By reading patterns I don't mean in the manner of a thinking animal who learns rightly or wrongly from experience. I mean the shifting balances between powers, the growing or shrinking sense amongst national populations that they are ascending or descending on the global stage, and what they sense is necessary or desirable as a society to do about it. It's about as easy to describe as music (i.e. not at all). Hopefully I'm just crazy paranoid.
I think my outlook was set by a comment I read in a history book somewhere, to the effect that the Germans lost WWII chiefly because they did not reign in their passions enough, but started it too early. Given the odd facts around Pearl Harbor, I sometimes wonder if we didn't have something to do with the Japanese starting their war too early also, in order to maximize our chances of victory (since we clearly couldn't stay out of it much longer). But I can't take the time to explain that whole line of reasoning.
When leaders steer their nations toward "peace", more often than not they set themselves up for a war they will lose. Again, intuition I'm not scholar enough to explain or reprogram right now. My overall point could be that emerging new alliances whose interests include taking power that the U.S. has held for "long enough" are going to hit a crisis point with us eventually, and we won't be able to let go (get steered towards peace / away from war) for a lot of unbeatable reasons, and if someone feels empowered enough, they will start launching nukes. I sometimes wonder, therefore, if our unstated foreign policy is to keep things stirred up such that the latter possibility remains remote.
All of that begs for explanatory essays but I have to get to work ...
Well, I didn't understand what you just said, so I'll assume I'm in over my head here. It's very clear, though, why there will always be wars. Which I never questioned.
Post a Comment