With confinement (COVID 2020), it’s been a good time for me to exhume some long idling books in my collection. And so I stumble upon the ChateaubriandWith confinement (COVID 2020), it’s been a good time for me to exhume some long idling books in my collection. And so I stumble upon the Chateaubriand tomes that have been sitting on the shelf for years. About 15 years ago I read Tome II (only one I owned at the time). I didn’t remember much about it, but since I now had the others I figured ok let’s hit up volume III and see what’s up with this Frenchie (in hindsight this was a mistake).
In Chateaubriand’s memoirs a lot of stuff happens, but it’s honestly boring AF. Endless minutiae involving diplomacy (he was a diplomat for large portions of his public career), so many namedrops I can’t see straight. Tons of backstabbing BS between aristocrats (kind of fun but wears after a while). Intermittently we get some fun melancholic tangents where Chateaubriand waxes eloquent about the awfulness of life (yay!). But serious, those are the best written parts. Life is @#%# up and we can all relate to that.
It’s funny to compare with Proust (who I do think was influenced by Chateaubriand in certain respects), with Proust very little happens but it is way more fascinating. Somehow Proust makes the analysis of paint drying interesting.
The most interesting part in this Chateaubriand volume was the final 50 pages involving the downfall of Charles X. People are backstabbers. Hearing tales of their petty villainy kind of amusing.
Chateaubriand's political views are confusing. A mix of royalist and republican, often confused, he takes on what to me seem like extraordinarily dissonant positions. At heart I think he was a republican who was struggling to transcend the yoke of his class acculturation.
As I alluded to in first paragraph, mistake I made is I prob should’ve read Tome I. Reading up on Chateaubriand, consensus seems to be that is the most interesting volume: involves C’s exile, French revolution, his voyage to the US, fake meeting with Washington, soldiering, etc. I may hit that volume up eventually out of curiosity. But for now am tapped out on this guy. Recommend this volume only for hardcore Frenchyphiles (with a mild sadomasochistic streak)....more
Solid read (and timely I suppose). Fascinating some of the parallels with the US's political response (read mismanagement/lies) between the 1918 pandeSolid read (and timely I suppose). Fascinating some of the parallels with the US's political response (read mismanagement/lies) between the 1918 pandemic and the 2020 COVID19 pandemic. Selfish political interest coming before public health, a sad pattern we see too often.
There are also some interesting potential parallels between these two virus pandemics regarding the issue of cytokine storms: an over-reactive immune response being a central issue in causing severe disease (and in some people death). Maybe the predisposition to the cytokine storms from specific allergens/pathogens/toxins is based on particular immune system genetic subtypes? Hopefully there will be some research on that angle.
Recommend the book. Nice historical overview and provides some added historical context for the current pandemic....more
Very good overview on the British East India company and its exploitation of India (and also exploitation of the British political scene). The amount Very good overview on the British East India company and its exploitation of India (and also exploitation of the British political scene). The amount of power this multinational amassed is almost incomprehensible, but similarly problematic to some of the dynamics seen today: private corporations that become so powerful they end up subverting domestic politics via lobbying and basically "buying" politicians. And of course int'l the human costs in the lands they exploited as they chased power was massive - but this was a negligible nuisance and price of doing business for insatiable European corporate imperialism (which funded its own massive private armies but also received endless gov support).
The company was also the recipient of a massive gov bailout, thanks to its political connections/conflicts of interest. Too big to fail of course.
Regarding massive private power subverting domestic government policy, sometimes this dynamic is checked by a company dying out naturally (living its life cycle, imploding under its own sprawl, or losing competitiveness/markets). Or it is to actively confronted like in the US 1890-1945 trustbusting era where gov and courts take an active approach in checking private power. I guess those issues are interesting to me because we face the same questions in our current era regarding the tech-oligopolies. The EIC itself eventually lost its grip via rebellion and was nationalized, but it had a hell of a long run.
I have 0 knowledge of Indian history, so it was nice to get some insights into the history of this region. And interesting to see the "lessons" that the British learned from their US colonies, ie, don't allow for an educated/aristocratic class to establish power as it can potentially end up in a challenging role to your legitimacy/power. So the Brits went out of their way to disempower any potential challenges to their power in India, the recent example of the US rebellion starkly lingering in the Brit consciousness.
One thing I didn't like: felt the book got into too many tiny details that sometimes asphyxiated the general story....more
This is a book about the Vietnam War, following 2nd lieutenant Waino Mellas and his fellow soldiers. It is grim, gruesome, intense, touching, and moreThis is a book about the Vietnam War, following 2nd lieutenant Waino Mellas and his fellow soldiers. It is grim, gruesome, intense, touching, and more. I had the feeling things might get intense based on the opening sequence of a soldier dealing with a leech burrowing its way into and inside his private parts. That's ominous. I also didn't know leeches could do that.
The writing is excellent, but most impressive to me was the dialogue. There are a diversity of characters depicted, and I felt Marlantes did them justice, captured their essence via dialogue that felt sharp, real, true. And via the dialogue, he seems to paint an accurate picture of the race and class dynamics of the US's fighting force in Vietnam. The relationships between the characters was also revealing and well-done, capturing the complexities of different people relating (and sometimes not) to one another.
I haven't read many books on the Vietnam War. I actually decided to pick this one up as I was watching the recent PBS Vietnam War Documentary. Marlantes was one of the interviewees and he struck me as an interesting person, and in looking him up I discovered he was a writer. Can't tell you how happy I was to stumble across his work.
The thing that's struck me with a lot of the WWI memoirs I've read, and this book falls into this as well: they showcase wars where many soldiers lost complete trust in their superiors and lost their conviction in regards to the purpose of the broader mission. And in those cases, war takes on an even greater absurdity, curdling into a Kafkaesque hell (moreso than it already is at base level). The loss of purpose makes everything all the more maddening.
In this book the moment that best captures this: superiors want to capture a hill. Demand the soldiers capture a hill. After much intense fighting, many losses, the hill is finally taken from the enemy. Shortly thereafter the superiors order it to be abandoned. Capturing the hill as it turns out served no strategic purpose, merely meant as a means to increase body count (one of those ridiculous metrics used in Vietnam) and add a feather on the cap of the superior running the mission but otherwise completely pointless. And then some time later, sometimes weeks, months, soldiers are once again sent to capture that very same hill. They capture it again, and it is the same story, they are once again ordered to abandon it... This circular absurdity is one of those stories that keeps popping up with the Vietnam War....more
Great read. Written close to over 60 years ago, many of the essays are still relevant to our current times. Hofstadter is a skilled writer, meticulousGreat read. Written close to over 60 years ago, many of the essays are still relevant to our current times. Hofstadter is a skilled writer, meticulous researcher, and surgically perceptive.
I enjoyed most of the essays, although my favorites were the title essay, the Anti-Trust essay, and the Barry Goldwater essay. The least interesting essay was the one on the Spanish-American War, but even that one had some interesting insights into the American psyche (and contradictions) regarding foreign policy and imperialism.
In the Goldwater essay, Goldwater certainly comes across as an intransigent ideologue (big surprise!). And I got an education on the whole silver movement which was a nice example of trying to solve a complex (and very real) problem with an overly simple solution. The irony is that the silver people weren’t wrong, but the means of successfully expanding the money supply was a route many from the gold camp and silver camp didn’t see coming: credit creation.
The Anti-Trust essay was interesting because many of the same challenges face us today regarding massive oligopolies that subvert democracy by controlling our politics and legislation. How these problems get solved is interesting.
Going to share a few quotes:
Here’s one from the Goldwater essay that speaks to our times, what I consider an extremely dangerous tool/tactic::
“When (Goldwater/the pseudo-conservative) argues that we are governed largely by means of near-hypnotic manipulation (brainwashing), wholesale corruption, and betrayal, it is indulging in something more significant than the fantasies of indignant patriots: it is questioning the legitimacy of the political order itself. The two-party system, as it has developed in the United States, hangs on the common recognition of loyal opposition: each side accepts the ultimate good intentions of the other…
But an essential point in the pseudo-conservative world view is that our recent Presidents, being men of wholly evil intent, have conspired against the public good. This does more than discredit them: it calls into question the validity of the political system that keeps putting such men into office.”
And this was a passage (from the Anti-Trust essay) that made me laugh:
“The left, if it can be called that, rebels in the name of nonconformity and opts out of the whole bourgeois world in the manner of the beatnik and the hipster. The right (in the manner of Barry Goldwater and his enthusiasts) rebels in the name of the older individualism, which believed that economic life should inculcate discipline and character. Though they would hate to admit it, they are both bedeviled in different ways by the same problem; each of them is trying to make its variety of nonconformism into a mass creed - which is a contradiction in terms. The beats opt out of corporate uniformity in their own uniforms and erect themselves into a stereotype. The right-wingers sing their praises of individualism in dreary, regimented choruses and applaud vigilantes who would kill every vestige of genuine dissent."
Here’s one final long quote that I really like, sums up a lot of things. I’m especially thinking of the 5G/Bill Gates hornet’s nest of conspiracies I’m seeing all over social media:
"The distinguishing thing about the paranoid style is not that its exponents see conspiracies or plots here and there in history, but that they regard a 'vast' or 'gigantic' conspiracy as the motive force in historical events. History is a conspiracy, set in motion by demonic forces of almost transcendent power... The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of this conspiracy in apocalyptic terms... He constantly lives at a turning point: it is now or never in organizing resistance to conspiracy. Time is forever just running out... Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated - if not from the world, at least from the theater of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention...
This enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman: sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He is a free, active, demonic agent. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history himself, or deflects the normal course of history in an evil way... The paranoid's interpretation of history is in this sense distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as consequences of someone's will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional); he is gaining a stranglehold on the educational system.”
Recommended for anyone interested in US history and examination of US national identity and psyche. I’m consistently surprised at how well Hofstadter’s writing and analyses hold-up (also highly recommend his book Anti-Intellectualism In American Life). ...more
Very much enjoyed this book. Entertaining, albeit incredibly disturbing (that is if everything claimed in this book is proven to be true!).
I have to oVery much enjoyed this book. Entertaining, albeit incredibly disturbing (that is if everything claimed in this book is proven to be true!).
I have to offer this statement first: when it comes to CIA history, the deep state, and the history of the Kennedy assassination, in many respects I'm a blank slate. I don't know many of the facts, many of the details. I'm inclined to believe the worst though (those who operate in the shadows often have little checks on their power, no accountability to the public, which is very dangerous and can bring out the worst in human nature). But certain extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, and even if I'm somewhat inclined to lap up what is being served in this book because it fulfills my bias I still am cognizant there may be deep flaws in the evidence here.
This is one of the first books I've read that gets into CIA history in a nuts and bolts manner, while also delving into the Kennedy assassination (final third of the book). The author, David Talbot, seems to have conducted exhaustive research, many of his claims and arguments are backed by facts (uh, I think?). So while I'm marked by his arguments, I need to emphasize that I'm kind of a blank slate here and liable to be very impressed by the first cogent argument I come across on these subjects, of which Talbot's is for me. He offers some pretty astounding assertions and arguments, many of which I have no idea as to how much water they hold. The evidence and argument he crafts, the narrative of the CIA being behind the Kennedy assassination with Dulles playing a prime role? uh, yeah that seems eminently plausible to me. But then again, while I don't know much CIA history I'm certainly inclined to believe the worst about that agency and its shady history and machinations, that's my bias, and it is a strong one. Not to say that there aren't incredibly moral and good people who serve and have served this agency, and it does serve a purpose (although one could question why we should have an agency of this type operating outside of military structure and purview). But given its secretive nature, lack of strong oversight and accountability, I'd say it is an organization that is particularly vulnerable to corrosive unscrupulous undertakings.
The problem is Talbot does rely on some circumstantial flimsy evidence at times, and some weak witnesses: for instance the testimony of Howard Hunt's son, St. John. He is an incredibly weak and flawed witness imo. Talbot does not really acknowledge this, he presents this guy's evidence without any caveats. Here's an article on his son and Hunt I came across, it is interesting. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/f...
There are some good critiques of this book as well. I'd take everything with a grain of salt, especially the Kennedy assassination stuff. Here's a nice review of someone who seems to know a thing or two about this history, provides a counterbalance: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
It's hard for me to parse how deeply biased Talbot might be. He certainly doesn't like Dulles or the CIA (I don't blame him for that though haha). How much he is cherry-picking his facts and information to craft his narrative, how solid are certain testimonials, what are the various hidden motivations and agendas of various witnesses? I honestly don't know but I would sure as heck want deep background info on each witness to establish their credibility. I do know the CIA had a big hand in various overthrows of democratically elected governments and was intimately connected with large multinationals and did their bidding. This is the least controversial stuff to me in this book, mostly covered in the first half: overthrows and attempted overthrows in Guatemala, Congo, Iran, France, CIA links to Nazis. Yadda yadda. In effect the CIA is fundamentally undemocratic, and serves (at least served, in the period of Dulles' time and beyond) to maintain and expand the powers of an oligarchic elite.
Regardless of how accurate or not this book is, it is damn entertaining and very well-written. I highly recommend it. I'd say this book is a mix of the documented known aspects of our history with various conjecture propped up by circumstantial evidence, some more solid some more speculative. Like I've mentioned, separating what's what is tricky for me. One interesting aspect of the book was the window into the the inner-workings, power struggles, and inner-office politics of the CIA. That was really neat stuff.
Would love for my buddies that know this part of American history and have some knowledge of CIA history to read this book. It'd be great to hear your critique and analysis of David Talbot's narrative and evidence....more
Finished this a while back been meaning to write the review.
It is excellent and in depth and sadly much of it is still perfectly relevant. Also greatFinished this a while back been meaning to write the review.
It is excellent and in depth and sadly much of it is still perfectly relevant. Also great for anyone interested in US history. Hofstadter's examination of religion and its role in American society is fascinating. It is by no means simple, there have been multiple factions in the religious sphere here, some were forces for enlightenment/reason/knowledge and others were anti-intellectual forces that cudgeled people with blind dogmatism and preached constant and full submission to authority. These forces waxed and waned, sometimes one gaining the upperhand over the other in the political sphere, each exerting different levels of power in various regions. There is also an interesting class angle that is intermixed within all this, the main one that comes to mind is the elite New England uppercrust religious intellectuals who held a lot of power and sway in that region and often times at the federal level. They helped establish many of the original higher level education institutions. Some fascinating dynamics between them and anti-establishment anti-elitist populist dogmatists who preached against reason and science because it didn't conform to their world-views. But they also hated the elitist New England brahmins because of their outsized power and their monopolization of the educational resources in this country.
One particularly interesting fact that Hofstadter hits: sometimes the greatest anti-intellectuals emanate from the intellectual sphere, reactionary intellectuals who might be perfectly intellectual within a broad array of subjects but in certain arenas are completely blind and retrograde. It was an interesting point and I think very true, I consider them the most pernicious because they leverage their credentials and operate from a larger platform from which they push their wacky anti-intellectual arguments. They are insiders who (sometimes) revel in torpedoing the knowledge establishment (and colleagues) from the inside. I imagine this is generally done in good faith, but sometimes I have to imagine there is jealousy or anger towards colleagues or the intellectual establishment that prompts this sort of thing. I don't know. We can all be blind to our biases, even the highest level experts and intellectuals... but these people can end up doing a lot of damage, the public seizes upon their arguments to confirm their conspiracies or push their anti-intellectual agenda.
Highly recommend this book. Hofstader is a great writer and historian imo. The scope of this book is broad but there is a lot of nuance and in depth examination. It is not a book you read in one sitting though, best to read in slow morsels, digest, think about... Maybe it will be a grinding read for some but I found it completely spell-binding as it really got me thinking and I think helped me learn quite a bit of US history as well. Also a great examination on the philosophy of education, the US education system, attitudes towards education and knowledge, and how these have all evolved. Education and knowledge are not not very high up on the totem pole (as compared to sports and entertainment and worship of power and money). The fact that the word intellectual is still a dirty word here in this country is very telling. We face many of the same problems now that we did 50 years ago when this was written, which is really a mind-bogglingly sad fact.
Maybe we face a new dark age? I have no idea. The paradox is that we have access to more information than ever before but it seems like we only consume and accept what will reinforce narratives we already believe in (in pointing this out I'm not saying I'm immune to this myself haha! but I try to recognize and fight my tendencies but it is certainly not easy). That's why a proper approach to education and instilling critical thinking and curiosity via the education system (but also via family and community) is so important imo, it takes resources and a lot of trial and error, but we are going down the wrong path that is for sure.
Anti-intellectualism is not only an American thing. But we have a rich history of it, and its influence in our culture matters a lot given our power and influence in the world. But if we can't invest in our education system and instill curiosity, love of learning, valuing of knowledge, and an ability to appreciate and practice a certain level of critical thinking within our populace we will gradually lose power in the world. That's how I see it. We've managed to stay on top for a long time, even when our education system wasn't the best because we had a nice brain-drain going for us (along with a lot of fantastic fundamentals like a wealth of natural resources). With current policies we might end up reversing the brain-drain which we have relied upon for so long, it has masked the flaws in our education system and its classist fundamentals. If this happens the flaws of our education system will likely be magnified beyond belief, and we will all bear the economic repercussions (which are already being felt but will only get worse)....more
I wanted to read this for a variety of reasons, but the main reason was that I wanted to get a clearer picture of how a Western democracy - 1920s GermI wanted to read this for a variety of reasons, but the main reason was that I wanted to get a clearer picture of how a Western democracy - 1920s Germany in this instance - could devolve into a violent terroristic regime like the Nazis. I'm worried about some of the parallels I'm seeing today, I get eery feelings that what happened in Germany, the circumstances that allowed for democracy to devolve into violent terroristic regime, is being replicated in today's circumstances facing contemporary Western democracies. The possibility of contemporary democracies falling into more radical governments fueled by hate, anger, and the politics of exclusion is possible in any country, imo. In fact it is already happening, the question is how far we will fall.
Of course there are many reasons for the rise of the Nazis and how this could have happened in a developed, educated, Western democracy. The ridiculous crippling vengeful victory terms set out by the Allies was a major factor, helping lead to multiple economic crises for Germany in the 20s.
But the biggest thing was that regardless of why these economic crises were taking place, there started to be a trafficking in a narrative of conspiracy theories that angrily blamed specific groups for the suffering, for the political/cultural/economic degradation of Germany. These groups included Jews, the Catholic Church, feminists, homosexuals, liberals, foreigners, global banking elite (run by the Jews, so it was claimed), etc etc. I just can't help but feel we are seeing the same thing today, except instead of Jews it has become Muslims and immigrants who are blamed and targeted.
I was relatively familiar with most of the reasons the Nazis came to power. But I'll share the major point I discovered and was struck by: in 20s Germany there was a rise in 3rd rate tabloid newspapers, and the circulation rose astronomically. It was these papers that helped traffic the angry hateful conspiracy theories that blamed and targeted all the groups I mentioned in the previous paragraph. The existence and importance of these tabloid papers fueling conspiracy theories struck me, because it reminded me of today's internet and the rise of 3rd rate internet media sites that traffic in the exact same kind of hateful/angry conspiracy theories targeting and blaming specific groups. It's sad how much sway these kinds of sites have over a large swath of the public. But their lurid, bombastic, emotionally manipulative style of disinformation has proved very easy to digest, just like the tabloid papers in 20s Germany. Also I need to give a nod to a few mainstream media players, their participation in fueling these kind of conspiracy theories is also noted and not ignored.
A few other elements that help to lead to a democracy's downfall: a population facing political and economic strife, being primed with ethno-nationalistic grievances... add in a cult of personality figure who steps into this mix (Hitler) who expertly leverages these grievances through riveting powerful speeches and a ruthless cunning political brilliance... and a political class that is so morally and politically cowardly, that they not only capitulate before these powers but they actively enable and champion the leader of the cult (Hitler) and his political movement, a movement which they fully know is dangerous and wrong - although I should note that not all in the political class are selfish cynics, some actually are true believers in the movement. But in the end, broadly speaking the political class is willing to sacrifice their morals for the sake of selfish careerism...
Richard Evans does a fantastic job imo. I love the fact that he leaves out moralizing and avoids too much editorializing. It makes for a stronger recounting of the history. And frankly I can judge for myself the terribleness of the actions, I don't need the writer needing to cram their moral outrage down my throat. I'm sufficiently outraged as it is, thank you very much ;)
I never could understand how Hitler and the Nazis came to power. But with what I'm seeing in contemporary Western democracies, I get it now. I really do. :(...more
A fantastic history of lyme disease, this story deeply examines the disease, its geographic evolution, its monumental human costs, and the tragedy of A fantastic history of lyme disease, this story deeply examines the disease, its geographic evolution, its monumental human costs, and the tragedy of the politicization of the science and research behind lyme. Highly recommended. Also just wonderfully written....more
Phenomenal book. I can't recommend this enough. Impeccably researched and told in a narrative style that is incredibly accessible. Hochschild focuses Phenomenal book. I can't recommend this enough. Impeccably researched and told in a narrative style that is incredibly accessible. Hochschild focuses on a small cast of characters, follows their stories in such an intimate way that the history and the story come to life in a novelesque way.
I don't know much about colonialism. This book was a great way to get a sense of it and its exploitative evils and how imperialistic capitalism can bring out the absolute worst in human beings. The cool thing is there is a counter to this, there are people who combatted this evil, often times at great peril to their own selves and reputations. The author does tend to give a nuanced assessment of the historical figures involved in this story, no one is overarchingly good or evil. Everyone has a variety of motives, everyone has their own flaws and blindspots and ideological strengths and weaknesses.
I absolutely loved Hochschild's chapters on Joseph Conrad. Conrad is an interesting character, an immigrant to the UK, he vehemently opposed Belgian colonialism and its dark evils of murderous exploitative genocide. He spent time in the Congo and was utterly appalled, appalled enough to write a book about it. And yet Conrad was a major cheerleader for his adopted country's own colonialism. Wtf! it showcases a striking hypocritical blindspot, a complete breakdown in ideological consistency. But Conrad was in love and had such faith in British colonialism and its positive impacts on the world that he was blinded to its dark crimes and exploitative aspects. It's noteworthy that a man as smart and talented as Conrad was not impervious to a shocking breakdown in ideological consistency. A good reminder that shows any one of us can fall into such traps with ease, we can find self-serving justifications for anything and execute the most incredible somersaults of logic to provide cover (most especially for thing/paradigms that benefit us personally). And I have no doubt I do so on various issues.
Hochschild also gives a great overview and insights into Conrad's book Heart of Darkness, which was based on Conrad's own time in the Congo. Makes me really want to reread this book. As disgusted as he was by the Belgians treatment of the African natives, Conrad still portrayed them as uni-dimensional savages which is another example showing how hard it is to transcend one's culture and time. We are people of our own time and place, and societal and cultural constraints and habits can blind us to what might now/or in future seem obvious truths or justice. Lord knows how many things I'm blinded to due to my own circumstances. But that's what I loved with reading this kind of analysis and critique of Conrad, it makes me contemplate myself, my conduct, my life. Where are my failures and inconsistencies, where am I blind to truth and justice due to my cultural habits and upbringing? How am I contributing to problems and how can I open my eyes and discover what I cannot currently see? The hope is that I will find ways to challenge myself to not be lazy in my thinking, in my views, and to continually search and seek the truth and trying to be honest and self-critical in analyzing my conduct and ideologies. Such things are hard, it is very easy to slip into defensiveness and anger when our world views/values/ideologies are challenged, our hypocrisies or double standards pointed out, so this is something I have to continually work on... Ok I'm deviating into self-indulgent self-reflection here, but come on, it's good fun haha...
My favorite character in this story was Roger Casement. A man of ideals. I found him inspiring. His story is so interesting, he was an anti-colonialist and Irish nationalist. I won't give away the arc of his narrative but it is really good.
Leopold was a fascinating character in his own right. A devilishly clever man who expertly manipulated media to control public opinion so he could continue his criminal enterprises. But his ambition and lust for power corrupted his soul, at least that's how I see it.
George Washington Williams, another complex and fascinating figure featured in this book...
Another great aspect of the book was its insights into the workings and nuances of European and American diplomacy. Diplomacy played a large role in shaping and legitimizing colonialism. The US had an interesting role in this, being the first country to legitimize the Belgian Congo.
What else what else... so many things to say on this book I'm losing track...
Oh yeah. Another interesting point. The Belgians, even long after leaving behind colonialism in the Congo, continued to hide and bury the history of what they had done. They did not want to own this history or have it widely known. It was because of the dogged tireless work of a Belgian foreign minister that the documents and archives were finally opened and revealed (I think this happened in the 80s), allowing the scope and depth of the crimes to be more fully understood and acknowledged. I cannot emphasize enough how important I think it is to own one's history, which is why I applaud what this Belgian foreign minister did. As we much as we wish to own and celebrate the beautiful aspects of our history (or what we consider such), we must also embrace and recognize the dark crimes within our past. They are both equally important.
The other bummer with this story, which Hochschild laments, is that there were few African natives from the Congo who left behind a written record of their experiences. So we are left to have this story told to us through the eyes of outsiders. There is some documentation and testimony from the victims, but sadly it is relatively scant....more
Beautifully written. Junger has extraordinary gifts as a writer. The one thing that makes it harder to connect with his accounts was his cool detachmeBeautifully written. Junger has extraordinary gifts as a writer. The one thing that makes it harder to connect with his accounts was his cool detachment in his presentation of events and experiences. Beneath the surface is a bit of soft nationalism which is obnoxious but not completely blind or extreme, at least not as blind or extreme as one would expect from a French or German citizen/soldier who was constantly indoctrinated with this nationalistic state propaganda of the times. It really is pretty much unavoidable in this time period except for a small sliver of exceptional individuals who somehow managed to defy this conformity to nationalism (of which there are examples in all of the WWI countries). I don't mean to be unfair by judging Junger via the prism of our contemporary standards, I mean, we are all products of our own time and that should be taken into consideration. But it does seem like Junger embraced a deeper more radical nationalism at certain points in his life, but in this book it isn't too bad, at least from what I can tell. Nationalism is just the worst though, I really have a hard time standing it at any level...
Another quibble against Junger is he does seem to find some primeval enjoyment in war, there is a joy and celebration of war that is a bit scary/crazy to me. It is a bit hard to swallow such sentiments... but overall he crafts an amazing memoir which captures the essence of the times. The writing is too good, and I do like how he presents things, overall he is a very good nuanced thinker and writer (in spite of the critiques I make), so well worth the read if you are interested in this history.
I'm curious to learn more about Junger, read more of his works, he seems to have been a complex figure.
I'd like to keep reading more memoirs from the war, would like to read memoirs from various participants. I don't know much about the Eastern front, would be nice to read some Russian memoirs of this experience. There is something about WWI, it is the ultimate testament to how far human folly can go, one of the grandest most pointless operatic human tragedies. Maybe reading about it helps me, helps me to contextualize modern suffering and modern problems. But it serves as a reminder as to the horrors and idiotic mistakes humanity is capable of, and why we should always remain vigilant. Even moreso nowadays, with the technological prowess we have we can destroy ourselves much more easily, which is why it is more important than ever to buttress systems of international cooperation and avoid war. Given our destructive capabilities we have less margin for error than 100 years back, with hot-headed ethnonationalists coming to power who view foreign policy as a zero-sum game, there are reasons to worry.
Nationalism in my eyes is the bane of the human species, we will accomplish so much more and improve human welfare by leaps and bounds if we can ever transcend this pernicious ideology. But it is so seductive, and exquisitely wielded by those in power to control and trick us into blindly following and serving their narrow interests no matter the ultimate costs....more
The opening about his school years was surprisingly interesting and would have loved for that to have been explored in more depth. Graves was bullied The opening about his school years was surprisingly interesting and would have loved for that to have been explored in more depth. Graves was bullied and had issues concerning identity (having a multinational background/ancestry). He was a nerd (ie true scholar!), he gets bullied by the richer kids who can coast on connections and money and find scholarship tedious (reminds of Kvothe in Name of the Wind when he goes to magic school). Graves goes full Karate Kid, takes up boxing and lays waste to his childhood enemies (well, sort of).
The rest of the text concerning WWI is good, but Graves has a rather dry, clinical approach - a choice of style that often makes him seem disassociated from the events themselves. There are some funny moments, especially the depictions of the gallows humor typical in such barbaric endeavors. And it was amazing how many of his generations most important figures he formed relationships with, including people like Siegfried Sassoon and Bertrand Russell.
The acerbic commentary on the political and military leaders is sprinkled throughout the text, and from the WWI memoirs I’ve read seems to have been a common sentiment among a lot of the front-line ranks. Hard not to get pissed off when you see a captain/generals bounding around town in Rolls-Royces, all the while castigating the frontline guys for some minor bullshit. Not to mention paying lipservice to the frontline soldiers’ sacrifices while staying safely far behind the lines enjoying caviar and champagne.
Even if the clinical style of writing is somewhat underwhelming, it is well-executed. And I love these memoirs on WWI, very important reminder of the capacity for arrogance and idiocy that political and military leadership can have - which can lead to grand operatic tragedies at the largest scales. A good reminder to always be leery of those who are in charge, and if possible have to try and keep them accountable if and whenever possible. Ambition and arrogance (and nationalism) run amok is a frightening thing, a toxic blinding stew....more
Loading...
