This time, it's God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by Pulitzer Prize winning author David Devering Lewis.
This is, as the title suggests, an early history of post-Classical Europe and the rise of Islam, exploring the trajectory of European civilization as it hurtled into the Dark Ages, and the unlikely triumph of Islamic Arab nomads over the great empires of the east, and eventually, the violent collision of these two cultures.
Lewis begins by reminding us that the clash between East and West had its beginnings with the ancient Greeks and Romans, and their wars against successive Persian Empires, with each side generally holding their own, but unable to make lasting advances against their rival.
In the pages of this book, we feel the full tragic force of the barbarian invasions and their aftermath, of a hapless Roman papacy being forced to beg warlords to spare them from destruction, and of an Eastern Empire that became increasingly distant from the West, first by geography, and eventually by religion. We see the rise of a new religion in the East, that took the eastern Mediterranean and Persia by storm, and conquered empires weakened by ceaseless conflict.
Against this seemingly unstoppable force of divinely inspired Arab warriors, the primitive petty kings and tribal leaders of Europe seemed most vulnerable. And indeed, Muslim armies did sweep across much of Visigothic Hispania (landa-hlauts, as it was called in gutteral Gothic, from which the Arabic name al Andalus was derived), the start of an Islamic presence in that country that would last some seven centuries. But Tariq Ibn Ziyad's smashing of the Visigoths on behalf of the Umayyad Caliphate was a venture undertaken without much official support from the Caliph in Damascus, thinking Hispania was too far away to administer effectively. And his successors were generally more worried about civil wars and internal strife to contemplate the subjugation of all of Europe.
So while the Pyrenees were always a war-torn border between Muslims and Franks, Umayyad al Andalus was by necessity a pragmatic society, never heavily populated by the Arab/Berber invaders, often administered by Sephardic Jews, and eventually isolated politically by the Eastern Caliphates that succeeded the Umayyads. There was no forced conversion, and little enforcement of repressive Quranic laws regarding unbelievers. In this climate of peaceful co-existence, the Umayyad capital of Cordoba became one of the most dynamic cities in the world, with its thriving economy and beautiful Friday Mosque, an architectural wonder unmatched in the rest of Europe. Scholarship also flourished, and Ancient Greek writings were translated and preserved for future generations.
Meanwhile, Europe floundered in poverty and superstition. The great king of the Franks, Charlemagne, was able to politically unite much of the former Western Empire, and became closely allied with the papacy, defending Catholicism by the sword whenever necessary, setting the stage for the enforced orthodoxy to come in later centuries. He protected Rome from the uncouth and impious Lombards, and brutally suppressed the pagan Saxons.
The contrast between the two societies could not have been more stark. While town life, trade, and academics flourished in al Andalus, the Frankish superstate was overwhelmingly rural with the poor increasingly tied to the land (the building blocks for feudalism were in place), there was little economic activity besides farming (and no tax collection; armies were raised through blackmail, and there was no concept of public works), while the learning of the Classical World was long since forgotten, replaced with an intolerant and superstitious brand of Christianity. To his credit, Charlemagne valued learning (though he himself was illiterate), and established schools throughout his kingdom. This Carolingian Renaissance was not to last, however, as Europe was engulfed by new pagan invasions, this time from Scandinavia.
Lewis allows the reader to wonder whether Europe might not have been better off if Islam had continued its northern march. Certainly, academic progression might have been swifter. The cruel economic system of feudal Europe might have been bypassed entirely. But this optimistic outlook is tempered by the narrative of al Andalus after the Umayyads, replaced by more fanatical and intolerant sects who had less use for the pragmatism of the past.
After absorbing this 700 year whirlwind of history, Lewis clearly intends the reader to develop a new found appreciation of the intertwined fates of European and Islamic civilization as they came into contact with each other. Though often bloody, these contacts also included peaceful co-existence and great advances, and that snapshot from the past is a good template for the future.
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
What I'm reading, Chapter 3
Just finished Xenophon's Hellenica (loosely translated as "A history of my times"), the classic work of Ancient Greek history that picks up exactly where Thucydides left off. Actually, to call it a "history" in the modern sense is inaccurate. It is more of a memoir of the events surrounding Xenophon's remarkable life, and is by no means an impartial or complete account.
Xenophon himself was an Athenian by birth (born 431 BC) and served as a mercenary soldier in the army of Cyrus the Younger, a Persian noble who campaigned against his brother, the King of Persia, with an army of 10,000 Greeks around the close of the fifth century BC. They fought their way all across the Persian empire, and ultimately defeated the King in battle, but only after the death of Cyrus, rendering their victory irrelevant. Stranded in hostile territory, they marched hundreds of kilometers back to Greece.
The campaign became the stuff of legend within Greece, and fueled the perception of Persian weakness that may have helped inspire the future kings of Macedon. It is chronicled in Xenophon's other major work, the Anabasis.
Banished from Athens for fighting on the side of the Spartan king Agesilaus II (whom he idolized), Xenophon most likely composed the Hellenica in a Spartan estate during the 360s BC.
He makes no secret of his biases, makes surprising omissions, and often digresses from the main account to relate some act of valour or honor that he admires. His research is not nearly as thorough as that of Thucydides; events that he did not experience personally are given briefer treatment, events that were painful to him personally are often ignored entirely.
Unlike his predecessor, he was not making a definitive history for all time. This was a personal work, written for himself and his friends, and those who were already familiar with the events that had transpired.
Although he fails as a historian, his work is nevertheless the primary surviving narrative account of the last years of the Peloponnesian war (as Thucydides died before finishing his history), and of the rise of Theban hegemony in the years following. Although Xenophon has fallen out of favor with modern historians due to his bitter hatred of the Thebans, his admiration of the Spartans in general and Agesilaus in particular, and his omissions (there is no mention of the Second Athenian Confederacy in the Hellenica, even though it was one of the most significant events of the age), it is still an essential and riveting read for those interested in the primary historical sources of Ancient Greece.
Xenophon himself was an Athenian by birth (born 431 BC) and served as a mercenary soldier in the army of Cyrus the Younger, a Persian noble who campaigned against his brother, the King of Persia, with an army of 10,000 Greeks around the close of the fifth century BC. They fought their way all across the Persian empire, and ultimately defeated the King in battle, but only after the death of Cyrus, rendering their victory irrelevant. Stranded in hostile territory, they marched hundreds of kilometers back to Greece.
The campaign became the stuff of legend within Greece, and fueled the perception of Persian weakness that may have helped inspire the future kings of Macedon. It is chronicled in Xenophon's other major work, the Anabasis.
Banished from Athens for fighting on the side of the Spartan king Agesilaus II (whom he idolized), Xenophon most likely composed the Hellenica in a Spartan estate during the 360s BC.
He makes no secret of his biases, makes surprising omissions, and often digresses from the main account to relate some act of valour or honor that he admires. His research is not nearly as thorough as that of Thucydides; events that he did not experience personally are given briefer treatment, events that were painful to him personally are often ignored entirely.
Unlike his predecessor, he was not making a definitive history for all time. This was a personal work, written for himself and his friends, and those who were already familiar with the events that had transpired.
Although he fails as a historian, his work is nevertheless the primary surviving narrative account of the last years of the Peloponnesian war (as Thucydides died before finishing his history), and of the rise of Theban hegemony in the years following. Although Xenophon has fallen out of favor with modern historians due to his bitter hatred of the Thebans, his admiration of the Spartans in general and Agesilaus in particular, and his omissions (there is no mention of the Second Athenian Confederacy in the Hellenica, even though it was one of the most significant events of the age), it is still an essential and riveting read for those interested in the primary historical sources of Ancient Greece.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
What I'm reading, Chapter 2
Today, it's Our Inner Ape, by Frans de Waal, an endlessly fascinating book about the behavior and lifestyles of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, and what they can tell us about ourselves, from violent power struggles to sex.
Most examined are the two species of Chimpanzee, the more common Pan troglodytes, and its cousin, the interesting bonobo.
Chimps are probably easist for us to relate to, with their male dominated social hierarchies and political alliances (and backstabbing), and their more conservative sexual habits. Their propensity for brutal violence and inter-tribal warfare also echoes our own, but their capacity for empathy and kindness reassures us that our roots are not all bad.
Bonobos, on the other hand, while more humanlike in some ways (they often walk upright, and have longer legs than chimps), are strikingly unique in other ways. For one thing, they are incredibly sexually promiscuous (all bonobos seem to be bisexual, with homosexual acts seemingly as common as heterosexual), and females hold power over the males.
Although bonobos are a subspecies of chimpanzee, their temperament couldn't be more different. Violence still occurs, but their egalitarian societies seem to be much more stable than the constantly fueding chimps with their ambitious alpha males (the male-female ratio in most groups of common chimps is 1:2, evidence of frequent killings, while among bonobos it's nearly 1:1). Because sex is so common and casual, infanticide is practically unheard of in bonobo groups (while common among chimps). No bonobo male can be sure which offspring are his, so males must help defend all offspring, while the females band together to assert their authority.
This description only scratches the surface of the book; suffice to say that there are humbling moments throughout as we learn more about our hairy cousins. Much of our behavior, even in this modern age, can be traced to that of the great apes.
Most examined are the two species of Chimpanzee, the more common Pan troglodytes, and its cousin, the interesting bonobo.
Chimps are probably easist for us to relate to, with their male dominated social hierarchies and political alliances (and backstabbing), and their more conservative sexual habits. Their propensity for brutal violence and inter-tribal warfare also echoes our own, but their capacity for empathy and kindness reassures us that our roots are not all bad.
Bonobos, on the other hand, while more humanlike in some ways (they often walk upright, and have longer legs than chimps), are strikingly unique in other ways. For one thing, they are incredibly sexually promiscuous (all bonobos seem to be bisexual, with homosexual acts seemingly as common as heterosexual), and females hold power over the males.
Although bonobos are a subspecies of chimpanzee, their temperament couldn't be more different. Violence still occurs, but their egalitarian societies seem to be much more stable than the constantly fueding chimps with their ambitious alpha males (the male-female ratio in most groups of common chimps is 1:2, evidence of frequent killings, while among bonobos it's nearly 1:1). Because sex is so common and casual, infanticide is practically unheard of in bonobo groups (while common among chimps). No bonobo male can be sure which offspring are his, so males must help defend all offspring, while the females band together to assert their authority.
This description only scratches the surface of the book; suffice to say that there are humbling moments throughout as we learn more about our hairy cousins. Much of our behavior, even in this modern age, can be traced to that of the great apes.
On a related note, a census found that there are 125,000 western lowland gorillas living in the Congo, considerably more than had been estimated previously. Good news.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Middle of the week mini-roundup
I know, it's a strange time to be doing one of my trademarked roundups, but the alternative would be to write four or five little posts, which I view as cheating.
1. It seems that the New Yorker article about Obama was actually pretty damned interesting. Nate from FiveThirtyEight recaps:
I'll have to give it a read, but 15,000 words is too many to handle right now.
2. I also missed this during my brief break from blogging and the internet:
'Heroic' fighting repels Afghan militants
Apparently there was a big huge battle in Afghanistan that resulted in 9 US dead and 15 wounded, as well as dozens and dozens of Taliban killed, as hundreds of militants attempted to capture a coalition outpost in eastern Afghanistan. This was the deadliest single day for US forces in that country in 3 years.
If the Taliban is able to carry out an operation involving hundreds of men and mount a credible attack against a US military base, I'd say that means the situation is not improving.
3. Ooh, the plot thickens. An expert hired by Stephen Harper says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that Tom Zytaruk's interview tape was doctored, contradicting the others that Harper got to examine it. I gotta say, Harper is really pushing this lawsuit. I guess it's possible that he simply doesn't remember what he said about the Cadman deal, but he's playing it hard the other way.
4. Big financial worries on Wall Street, amid impending bailouts of major mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ominious comments from Ben Bernanke. And an idiotic run on IndyMac isn't helping things. What part of "deposit insurance" do these people not understand? And for those who do understand it, what kind of moron keeps their entire life savings in deposits at a US bank? In Canada, it's different. The chances of one of our chartered banks going poof is practically zero (the World Economic Forum rated our banks the second safest in the world, behind only Switzerland). But in the unregulated and free-wheeling US financial sector, don't you dare trust all your money to one bank.
Anyways, bad shit all around.
5. What is with all these snooty New York critics bashing The Dark Knight? The film currently has four negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them courtesy of New York magazine critics. This one faults it for not being a masterpiece. This one faults it for being too serious. This one says it's "noisy and sadistic". This one thinks it's too violent and "isn't necessarily fun".
Jesus Christ, if you don't want a sadistic, noisy, violent, and serious near-masterpiece, go watch Space Chimps, you pretentious fucks. Another recurring theme with these negative reviews is that it isn't enough like Tim Burton's movies. The last reviewer even says this:
Well I don't give a shit about "Tim Burton's original conception for Batman", because it was a very flawed conception. Fun and entertaining, but I don't even put it in the same league as Batman Begins. The critics sure liked the pretty set design, but beyond that, Jack Nicholson had too much screentime, the action was clumsy, and the Joker killing Bruce's parents was just stupid. And by Returns, it was clear that Burton had no respect for the source material, preferring to apply his own quirky style and sensibilities to Batman's world.
Check out Berardinelli for a real review of the movie written by someone who isn't a hack. More reviews should be flooding in pretty soon.
6. I think I'll wait for the paperback, but The Dark Side by Jane Mayer looks really interesting. It appears to be an in-depth examination of the US torture regime that developed after 9/11. Must be a disturbing and anger-inducing read.
1. It seems that the New Yorker article about Obama was actually pretty damned interesting. Nate from FiveThirtyEight recaps:
Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word epic by no means paints the most flattering picture of
Barack Obama. His Obama is remarkably intelligent and very level-headed, but
also understands every lever of power, and is ambitious to the point of being
ruthless.Well, no shit he's ambitious. For any American to go from a relatively
unprivileged childhood (or a privileged one for that matter) to be on the
doorstep of the Preisdency by the time he's age 46 requires a perfect storm of
luck, intelligence, and ambition. Obama has ample amounts of each.
But the article is more remarkable for revealing what Obama is not.
One, he's not some Pierre Trudeau type of academic. Obama became interested
in politics very early, and seemed to have some keen understanding of his upside
potential. The sometimes languid pace of academia was not really compatible with
that.
Two, Obama was not corrupt. He knew how to navigate the rules of the
system. But he didn't cheat the system. Obama succeeded, for instance, in
disqualifying Alice Palmer from the ballot in the Illinois State Senate because
she faked hundreds of signatures to get her name on it, and then Obama called
her out. That's maybe not the most mannerly, tea-and-crumpets way of doing
things. But Obama didn't cheat. Palmer had cheated. What Obama did was to
exploit some of the inefficiencies of the Chicago machine system. Tony Rezko
donates, though legal channels, a bunch of money because he expects you to
behave like a typical machine politician and do him illegal favors? What to do?
Well, you take his money. And then you don't do him the favors.
I'll have to give it a read, but 15,000 words is too many to handle right now.
2. I also missed this during my brief break from blogging and the internet:
'Heroic' fighting repels Afghan militants
Apparently there was a big huge battle in Afghanistan that resulted in 9 US dead and 15 wounded, as well as dozens and dozens of Taliban killed, as hundreds of militants attempted to capture a coalition outpost in eastern Afghanistan. This was the deadliest single day for US forces in that country in 3 years.
If the Taliban is able to carry out an operation involving hundreds of men and mount a credible attack against a US military base, I'd say that means the situation is not improving.
3. Ooh, the plot thickens. An expert hired by Stephen Harper says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that Tom Zytaruk's interview tape was doctored, contradicting the others that Harper got to examine it. I gotta say, Harper is really pushing this lawsuit. I guess it's possible that he simply doesn't remember what he said about the Cadman deal, but he's playing it hard the other way.
4. Big financial worries on Wall Street, amid impending bailouts of major mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ominious comments from Ben Bernanke. And an idiotic run on IndyMac isn't helping things. What part of "deposit insurance" do these people not understand? And for those who do understand it, what kind of moron keeps their entire life savings in deposits at a US bank? In Canada, it's different. The chances of one of our chartered banks going poof is practically zero (the World Economic Forum rated our banks the second safest in the world, behind only Switzerland). But in the unregulated and free-wheeling US financial sector, don't you dare trust all your money to one bank.
Anyways, bad shit all around.
5. What is with all these snooty New York critics bashing The Dark Knight? The film currently has four negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them courtesy of New York magazine critics. This one faults it for not being a masterpiece. This one faults it for being too serious. This one says it's "noisy and sadistic". This one thinks it's too violent and "isn't necessarily fun".
Jesus Christ, if you don't want a sadistic, noisy, violent, and serious near-masterpiece, go watch Space Chimps, you pretentious fucks. Another recurring theme with these negative reviews is that it isn't enough like Tim Burton's movies. The last reviewer even says this:
In brief, Warner Bros. has continued to drain the poetry, fantasy, and comedy
out of Tim Burton’s original conception for “Batman” (1989), completing the job
of coarsening the material into hyperviolent summer action spectacle.
Well I don't give a shit about "Tim Burton's original conception for Batman", because it was a very flawed conception. Fun and entertaining, but I don't even put it in the same league as Batman Begins. The critics sure liked the pretty set design, but beyond that, Jack Nicholson had too much screentime, the action was clumsy, and the Joker killing Bruce's parents was just stupid. And by Returns, it was clear that Burton had no respect for the source material, preferring to apply his own quirky style and sensibilities to Batman's world.
Check out Berardinelli for a real review of the movie written by someone who isn't a hack. More reviews should be flooding in pretty soon.
6. I think I'll wait for the paperback, but The Dark Side by Jane Mayer looks really interesting. It appears to be an in-depth examination of the US torture regime that developed after 9/11. Must be a disturbing and anger-inducing read.
Monday, July 14, 2008
What I'm reading, Chapter 1
So, for this first (first of many, I'm hoping) installment, I'll talk about A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, which I have just finished.
In short, it is a post-apocalyptic epic spanning hundreds of years after a devastating nuclear holocaust which wipes out nearly all human civilization. It is very much a "cold war book", in that Miller remains pessimistic and cynical throughout about the seeming inevitability of Armageddon, like many of his contemporaries back in the 1960s.
The story follows the monks and abbots of the Order of Leibowitz (the Catholic church survives) as they attempt to preserve the "Memorabilia" (the surviving texts of our destroyed civilization, many of which are incomprehensible to our backwards descendents) through the ages. Leibowitz himself (eventually canonized) was an engineer who lived at the time of the "flame deluge" (the monks' term for the holocaust) and tried to save as many books as possible from the frenzed mobs of survivors who attempted to wipe out all traces of the scientific knowledge that they held responsible for the destruction.
There are three separate novellas within the book, each representing a specific stage in the development of human civilization. It is captivating and well-written, with judicious use of Latin (the monks speak a hybrid Anglo-Latin as their first language), and includes many interesting philosophical debates concerning the morality of euthanasia, the double-edged sword of technological progress, and the depressing regularity in which humanity repeats the same mistakes over and over again. Miller also reminds the reader of the crucial role the church played in preserving knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire.
There are some minor anachronisms (in a futuristic society which has mastered space travel, computers nevertheless remain enormous) and it may not seem as relevant now as it was in 1960, but 48 years later, it remains a classic of the science fiction genre.
Check it out here.
In short, it is a post-apocalyptic epic spanning hundreds of years after a devastating nuclear holocaust which wipes out nearly all human civilization. It is very much a "cold war book", in that Miller remains pessimistic and cynical throughout about the seeming inevitability of Armageddon, like many of his contemporaries back in the 1960s.
The story follows the monks and abbots of the Order of Leibowitz (the Catholic church survives) as they attempt to preserve the "Memorabilia" (the surviving texts of our destroyed civilization, many of which are incomprehensible to our backwards descendents) through the ages. Leibowitz himself (eventually canonized) was an engineer who lived at the time of the "flame deluge" (the monks' term for the holocaust) and tried to save as many books as possible from the frenzed mobs of survivors who attempted to wipe out all traces of the scientific knowledge that they held responsible for the destruction.
There are three separate novellas within the book, each representing a specific stage in the development of human civilization. It is captivating and well-written, with judicious use of Latin (the monks speak a hybrid Anglo-Latin as their first language), and includes many interesting philosophical debates concerning the morality of euthanasia, the double-edged sword of technological progress, and the depressing regularity in which humanity repeats the same mistakes over and over again. Miller also reminds the reader of the crucial role the church played in preserving knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire.
There are some minor anachronisms (in a futuristic society which has mastered space travel, computers nevertheless remain enormous) and it may not seem as relevant now as it was in 1960, but 48 years later, it remains a classic of the science fiction genre.
Check it out here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
