A Global Superpower Was Determined ...
... to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states.
Hm. Let's try that again.
In the twenty-first century, a global superpower was determined to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was America, incomparably rich in ambition, gold, and men. The terrorist states were Iraq and Syria, eccentric countries in a poor and mountainous backwater: the Middle East.
Hmm ... third time's a charm?
In the fifth century BC, a global superpower was determined to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was Persia, incomparably rich in ambition, gold, and men. The terrorist states were Athens and Sparta, eccentric cities in a poor and mountainous backwater: Greece.
The opening paragraph of the back cover blurb of Tom Holland's book Persian Fire (ISBN 978030279484) shows me at least that all this has happened before and all this will happen again. Subtitled "The World's First Empire and the Battle for the West", this volume I just finished yesterday -- it took about a week and a half for me, for while it's not always direct reading it is cunning -- puts together history, archaeology, and outright stubbornness on the part of the people who put together and contributed to Greek democracy (by the way, for the Athenians and most Greeks democracy from the Greek "demos kritos" wasn't considered the best system but rather better than all the rest; essentially it was just a redistribution of power from certain families to a wider base by interspersing the families among different tribes) and Persian autocracy.
Go tell the Persians.
We really should know more about Persia; the reign of the absolute "King of Kings" was far from being passed from father to son as we'd think and for a few events and timely influences we would likely see Persia and not Greece as one of our major cultural influences. Check out certain books of the Old Testament for more details. The main body of the story, the Persian king Xerxes' organized invasion of Greece in retaliation for burning a Greek-colonized city under Persian control (which falls in the gap between the first and second chapters of the book of Esther; seriously, take a look) and its failure -- often despite the Athenians and Spartans who had chain of command issues despite their shared cultural heritage -- to knock out the Greeks and their radical ideas. To Persians, at least, that everyone should be happy to enjoy their rule!
Marathon. Salamis. Plataea.
I could go on all day about the Persian Wars; in fact, from Herodotus on they're most likely called that because (and is this another comparison to our own day?) the Persians who saw themselves as campaigning to subjugate those they called "the People of the Lie" LOST! But the Greeks learned a lot from those few years in the fifth century BC, enough to make a difference and for a while at least stop squabbling among themselves. I know, I know, that's a really simplistic view, but it helps if we keep things simple. Then you get the likes of Themistocles and Leonidas and Aristides who by being so far-seeing despite their cultures are people you're unafraid to follow to the gates of Hades! (Which in Leonidas' case they did; he's the Spartan king who led the forces at Thermopylae.) Their names still stick in our heads if we remember any history.
History, from the Greek "historia".
It means inquiry. And as we're on the less than 100 hours to Christmas 2016 mark, I ... inquire what's going on right now, as I should be. And unsettlingly, in light of our current world political climate, you have to wonder if that's how some of your more organized terrorists see themselves, campaigning against the People of the Lie, or is it how we and our political and military see themselves? It seems the present-day Greece and Persia (insert the names of adversaries here) both see themselves on righteous missions and it's hard to tell which is which at any given moment. Both use the same methods, both try to tweak their message to the masses, both operate with a marked efficiency that neither wants to admit to the other yet grudgingly admires in the other. But then that's the problem, isn't it?
When we see others AS "the other",
David
Hm. Let's try that again.
In the twenty-first century, a global superpower was determined to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was America, incomparably rich in ambition, gold, and men. The terrorist states were Iraq and Syria, eccentric countries in a poor and mountainous backwater: the Middle East.
Hmm ... third time's a charm?
In the fifth century BC, a global superpower was determined to bring truth and order to what it regarded as two terrorist states. The superpower was Persia, incomparably rich in ambition, gold, and men. The terrorist states were Athens and Sparta, eccentric cities in a poor and mountainous backwater: Greece.
The opening paragraph of the back cover blurb of Tom Holland's book Persian Fire (ISBN 978030279484) shows me at least that all this has happened before and all this will happen again. Subtitled "The World's First Empire and the Battle for the West", this volume I just finished yesterday -- it took about a week and a half for me, for while it's not always direct reading it is cunning -- puts together history, archaeology, and outright stubbornness on the part of the people who put together and contributed to Greek democracy (by the way, for the Athenians and most Greeks democracy from the Greek "demos kritos" wasn't considered the best system but rather better than all the rest; essentially it was just a redistribution of power from certain families to a wider base by interspersing the families among different tribes) and Persian autocracy.
Go tell the Persians.
We really should know more about Persia; the reign of the absolute "King of Kings" was far from being passed from father to son as we'd think and for a few events and timely influences we would likely see Persia and not Greece as one of our major cultural influences. Check out certain books of the Old Testament for more details. The main body of the story, the Persian king Xerxes' organized invasion of Greece in retaliation for burning a Greek-colonized city under Persian control (which falls in the gap between the first and second chapters of the book of Esther; seriously, take a look) and its failure -- often despite the Athenians and Spartans who had chain of command issues despite their shared cultural heritage -- to knock out the Greeks and their radical ideas. To Persians, at least, that everyone should be happy to enjoy their rule!
Marathon. Salamis. Plataea.
I could go on all day about the Persian Wars; in fact, from Herodotus on they're most likely called that because (and is this another comparison to our own day?) the Persians who saw themselves as campaigning to subjugate those they called "the People of the Lie" LOST! But the Greeks learned a lot from those few years in the fifth century BC, enough to make a difference and for a while at least stop squabbling among themselves. I know, I know, that's a really simplistic view, but it helps if we keep things simple. Then you get the likes of Themistocles and Leonidas and Aristides who by being so far-seeing despite their cultures are people you're unafraid to follow to the gates of Hades! (Which in Leonidas' case they did; he's the Spartan king who led the forces at Thermopylae.) Their names still stick in our heads if we remember any history.
History, from the Greek "historia".
It means inquiry. And as we're on the less than 100 hours to Christmas 2016 mark, I ... inquire what's going on right now, as I should be. And unsettlingly, in light of our current world political climate, you have to wonder if that's how some of your more organized terrorists see themselves, campaigning against the People of the Lie, or is it how we and our political and military see themselves? It seems the present-day Greece and Persia (insert the names of adversaries here) both see themselves on righteous missions and it's hard to tell which is which at any given moment. Both use the same methods, both try to tweak their message to the masses, both operate with a marked efficiency that neither wants to admit to the other yet grudgingly admires in the other. But then that's the problem, isn't it?
When we see others AS "the other",
David
Comments
Post a Comment