Monthly Archives: March 2022

The Identity and Impact of Vikings in Developing Europe

Elsa Lang Lively

Declan, the Irish monk, strolls up the abbey stairs with his steaming bowl of chicken broth to get a bird’s eye view of the shoreline while saying his morning prayers. After several minutes of intense chanting he opens his eyes to witness the first rays of the morning light shoot out from the horizon. To his horror, the day’s dawn reveals three rapidly approaching boats with dragon heads fixed upon the ships’ bows. Gasping in horror, he recalls the stories of the infamous Vikings his father and grandfather would tell while sitting around the dinner table. Realizing he must alert his fellow brethren of these vicious marauders, he wildly stumbles over to the bell tower, his chicken broth ration sloshing out across the floor. He sounds the bells — one, two, three times — to give out the distress signal. Unfortunately for Declan, he also remembers he has taken a vow of silence just three days prior and is unable to vocalize his fears to the other monks living in the abbey under penalty of spiritual discipline. After some serious contemplation on the roof, he madly stumbles down the stone stairs before bumbling into a tall, strong, blond warrior with axe poised in hand.

When many think of the Vikings, they picture a scenario like this one, with Norsemen pillaging and destroying everything in sight, attempting to eradicate religion and peace in neighboring European countries. What many do not realize, however, is the Vikings had a more significant impact on developing Europe than many give them credit for. The Vikings contributed greatly to European political structure, economy, and culture.

The Vikings are defined by Collins English Dictionary as “any of the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes who raided by sea most of northern and western Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries, later often settling, as in parts of Britain” (Fitzhugh 41). Archaeologists have found artifacts from pre-Viking times in Scandinavia revealing modern-day Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were made up of multiple kingdoms or clans. Before Scandinavian people began to pillage and explore more southern nations, they were already forming economic centers and trading among other Scandinavian tribes. Kingdoms in southern Norway, for example, were already trading with other kingdoms throughout Norway as well as with the Saami in the far north and with the Danes and those in the western Baltic. Although these separate tribes traded among each other and shared the same pagan beliefs in Norse gods such as Odin, Thor, and Loki, the Scandinavian countries as we know them today did not exist during the time of the Vikings. The individuality of each tribe and kingdom was a defining characteristic of the Viking age (41).

There are several theories as to why the Vikings started to seek their fortunes overseas, such as the desire for land, wealth, and fame. “Only some three percent of the land in Norway is suitable for arable farming” (Fitzhugh 32). Scandinavians were limited in their sources of income during this time period and could really only make a living off of trading, some farming, and craftsmanship. Long and harsh winters made it difficult for Nordic peoples to earn an income year round because conditions were too brutal to work outdoors for extended periods of time. Not only did they want to bring resources from other lands back to Scandinavia, but also they also wanted to form settlements in places they invaded to have later access to their natural and produced resources.

Scandinavians who “went Viking,” meaning they temporarily left their villages or towns to seek wealth abroad, had adventurous spirits and showed bravery in combat. Part of the reason for this is due to the worship of pagan Norse gods during this time (Allan 65). Vikings sacrificed to their gods before they went out pillaging and believed by having success in combat they would bring honor to their gods and their clans. Because the Vikings were pagans, no sacred places were off-limits to them when they were set on pillaging. This meant the Vikings could take riches and relics from other countries in churches and monasteries and not feel guilty about their loot.

Viking society was very structured and operated under a three-part class system. The highest class was made up of the kings and nobles, who were families with wealth, land, and rank. Below them were the freemen, who made up the majority of the Viking people, and finally the slaves. Not all Scandinavians were Vikings, and a large percentage of the Nordic people were traders, craftsmen, or farmers. Scandinavians with these professions aided the Viking voyages by building long ships or providing supplies and food for the voyagers. Women, too, were raised to be strong and capable of providing for their families and taking on responsibilities of running farms and businesses while the men were off pillaging and colonizing (Lassieur 54).

The identity and impact of the Vikings on developing Europe are topics not often addressed or given much attention by today’s society. As the years pass, some aspects of history are remembered and taught to the next generations, while others are overlooked and often misconstrued because not enough attention is paid to the facts. It is important to be informed about many different people groups and events in history so they are not forgotten by future generations and so we can have a clearer, more accurate picture of the past, using what we observe from the past to improve our future as a society. If we preserve these areas of history through research and promotion of archaeological findings, then the history of the Vikings and Norse people groups will be preserved for many more years to come.

In order to prove my thesis, that the Vikings had a significant impact on developing European political structure, economy, and culture, I will first address these three areas of influence before refuting two counter-arguments: first, the Vikings were merely barbarians and destroyers of history, and there is no pressing need to study the Vikings and their impact on developing European countries.

The first point I will address to support my thesis is the Vikings had a significant impact on European political structure. Because the extent of the Vikings raids and exploration reached from the deserts of the Middle East to the shores of North America, the Vikings directly impacted each area in which they found themselves. The most significant impacts concerning early European political structure were largely centered in the British Isles, modern-day Russia, and France. In the British Isles specifically, “Viking settlers to Great Britain brought new ideas, such as the beginnings of the feudal system of government that became the norm long after the Vikings’ influence faded. The Vikings created and founded market towns. They introduced new ideas about law and justice that became the foundation for many modern justice systems” (Lassieur 9). Even after the Vikings ceased to directly control Great Britain, the British people still used the structure the Vikings employed in government and laws to promote prosperity and stability, and they added to the growth and success of economically powerful towns and ports the Vikings had founded.

Another lasting impact the Vikings had on developing British political structure was the emergence of British national pride. “The raids gave to the emergence of a sense of common identity among the English peoples, and the context they provided for the formulation of a distinctively Alfredian political order” (Sawyer 63). Because the Vikings had begun to threaten the political stability of various British provinces through raiding, the people of Britain, who had once been divided into multiple smaller kingdoms based on geographical location, were encouraged to join forces under a common British identity to have a better chance of protecting their heritage and culture during the time of Viking occupation. The Vikings may not have planned on having this kind of impact on British politics, yet their presence in Britain shaped the future of the British political structure. Even after the age of the Vikings was long over, the conditions for England to prosper politically and operate nationally were caused by the presence of the Vikings.

The Vikings did not only make this impact on English political structure but also on Irish and Scottish political structures as well. Specifically in Ireland, the frequent pillaging and looting caused Celts to realize their need for a more central form of government, which they chose to form into a royal sovereignty. “The idea that there should be a kingship of Ireland, pursued with great energy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, owed more to foreign example and to the economic and political changes brought about by the Vikings than to inherited concepts of power. They brought Ireland into closer political and economic contact with Britain and the European mainland” (Sawyer 109). When the Vikings settled in Ireland, they brought with them economic opportunity through trade, constructing coastal towns that grew enormously over the years in prosperity and population, such as Dublin, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick, even after the end of the Viking age. In this way, the European world became a more connected place as Viking rule united previously separate and remote people groups, especially those living in Ireland at the time.

Even before Viking longboats had started to frequent the British Isles, the feared Norsemen had already made a lasting political influence in France. Evidence of the Viking raids and ultimately colonization on French soil can be seen in the region of Normandy. The name of Normandy itself hearkens back to the age of the Nordic peoples who settled in France. As far as affecting French politics, the Vikings greatly influenced developing French political structure during the time period. “In 911 A.D. they founded Normandy as a virtually independent state in western France. Having established a well-run government there, they spread out to conquer England in 1066, laying the foundations for that modern nation” (“The Vikings and their Impact”). Other French states looked to the precedent of the Vikings in Normandy, as those living in Normandy were experiencing economic and political prosperity, while other areas of France were still struggling to establish a political structure that worked well.

Even further north, the Vikings were influential in the development of the Russian political state. “In the 850s and 860s, they made their way into Russia where they would found city-states that included Kiev & Novgorod” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”). As a result, Novgorod and Kiev became influential cities in the formation of the Novgorod Republic, a large and powerful medieval Russian state which rose to power between the 12^th and 15^th centuries and set the framework for the developing Russian nation. Before the arrival of the Vikings, there was little to no political structure in developing Russia, and an external influence was necessary to cause early Russian cities to grow in economic and political influence at the time they did. As the Vikings had already done in the British Isles by promoting economic growth and trade among their neighboring European nations, they also caused these newly developing trade towns to grow at rapid rates, connecting Russia with the rest of Europe through trade by sea. The cities of Novgorod and Kiev, founded early on by the Vikings, grew into prosperous centers for political and economic wealth long after the end of the Viking age.

No matter where the Vikings chose to settle and gain political control in Europe, they employed their own political styles of central leadership of a head of a clan or state to govern a larger people group. Although the native people groups of countries such as England, Ireland, Scotland, and France probably did not like the idea of being ruled by foreigners, the Vikings did bring order to the areas which they ruled and set a precedent for political structure these countries used as a framework for their own national rule after the Viking age came to an end.

The Vikings’ ideas about law continued to influence governments throughout the Western world. Their system of allotting land to trusted members of a leader’s army was the foundation for the feudal system, a governmental philosophy that was in place in Europe for more than four hundred years after the Viking Age. And the Viking idea of allowing ordinary citizens to have a say in government, developed in the Viking civilization … was the basis of many democracies and republics founded in later centuries. Some historians suspect that the Founding Fathers of the United States may have looked to the ancient Vikings for ideas on how to develop their new governmental system.
(Lassieur 98)

The feudal system greatly shaped the developing European political system, especially in the British Isles. This goes to show politics and divisions of power were centered around philosophies the Vikings previously introduced, and the people living in these feudal societies continued to incorporate their own political views over the years to follow.

My second argument in support of my thesis is the Vikings also significantly influenced the developing European economic system. The Vikings focused on establishing trade ports along British, Irish, French, Scandinavian, and Russian coastlines to further their trade productivity. Because the Vikings were seafaring people, it made sense for them to continue making a living in a way connected to the sea and river systems. The Vikings traded with and pillaged towns connected to nearly every waterway in Europe, from northern seas to the Mediterranean and even across the Atlantic Ocean. “They were the first to pioneer trade routes down the Volga and the Dnieper; they opened the routes to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire; they traded with the Franks and the Baltic; and they even opened up the routes to the Far East” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”). Long after the Viking age came to an end, the trade routes they previously established and made famous across Europe continued to be used by European traders for years to follow.

Not only did the Vikings establish necessary trade routes to connect various European nations during the time period, but their innovation also led to a new kind of economy in northern Europe — one based on the use of currency derived from metals. This type of economic system was a newer, more advanced system than the system of trading and bartering for goods that had been so popular in many parts of developing northern Europe up until that point. “This led to the creation of international markets and trading across the ‘known world’ of the time” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”). Northern European countries were now more capable of developing their own mercantile markets based upon a uniform currency and could start to build up their regional economies.

My third confirmation argument is the significant impact the Vikings had on developing Europe through various nations’ various cultures. Because the Vikings settled and had temporary control over countries such as modern-day England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and France, they influenced the cultures of these developing nations in multiple ways, some of which are still evident today. For example, “Place names are an invaluable source of information on the extent of Scandinavian influence, and their distribution mirrors the geographical spread of colonisation [sic] known from historical and archaeological evidence. In England, for instance, Scandinavian names are concentrated within the Danelaw, the area of northern and eastern England that was in Danish hands” (“Viking Colonists”). Names of towns and villages in the British Isles still in existence today can often trace their names back as far as Viking rule. Places names ending in –by, –thorpe, and –thwaite, for example, are sure signs of previous Viking occupation and influence. Even a thousand years later, the establishment of towns by the Vikings still plays a role in geography and culture today.

In Normandy, the Norsemen who had established their own separate political state in France integrated into French culture, borrowing from French customs while still maintaining their own distinct Scandinavian traditions. The result of intermarriage and the passing of years led to a new people group — the Normans (Ringler 57). This caused the region of Normandy both to have a French identity by geographical location and remain a distinctly Norse people group as well in their customs and manner of living. Even today, the region of Normandy has its own distinct dialect and traditional dress, setting it apart from the rest of France.

The Vikings were not just raiders, fighters, traders, and rulers, but also innovators and explorers as well. Through excavations in early Viking settlements in Britain, archaeologists have found items that have demonstrated the superb craftsmanship and skill of Viking settlers during the time period.

They were very skilled craftsman capable of creating a wide range of high quality material goods. Artifacts from Viking Dublin include wooden spindles, a wide variety of bone needles, hundreds of examples of cloth and wool and spools of thread, and a huge variety of leather goods, including boots and shoes. Excavations at Jorvik, which demonstrate that the city greatly expanded in population and wealth under Viking rule, produced an equally rich assortment of pins, needles, spindles, cloth, leather, and other artifacts that indicate their prowess at creating clothing and garments from leather and cloth.
(“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”)

One of the most referenced cultural and technological contributions the Vikings made to developing Europe was undoubtedly the Viking long ship. The Viking long ship was a highly advanced form of nautical engineering for the time period, and many other European nations attempted to copy the design of the Viking long ship due to its speed, sleek design, and durable structure. Excavated long ships in Scandinavia and northern Britain support what some have called folklore — that the Vikings did, in fact, make the voyage across the Atlantic as far as North America, as their long ships were built solidly enough and could travel fast enough to complete the voyage.

The Vikings made natural explorers as well. It makes sense the Vikings would be so good at exploration, due to their love of the seas, their ability to survive and adapt to harsh climates, and their cultural beliefs that caused them to seek adventure and bring honor to their gods and to their families. “They were the pre-eminent explorers of their time, being the first to discover the Faeroes, Iceland, Greenland, North America, and Spitzbergen, the farthest point North that had ever been reached by explorers in 1194. Discovered in 1961 by the Norwegian explorer Helge Ingstad, an international team of archaeologists excavating the site at L’Anse aux Meadows unearthed the remains of eight Viking long houses as well as a blacksmith’s shop complete with anvil, iron fragments and slag” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”). These archaeological finds and more have solidified the proof of Viking exploration to the ends of the earth, despite rough conditions that would it make it near impossible for people to survive. Because the Vikings journeyed to parts of the world where no European settlers had previously been, they increased their global spread of Norse culture and colonization to other northern territories.

Although their settlements in North America were not destined to last, they proved the voyage to a “New World” truly was possible to other neighboring cultures, which followed Vikings’ example in exploration and colonization for years to come. They also had a lasting impact on Iceland, which is still considered to be a Scandinavian country today. After exploring various lands outside of close neighboring European countries, the Vikings looked onward to see what other wealth and opportunity could be found elsewhere, establishing colonies in both Greenland and Iceland. Specifically in Iceland, the Vikings contributed to the formation of the local language, place names, and the style of open government, which included the jury system. Their development of a distinctive Icelandic culture can be seen in their literature, the Icelandic Sagas. “The Sagas in Iceland, which told of family, feuds, and the great kings and their voyages, was the height of medieval literature of the time” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”).

The extent of the Vikings’ influence may be even greater than historians and archaeologists speculate, as more evidence and artifacts are dug up in Britain, France, and Scandinavia with each passing year. With every new piece of evidence found, the case for a significant impact on developing Europe due to the Viking age only grows stronger. Yet the evidence and history already available about the Vikings has truly changed the way many perceive the Vikings and has caused many to realize the significant impact the Vikings had on developing European political structure, economy, and culture.

The first counter-argument people often make against the Vikings is the Vikings were purely barbarians and destroyers of history, as they frequently burned records and removed historical and religious artifacts from houses of worship. It cannot be denied the Vikings pillaged and ransacked monasteries and churches, especially in the British Isles; however, many believe these are the only contributions, or lack thereof, the Vikings made in Europe. This is simply not true. They built prosperous towns, established governments, and promoted trade among other European nations. Their goal was not just to bring prosperity back to their clans in Scandinavia by taking resources, but also to branch out and colonize other areas of Europe as well.

It is important to remember the Vikings were pagans and were not really concerned with sacred religious artifacts and the respecting of church leaders. Because of a lack of Christian influence in their culture, there was no Biblical moral code they were compelled to follow. They targeted monasteries and houses of worship simply because they housed the most wealth and monetary resources they could take back to their clans in Scandinavia, not because they wanted to kill all the Christians in Europe.

It is also necessary to keep in mind the Vikings lived during a very bloody time in European history in general. The Vikings were not the only ones invading and pillaging other towns. This does not justify their actions but does go to show during times of unrest and instability, men act based upon their needs of survival and desire to prosper. The goal of the Vikings was simply to acquire more resources and wealth to provide for their villages, bringing honor to their gods and their families in the process. Being a Viking for a period of time was a way of life for many Scandinavians. Most would become Vikings temporarily to bring back enough wealth to start a business or to make sure their families would be financially stable. Usually, men that became Vikings participated in several expeditions before returning to a lifestyle that involved either trade or industry.

A second major counter-argument is there is no need to study the Vikings and their impact on developing European countries. Some might argue other empires lasted much longer than the Vikings and had more significant impacts or contributions on society. Although the age of the Vikings did not last as long as the Roman Empire or the Egyptian Empire did, this does not mean the Vikings should be forgotten simply because some believe they are not as worthwhile of a subject to study. If we pick and choose which portions of history should be studied, then we lose sight of many important aspects of history that have equally contributed to and influenced society today. Because historical events are built upon other historical events preceding them, no aspect of history has not influenced another key part of history. To ignore a certain event or people group would mean ignoring the cause of another event or development in history. The Vikings truly did influence history — it is just a matter of how much attention society wants to devote to them today.

The study of history affects different people in different ways. One popular way in which many people devote time to studying history is through researching their ancestors and finding out how far back their roots can be traced. Many find their identities in the past, since the past shapes the present and the future, either positively or negatively. Since researching the past is a way in which history truly comes alive for many, people can trace their roots back to Scandinavian origins or to locations in Europe that were once Viking colonies. In this way, the studying of Viking culture and impact on Europe does still influence people today. Scandinavian countries certainly have been impacted by their Viking heritage, but the influence of the Vikings has stretched much further than just these countries through settlements and colonization in other European countries. Through storytelling and record-keeping, both the stories and the folklore of the fierce Vikings have been kept alive over the years. Even in the United States are groups of people with either Norse ancestry or who are simply passionate about Scandinavian heritage called Sons of Norway. Organizations like these keep history alive, and old Scandinavian culture is remembered and studied. With every passing year, however, these historical groups shrink with a lack of interest in younger generations for the stories of the past. By studying and learning more about people groups like the Vikings, not only is history preserved, but the next generations are taught how to appreciate and learn from the past as a way to cherish their heritage and incorporate the past with today’s culture.

While there is some truth to the modern cultural stereotype of the Norse Vikings, it is important to remember there is much more to the identity and impact of the Vikings than many realize. From a Christian perspective, the Vikings did not add to the spiritual enlightenment of Europe because they were pagans. The goal of the Vikings was not to promote morality and ethics but to acquire land and wealth to have a higher standard of living. This does not mean, however, the Vikings could not or did not have a significant, or even positive, impact on developing Europe. They not only caused their own territory in northern Europe to expand and become prosperous for years to come with their necessary establishment of trade routes that set the standard for Scandinavian economy, but they also built up other developing European nations in the process. From looking at the historical facts objectively, overwhelming evidence exists in support of a positive Viking influence. To ignore the positive impacts of the Viking age would mean ignoring a vital part of European history, a part from which many derive their culture and ancestry. Like all other aspects of history, it is necessary to research and learn from all we can to have a more accurate and clear perception of the past and to grow as a society.

Works Cited

Allan, Tony. Exploring the Life, Myth, and Art of the Vikings. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2012. Print.

Fitzhugh, William W. and Ward, Elizabeth I. Vikings: the North Atlantic Saga. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 2000. Print.

“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture.” Sourcing Innovation, April 2009. Web. Feb. 2013.

Lassieur, Allison. The Vikings. San Diego: Lucent Books, 2001. Print.

Sawyer, Peter. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1997. Print.

“Viking Colonists.” BBC History, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. Feb. 2013.

“Vikings.” Collins English Dictionary. 5^th edition. 2003. Print.

“The Vikings and their Impact.” Flow of History, 2007. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Evidence for God from Wider Teleology

Leave a reply

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

The argument from design for the existence of God originally propounded by William Paley, also known as the teleological argument, was long thought to have been refuted by Darwin’s revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection. However, in recent years, a new form of this argument has arisen. Instead of focusing on specific instances of apparent purposive design, this argument seeks to emphasize what biologist Thomas Huxley referred to as “wider teleology” (“Darwin”). Although Huxley was himself a staunch evolutionist, sometimes even referred to as “Darwin’s bulldog” (“Briefly Noted”), he nevertheless admitted there exists a teleology left untouched by evolution (“Darwin”). “Wider teleology” emphasizes the necessary conditions for the existence of a universe that could even theoretically permit intelligent life in the first place. It is this “wider teleological” argument that leads me to the conclusion God exists.

In recent years, the scientific community has been stunned by the sheer amount of complexity and sensitivity of the conditions necessary for the origin and evolution of life on earth. In order for intelligent carbon-based life to even have the possibility of existing, it is dependent upon a delicate balance of both physical and cosmological factors. For example, scientist G. J. Withrow found in 1955 life would be possible only in a universe with exactly three dimensions (“Teleological Argument”). Our laws of chemistry and physics are entirely dependent upon dimensionality, and those laws provide many of the pre-existing conditions necessary for intelligent life.

Moreover, certain physical constants in the universe must be exactly as they are to permit life, namely, the four fundamental forces of gravity, the weak force, the strong force, and electromagnetism (“Teleological Argument”). There is no scientifically necessary reason why these forces have these specific constants assigned to them rather than other constants; they simply happen to possess values such that life is permitted. For example, if the constant of the strong force were increased by a mere 1%, nuclear resonance levels would be so altered nearly all carbon would be burned into oxygen (“Teleological Argument”). Changes in electromagnetism by a sheer one part in 10^40 would result in the inability of stars like our sun to develop (“Teleological Argument”). Examples of fine-tuning in this area are too numerous to count, including the ratio between the mass of protons and that of neutrons, the cosmological constant (the amount of dark energy in the universe), and the density of the universe (“Teleological Argument”). Even the rate at which the universe expands is exquisitely fine-tuned such that if altered in the slightest degree, it would make intelligent life impossible (“Teleological Argument”).

A possible objection to this argument would be to assert that although fine-tuning is required for the existence of intelligent human life, perhaps, given any number of different sets of physical constants and arbitrary quantities, different forms of life might have arisen. While it is true we may be able to imagine life in other possible universes, we can’t imagine life in just any other possible universe. The concept of life is, by its very nature, complex. Everything that is alive must die at some point in the finite future, and thus, the conditions necessary for survival of a particular life form must be fine-tuned. In a world in which there were an extremely high amount of universes, the complex nature of life demands the set of life-permitting universes be extremely small. Thus, we can conclude that any universe which would permit life would still possess significant fine-tuning due to the vast improbability of its occurrence. It cannot be reasonably denied these are examples of apparent design left untouched by Darwin’s theory of evolution. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig proposes three possible explanations for this “wider teleology” of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design.

One possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is what Craig refers to as physical necessity, the idea the universe must necessarily be life-permitting due to a sort of “theory of everything” that would unify the various physical constants. Surely, on its face, this alternative seems highly implausible. One can imagine all sorts of possible universes in which the initial conditions were slightly modified as to prohibit the existence of intelligent human life. Not only is there no evidence for this explanation, but we have good reason to reject it as well.

Included in the fine-tuning of the universe are certain arbitrary quantities in addition to the aforementioned physical constants not governed by any physical law. That is to say, even if the laws of physics were other than what they are, these quantities would not be affected. These quantities are in fact simply “put in” as boundary conditions upon which the physical laws of nature operate. For example, we have the amount of entropy, or the measurement of “disorder” in the universe, as well as its density and initial speed of expansion (“Teleological Argument”). Even if there were a sort of “theory of everything” which was able to unify the various laws of nature into one explanation, the need for the fine-tuning with respect to these fundamental arbitrary quantities would remain (“Teleological Argument”).

Even still, any “theory of everything” with the complex ability to unite the physical constants could itself be seen as a supreme instance of fine-tuning (“Teleological Argument”). For example, the most plausible candidate for such a unified theory is known as string theory, which postulates all of nature is reducible to tiny, vibrating strings. However, scientists have concluded this theory can only work in a world composed of exactly eleven dimensions (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”). Thus, although string theory explains certain instances of fine-tuning, by invoking it we automatically incur a need for a new kind of geometrical fine-tuning. Therefore, the idea of the universe’s fine-tuning being explained by physical necessity is not only implausible on its face but also severely lacking in support from scientific evidence.

A second possible and perhaps more common explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is that of chance. This view posits the various constants and quantities in the universe simply happen by sheer accident to be within the infinitesimally microscopic range of permitting life. Initially, the problem with this is the odds against a life-permitting universe forming by chance alone are so incomprehensibly great they cannot be reasonably faced. While it is true anything is possible, the philosopher ought to be concerned not with possibility but with reasonability; we ought to determine what is the most reasonable inference from the evidence.

Furthermore, this problem cannot be overcome by the atheist who claims improbabilities happen. While this is certainly true, there is a factor at play here beyond sheer improbability that makes the chance explanation so implausible. The universe’s fine tuning does not only possess improbability, but specified improbability. It conforms to an independently given pattern, namely, that which permits the existence of intelligent human life (“Teleological Argument Pt. 1”).

To illustrate, imagine finding a chimpanzee typing away at a computer. Upon approaching further, you find mere gibberish on the screen and rightly do not conclude the random string of letters is the result of any sort of intelligent design. Suppose, however, upon entering you found the chimp was actually typing out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. At that point you would be reasonable to conclude there was some sort of intelligence involved, even though the two strings of letters produced were equally as improbable (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”). The difference lies in whether an improbability is specified, and in the case of the universe, the fact intelligent life is permitted entails specificity. In other words, our universe isn’t just any old universe; rather, it is one that allows for intelligent human life.

One way the atheist could surmount this difficulty is with what is known as the anthropic principle, which posits we ought to not be surprised to observe a life-permitting universe, since if the universe were not finely tuned, we would not be here to be surprised about it (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”). While it is true we should not be surprised not to observe conditions which are incompatible with our existence, it would be a leap of logic to then assert we ought not to be surprised to observe conditions which are compatible with our existence. The statement simply does not follow logically.

To illustrate, consider a second scenario in which one is brought before a group of 100 trained marksmen who each aim to shoot him. If each one missed, he would not be justified in saying “I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to be alive! After all, if I had been shot, I wouldn’t be here to be surprised!” (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”). Rather, a proper response would entail surprise at the fact of the enormous improbability of each of the marksmen missing their target. Such is the case with the universe. We are justified in being surprised at our own existence because of the vast improbability of a life-permitting universe.

However, an emerging metaphysical hypothesis has added a twist to the analogy of the trained marksmen in an effort to refute the theory of design. Imagine that same scenario, only with the addition when one opens his eyes to see he is alive, he discovers there are 100 other people lying dead around him. He is no longer surprised to see himself alive, he simply considers himself lucky to have been the one who, by chance alone, was not shot (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”). This is what is being propounded by what many call the theory of “the world ensemble” or the multiverse. The idea is by positing an extremely high or infinite number of universes, by chance alone there would happen to be a universe that would “survive the shooting of the marksmen” and overcome the vast improbability to permit intelligent life. However, there are three key reasons why the theory of the multiverse is unsuccessful in removing the need for a designer.

If we apply here the methodological principle known as Ockham’s razor, which states causes ought not to be posited beyond necessity, the design theory is a better explanation because it is simpler. It seems a more reasonable reaction to attribute fine-tuning to a fine-tuner, rather than mere chance. To posit an infinite number of universes simply in an effort to explain away the fine-tuning of our particular universe rather than simply choose belief in God is to posit a more complex cause than is necessary.

One would never make this sort of inference to chance in daily life. If while walking alone the beach, one found a watch in the sand, he would be much more likely to attribute it to some sort of intelligence than to shout, “I shouldn’t be surprised to find this! After all, in this infinite multiverse of ours, there’s bound to be some universe in which this watch assembles through natural processes!” Clearly, the design hypothesis is a better explanation when judging on the criterion of simplicity propounded by Ockham’s razor.

In response to this, the atheist may point out the idea of a maximally great being entails great complexity. While it is true that God, if he exists, is certainly a complex sort of being, that is very different from stating he is a complex explanation. For example, in the scenario of finding a watch, it would be a simpler explanation to attribute it to a human rather than mere chance, even though the actual human being is extremely complex.

In addition, positing a multiverse as an explanation for fine-tuning does not advance our understanding of the world and our place within it the same way the design hypothesis does. We cannot understand much more about our universe by simply asserting it to be the product of mere chance in a world ensemble of universes. However, the design hypothesis could reveal to us great understanding about the meaning and purpose of our universe.

Secondly, there is simply no empirical evidence for the multiverse theory. It is no more “scientific” than the design theory (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”). In fact, it is not even the sort of thing that could ever possibly be empirically proven. Science, for all its capabilities, simply by definition cannot reach beyond the boundaries of our universe. However, a key difference between the two theories lies in the fact while there is independent evidence for the existence of a divine designer, such as the cosmological and ontological arguments, there is nothing but sheer guesswork to support the existence of the multiverse. Again, it is the task of the philosopher not to confuse himself with every possible explanation, but to determine what is the most reasonable inference. From a strictly evidential point of view, the design hypothesis is a better explanation.

Finally, even if the existence of the multiverse could somehow be proven, it still would not alleviate the need for a fine-tuner. One of the most compelling examples of this “wider teleology” sort of fine-tuning is the constant for the rate of expansion of matter (“Teleological Argument”), which would still be in play even given a multiverse. Thus, attempts to explain the multiverse do not get rid of fine-tuning, they merely push it further back.

After ruling out the possible explanations of physical necessity and chance to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, there is only one option left: design. One may not always be pleased with where the evidence leads, but in order to maintain intellectual honesty, he must follow it. The sheer complexity and intricacy of the physical constants and arbitrary quantities of our universe cry out for an explanation that atheism cannot reasonably satisfy. We must go where the evidence leads us, therefore, and conclude that belief in the existence of God is justified by this argument.

Works Cited

Craig, Dr. William Lane. “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle”. Leader.com. N.p., 8 November 2005. Web. 11 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 1).” The Defenders Podcast. 23 September 2007. Reasonable Faith. 11 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 2).” The Defenders Podcast. 1 October 2007. Reasonable Faith. 1 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 3).” The Defenders Podcast. 8 October 2007. Reasonable Faith. 11 October 2012.

Lennox, James. “Darwin Was a Teleologist.” Faculty.arts.ubc.ca. N.p, N.d. Web. 11 October 2012.

Oakes, Edward. “Briefly Noted 56.” Firstthings.com. N.p., October 2003. Web. 11 October 2012.

Contemporary French Secularism and the French Revolution

Leave a reply

Audrey Livingstone

Imagine, if you will, living in a time in which your country’s governmental and political systems are completely void of stability. Imagine living in fear of a bloodbath taking place a block away from your home. Imagine a man rising to power who beheads a man, woman, or child at the snap of a finger. Imagine living in a society in which almost anything can be justified under the guise of pursuing liberty, equality, fraternity; imagine living in complete and utter chaos. Millions of French people experienced these things daily throughout the French Revolution. This was perhaps the darkest period of French history, and its effects linger in society today.

The following information is based off of historian Robert Wilde’s summary of the French Revolution. The French Revolution is one of the most widely recognized historical events to ever have taken place. Its most crucial events occurred between the years 1789 and 1802, when the country was wracked with political and social turmoil. The absolutist monarchy was under attack by those who wished to transform it into a Republic, and all the uprising caused riffs among the French people. Originally brought upon by financial crisis in France, the beginning of the Revolution is traced back to May 5, 1789, when the États-Généraux, or the General Assembly, gathered for the first time since 1614.

Louis XVI called the Assembly, which was composed of three different estates. The first was the clergy, the second the nobility, and the third the general public. This was done in order to assess the country’s financial situation and form solutions to whatever issues were identified. However, instead of coming to a unanimous agreement on what was to be done, the Assembly fell to pieces. After having been locked out of a meeting, the third estate met in an indoor tennis court and took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing “never to separate till they had done something” (Bunker Hill Monument Association 50). The third estate then overtook the General Assembly and declared itself a National Assembly. The king, who wished to avoid more of a power struggle than had already taken place, gave the Assembly power. It then suspended tax laws and began reforming France.

As the Old Regime (or Ancien Régime) fell, the National Assembly formed the Legislative Assembly, who drew up a new Constitution. Unfortunately, the Legislative Assembly also took it upon themselves to legislate against the church and turn against any who supported the king and his monarchy. As the changes brought upon by the National and Legislative Assemblies became more drastic, the Revolution changed direction in 1792.

The National Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, who officially abolished the monarchy and, a year later in 1793, executed the king (Louis XVI). After his execution, France was declared a Republic and was then plunged into one of the bloodiest and most terrifying parts of the period: the Terror. Spearheaded by Robespierre, the Reign of Terror was a period in which anyone noble, anyone related to the monarchy, was sent to the guillotine. Nearly a year later, after tens of thousands of deaths, the people turned against Robespierre and those who aided him in leading the Terror. Robespierre was himself sent to the guillotine, and the Reign of Terror came to an end.

A new constitution was then drawn up. This constitution put five men, labeled as the Directory, in charge of the country. However, due to election rigging and political corruption, the Directory became quite a dishonest affair. Napoleon Bonaparte became involved in the Directory, and he ended up bringing the Revolutionary Wars to a close as well as having himself declared consul for life (sole leader of France). In 1804, he declared himself Emperor; the Revolution had ended, and France had become an empire.

Since the focus of my thesis is showing how the Revolution is still alive today, I will not be surveying French history from the Revolution to now. I would now like to define a few terms I will be using throughout my thesis: secularism; the Revolution’s slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité”; and contemporary France. According to Princeton’s WordNet, secularism is “rejection of religion and religious considerations.” The phrase “liberté, égalité, fraternité” served as the Revolution’s slogan; though many people are aware of its meaning, I will define it for the sake of clarity. In English, it translates to “liberty, equality, fraternity.” I will also consistently refer to contemporary France throughout my thesis. What I mean by “contemporary” is anywhere from the 1950s to the present.

All of this being said, you may be wondering why my thesis is important. Understanding history, the events which lead up to and formed our modern world, is extremely important. Specifically in regard to understanding modern Europe and its secular nature, revolutions are extremely important. Identifying French secularism and analyzing its origins and growth helps us to better understand the France we see today, which tends to be at the forefront of international affairs and issues.

In order to prove my thesis, that contemporary French secularism was inaugurated by the French Revolution, I will prove French secularism manifests in government, the country’s religious climate, and its attitude toward sexuality; and I will show how these things resulted from the Revolution. In addition, I will refute two counterarguments. I will dispel the ideas France is more religious than secular (specifically regarding Muslims and Catholics), and the Revolution has been made redundant regarding secularism.

My first proof to confirm my thesis is French secularism manifests today in French government. Nothing has happened in the past several hundred years since the Revolution to demonstratively change the secular political climate in France. This is specifically evident in the most recent election. In 2012, Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential term ended, and elections took place in late April. Unfortunately, Sarkozy’s conservative values were not as popular among the people as those of socialist candidate Francois Hollande, who won the popular vote.

Sarkozy was one of the most right-wing and conservative presidents France has seen, and, according to Tony Cross of the RFI (Radio France Internationale), a large part of his election was “his promise to ‘modernise’ [sic] the French economy” (par. 3). Even though he was conservative in the eyes of the French, he was still rather secular, seeing as his platform was to modernize the country. Unfortunately, during his office, he began to lose popularity. Perhaps the most decisive factor in his loss to Hollande was difficulty he encountered in leading the country through its economic crisis (par. 12). BBC’s Schofield says, “By the left he was despised as the uncultured friend of the rich; by the far right as the man who broke his word; by liberals as the president who began to reform then stopped” (par. 9). It was not only the economic crisis that brought Sarkozy out of his presidency, though; the French were looking for someone more liberal and more secular, and this is where Hollande comes in.

As the French grew increasingly unhappy with Sarkozy’s leadership, Hollande seized his opportunity to gain popularity and secure a win for the socialist party. He nearly came from out of the blue into the running for the socialist party when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the original socialist candidate, was caught in a sex scandal. Hollande’s slogan “Le changement, c’est maintenant” (“change is now”) brought assurance to the French people he would handle things differently if they put him in l’Élysée (the French equivalent of the White House).

Several of Hollande’s most widely-embraced campaign pedestals display the secularism that has rooted itself in French society since the Revolution. He is the quintessential socialist. This is seen in his plans for tax reform, his desire to legalize gay marriage, and his openness concerning his agnostic beliefs. Hollande, in typical socialist fashion, hopes to redistribute wealth. He wants to raise taxes for those he deems rich while simultaneously lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes. He promises he will enforce a 75% income tax on those who earn 1 million or more euros per annum. Taking more money from the upper class gives him more room to benefit those with less, he says (“Q&A” 1).

He also hopes to legalize gay marriage. As evidenced by many intense protests occurring in the streets of France, it is an issue that has impassioned many of the French. The issue has and continues to cause divisions throughout the country, due to the tenacious nature of the “conservative” part of the French population. These “conservatives,” however, are really quite secular in their own right. They are not against the idea of gay marriage because it violates religious beliefs; they are against it because it violates their idea of a traditional family: a husband, wife, and children. Despite these protests, Hollande remains steadfast in his belief it ought to be legalized. He also supports the legalization of gay couples’ ability to adopt. The people cry the government passing these laws (a higher income tax for the rich, legalization of gay marriage, and legalization of adoption for gay couples) is a manifestation of true equality among all French citizens. Not so ironically, equality was one of the main cries of the Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité). The modern demand for equality takes a bit of a different shape than it did during the Revolution. During the 1700s and 1800s, it was more so directed toward the unfairness of so large a social gap between noblemen and the clergy and the common people rather than gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage. Despite the practical differences, the spirit of the cry remains the same. The French, as they did so long ago, desire complete equality among themselves, even with the presence of the conservatives, who are themselves still secular.

In addition to these government reforms, France elected an openly agnostic man. Hollande says, “J’ai longtemps été agnostique, désormais mes doutes se sont transformés en certitudes,” (“I have been agnostic for a long time, and henceforth my doubts have become certainties”) (“Dieu” par. 3). Had the spirit of secularism died with the Revolution, the French would certainly not have been so open to electing this man as their president. The beliefs of a people are reflected in who they choose to lead them. So, it is clear France remains secular in their election of the socialist Francois Hollande and in their support of his secular governmental reforms.

My second argument regarding my thesis is French secularism is evident in the current religious climate in France. As James Leith explains in Culture and Revolution, “The major symbols that played an important role in the Revolution often took on a religious aura” (174). What is interesting about this, however, is this “religious aura” merely denotes the fact religious symbols were taken and transformed into secular Revolutionary symbols.

For instance, la Montagne (the Mountain) became an important Revolutionary symbol after radical Jacobians, who had a great deal of influence in the Convention and Committee of Public Safety, took this phrase on as a nickname (174). Mountains have very important representations in Christianity, e.g. Mount Sinai where God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the mountain as the kingdom of God in Daniel 2. However, during the Revolution, a mountain became something very different from its originally generally-accepted religious connotation. Leith says, “At the peak of the Revolution, symbolic mountains appeared repeatedly on engravings … or were constructed on festival grounds. Often orators emphasized that they represented the holy Mountain from which leadership and enlightenment radiated through the Republic” (176).

This trend continued throughout the Revolution with other religious symbols, such as the equilateral triangle, which was normally used to represent the Trinity. It took on a new meaning as tri-part slogans such as “liberté, égalité, fraternité” and “la nation, la loi, le roi” (the nation, the law, the king) appeared. It was also used as a symbol for the cult of the Supreme Being, which was a Revolutionary movement and a symbol of “the sanctity of Republican legislation” (176). The cult of the Supreme Being became prominent around the time during which the Reign of Terror began. Now, a cult being somewhat prominent may seem to contradict my thesis a bit, so I would like to clarify this.

The cult of the Supreme Being was a tool used by Robespierre to further his political agenda, which was to wipe out the nobility. In 1794, on the day of the Festival of the Supreme Being, he said,

The eternally happy day which the French people consecrates to the Supreme Being has finally arrived. Never has the world he created offered him a sight so worthy of his eyes. He has seen tyranny, crime, and deception reign on earth. At this moment, he sees an entire nation, at war with all the oppressors of the human race, suspend its heroic efforts in order to raise its thoughts and vows to the Great Being who gave it the mission to undertake these efforts and the strength to execute them.
Did not his immortal hand, by engraving in the hearts of men the code of justice and equality, write there the death sentence of tyrants? Did not his voice, at the very beginning of time, decree the republic, making liberty, good faith, and justice the order of the day for all centuries and for all peoples?
He did not create kings to devour the human species. Neither did he create priests to harness us like brute beasts to the carriages of kings, and to give the world the example of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood to the world. But he created the universe to celebrate his power; he created men to help and to love one another, and to attain happiness through the path of virtue.
The Author of Nature linked all mortals together in an immense chain of love and happiness. Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!
Frenchmen, Republicans, it is up to you to cleanse the earth they have sullied and to restore the justice they have banished from it. Liberty and virtue issued together from the breast of the Supreme Being. One cannot reside among men without the other.
Generous people, do you want to triumph over all your enemies? Practice justice and render to the Supreme Being the only form of worship worthy of him. People, let us surrender ourselves today, under his auspices, to the just ecstasy of pure joy. Tomorrow we shall again combat vices and tyrants; we shall give the world an example of republican virtues: and that shall honor the Supreme Being more (“Religion” 1).

As you can see from Robespierre’s words, this was a way to manipulate the people and accomplish his Revolutionary agenda. He created the cult himself at the beginning of the Terror and when he died, the cult ended a mere few months after it began. So, it was a short-lived, political-agenda-ridden movement that ended up being firmly rejected by the people.

But perhaps one of the most outright ways in which we see religious symbols taken for secular purposes is the use of hymns, which used to be written only inside the church for worship, to encapsulate the spirit of the Revolution. For example:

O Liberté, Liberté sainte !

Déesse d’un peuple éclairé !

Règne aujourd’hui dans cette enceinte,

Par toi ce temple est épuré !

Liberté ! devant toi, la raison

chasse l’imposture ; l’erreur s’en fuit, le

fanaticisme est

abattu,

Notre évangile est la nature,

Et notre culte est la vertu (180).

O Liberty, holy Liberty!

Goddess of a knowledgeable people!

Reigns today in this house,

This temple is purified by you!

Liberty! Before you, reason

Hunts deception; error flees,

Fanaticism is

Demolished,

Our gospel is nature,

And our religion is virtue.

These religious symbols stolen for secular use display the people’s rejection of the church and Christian faith, which has been passed down to modern-day France.

Additionally, Roman Catholicism was a state religion before the Revolution, during which the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was drawn up. It declared every man had the right to freedom of religion (which was more so freedom from religion, as the people rejected the idea of any state religion) and freedom of thought. A recent re-manifestation of this is the 1905 French Law on the Separation of Church and State, which cemented the public’s desire to be a secular society, not bound by religion. The French Enlightenment played a large part in instilling this desire in the common man. “The idea of separating the churches and the state was defended by many intellectuals and politicians, and came to prevail against the counter-revolutionary and anti-republican attitude of the Catholic Church” (“The Law of 1905” par. 1). France carries the spirit of the Revolution with them by continuing to diminish the importance of the Church and religion as a whole.

My third and final argument pertains to the modern attitude toward sexuality in France. The stereotype of the French being one of the most sex-mad populations in existence seems a bit silly sometimes, but it’s true. While open sexual immorality certainly isn’t uncommon in today’s world (we see it nearly everywhere nowadays), it is more potent in French society. “Just look at the things that reflect their cultural mindset,” like art and advertising (e.g. in magazines, the metro). France has never had the religious influence or restriction that other countries have had, like America had with the Great Awakening” (Cochrane, personal interview). As a people, the French’s inclination toward exaggerated openness concerning sexuality continues to rise (especially in women) and can be traced back to the Revolution.

During the Revolutionary period, liberté (alongside égalité and fraternité) was something the people felt they were deprived of and strived for desperately. It was fuel to the fire that was the Revolution. Liberty brought everyone together because it was a common interest; it was what drew those who opposed the monarchy against it in the first place. For years, they became a restless people, fighting ideologically against any restraints placed on them. As seen during the Reign of Terror under the leadership of Robespierre, they were willing to take drastic measures to be a free people. Hundreds of years later, liberty takes on a different connotation.

Though governmental freedom was eventually achieved years after the storming of the Bastille, the desire for liberty did not fade. It continues to be extremely valuable in French society. The continuation of this emphasis on liberty and freedom is especially visible in the realm of sexual mores. This is certainly not difficult to see. For instance, upon a simple scroll through the French subgenre of foreign films on Netflix or glance at movie advertisements in the Metro, one will find modern French movies raunchy at the least. A couple of these include Chroniques sexuelles d’une famille d’aujourd’hui (Sexual Chronicles of a French family), L’apollonide : Souvenirs de la Maison Close (House of Pleasures), and Cliente (the Client). Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times writes “you have images in the Métro of a woman paying for sex who could be the middle-aged woman next door, and a single pregnant Muslim justice minister and no one seems to care” (par. 11).

Though we find ourselves hundreds of years past the Revolution, the desire for liberté remains central to French society. Sexual liberty is not only something the French pursue; they are proud of it. In May of 1968, a revolution began whose slogan “pleasure without obstruction” can still be seen in French life today, as “both the number of partners and diversity of sexual activity has significantly increased in France in the last decade” (Crumley par. 2). The French have not only deservedly earned the title of a very sexual people; they continue to further it.

I would now like to address two counterarguments that attempt to disprove my thesis. The first is France is more religious than secular because the Muslim population has grown so much recently and is taking over the country. Soeren Kern, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Gateway Institute, states Islam is growing at a rapid rate in France and is indeed taking over the country (par. 3). He says this is seen through the increase of construction of mosques (there are now more than 2,000) throughout the country, in addition to the fact France has the largest European Muslim community.

What Kern (and many of the French) fail to realize, however, is while the amount of nominal Muslims may be in the millions, the amount of those who actually practice the religion is far smaller. Out of the 75 percent who claim to be Islamic, a mere 3.8 percent of the French population practices Islam (Kerr par. 2, 3). While Islam appears to be taking over France, it is just that: an appearance. This shows though many claim to be religious, secularism remains prominent.

In addition, the French government and general population have been actively pursuing a decrease in religious rights for Muslims. In September of 2004, the French government (under Nicholas Sarkozy) passed a law prohibiting female Muslims from wearing headscarves to school. The law banned other religious symbols (such as large Christian crosses and Jewish yarmulkes) from being brought into schools as well. So, even though Islam seems to be growing, secularism remains very much active in French society and cultural life.

The second counterargument to my thesis is the general idea a part of history that occurred so many hundreds of years ago and that was so exaggerated and bloody compared to the political/governmental reforms we see now could not have such a deep impact on modern society. Many are under the impression because all countries go through ebbs and flows and undergo different movements, one state of mind does not necessarily stay embedded in the culture long after. This, however, is not the case with French secularism.

France prides itself on being a secular state and on having no state religion or even practiced majority religion. The government protects that. The people value it. They believe it to be a good thing. On December 9, 1905, the law that separates church and state was passed. According to the Musée Virtuelle du Protestantisme Français (Virtual Museum of French Protestantism), “Today within the European Union, the 1905 law is a French peculiarity. In other countries the churches are not strictly limited to the domain of worship, but are also allowed to carry out social activities.” The French wanted to be secure in the knowledge that they would not be subjected to any religion, and this law did exactly that. We can see that though the Revolution is certainly technically well in the past, having occurred several hundred years ago, its ideas are still present. They are still being acted on legally and societally, like with the previously mentioned laws against Muslims.

To say the Revolution does not affect the modern French mind relays a lack of understanding of the true modern French mind. One sees, for example, when surveying the religious atmosphere of the country, that separation of church and state does not imply freedom of religion, as it does, for example, in the United States of America. It is technically there, yes. A French citizen is free to claim any religion. But to practice it and be overt with it raises many hackles, which is a clear sign of the presence of secularism.

All said and done, hopefully you can now clearly see the secularism that lies in French culture today. It manifests in government, and many different aspects of popular culture (e.g. music, art, advertisements). While it is true secularism is all around us, inescapable, if you will, evident in some way in every society, the current situation in France can be clearly traced back to the Revolution. This sets French secularism apart from what we see in the rest of the world today. Though the Reign of Terror has passed and the guillotine comes in different forms, the spirit of Robespierre and the revolutionaries lives on.

Works Cited

Bunker Hill Monument Association. Proceedings of the Bunker Hill Monument Association at the Annual Meeting. Concord: The Rumford Press, 1914. Print.

Cochrane, Maria. Personal interview. 26 March 2013.

Cross, Tony. “Why did Sarkozy lose the French presidential election?” Radio France Internationale. Radio France Internationale Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 8 May 2012.

Crumley, Bruce. “More Sex Please, We’re French.” Time. Time Online. 7 March 2008. Web. 23 May 2013.

Dive, Bruno. “Election présidentielle: et Dieu dans tout ça ?” Sudouest. Sudouest Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 8 April 2012.

Kern, Soeren. “Islam Overtaking Catholicism in France.” Gatestone Institute: International Policy Council. Gatestone Institute Online. 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.

Kerr, David. “Islam set to be dominant religion in France.” Catholic News Agency. Catholic News Agency Online. 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.

“The Law of 1905.” Musée Virtuel du Protestantisme Français. Musée Virtuel du Protestantisme Français Online. 22 Jan. 2013. Web.

Leith, James and George Levitine. Culture and Revolution: Cultural Ramifications of the French Revolution. University of Maryland at College Park: Department of Art History. 1989. Print.

“Q & A: Sarkozy’s and Hollande’s plans for France.” BBC News Europe. BBC News Online. 3 May 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

“Religion: The Cult of the Supreme Being.” Rory Rosenzweig Center for History and New

Media. Rory Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media Online. N.d. Web. 26 March 2013.

Schofield, Hugh. “France election: How François Hollande won.” BBC News Europe. BBC News Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 6 May 2012.

Sciolino, Elaine. “France. Sex. Problem?” The New York Times. The New York Times Online. 29 October 2008. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

“Secularism.” WordNet. Princeton University. N.d. Web. 23 March 2013.

Wile, Robert. “French Revolution 101.” About.com. About.com Online. 8 February 2013. Web.

Abortion Cannot Be Justified

Leave a reply

Kaitlyn Thornton Abbott

A nurse sits in a back room, looking at a baby. The baby’s seventeen-year-old mother rests in the recovery room. The nurse empties the contents of the suctioning tube into a bucket and onto the table. She counts one head, a whole torso, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, and ten toes. She sees thousands of babies like this a year; babies who were too young to die. Suddenly, she bursts into tears. This time it was too much. She saw the eyelids, the nose; all she could imagine was her own infant at home, sucking on his thumb. “How is this one any different?” she wonders to herself. Slowly, she gets herself together and goes back into the operation room and nods at the doctor, signifying everything was accounted for.

This may seem like a made up story, but this is the testimony of a former abortion clinic worker (Meyers 2). This woman knew the unborn fetus, what the doctors like to call a “clump of tissue,” was an actual human child. She knew what they were doing was wrong. This woman knew what my thesis is here to prove. Abortion cannot be justified, morally or medically, because the fetus is human, very much alive from the moment of conception.

The question “when does life begin?” has echoed across the generations, and each generation takes its turn trying to answer that question. The problem was, and still is, they ask themselves the wrong question. The question, “when does life begin?” is inherently flawed. Life doesn’t begin; it began. Life began once, at Creation. The question that needs to be answered is “when does each human fetus gain the status of being biologically alive?” There is no question: the fetus is human; a human being is a member of Homo sapiens. When humans reproduce, a monkey is not created, nor is a turtle, nor is any non-human entity; the fetus growing inside the mother’s womb is biologically human. The question drawn from this understanding is if it is human, is it alive? And if it is alive, is it a person? Because the answers to those questions are, yes, the fetus is alive, and yes, it is a person, you will see through my thesis abortion cannot be justified morally or medically.

Abortion is a word thrown around, with a general understanding of the idea. The concrete definition of abortion, however, is “the deliberate termination of one’s pregnancy.” The terms going to be associated with this thesis are as follows: morally, justified, life, individual, viability, gestational, and living. Morally means “in relation to standards of good and bad character or conduct.” Justified means “having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.” Personhood is defined as “the quality or condition of being an individual person.” Viability is “having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb.” Gestational is “the period of development in the uterus from conception until birth.” Also, individual is defined as “a single human being distinct from any other human.” Merriam Webster defines life as “an opportunity for continued viability,” but speaking from a medical perspective life is defined as “the energy that enables organisms to grow, reproduce, absorb and use nutrients, and evolve, and, in some organisms, to achieve mobility, express consciousness, and demonstrate a voluntary use of the senses.” The five criteria all organisms must meet to be declared “living” are having highly organized systems, having an ability to acquire materials and energy, having an ability to respond to their environment, having the ability to reproduce, and having the ability to adapt (Stone 2). Although fetuses may not have the ability to reproduce in the sense of offspring, they reproduce in the sense the cells divide to reproduce more cells to allow the fetus to continue to grow and develop.

The idea of terminating one’s pregnancy dates back to ancient cultures. Many methods early cultures practiced were non-surgical. The earliest written record of an abortion was found in the Ebers Papyrus, an ancient medical text drawn from records that date back as early as the third millennium B.C. The Ebers Papyrus says an abortion can be induced through an herbal tampon, which was the most common practice. The Egyptian recipe is based on acacia berries and it specifically states that it can stop a pregnancy at any time (“History of Abortion” 2).

Not only was it done in the world of the Egyptians, but it was also a common practice in China. Folklore speaks of it (mercury potions were said to be used) and royal concubines were documented to have abortions as early as 515 B.C. They, like the Egyptians, understood the basic concept of activeness during pregnancy. For example, they realized any action that could result in a miscarriage could be done on purpose to achieve the same result. Hard rubbing or massage on the uterus, riding a horse, and heavy lifting were all common practices of removing an unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies happened for a variety of reasons, just as they do today; however, these reasons usually stemmed from economic problems and famine. Other Asian observations, such as Japanese texts, state there were shrines dedicated to the lost and aborted babies.

The Ancient Greeks also practiced abortion and quite commonly, too. For example, Soranus, a second-century Greek physician, was a strong advocate for abortion, but only in the cases of woman’s health and emotional immaturity. His methods were said to cause the woman no harm, and all that would physically happen was a miscarriage. His methods included fasting, bloodletting, energetic walking, riding animals, and jumping so one’s feet hit one’s butt. He highly disagreed to the use of sharp instruments to terminate a pregnancy due to the risk of harming the woman by perforating her organs (Merino 26).

One of the most extreme methods of abortion during the medieval period was a surgical practice called embryotomy. Simply put, this was the removing of a dead or alive fetus from the mother’s womb. This was a fairly common practice whenever complications appeared, and some archaeological discoveries point in this direction. For example, a decapitated infant with other multiple mutilations found at a gravesite in Dorset buried without the mother shows she probably survived after undergoing an embryotomy, based upon the mutilation of her baby (45).

Abortion dates back to ancient cultures, and the procedures were just as harmful then as they are today. Abortion is argued it is a woman’s choice, but abortion was tried as a crime in the ancient cultures. They believed a woman who had an abortion not sanctioned by her husband was undermining his authority and was punishable by death (47). In many cultures it was not legalized; however, many spoke out against the illegality of it, pushing for changes in the law, based upon the presumption of women’s health. The issue of legality remained prevalent until 1973 in the case of Roe v. Wade when abortion upon demand was legalized with the defense of “women’s choice.” Today, 1.21 million abortions occur annually, with nine abortions every four minutes, and one abortion every twenty-six seconds in the United States.

In order to prove my thesis, that abortion cannot be justified medically or morally, I will prove abortion cannot be justified medically because life begins at conception, and I will prove abortion cannot be justified morally because the fetus is alive, and abortion is unjust, and since our society is founded on justice, it is not right. I will also be refuting three counter arguments to my thesis: it is a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon, the fetus is not a living entity, and in the case of rape or incest, all abortions are just.

My first point is life begins at conception. Keith Moore explains in his book Essentials of Human Embryology

Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being (6).

The size of that zygote when first formed is smaller than your fingernail, but the size of the fetus cannot be a determining factor in whether or not the fetus is alive (9). The embryonic stage is merely that — a stage in development, just as puberty and menopause are stages in development people hit as they age. Just because someone hasn’t hit puberty doesn’t mean he’s any less of a person than an eighteen-year-old. In the same way, just because the fetus isn’t fully grown yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t alive and it isn’t a person. The stage of development is not a deciding factor in whether the fetus is alive or not. The deciding factor which determines whether life begins at conception is the biological standards all living things must meet, which are having highly organized systems, an ability to acquire materials and energy, an ability to respond to their environment, the ability to reproduce, and the ability to adapt. The systems the fetus has are exceptionally organized; they have all of the systems you and I do, only less developed, depending on gestational age. The fetus acquires energy from the mother and continues to grow; the fetus also responds to the mother’s and father’s voices and music. The fetus may not be able to reproduce in the sense of offspring, but the cells that make up the fetus are continuously reproducing and multiplying, which grows the fetus. The fetus also can adapt to environments, such as a petri dish to the mother’s womb.

For my second point, I will prove abortion cannot be justified morally. A federal law in America is not to kill. If something is alive, then it can be killed. Being alive means to “continue in existence.” A fetus will continue on in existence until it is born, if left alone. People will claim because a fetus is dependent on another human being, not only for nutrients but for simple existence, then they are not to be considered as people. In today’s world of medicine and technology, however, doctors are able to keep humans existing through the use of respirators and dialysis machines; dependency on a machine or another human can’t determine personhood or lack thereof. A person is no different from a human and can be defined as such. Merriam Webster states a person is “a human being, that which is regarded as an individual.” Every fetus, from the moment of conception, is biologically alive. The heartbeat that can be heard, the brainwaves that can be measured, and kicks that can be felt are signs of a living human being. Illegality is formed based off of morality. Something is made illegal because it infringes upon the rights of another person. The fetus meets the requirements that fit the definition of a living entity, and therefore it is immoral to abort a fetus.

Justice is a main foundation of our society, and justice is founded upon equality and the value of human rights (Meyers 35). Justice also proceeds on the idea if there is a clash of rights, then, the right that does the least harm will be the most just. Injustice is the infringement of any basic human right. Justice is also a consequence of choices. The mother and the father were the ones who made the decision to be in a sexually active relationship, and sometimes becoming pregnant is a consequence of that. That doesn’t mean the child should be the one being punished. To punish the child for existing is morally wrong because the child cannot help the fact his or her parents had sex and created a baby. The mother and father are the ones who are responsible for their choices, not the child. And therefore, it is just to require the mother to bear the weight of her greater responsibility in the circumstance and not require the ultimate price of the child who bore no responsibility for existing at all.

The Declaration of Independence says each American has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because these are innate rights, endowed by our Creator. The right to life means every human has the right to be born. No human can take that away from another human. For us to be under the presumption embryonic fetuses are not human denies one of the simplest biological truths: fetuses are just as human as you or I. There is no scientific way to deny the fetus growing inside the womb is not human.

Not only does the Declaration of Independence guarantee each and every human individual, which includes the unborn, the right to life, but the Preamble to the Constitution also touches on the subject of the unborn. The main aim of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity.” This is in reference to the children of the day, but the Constitution and Declaration were not written simply for the people of the time period. They were also written for the unborn children of the future and future American citizens — whether they are in the womb or out of it.

The first counter argument against my thesis is “It’s a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon.” This argues the woman and the baby are the same individual until birth, the baby growing inside her is not its own person, and no law should be written to tell women how to exert their reproductive rights. What’s interesting about this argument many self-described pro-choice activists tend to give is it’s not solely the woman’s body. This argument implies because the fetus is developing inside the woman, and the woman provides the nutrition and oxygen for the fetus, the fetus is a complete part of the woman’s body, and she can do with it as she pleases. While the counter argument is partially correct in stating the fetus is part of the woman’s body, it is necessary to understand it is not solely the woman’s body; it is still another individual. Simple anatomy and biology show us a woman has one head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers and toes, one heart, one brain, and one of every system her body needs to survive. As the fetus starts to develop, more of these body parts start to show themselves and continue to develop. The genetic codes are also distinctly separate. Every body part that belongs to a woman has a certain genetic code that matches the rest of her body; the fetus, on the other hand, has a separate code, proving its individuality as a separate biological entity. If the unborn child had the exact same genetic code as the mother, then it would be only her body; however, its genetic code is half of the mother’s and half of the father’s. As Randy Alcorn says, “A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his (the child’s) identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides.” The DNA of a child is the defining factor in distinguishing the child from the mother while the child is still in the womb.

The second part of the argument, “it’s a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon,” is what I will be refuting next. The main point of this argument is women have the right to choose. They argue since it is their bodies, they have the right to do with them what they want. The problem with this argument is while they do have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, it is not wholly the woman’s body being affected. The child in the womb is the one being affected more than the mother. The child’s right to life is being taken from him, and he isn’t given the right to choose whether he exists or not. The pro-choice side is very correct in saying the woman has the right to choose. But what they refuse to acknowledge is women make their choice when they choose to engage in sexual activity. Once they engage in sexual intercourse, they are exercising their reproductive rights; women know they are putting themselves up to the risk of getting pregnant. Once that right is exercised, and the result is a pregnancy, then their rights end because the right to life supersedes the right to not be pregnant.

The second point I’m going to refute is the unborn is just an embryo or a fetus; it is just a product of conception — a simple blob of tissue, not a baby. This argument says abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. Yes, the “product of conception” is exactly what the opposing side calls it: an embryo, and a fetus. But those are scientific terms to differentiate between different stages of development for this tiny little human. Right now it may be an embryo, a few months from now and it’ll be a fetus; give it a few years and she’ll be a toddler, and then a teenager, and so on. The point here is yes, the pro-choice side is very correct in using the terminology of “fetus” and “embryo,” but that does not mean the fetus is not a person. Personhood is defined as membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. The law has proven a fetus is person. Thirty-eight states have fetal homicide laws that give fetuses legal rights and protection if killed against the mother’s wishes. If a fetus is not a person, then it cannot have rights regarding protection, because they wouldn’t be necessary. But because the law gives the fetus rights, it makes the distinction of two different bodies, which would mean two different persons. “If both the woman and the child were killed and we can prove the child was killed due to the actions of the perpetrator, then we charge both,” said Stanislaus County Assistant District Attorney Carol Shipley (qtd. on CourtTV). This gives the child rights and legal status as a person. An implication within this pro-choice argument is fetuses are considered alive when wanted by the mother, but when the mother does not want the baby, then the fetus returns to being “just a blob of tissue.” These children are victims of chance. If the mother does not want her child, then the fetus automatically loses its personhood, and along with it, its rights and legal status. Logically, this argument does not make sense if the personhood is dependent on circumstance; the child is either alive or it’s not.

The third point I’m going to refute is in the case of rape or incest, all abortions are just. This argument argues women should not have to face the trauma of carrying the rapist’s child. However, pregnancies as a result of rape as exceptionally rare (Ginsburg 765). A statistical study done by the Department of Justice showed there are approximately two hundred thousand rapes committed a year in the United States. They found through statistical reasoning only 1 out of every five hundred women raped end up becoming pregnant (qtd. in Ginsburg 769). The prochoice side is right in saying the woman who has been raped experiences emotional and physical trauma. And that is very true. The issue with their argument, however, is the woman is under no obligation to keep her rapist’s baby; there are many routes she can take. For one, the Safe Haven statute all hospitals or police departments fall under will take the child and place it as a ward of the state; the woman is stripped of her right to ever claim that baby as her own, legally (Meyers 62). Another flaw with the argument is while it is understood pregnancy from rape is traumatic, it does not statistically support the argument for “abortion on demand.” One in five hundred a year is not enough reason to allow abortion to be justified. A third flaw with this argument is the fetus is innocent. The fetus is not the one who deserves to be punished for the rapist’s acts; the fetus is just as innocent as the mother; there doesn’t need to be two victims because of one man’s crime. Because abortion cannot be justified on the moral and medical grounds of the fetus being fully human and alive, abortion cannot be justified in the case of rape or incest either; emotional distress and trauma does not exceed the right to life. Sanctity of life cannot be circumstantial. If it is a life, and is alive at the moment of conception, the doctor, nor the woman can justify killing it because of the way it was conceived. Rape is extremely emotional and traumatic. But so is being aborted.

Throughout this thesis, I have proved abortion cannot be justified morally or medically by showing how the biological evidence proves unborn fetuses are living human persons. I have also refuted the arguments it is a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon, the fetus is not a living entity, and in the case of rape or incest, all abortions are just. Since abortion cannot be justified morally or medically, it can be argued it cannot be justified lawfully either; after all, aren’t our laws based off of moral justification? Abortions kill a living, feeling child. The child killed within the womb is no different than the child a new mother holds in her arms. Pope Benedict XVI said it well when he said, “The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right — it is the very opposite. It is a deep wound in society.” The testimony of the woman who had to count out the aborted baby’s limbs explains through tears what I’ve told you through scientific fact, logical reasoning, and evidence from law: Abortion cannot be justified, morally or medically, because the fetus is human, very much alive from the moment of conception.

Works Cited

“Gestational.” The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1995. Dictionary.com. Web. 14 January 2013.

Ginsburg, Faye. Contested Lives. California: University of California Press, 1989.

“Justified.” Op. cit.

“Life.” Op. cit.

Merino, Noel. Abortion. Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Print.

Meyers, Chris. The Fetal Position. New York: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.

Moore, Keith. Essentials of Human Embryology. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1988. Print.

“Morally.” Op. cit.

National Abortion Federation. “History of Abortion.” National Abortion Federation, 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Nilsson, Lennart and Lars Hamberger. A Child is Born, 4th ed. New York: Bantum Dell, 2003.

“Personhood.” Op. cit.

Sanger, Alexander. Beyond Choice. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2004.

Stone, Carol Leth. Basics of Biology. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2004. Print.

“Viability.” Op. cit.

Let Me Be Frank about Frank: Or, It’s Nice to be Nice to the Nice

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

TV’s Franks

As we continue to wend our way down the long and winding road to completion of this journey, it’s about time we paid tribute to some of my favorite loveable TV villains: TV’s Frank from Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Frank Burns from M*A*S*H. Admittedly, these two rapscallions aren’t always “nice,” in that one is trying to help his boss take over the world by unleashing the worst movie ever made upon an unsuspecting populace and the other is a somewhat hypocritical hypochondriac whose parsimony is surpassed only by his pedantry. Despite this, these two have given us some unforgettable and highly enjoyable moments from two of TV’s best shows of all time, and it’s time we be nice to them for all they’ve given us.

Push the Button, Frank

TV’s Frank is that remarkable mixture of loveable sidekick and cuddly antagonist few shows ever get right (though many try). It’s hard at times to remember Dr. Clayton Forrester and TV’s Frank are the villains of the show, considering the more time we spend with them the more we enjoy having them around. I’ve always thought the better episodes are the ones that have a lot of Dr. Forrester and Frank in them, even if they are being unusually cruel (“Deep hurting!” from experiment #410 Hercules Against the Moon Men) or plotting to get rid of Mike (#512 Mitchell). Though he’s definitely a sidekick or lackey (dressed as he usually is in a chauffeur outfit) and not a mad scientist (what can one expect from a former Arby’s employee with the nickname “Zeppo”?), Frank holds his own with Dr. F, despite being killed several times (always to be resurrected no later than the next episode) and comes to befriend Joel, Mike, and the ’bots before being assumed to Second-Banana Heaven (though he soon leaves for new adventures).

As a primarily supportive character, even as an antagonist, Frank doesn’t always get a lot of lines, but nearly every episode has Frank give us something memorable (at least something worth the while of watching it) during his tenure in seasons 2 through 6. Whether he is apathetic toward Dr. F (such as during Clay’s supervillain conference at the end of #504 Secret Agent Super Dragon) or a willing supporter of his schemes (such as cheering on “Proposition: Deep 13” in #621, The Beast of Yucca Flats), Frank provides the gooey, nougatey center the show didn’t have before he arrived.

Is Frank my favorite MST3K character? It’s hard to say. Just as I can’t really choose which Collective Soul song is my favorite (which is rather akin to trying to choose which was my favorite slice of pizza I’ve had in my lifetime or which was my favorite DQP with cheese), I can’t really choose which MST3K character is my favorite. It possibly depends on which episode I am watching at the time. Some people can choose definitively between Crow and Tom — I’m not one of those people. I certainly lean more toward Joel than Mike, but that’s more about the movies themselves, not Mike as a character/person. I prefer Frank to Larry and the Sci-Fi channel episodes, but that isn’t saying all that much. Every character is necessary, at least in seasons 2-7. Even Magic Voice. Similarly, you can’t separate Clayton and Frank — they are a unit. Frank’s indispensableness is clear even to Dr. Forrester, as evidenced by his song of farewell to Frank after Frank is taken away at the end of season 6. Things aren’t the same anymore for anyone, and the show itself is transformed in drastic ways for season 7 and even more so for the Sci-Fi channel seasons 8-10.

Though a litany of some of my favorite Frank moments wouldn’t mean much to you if you haven’t seen the show, chances are you probably aren’t reading this even you aren’t either familiar with it or interested in reading whatever I say anyway, so here are some of my favorite Frank moments. As noted above, since Frank is a supporting character early on, it takes a while for him to be featured more regularly. The later seasons, when the show spends more time with the Mads, are sometimes more enjoyable to watch because of the developed nature of the characters by that point. For Frank, his greatness often comes in his delivery: the way he says his lines are often central to his magic. His line “he’s got to want to change!” is perhaps the best example of this. His emphasis on “want” is pure gold. I have already mentioned another of my favorite Frank moments: at the end of Secret Agent Super Dragon, Clay hosts a “how to be a supervillain” conference, presumably for Joel and the ’bots, which doesn’t make much sense considering he is trying to control them, not give them insider tips on how he does what he does. The gem, though, is Frank’s total lack of interest in the conferences, sleeping through it, then reading his already-prepared questions in as apathetic a voice as possible, including the stage direction. He is supposed to read his question eagerly, but he says the word “eagerly” along with everything else without any zeal or eagerness at all. Though this description does not do the moment justice, it is a beautiful moment after one of the more enjoyable episodes in the series.

The times Clay and Frank have to do what Joel and ’bots do are also great moments. When Clay and Frank try to show them it’s not hard to make jokes through bad movies by sampling a few moments of #323, The Castle of Fu Manchu, Frank comes to the realization it would be a lot easier to do it if the movies weren’t so bad, which totally dispels Clay’s victory over Joel and the ’bots, giving them new energy to continue their lives out in space. The other similar occurrence, when the magnetic storm sends them into a “Mirror, Mirror”-like parallel world in #611, The Last of the Wild Horses, allows us to see Dr. Forrester and TV’s Frank in the movie theater riffing on the movie for an entire segment, as well as doing some call-backs to memorable earlier episodes’ moments. I wish the entire episode was like that, but it’s only the first twenty minutes or so.

Frank gets to sing some of the better songs during the series, but certainly his best is “Nummy Muffin Coocol Butter” from #605, Colossus and the Headhunters. Nummy Muffin Coocol Butter is an engineered puppy created by the Mads to overpower the world through cuteness, but Frank refuses to give him up and laments his loss exceedingly throughout the episode, culminating in this great song. At the end of the episode, the Mads are thwarted by their plans once again, since Mike returns Nummy to them and they can do nothing but be enamored of the cutest pet in the world. It’s hard not to love TV’s Frank.

Thank you, TV’s Frank, for teaching us how to laugh about love. Again.

You Tell ’em, Ferret Face

Whereas TV’s Frank had the opportunity to grow and do diverse things (such as both support Dr. Forrester and be antagonist in different episodes), Frank Burns on M*A*S*H was for the most part a monolithic antagonist to the “good guys” on the show, Hawkeye, Trapper, and B.J, and yet he, too, solidified the show for most of his tenure. Though often the receiving end of jabs, jokes, and not-always-good-natured ribbing, Frank Burns regularly gives us priceless lines delivered in as brilliant a way as possible. Larry Linville took that character to the mountain; it’s no wonder he was highly regarded by his castmates.

As with many of the characters in the first couple of seasons, it took some time for Frank (and the writers) to find his best niche. The many episodes of Frank in command reveal a mixed bag of personality traits, best summed up himself by his desire not “to be derelict in [his] officiousness” (“Henry in Love”). Season one is its own entity throughout, considering the revisions made later (Hawkeye from Maine instead of Vermont, the number and ages of Henry’s children, Radar’s personality), and so Frank’s perniciousness in “Henry, Please Come Home” feels out of character even for Frank in retrospect (especially the use of an armed sergeant to confiscate the ’still). This also accounts for the contradiction of Frank “never knocking a team [he’s] on” and betting against the 4077^th in “Requiem for a Lightweight.” Frank does truly have a mean streak in him: he is unnecessarily cruel to Ginger in “Major Fred C. Dobbs,” and he gets downright scary in “The Bus.” A complex and contradictory man, Frank Burns is at his best both when he knows he is right and when he is at his most vulnerable.

His contradictory nature is apparent from the beginning, since he claims to be standing for morality and American decency, yet at the same time engages in an extra-marital affair with Margaret. His bedside manner, likewise, leaves a great deal to be desired for a follower of the Hippocratic Oath (“Deal Me Out,” “It Happened One Night”). One of his more intriguing complications is his ambivalent relationship with Klinger: Frank usually seems to want Klinger out of the army, but he is never willing to sign the section 8 release form. He gets close on one of his birthdays, but he never follows through with evicting Klinger from the army, even going as far as threatening to promote him if he continued dressing as a woman (“Welcome to Korea”).

Another enjoyable aspect of his contradictory nature is his infatuation with all the branches of the military. His several naval and Air Force comments are so ubiquitous even Radar notices (“Are you sure you’re in the right branch of the service?” he asks in “Henry, Please Come Home”). They are too numerous to list here, but one of my favorites is his plan to put the camp on pontoons and head for the high seas (“A Smattering of Intelligence” — his arm motion makes it perfect, even though Hawkeye and Trapper mock it).

Perhaps his most bizarre contradiction is the often-forgotten fact Frank is primarily responsible for the 4077^th getting their Officers Club. He arranged it with General Mitchell. Frank, the alcohol-banning, “strength through obedience,” “‘m’ stands for ‘mobile,’” “this was a great war ’til you guys showed up” hypochondriac arranged for an Officers Club. He is an enigma, that one.

When Frank knows he is right, he gives us some of his best lines: “There’s a war on, and we’ve no time for violence!” (“Deal Me Out”); “My morale’s fine; I love it here” (“Dear Peggy”); “Unless we all conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free” (“The Novocaine Mutiny”; this episode gives us many of my favorite Frank lines: “It was one of those days that, more than most, reminds us that war, no matter how much we may enjoy it, is no strawberry festival”); and, of course, “Individuality’s fine, as long as we all do it together” (“George”). I could go on and on. “It’s nice to be nice to the nice” is a classic. Another gem is “I want fox holes: there, there, there, and there — each smartly dug” (“There is Nothing Like a Nurse”). The words by themselves aren’t anything, but Larry Linville’s intonation turns it into pure gold.

One of the best self-assured Frank moments is at the beginning of “The Incubator,” when he refuses to scold Hawk and Trap: “Whatever happened to those two bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young surgeons I used to know?” Some of his better lines come when he’s angry (or bizarrely responding to Hawk or Trap or BJ’s cordial greetings: “that’s for me to know and you to find out,” “go peddle your fish,” “oh go practice your putts,” “that strikes me funny, not” — and, let’s not forget “nertz to you” and “phooey to youey”), but when Frank knows he is right, we all win (except for Klinger when he makes him cry).

Vulnerable Frank is another impressive aspect to his character. We see it with some regularity, and when we do, Frank is nearly admirable. Frank’s attempt at sangfroid in “The Army-Navy Game,” just before he faints, is an early such moment, showing us Frank is not quite the leadership material he wants us to think he is. Though he cowers throughout “The Sniper,” Frank shows us some willingness to be “a real man” and face the danger with his gun, though he doesn’t get very far — it’s still a good scene for him. Frank dealing with his hernia in “As You Were” and resigning not to write the report against George in “George” are other great facets to Frank’s personality. “The Novocaine Mutiny” is a great Frank episode filled with great lines and emotional scenes, both for and against him, but the ending always leaves me feeling sorry for Frank. Despite trying to get Hawkeye court martialed, Frank’s utter look of isolation and being totally unwelcome at their poker game as he shrinks back out of the room gets me every time.

When he gets sick, naturally we see a very confused and vulnerable Frank: “Carry On, Hawkeye,” “As You Were,” and the greatness of “Soldier of the Month”: not only do I flinch every time Frank’s head hits the furniture when he faints, but also I have to recite with him “my friend, my comrade, my li-i-i-ittle soldier.”

Vulnerable Frank is prolonged throughout season 5, which warrants its own essay, no doubt. The combination of Colonel Potter being openly hostile to Frank by the end of season 4 and the loss of Margaret’s intimacy starting in “Margaret’s Engagement” at the beginning of season 5 propels Frank down a spiral culminating with his final breakdown, promotion, and transfer (off screen in “Fade Out, Fade In,” the opener of season 6). Frank experiences his initial breakdown in “Margaret’s Engagement,” culminating in detaining the Korean family and holding Potter, Hawkeye, and BJ at gunpoint. When Radar rescues them with the phone call to Frank’s mom, we get to see what I think is the real Frank Burns: the genuinely vulnerable guy who grew up basically alone and has no friends. His brother gave him the nickname “Ferret Face.” Even his dad pretended to like him. We get glimpses of this side of Frank earlier, true, especially in his great conversation with Trapper in season 3’s “O.R.,” but the loss of Margaret (and command back in season 4) sent him over the edge. He recovers somewhat, as evidenced by his great jab at Margaret at the end of the episode, but as Margaret says later in the season in “38 Across,” his marbles are already shaken loose, beyond repair.

As evidenced by his final scenes in “Margaret’s Marriage,” I truly think Frank really cared for Margaret — not as “Hot Lips” or a mere physical plaything during a time of war, but as a genuine companion. She truly was his “snug harbor.” His litany of things they do together in “Bombed” is Frank’s genuine plea for their camaraderie, coupled by their calm spring day together in “Springtime.” Certainly this is a point of tension for Margaret, as evidenced by her remarks in “Hot Lips and Empty Arms” and her understandably irate reaction to his phone call to his wife in “Mail Call … Again.” But as she realizes somewhat too late (“Fade Out, Fade In”), Frank wasn’t all that bad.

Despite this impressive humanity in Frank, he is mostly the villain in a show never running out of antagonists: the army with a big “A,” the enemy, disease, bombs, bullets, the weather, boredom, and more. Frank embodies, unfortunately, unthinking conservative right-wing politics (with a dollop of hypocritical Christianity). It is clear from the beginning of the series his monolithic flag-waving is in stark contrast to the protagonist views of Hawkeye and Trapper: life and health are more important than national boundaries and patriotism. I don’t wholly disagree with them, but the older I get the more I agree with Frank on multiple things (not everything, of course).

Sometimes Frank is right, even when everything in the episode disagrees with him. That deep into the Korean War, it is too late for pacifism. Why not fight to win? Certainly peace is preferable to war in philosophical, general human culture terms: clearly I’m not joining the army anytime soon — but Frank is right about either committing to war or exiting altogether. Why should they really laugh at an enemy bomber attacking them every day? This is war — blast Charlie out of the sky; don’t gamble on him. (Strangely enough, this makes Frank quite similar to the Ancient Mariner of Coleridge’s poem, the 4077 gang represents the other sailors, and Charlie is the albatross.) Halfhearted commitment to war certainly didn’t help the wounded any. “Better dead than Red?” Well … quite possibly, yes.

This is part of the great irony of his character: he is clearly supposed to portray improper thinking, but a good deal of the time he is philosophically accurate; he is just often wrong in his implementation of his ideas (not that I’m condoning his anti-foreigners mentality or infidelity). “Strength through obedience” is philosophically correct. Certainly as Christians, we know our identity, purpose, and meaning are found in proper relationship to Christ the King, by whom we were created and to whom we submit. Additionally, whereas Hawkeye is frequently referring to Sigmund Freud as some sort of doyen of human behavior, Frank doesn’t “put any stock in the Freud stuff” — and he shouldn’t, and neither should we, really.

Unlike Henry (as much as I love him), Frank realizes more the importance and pressures of command — he just falters (almost completely) in application and usage of power. But Frank did try to keep the camp in shape, with calisthenics and regular mobility exercises: when Col. Potter laments the softness of the camp in “The M*A*S*H Olympics,” it certainly wasn’t Frank’s fault. Perhaps his address to the troops at the beginning of “Henry in Love” best captures the schism between Frank’s intentions and applications:

As you all know, tonight Colonel Blake will resume his command after a week in Tokyo. Unless I made a few remarks about my recent stint as your temporary supreme commander, I would be derelict in my officiousness. I think you’ll all agree that by trying to introduce more discipline, more order, I have hopefully made this a more enjoyable war for all of us. Leadership is a lonely business. Your Napoleons, your Kaisers, your Attilas the Hun, we’re all alone there in the front office as I have been this week. I have thought of you. I know you have thought of me. But some of the notes in the suggestion box were really below the belt. I mean, why drag my mother into this?

Hawkeye and Trapper naturally represent less discipline and less order (outside of the O.R.), so naturally they can’t get along with Frank most of the time, especially when he is in one of his power swings. But leadership is a lonely business, indeed, and Frank is willing to make the hard decisions — but like Barney Fife before him and Saul Tigh after him, he may not be cut out for command material. Perhaps if Frank were a better surgeon, Hawkeye and Trapper and BJ would get along with him more. As evidenced in “Dr. Pierce and Mr. Hyde,” Frank values democracy, freedom, and justice. He just gets sidetracked by appearances and political squabbles. If Frank could truly balance a leadership mixture of Napoleon, Kaiser, and Attila with a genuine Bible-believing morality (in contrast to his “thou shalt not admit adultery” version … perhaps Frank himself “rewrote the commandments”?), he may have made a great leader. Unfortunately, he is too concerned with “looking right.”

But sometimes he is right. And these are generally my favorite episodes of his. Sadly for Frank, they usually occur when Margaret is not in the episode. For the sake of time, we’ll focus on what I think is Frank’s best episode, season two’s “The Chosen People.” Frank is the only one to get anything done in this episode. He solves both plot points, essentially single-handedly (as far as the 4077 gang is concerned). Despite the fact the episode begins with Hawkeye railing against Frank’s unwillingness to learn Korean and his insistence he is an American who doesn’t need to, Frank solves everyone’s problems in this episode. True, he does get off to a rough start with the Korean family, and Sam Pak has to step in with his knowledge of the Korean language (being Korean himself), but Sam doesn’t provide any solutions to either the 4077^th’s problems or the Korean family’s problems. He just communicates in words what everyone already knew: they were there to set up house.

Later, while everyone is standing around wringing their hands over Radar’s supposed fatherhood, Frank comes in and suggests a solution: take a blood test of those involved. The other doctors sarcastically applaud, but Frank’s right — and that’s exactly what they do. They were just sitting around doing nothing, but Frank, the man of action, got the solution in motion. Returning to the Korean family, Henry makes an ineffective phone call to Civilian Affairs, again offering no solution to anyone’s problems. It is not until Frank calls and gets CA to send someone to help move them somewhere else does anything productive get done (despite the misunderstanding Frank gets himself in over the phone). Trapper and Hawkeye don’t like the idea of moving the family, but would it really be good for the family to stay on a hospital site? Certainly not. And their adoption of the young mother and the baby (who isn’t Radar’s) brings something positive to both parties. Frank gets them all transferred to a better place, and the family is even relieved and glad to go. Frank solves all the problems. Hawkeye ends by comforting Radar with the apparently solacing news he will someday lose his virginity. How is that good advice? How does that genuinely help Radar? Frank’s somewhat bellicose upbraiding for Radar’s inappropriate dalliance is far better advice: don’t do that. Frank has kids, yes, but he’s married, so it’s okay he has children (not okay that he is unfaithful, certainly). Despite the hostile attitudes and words toward him throughout the episode, Frank saves the day all around.

Additionally, there’s Indecisive Frank in “Bombed,” Pecuniary Frank in “Bulletin Board,” Envious Frank in “The Gun,” and Disappointed Frank in “Change of Command.” Economical Frank in “Some 38^th Parallels” does exactly what Colonel Potter’s beloved Army wants him to do: sell trashy substances. Lastly, we should mention Regular Guy Frank. Despite usually being the antagonist (even when representing better ideas if not better actions), once in a great while Frank stops being snotty and pals around. Unfortunately, more often that is a result of some manipulation by Hawkeye and Trapper, as seen in “Germ Warfare” and “5 o’clock Charlie.” Frank genuinely enjoys working with Hawkeye and Trapper, only to find out the only reason they are talking to him is so he can’t get to his gun and shoot Charlie down. Fortunately, though, thanks to the restoration of the entire episode on the dvd releases, we finally get to see the actual ending of the episode with Frank admitting he can’t stay mad at them, despite all their needling.

At the end of season two, in “Mail Call,” Hawkeye brings some of these feelings back and considers Frank is potentially worth humanizing, despite doing it in a slightly mean-spirited way through the Pioneer Aviation trick. At least Hawkeye recognizes some humanity in Frank, and some nice lines throughout the next few seasons (rare though they may be) reflect that. Perhaps this culminates in “Der Tag,” when Frank finally gets to play poker with the gang and unwind and have some fun. Hawkeye and BJ ruin it somewhat at the end, though, which perhaps is another factor in sending Frank over the edge soon (coupled with “The Novocaine Mutiny” later), but it is nice to see Frank happy even for only a few minutes.

Henry, you are a bit mistaken: Frank, you aren’t always wrong, but even by being wrong sometimes, that is what’s so right about you. He does willingly give Ho-John his mother’s precious silver frame. That should count for something. He’s not all bad, after all. He’s not a great doctor, he’s not a doctor for the right reasons, he’s unfaithful to his wife (but it’s not like Trapper or Henry hold the high ground there), but he can give as good as he gets (“Showtime”), and he cares about America and freedom. He loves his mother, tapioca, and chocolate pudding.

So long, Ferret Face. I hope you find your tortoise-shelled scrub brush.

You Were Enjoyed

Such ends our tribute to two of the greatest Franks in TV history. If you are not familiar with them, I exhort you to go out and start watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 and M*A*S*H. There’s always time for what matters.

I’d like to close this article with the lyrics to “The Greatest Frank of All,” and though it was originally sung to TV’s Frank, I think it applies just as equally to Frank Burns, MD (manic depressive).

Frank, the sun never shone upon our love before,

Until there was Frank.

Up for you from me to you

Sweet floppy Frank

We’ve had a lifetime of Frank.

Endless Frank will always flow

For all we know.

Right from the first day

I knew your name

I never knew love was the same.

Never knew love was the same.

Hopin’ to find

Sweet Frank on the line,

Nothin’ but sweet lovin’ Frank.

Cause it’s Frank

Cause it’s knowin’ that love

Could be Frank if only

The sun and the moon

Would collide to be Frank.

Let me be frank about Frank,

Let me be frank about Frank.

Let me be frank about Frank,

’Cause Frank is the best Frank

That’s ever happened to me.

Goodnight, Franks. You were enjoyed.

An Analysis of Lord of the Flies

Leave a reply

Audrey Livingstone

In Lord of the Flies, a group of young English boys (their ages range from about six to twelve years old) are marooned on an island after a plane crash. The book’s main character is Ralph who, after wandering around, finds another boy nicknamed “Piggy.” After conversing for a while, they start to look around the beach, wondering if any other boys had survived. Then Piggy sees a conch shell and tells Ralph they could use it to make some sort of sound off to figure out if any other boys had survived the crash. Ralph blows the conch, and boys begin to come through the trees and onto the beach. Along with the boys from the crash, there is a boys’ choir, dressed in long black robes, with a leader named Jack. Little did they know, there would soon be significant power struggles and conflicts between Ralph and Jack.

At first, most of the boys are delighted to be on an island where there are no grownups and therefore no rules. However, they soon find out life is not so easy without civilization and a structured environment. Ralph is chosen by the vast majority of the boys as leader. Jack, an alpha male by nature, is quite upset by this decision; but, he is soon consoled when he is appointed hunter. Quickly realizing they need to have order and structure to stay civilized, they take action toward that end. Unfortunately, it swiftly falls apart. For example, they had all decided it would be a good idea to have a fire going at the top of the mountain so that if a ship passed by, it would see the smoke and come to the boys’ rescue. Jack’s hunting group had been the first group in charge of keeping the fire going, but they abandoned the job to go hunting. Piggy got angry and pointed out to them one of the youngest boys, named Percival, had been at the top of the mountain with them but was now nowhere to be found. Piggy had pointed out the hunting group had been responsible for the possible death of a child.

The signal fire represented their first attempt at keeping order and civilization. If they kept the fire going, they were still making an actual effort to be rescued and return to civilization. If they let it burn out, they no longer cared about order — if they let it burn out, they were more preoccupied with power and killing than civilization. Jack was the first to begin the fall into decivilization. Maybe because he was marooned even before the plane crash, or maybe because he had a more savage nature. But he was the leader of the hunting group, and he was the one to suggest hunting for meat was more important than being rescued and returning to civilization.

Jack was not only the first to show signs of decivilization, he also led others into the same descent. He had been the runner up for leader, so he did have some sort of hold over the boys — just not as much as Ralph. Ralph, however, cared more about order than bloodlust and hunting. For example, when it appeared as though Jack and the rest of his group always seemed to be hunting while important work needed to be done, Ralph became irritated, wanting to keep their life on the island as orderly as possible. Because of this, they soon had their first verbal argument — even though a mutual dislike and power struggle had been festering since the beginning. Ralph was very popular among the boys and was a good leader, but Jack began gaining power bit by bit.

Compared to Jack, Ralph seemed extremely orderly and civilized — but if he were to be placed back in his original environment (he had lived in England), he would looked upon as very decivilized — possibly even almost savage, which also speaks volumes about how much Jack has increasingly descended into decivilization. For example, Jack and his hunting group failed to keep the signal fire going for a second time, during which a ship was actually passing, and they missed their chance of being rescued. Ralph became enraged at Jack and told him Jack had warped priorities, that he cared more for hunting and bloodlust than being rescued. He then said Jack didn’t want was best for everyone — which was returning to civilization. Ralph did.

In response, Jack paints his face like a savage and assaults Piggy. Piggy had always been picked on, especially when the older boys wanted to feel more in charge. But nobody had ever actually hurt him. Physical abuse was the extent of their community’s decivilization.

One night while the boys were all sleeping, military planes (from World War II) fought in the sky. Sam and Eric, who were supposed to be keeping the signal fire going, fell asleep. While the island is asleep, a dead parachutist falls down from the sky and onto the island. When Sam and Eric wake up, they see the parachute moving with the wind and the dead man’s mangled body in the shadows and assume it is the infamous “beastie” some of the younger children thought existed. They run down from the mountain and find Ralph, telling him they were assaulted by the beast. Ralph immediately calls an assembly, in which Sam and Eric give their account of seeing this beast. And even though all the older boys have assured everyone there is no beast, fear still grips them.

At the beginning, Ralph had a strong hold over the boys and could keep a moderate amount of order among them. However, as decivilization began to break them down, Jack became more of a leader than Ralph and had more of a hold over the boys. The difference was the boys had respected Ralph and his leadership, whereas they feared Jack and were afraid of what would happen if they didn’t obey him.

When Jack and Ralph lead a group of boys on a hunting expedition to find the beast, they have no idea it will end with savagery. They find pig droppings, and Jack suggests they hunt the pig while they try to find the beast. Ralph had never understood why some of the boys had liked hunting but began to understand the excitement while hunting the boar. They surround the animal but don’t succeed in killing it. Still excited from the hunt, they are not discouraged; they form a circle around it in an attempt to reenact it. Robert acts as the boar and thinks no harm will come to him. However, the boys are so overcome with bloodlust and excitement they almost beat Robert to death in the reenactment. Jack then suggests they kill one of the younger boys since they didn’t get to kill the boar. Everyone laughs at the idea, but their lightness of heart on the subject shows their fall into decivilization continues to progress.

After the hunt is completely over, and everyone is back at the end of the island they’re normally at, Jack calls an assembly. He demands Ralph be removed from his place of leadership, but nobody seconds his motion. Beside himself with anger, Jack walks away from everyone and declares he’s making his own tribe, and anyone who would like to join him is welcome to. None of the boys go with him at the assembly, but many of them sneak away during the night to join him.

Ralph is extremely disappointed and feels utterly defeated later that night when Jack’s tribe attacks them. Jack and his boys become very savage, and when they hunt and kill a sow, they take its head and put it on a stick in the woods as an offering to the beast they think exists. When Simon (one of the main characters who supports order and civilization) realizes there is no beast, he runs down to the shore to tell the rest of the boys. However, Jack’s tribe, along with Ralph and Piggy, are caught up in their hunting dance, and in the excitement of the moment, kill Simon, thinking he is the beast. And just as Simon is now gone, so is every trace of order and civilization in their community on the island.

After Simon’s death, all of Ralph’s power is gone and now belongs to Jack. The boys no longer answer to Ralph but to Jack. Jack uses the boys’ fear of the beast to control them; he convinces them Simon really was the beast, and his death was a good thing. Jack is essentially trying to convince the boys they have a clearer state of mind while in a state of savagery and bloodlust than in a right and civilized state.

Soon after this, Jack and Ralph’s tribes enter into one of the most central conflicts of the novel, and it ends in the death of Piggy and the destroying of the conch — both very important symbols. Piggy was the intellect and civilization of their community, and the conch was the order. Now that both of them are gone, so are order and civilization.

At the end of the novel, Jack’s hunters set the signal fire into a full-blown forest fire in an attempt to kill Ralph. Ralph runs out of the forest and onto the shore, hoping for the best — hoping to survive. Ironically, his wish comes true. Because of the great size of the fire, a nearby ship sees the smoke and comes to rescue them. A naval officer comes to Ralph and asks him how long they have been stranded and how many boys there are. Ralph says he doesn’t know. He also tells him there have been murders, and the officer is appalled, thinking a bunch of British boys would be able to keep order. Realizing the reality of actually being rescued, Ralph begins to weep — but not necessarily out of joy. He knows life will never be the same after coming to the island of the Lord of the Flies.

“Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart, and the fall through the air of a true, wise friend called Piggy.”

They are all forever changed by their experiences on the island.

The Fascination of Ireland

Leave a reply

Kaitlyn Thornton Abbott

Far superior to most European countries, this little island sometimes goes unmentioned when talking about the wonders of the continent. When talking about Europe, most people will quickly be able to list off their favorite countries (most of which they haven’t been to, but that’s another can of worms). When talking about Europe, what countries or scenery jump to mind — probably the Eiffel Tower, or London, or Barcelona; all of which are great cities. But when I think of Europe, my mind is taken on a wonderful adventure into the hills of Ireland, with the water crashing into the cliffs.

When Ireland is discussed, many don’t realize what they’re talking about; see, Ireland is actually two different countries. There is the Republic of Ireland, and then there is Northern Ireland, which is actually a part of the United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland contains four provinces: Ulster (northeast), Leinster (south-eastern), Munster (south-west), and Connaught (northwest). There are thirty-two counties, twenty-six of which actually belong to the Republic of Ireland.

Ireland has a rich culture and an even richer history. The first known settlements of Ireland were around 6,000 B.C. when Mesolithic hunter-gatherers migrated over from Britain. They settled on the eastern coast, since they were hunters and fishers by trade. There’s little archeological evidence surrounding this history, but their descendants and Neolithic arrivals were responsible for the founding of historical sites such as Newgrange. The Gaels, a Celtic-speaking people group from Western Europe, settled between 600 B.C. and 150 A.D. By the time of Christ, the island had been organized into five “kingdoms,” which are known today as the “Five Fifths of Ireland.” By 400 A.D., two more “kingdoms” had evolved. Many of these kings raided their neighbors, which included the continent of Europe and Britain. On one of these raids, a young boy was captured and sold into slavery. Eventually he escaped but returned to Ireland to bring the gospel. This man was none other than St. Patrick. Patrick brought Christianity to the Celtic region, and by the year 600 A.D., it had completely engulfed the nation.

From 837 A.D. on, Viking invasions wreaked havoc on the poor, working Irish families. Their war ships came up the mouth of the River Liffey. Five years later, Dublin was taken by force; they attacked the monastic culture and the cities. They plundered the villages and stole the women in the midst of the night. But the Irish proved their strength and fought back vigorously, causing the Vikings to flee. Seventeen years later, however, the Vikings returned under the command of Olaf the White, and they made a permanent settlement in Dublin. Once English mercenaries set their sights on Ireland, there was no going back. Mercenaries came under the direct orders of Richard de Clare, 2^nd Earl of Pembroke, in 1169. This original invasion of Ireland opened the door for the next 700 years of direct British involvement and control of Ireland and its people. In 1177, Prince John Lackland was dubbed Lord of Ireland by his father King Henry II of England.

From the latter half of the twelfth century to about 1400 A.D., many of the Normans moved to Ireland from England and settled on the eastern part of the island, particularly around Dublin. The Irish strongly resented these colonists, but in 1367, English Parliament enacted a law to keep the two populations separate. England essentially left Ireland to its own devices, operating as it always had until King Henry VIII. When he removed papal authority, he asserted complete dominance over the island. The English Reformation was an idea Henry VIII tried to force in Ireland but subsequently failed due to the Irish having no loyalty to the crown. King Henry continued to question the loyalty of the Irish, and between the years 1534 and 1691, there was a series of Irish military campaigns. Because of the influx of militaristic movement in Ireland, Scottish and English settlers were sent to live there. The rise of the Scottish and English presence in Ireland led to a rise of Catholicism, as well. Eventually, this led to a militaristic and political defeat of Gaelic Ireland.

During the reign of King James I of England, Catholicism experienced a lot of suppression and persecution. All Catholic organizations such as schools were shut down, and instead the children were taught in the Protestant faith. Any segregation that had been drawn up due to racial prejudices now shifted to religious lines instead. The sides were clear: Protestant and Catholic, although a majority of the island leaned toward the Catholic side. When Cromwell took control of England, he also continued the English hold over Ireland and tried to force Protestantism by taking over all of the Catholic institutions. Once he died, the Irish struck back at England and, in 1690, regained control of their historic land. They signed a treaty with London that granted the Irish rights, but, alas, it was rejected by a Protestant-controlled Irish Parliament. This religious war continued on. In 1727, no self-proclaimed Catholic was allowed to run for office, nor were they allowed to vote.

The latter half of the nineteenth century did not bode well for the Irish. Already having suffered an incredible amount of hardship due to restrictions of the British, they then had to face what is known today as the Great Famine. Essentially, it was caused by a potato blight that attacked all of the crops between 1845-1849. Over a million Irish men, women, and children died from starvation, and even more fell prey to sicknesses such as typhus. Over two million immigrated to other countries, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Over the course of the famine, a total of six million Irish fled the land. Because of the diaspora of the Irish, scholars think around eighty million Irish descendants are worldwide (within three or four generations).

Following the famine, however, Catholics in Ireland were slowly gaining in prosperity. A demand of a national self-government arose, and as the Catholics grew in parliamentary power, they used this as leverage to gain a home government, and in 1914, a home rule bill was enacted, but due to World War I could not be put into effect. However, throughout the course of the twentieth century, the situation in Ireland remained essentially unsettled. “The Government of Ireland Act” in 1920 set up separate parliaments for Northern and Southern Ireland, but only the southern parliament ever got anything accomplished or even remotely functioned. When 1921 rolled around, Britain and Ireland signed a treaty establishing Ireland as a free state, which meant while Ireland had the power to be a self-governing state, it was still considered under British rule. As a result of the treaty, a civil war broke out between pro- and anti-treaty supporters. In 1937, the parliament of southern Ireland drafted a new constitution, through which the new state of Eire was born. This state was a republic in every sense of the word, the only catch was the technicality of the name — they were still under British rule. This state lasted only eleven years, and the ties between northern and southern Ireland were completely severed; because of these severed ties the Republic of Ireland was born. In 1972, Northern Ireland was completely dissolved and put under direct British rule. That same year, Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC) along with its neighbors the UK and Denmark.

Ireland’s history isn’t an easy one: it’s struggled and overcome many difficulties, and its culture has had an impact on American society and history as well. A slight side note, the common phrase you hear “tying the knot” comes from Irish descent. It was a common practice in Ireland for the pastor, or whoever was doing the ceremony, to have the bride and groom cross arms and a ribbon tied around their right hands; thus, tying the knot.

Ireland’s culture and landscape are painted with its history. From the waves that crash into the Cliffs of Moher to the rolling hills; from the farmer, to the owner of the local pub; from the songs of the people to the patriotism in their hearts — Ireland is a country like no other; it’s a story waiting to be discovered.

Foreign Invasion, pt. 2

Leave a reply

Elsa Lang Lively

Hopefully many of you have been able to familiarize yourselves with four of our current exchange students, Enrique, Loïc, Andréanne, and Andreas, after reading the most recent compilation of exchange student interviews in Redeeming Pandora. Due to the incredible success of the first article, we thought it necessary to do some more hard-hitting interviews so you can get to know two more of your fellow students this year, James and Emilia.

Won Chul James Lee is a native of Seoul, South Korea, where he lives with his parents and younger brother. Back home, he enjoys spending time with his friends and playing soccer and baseball. He describes his daily life back in South Korea as a student as being very long, with the school day starting early in the morning and ending around ten o’clock at night. Living in the capital city of Seoul, he has grown up in a highly-populated area with lots to do. If he had to describe himself in three words, he would say “Korean, shy, and precise.”

He shared he has always wanted to come to America to improve his English. When the opportunity arose for him to spend an academic year in the States, he stopped high school in Seoul, obtained a student visa, and took an English placement test to see if he qualified to participate in the exchange student program, which he passed. Unlike the experiences of other exchange students at Summit, the process for him to be placed in a program in America only lasted about three to four months. Before attending Summit, he was first placed in a private school in Houston but was transferred to Virginia in hopes of having a more positive experience here.

Since arriving at Summit in September, he described his experience thus far as being both enjoyable yet difficult. He said he has made some really good friends at Summit, but he also misses his friends and family back home as well as his everyday life back in South Korea. During his down time, he enjoys spending time with friends, watching Korean TV shows, and playing baseball. His favorite memory of being in America so far was road tripping to New York City with some friends. He has also visited famous American cities such as Houston, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C., and hopes to spend time in Miami, Boston, and Seattle in the near future.

When asked about stereotypes Koreans have about America or Americans, he answered they think Americans are fat, which is similar to what our European exchange students answered during previous interviews. He also said there are stereotypes about American high schools because of popular movies that take place at extravagant and enormous high schools in the States. If he could change one thing about America, he would change the public transportation system. In Seoul, he explained, there is no pressing need for cars because the transportation system covers large areas of the city and as well as surrounding areas. He would also change the curfew of midnight for minors here in Virginia, because he is not accustomed to needing to be home at specific time of the night.

Upon finishing the academic year up at Summit, he plans on returning home to South Korea to see his family and friends and renewing his student visa. This coming school year, he hopes to study social science at a university in California. He plans on pursuing a career in America or with an international organization, which would require a high level of English. Overall, he sees his year here at Summit as being a good opportunity to learn how to speak and communicate English fluently and to prepare him for a higher education in the States in the future.

Emilia Rizzi calls Castiglione delle Stiviere, Italy home, where she lives with her parents and older sister, who is currently studying law. She shared all her immediate relatives live in the same town, where they all attend church together every week. One of her favorite memories from growing up in Italy was going to the seaside with her family ever year, where they would all stay in the same hotel and enjoy down time together. If she had to describe herself in three words, she would say “nice, adventurous, and Italian.” Her interests include playing sports such as basketball, volleyball, and soccer, and improving her guitar and bass guitar skills.

Her main motivation for coming to America was to improve her English while meeting people from other cultures. Attending school in the States appealed to her because she has always enjoyed watching American movies and reading books by American authors. Although she originally wanted to be placed in England, she realized America would be a better fit because the program in the United Kingdom is extremely expensive and requires a very high level of English to attend school there. She first applied for the exchange program back in November of 2011 and was placed in a program here at Summit over a year later after a host family was found for her.

Since arriving here at the beginning of second semester, Emilia said the first few weeks of school and living in America were really exciting at first because everything was new and different, but the reality of schoolwork and grades set in soon after. She shared attending an English-speaking school is difficult and can put a lot of pressure on her because the grades she receives at Summit count on her Italian transcripts for her high school. Once she finishes the academic year here, she has one more year of high school in Italy before continuing on to college.

So far, she is enjoying playing soccer for the first time on an organized girls’ league and spending time with her new friends and host family. She says back in Italy, very few girls play soccer, as it is considered a men’s sport. Now she looks forward to being able to play with her dad on his recreational league when she returns home this summer. Another cultural difference she noticed immediately upon arriving at Summit was the stark contrast between the public school she attends in Italy and Summit, being a private, Christian school. She enjoys the intimate aspect of attending a smaller school where she can get to know the students and teachers better. She also appreciates the fact religion and worldview can be discussed in school, as public school in Italy is very secular.

Upon finishing her last year of high school in her hometown next year, she hopes to study Hispanic Studies in either England or Scotland, where will learn how to speak Spanish and Portuguese. Her interest in learning languages has led her to pursue a future career as either an interpreter or as a person who helps to immerse immigrants into a new culture. She explained it is vital to speak English well if you want to pursue an international career. She said if you do not have an adequate knowledge of English, you are cut out of the international world.

Her favorite American memory so far is going to homecoming and having a sleepover with some of the senior girls after the big game. If she had to change something about the American lifestyle or culture, she would change the food. She explained it is very difficult to eat healthy food here with the high popularity of eating quickly on the go. Despite having a positive experience in Virginia so far, she also misses spending time with her family and friends back home. One favorite tradition of hers is going out with her friends for pizza in her hometown. All in all, however, she is enjoying her time at Summit and in the States and looks forward to attending Soirée and seeing more of the States before she heads back to Italy.

As fourth quarter rapidly approaches and we prepare for the winding down of the school year, keep in mind these last few months of school will be the last we share with these foreign exchange students. All of these students have displayed great willpower and courage, opening themselves to living away from their families and the familiar ways of their home countries to have a new kind of cultural experience. Continue to get to know these students, as they all have unique thoughts and opinions to share. Be open to learning about and appreciating their cultures, just as they have done for our own culture. And most importantly, remember to encourage them in their efforts while representing America well!

A Return to Wargaming

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

When I was young, every time I walked through the mud room on the way out the backdoor to do some outdoor activity (basketball, tennis, or some epic war involving all the “guys” — what are apparently today called “action figures”), I noticed stacks on stacks of thin, black boxes piled on top of the filing cabinets. I never knew what was in them growing up, but I did notice the one standing upright in the corner in front of the window had some strange German words on it: “Wacht am Rhein.” I had a vague notion they were games in there, somehow, but they didn’t look like any games we were used to playing, certainly not from the side. We did play a few of those games once in a while, particularly War of the Ring, and I did play some sports games, but most of them never got to the table.

Don’t get the misunderstanding we did not play board games when I was young. It wasn’t all video games, you know. We had regular game nights throughout my youth. We regularly played Careers, Trivial Pursuit, Hail to the Chief, Scrabble, Pit, Clue, Pick-It, card games, and a whole lot of other games. I even got them to play Dungeons & Dragons … once. There was a Risk session … once. That caused more frustration than happiness, perhaps because of our impatient youthfulness (and the imminence of MacGyver). Perhaps that was a main factor none of those thin black games from the mud room ever made it to the table.

As you probably haven’t guessed by now, those stacks upon stacks of thin, black plastic games were my dad’s extensive SPI wargames collection (though our friends over at Simulations Publications, Inc. would prefer we call them “conflict simulations”). This is probably the point of this reflection when I should say “if only I’d known then what I know now …” or words to that effect about regret, perhaps in a wistful voice. But I’m not going to do that. I have enough things I have done to regret without adding things I haven’t done to the list. Besides, I don’t know if I would have been all that ready for them. It wasn’t like I was totally ignorant of military history: I had seen 1776 and Gettysburg several times … but that was about it, so no real chance of recreating anything remotely historical existed. (I’m still rather skeptical I’m all that ready for them now, as far as having a good grasp of the historical situations upon which the games/simulations are based.) Additionally, looking back upon that time, sure there are some things here and there I would change if I were Sam Beckett, as most of us probably have, but it’s not like there is a big gaping hole of “missing family time” it would replace. As I said, we had regular family game nights my entire life, so in that sense it would have been more of a lateral movement.

I grew up listening to and watching Jack Benny, Fibber McGee & Molly, Abbott and Costello, the Marx Brothers, Danny Kaye, Martin and Lewis, M*A*S*H, Star Trek, MST3K, Red Dwarf, and countless others (see our forthcoming final issue), playing board games with my family, basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, golf, flag football (usually only for one season, true, but it still happened), youth symphony, Awana, and a lot more things that would shame any of today’s “I’m too busy” youth. They have no idea what it’s truly like to be busy. And I still had time for comic books and video games, somehow. When CCGs came out, my brother and I got in on that, emphasizing the first “c” more than the “g,” but we did manage to play sometimes. So I don’t have a lot of things to regret from back then in this way; I’d have difficulty choosing what to replace with wargames. True, more time with Dad would have been nice, but he was never too busy when I wanted him to go out and play catch or take me to Comic World. As I said, I probably wasn’t ready for wargames too much, so I don’t know if that would have helped.

The good news, really, is we are in a second golden age of boardgaming, and wargames are benefitting from that as well. Many of the first generation of giants upon whose shoulders the rest of us stand are gone (H.G. Wells, obviously, Charles S. Roberts, Redmond A. Simonsen) or out of the biz (Jim Dunnigan), but many of that early generation are still churning out games (Mark Herman, Richard H. Berg, Don Greenwood, etc.) and not only are they still making quality manual war boardgames, they are continuing to expand and improve their game depth, designs, and mechanics (beyond the traditional hex-and-counter, we are seeing the surgence of card-driven games, point-to-point movement, impulse movement, “fog of war,” and more variations). Instead of only Avalon Hill and SPI vying for the market, we have GMT Games, MMP, Victory Point Games, Worthington Games, Columbia Games, Clash of Arms Games, and more. Also, just as we saw a few issues ago with comic books, modern shifts in marketplaces (such as eBay) are allowing a great deal of used products to get from unwanted homes to new homes, so the older games and companies (Victory Games, 3W, The Gamers, Game Research/Design, etc.) long out of print can reach new generations of fans. Yard sales, too, provide hope and possibilities for rescuing old treasures.

Interest in military history is as high as ever, if not even increasing, as recent trends in actual military combat have triggered (if you’ll allow the expression) interest in COIN (counterinsurgency) and guerilla tactics and conflicts. The Vietnam War (and its combatants) is finally becoming socially acceptable discussion material (thanks, in no small part, to Tim O’Brien). Moviemakers and television studios will never tire of recreating historical conflicts, and the demands for accuracy are perhaps higher than ever (which, admittedly, tends to lend itself to graphic content more often than not). This has also led to waves of revisionism as well, no doubt, but if Jared’s articles are even remotely true (and I suspect he is far more accurate than most want him to be), it would be better for all of us to appraise history more circumspectly, especially if we are driven by a desire to know the truth and not just postmodernly critique/lambaste former heroes for the sake of critique: truth can surely stand the scrutiny.

And few things are undergoing more scrutiny by intelligent people (actually intelligent people, not just self-serving degree holders) than military history. Strategy & Tactics is still going strong. Despite the doomsayers who prognosticate the end of the printed word, the wargaming tribe is recalcitrantly ignoring such trends, as several printed war history magazines (with or without accompanying games) are being published each year (World at War, Modern War, Against the Odds, etc.). Concurrently, the wargaming tribe is also embracing modern technology — it’s not wholly constituted by sexagenarians who refuse to role anything not cube-shaped. Check out BoardGameGeek.com. That, along with ConSimWorld.com, is a major gathering point for wargamers to discuss (we can call it that), share videos, critique, assist, and further the hobby. Most “grognards” (old-time “hardcore” wargamers, taken from the complaining Old Guard of Napoleon’s army) are generous enough to offer advice or strategy — or at least keep the hobby alive. Additionally, Mark Herman, one of the near-original gang at SPI back in the day, recently published a Battle of the Bulge game for the iPad. The company that put it out, Shenandoah Studios, was co-founded by another of the early SPI gang, Eric Lee Smith. We should not be surprised wargamers are also on or around the cutting edge of technology. Wells, Roberts, and Dunnigan were innovators, not followers. I recently heard it said of Jim Dunnigan he has always been so far ahead of the curve it’s flat where he is (or words to that effect). That was from, I believe, Ed Wimble, designer of several Napoleonic games. I heard it on a podcast, one of the more respected podcast series about wargames, Guns, Dice, & Butter (if it wasn’t Ed Wimble, I apologize, but it was someone on an early podcast of GDB). I’m not big into podcasts, but the wargaming tribe moves with the times — or, perhaps as more likely, the times move with the wargaming tribe.

They are a knowledgeable bunch. Most of them are into wargames because they know about history, intimately, and are interested in working it out for themselves, checking out possible scenarios, historical what-ifs, and the like. They are not into wargames because they want to pretend to be Adolf Hitler and wipe out non-Aryan Europe. That sort of piffle can be left where it originated. Just listen to a few early podcasts of Guns, Dice, & Butter. Listen to Mark Herman or Ed Wimble or Nick Karp talk about history. You’ll think you never heard anything about history before. I’ve started to understand why my history-major librarian father has been into wargames for so long: they combine knowing things with fun. That’s what the kids call a “no-lose situation.”

My dad no longer has his mighty collection. He gave me the War of the Ring game and sold most of the rest of the collection years ago to help pay for my brother’s college education. Again, let’s not lament anything — life’s too short. The good news is somehow we have both returned to wargaming. Not surprisingly, it was instigated by my dad a few years ago. I can’t quite remember the order of events, but somewhere along the line on some visit back home we played, fittingly enough, Tactics II, the revised version of Tactics, the first board wargame. It has a square grid, but all the basic components of wargaming are right there. Shortly after that he ordered me a few other classic Avalon Hill games: Waterloo, D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, Gettysburg, and Midway. We have even played Waterloo together. Then, he gave me his remaining copies of Blue & Gray I and II, two classic SPI-quadrigames, four smaller games in one package all from one war or general idea (like four modern battles, four battles of the middle ages, things like that). He recently got another copy of B&G I, and we have been playing them by e-mail for the last few months (part of the benefit of these earlier, simpler games is they are driven by what some disparagingly call “IGO-UGO” systems, but they lend themselves brilliantly to long-distance play). Since we trust each other, we can be honest with what combat results happened, and then we can retreat each other’s pieces when necessary to the other person’s best advantage, just as if it was happening in person. Now that he has gotten back into playing, and I have enjoyed getting into it as well, our collections are both increasing once again. They will never match what once was, but in a way they will be even better, since now these collections will have been played. So there is no need to lament what “might have been” – it’s happening now, probably better than it would have been. I’m also getting my daughter started on wargaming as well. True, we don’t play according to the written rules, but she is getting really good at punching out counters and shuffling cards. It’s never too late or too soon to start wargaming.

As with most things I do at Summit, I founded the Strategic Gaming Club a few years ago primarily so I could play my games and have a good time. Once in a while I do things for the benefit of the students, but usually it’s primarily for me. The good part about that is, as a generous giver, I share and let whoever is willing to join me on these journeys come along for the ride. Though we haven’t quite played as many of the classic wargames as I would have liked, I certainly have had a good time playing Diplomacy, Civilization (in the Michael Wood elective — I mean “Intro. to Archaeology”), and Settlers of Catan (I am not calling Settlers a wargame, so please don’t tell the BGG people I did) with the kids over the years. I’m hoping, though, that next year’s Intro. to Historical Gaming (aka “Intro. to Wargaming”) elective will allow me the opportunity to play a lot more of these games, especially some of the new ones I have gotten recently (thanks, mainly, to my dad, who helped increase my gaming collection tremendously in 2012: Here I Stand, For the People, Fall of Rome, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, Through the Ages, among others. These are the games Julia and I have been “playing” together. She’s also good at making up rules.). EBay has also been helpful to me in the last few months, as I have been able to get many old and classic OOP games (not to forget my gracious wife’s willingness to let me get them as well). I’m definitely planning on playing them (even more than I’m definitely planning on reading all the books in my house). Having a class will make that plan come to fruition even sooner, I hope. Of course, I’ll also need to be familiar with them before class starts so I can teach them and provide enjoyable learning/gaming experiences to the students as well.

I suppose this means I’ll need to spend much of the summer playing wargames and studying military history. Shucks.

North Unjustified

Leave a reply

Jared Emry

The American Civil War divided the country; neighbor against neighbor and brother against brother. About one hundred fifty years later the division still exists, the war appears to still be waging, even though the Union managed to conquer the Confederacy. The separation exists now over the motives and justifications of the war. The CNN Opinion Research Corporation found forty-two percent of the population does not believe slavery was the motive behind the North’s invasion, yet the schools teach it was the fundamental reason behind the war. Were there other reasons? If so, why are they not so as much mentioned in modern textbooks? The division of thought in the nation begs the justification of the North into question. There is an old saying history is always written by the victor, and the victor tends to bend truths and rewrite history in order that posterity will look kindly upon them. The American Civil War is a unique example of that because the right to free speech in America allows for extra difficulty to alter the histories. George Orwell said in his book 1984 “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” The Union controls the past to prevent one from seeing the Union was morally unjustified in its conduct concerning the American Civil War.

The popular view of the American Civil War is taught in all public schools, most private schools, and popular television. The view is basically stated as there being two sides, the Southern Confederacy and the Northern Union. The view portrays the South as being evil slave-owners and the North being Righteous Liberators, forgetting the fact it was the North that sold the slaves to the South, and the North had built their economy based upon it before diversifying into industry (Greene 319).

This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on Southern Slavery, but it also had an advantage, to Northern ear, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved (Melish 222-23).

However, “history books have misled today’s Americans to believe to believe the war was fought on the basis to free slaves” (Williams). “[Charles] Dickens stubbornly resisted ascribing the American Civil War to the conflict over slavery, instead accusing the Union of hypocrisy” (Lee 128). Dickens said,

I take the facts of the American slave quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing to do with it…. Every reasonable person may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and that it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them uphill and down dale.

Dickens was certainly right about the war, yet the view is never shown today.

President Abraham Lincoln is considered one of the greatest presidents of all time. He is considered great for freeing the slaves because he believed all men are created equal and slavery was an abomination, right? “If Lincoln was such a saint, why can’t his record speak for itself?” (DiLorenzo 12). Lincoln believed in white supremacy as is evident in the way he conducted himself. He believed inter-racial marriage was an abomination. He believed America should be an all-white nation and all black Americans should be expelled into labor “colonies” (DiLorenzo). “It was an article of faith to [Lincoln] that emancipation and deportation went together like firecrackers and July Fourth, and you couldn’t have one without the other,” historian and scholar Leron Bennett, Jr. states in his controversial book Forced into Glory. Another little known fact about the “great” man, Lincoln, is he supported the abominable Corwin Amendment, which would have made slavery perpetually legal (Encyclopedia Britannica). In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated,

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Yet later, as the war waged on, the Proclamation of Emancipation was given by President Abraham Lincoln, which cited slavery as the primary cause of the war. Incidentally, the Anti-Slavery Society of London did not side with the North until after this proclamation, because they recognized the war as not being about slavery prior to this document. Abraham Lincoln himself stated in a letter to Horace Greeley in 1862,

My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is neither to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Thus he had previously undermined any credibility of the war being about the termination of slavery. The Proclamation was not a humanitarian gesture but a piece of propaganda that would hurt the Confederacy’s international relations. The Emancipation Proclamation also did not include northern and border slaves, allowing for northern slavery to continue. Lincoln also is known for imprisoning thousands of northern citizens for disagreeing with his politics. He censored telegraphs, sheet music, and sermons. He closed down anti-war newspapers. He waged a pitiless war against the South, killing six hundred thousand soldiers, laying to waste entire cities while leaving their citizens starving and homeless (DiLorenzo). He even ordered the arrest of Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, for calling him a despot for suspending habeas corpus (a writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention) (American Oxford Dictionary) without consent of the Congress; the Circuit Court had overruled Lincoln’s executive order and Lincoln had ignored Taney and his court, which is illegal (DiLorenzo). That was the Union’s leadership, a man who craved a drastic intensification in federal power, a racist tyrant who used slavery as a scapegoat for a bloody war. “The North’s lack of large-scale slavery is not due to morality, but with climate and economy” (Melish xii). Lincoln’s war was inexcusable.

Abraham Lincoln was a man who reflected the popular view of the North: from Webster arguing for immediate deportation of all none-whites for purposes of constructing a white utopia, to that of the New York press from where Walt Whitman was fired for being anti-slavery. What did the North base its war on, if not slavery? The call to arms for the Union was from the start “Preserve the Union,” so the war was based on an ideology. The ideology itself is not bad, except it happened to be illegal and resulted in the deaths of about six hundred thousand Americans. The war was illegal because it was not authorized by Congress and because habeas corpus was illegally suspended during the war’s beginning. Also constitutionally, the states had the right to leave the Union in the same way one might leave a club: one resigns and then leaves. This right was guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment, which reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Quite simply put, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to kick a state out of the Union; therefore, the states have the right to kick themselves out of the Union. Also, Article Four shows quite clearly the states are admitted to the Union in the same way as one might enter a club; so why not leave it similarly? The Union’s war was illegal.

The first shot of the war was indeed Confederate, but it was after secession. The Confederacy had Union forts in it and, since they were different countries, asked politely if President Lincoln would take his troops and leave. He promptly replied, no you will have to force us out of your country, so the Confederacy had to take action and open fire. Thus the blame for the war is on the Union who aggravated the Confederacy to fire by not respecting the Confederacy’s right as a sovereign nation (Encyclopedia Britannica). Lincoln had vowed not to be the first to fire a shot, so he provoked the South into starting the war so he would not break his vow, and because it looks better politically.

The war that followed Lincoln’s bombastic stubbornness resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, most of which were slow painful deaths caused by starvation or infection. The prisoner of war camps caused great suffering to the prisoners. In the South were not enough supplies to give to the men in the prisoner of war camps, but even the guards were malnourished. The difference was in the North the supplies were there to give to the prisoners, but the prisoners there starved while the guards had more than enough to eat. Yet, it was the man in charge of the camp at Andersonville, Henry Wirz, found to be a war criminal and executed, not the man in charge of Camp Douglas, the Northern Counterpart to Andersonville with a death rate just as high; strangely enough the official government documents that list the deaths have been “lost,” and there may be even more Confederates in the earth there than what is now understood, as can be seen by other documents like the Chicago Tribune that demonstrated thousands of Confederate Soldiers were still unaccounted for: “Mortality rates increased as Colonel Sweet complained on October 11, 1864, that mortality at the camp was up to 35% since June. In November 1864, the death toll was 217; another 323 died in December, 308 in January 1864, and 243 in February.”

Elmira, “The Camp of Death,” had unparalleled death rates over any other prisoner of war camp, a rate of a stunning twenty-five percent, resulting in more than seven thousand deaths within a year. If Elmira had lasted as long as Andersonville did, it would have surpassed Andersonville in deaths (Horigan). This is another North camp as bad, or worse, than Andersonville, yet is not conventionally mentioned.

Why were those responsible for Douglas, with its one in five death rate, and Elmira, with its one in four death rate, not also tried for war crimes? Douglas with its twenty percent death rate, Elmira with its twenty-five percent death rate, or Andersonville with its twenty-seven percent death rate; which is worst? Andersonville, yet it is was only two percent different from Elmira. Is it morally justified only to try Wirz and not the other Commandants? Especially when such atrocities happened in Camp Douglas such as the following: When the smallpox epidemic broke out in camp, the Confederacy sent medicine to its prisoners of war, but the Union confiscated the medicine as contraband; deprivation of food, blankets, and clothing; and tortures ranging from firing shots into the barracks, hanging people by their feet, forcing them to stand in the snow in bare feet for hours, making them sit on the snow for hours, whipping them if they tried to relieve themselves from the torture, or simply beating them with the side of the belt with the metal buckle in order to enhance bruising (Pritchett).

Also, is the respect for the Confederate dead the same as for the Union dead? No, the Union dead at Andersonville get a cemetery with individual gravestones in a four hundred, seventy-five acre park with a monument. The Confederate dead at Douglas were all buried in a mass grave in one acre of swampy land. The monument placed there in 1895 was provided by the family and friends of the dead, not the government like in Andersonville; there aren’t even any highway directional signs for this monument. What about Elmira? The Confederate soldiers had called that place “Hellmira.” It is considered to have been the worst prison camp of the North, worse even than Douglas. At Elmira, “one rat could be traded for five chaws of tobacco, one haircut, or a number of other items.” There was also a disparity between Andersonville and Elmira in the amount of doctors available. The North had the majority of the doctors in America; the South had to make do with less. Yet one doctor at Elmira boasted he had killed more Confederates than any of the soldiers had. The death rate at Andersonville was due to fewer doctors and supplies while the death rates at Camp Douglas and Elmira were due to cruelty of the Union. Actually, in the town of Elmira was even an observation deck where people could see the suffering inside the camp from town. It became quite popular and soon became an industry of entertainment. The commandant of Elmira was not tried, nor was the commandant of Camp Douglas (Horigan). That disparity is unjustified.

Overall, the North had impure motives, mainly of white supremacy, racism, and illegally preserving the Union causing the ultimate destruction of the Union through a sudden increase in federal power. The suffering caused by the war falls onto the heads of the North, because they were ultimately responsible for causing the war in the first place. They are also unjustified by the way they treated the Confederate dead, refusing proper burial, and failing to continue to keep the graves in good condition in direct violation of Public Law 38 (National Park Service). They are unjustified in keeping their own atrocities and war crimes hidden and untried. The North was morally unjustified in its conduct concerning the American Civil War.

Works Cited

“American Civil War.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/19407/American-Civil-War>.

American Oxford Dictionary. Widget.

Bennett, Lerone. Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream. Chicago: Johnson Pub. Co., 2000.

“Camp Chase — Reading 2.” U.S. National Park Service. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/123camp_chase/123facts2.htm?vm=r>.

“Civil War Still Divides Americans.” CNN. CNN.com Blogs. 03 Dec. 2011. <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/>.

Crawford, Martin. “Confederate States of America.” Dictionary of American History. 2003. Encyclopedia.com. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

Confederate States of America. The Constitution. 11 March 1861.

Dickens, Charles. “Letter to W.F. De Cerjat.” 1 Oct. 1850. The Letters of Charles Dickens. Vol. 6. Oxford: OUP, 1988. 183-84. Print.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. “Forward.” The Law. By Frederic Bastiat. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. v-ix.

—. Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe. New York: Crown Forum, 2006. Print.

—. The Real Lincoln: a New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. Roseville, CA: Prima, 2002. Print.

Greene, Lorenzo J. The Negro in Colonial New England. New York: Atheneum, 1968. Print.

Horigan, Michael. Elmira: Death Camp of the North. 1st ed. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books, 2002. Print.

Lee, Julia S. The American Slave Narrative. Oxford: OUP, 2010. Print.

Melish, Joanne Pope. Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780-1860. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1998. Print.

Morley, Henry. “The Morill Tariff.” Ed. Charles Dickens. All Year Round. 28 Dec. 1861. Print.

“Northern Profits from Slavery.” Slavery in the North. 04 Dec. 2011 <http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm>.

Orwell, George. 1984. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984. Print.

Pritchett, C. W. “P.O.W.’s From Cumberland Gap.” RootsWeb Mailing List Archives. The Kilgore Archives. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/th/read/KILGORE/2004-02/1076396675>.

“Remembering the American Civil War.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1763580/Remembering-the-American-Civil-War>.

Scroggins, Steve. “The Ugly Rock ‘Cenotaph’ in Chicago’s Oak Woods Cemetery — Insult to Camp Douglas Confederate POWs.” Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 1399. Sons of Confederate Veterans. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://scvcamp1399.org/uglyrock.php>.

Thomas, Hugh. The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1997. Print.

United States Constitution, Amendment 10.

Warnke, Joe. “US Support for CS Vets.” Critical History. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. <http://www.criticalhistory.info/html/us_support_for_cv.html?vm=r>.

William, Walter E. “The Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery.” Jewish World Review (1998). Walter Williams Archive. Web. 4 Dec. 2011. <http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp>.