History of the English-Speaking People by Winston Churchill

*update* I know this is RIDICULOUSLY long, but I simply cannot think of a good way to summarize a history book. A lot of stuff happened! Just remember, it's shorter than the book!

I had heard of the book History of the English-Speaking Peoples by Winston Churchill, and the title alone fascinated me. As I am desperately trying to educate myself, I knew I had to read it. It’s probably one of my favorite history books up to this point. But this time, I read it a little differently than I read most books. While I always take notes and write up a summary, this time, I used Susan Wise Bauer’s suggestions for how to read a history book. She includes over 20 questions to ask yourself as you read the book. So I did that and this summary took quite a bit longer. But I think it was worth it for the depth I feel I gained in doing so.

Churchill has written a political history. He is largely concerned with those in power, both how they got it and what they did with it. He uses these stories to tell the overriding story of the English. He organizes the book into three “books” within the whole: Book I: The Island Race; Book II: The Making of the Nation; Book III: The End of the Feudal Age. He states his purpose for writing saying, “[This book] aims to present a personal view on the process whereby English-speaking peoples throughout the world have achieved their distinctive position and character.” (p. viii) The major events of the history which he details include the Roman invasion and takeover of Britain, followed by the Viking takeover after the Roman Empire falls. Then the leadership turns to the House of Wessex, then the Normans and Plantagenet Dynasties, and finally the Houses of York and Lancaster battle it out. The book ends with the beginning of the Tudor line. Therefore, he story begins with the invasion by Julius Caesar in 55 BC and ends at the crowning of Henry VII (of the Tudors) in 1485 AD (Sometimes considered the end of the Middle Ages). It largely takes place in England with lots of forays into France. It also jaunts from time to time into Scotland and Ireland, but mainly concerns itself with the English and their French holdings. 

When discussing who the story is about, Churchill states, “I use the term ‘English-speaking peoples’ because there is no other that applies both to the inhabitants of the British Isles and to those independent nations who derive their beginnings, their speech, and many of their institutions from England, and who now preserve, nourish, and develop them in their own ways.” (p. viii) The challenge in the narrative comes about because the people are continually threatened by outsiders seeking power over the island nation. Usually the native inhabitants lose, but they always manage to find a way to bring the outside, usurping leader into their customs and habits through the great power of the nobility and the existing institutions. The story has a forward progression. The tyrannical leaders are repeatedly forced to come to heel. Each new dynasty promises to respect the unwritten Constitution and affirm the understood rights of the people and the nobility. This continual replacement of bad kings with kings who promise progress shows the English are not willing to settle for a bad king and eventually a bad dynasty.

The next stage of diving into a history book, the logic stage, concerns the major questions and assertions of the author. 

I believe the first question implicitly asked is, “What was the impact of Rome on England?” He begins the answer to this question with the first incursion by Julius Caesar when the island was inhabited by the Briton, Celt, Pict, and Scottish tribes. The British tribal chief Cassivellaunus was able to negotiate with the invading Romans and in exchange for hostages and tribute, get them to quit the island. Thereafter, they began to trade with Rome, but they were not conquered. 100 years later the Romans were back. “In the wild North and West freedom found refuge among the mountains, but elsewhere the conquest and pacification were at length complete and Britannia became one of the forty-five provinces of the Roman Empire”. (pg. 33) Of that time, Churchill states, “For nearly four hundred years Britain became a Roman province. This considerable period was characterized for a great part of the time by that profound tranquility which leave little for history to record. It stands forth sedate, luminous, and calm. And what remained? Noble roads, sometimes overgrown with woodland; the stupendous work of the Roman Wall, breached and crumbling; fortresses, market towns, country houses, whose very ruins the next comers contemplated with awe. But of Roman speech, Roman law, Roman institutions, hardly a vestige. Yet we should be mistaken if we therefore supposed that the Roman occupation could be dismissed as an incident without consequence. It had given time for the Christian faith to plant itself.” (p. x)Those Britons who accepted Roman ruled lived comfortable lives in a stable, but static colony. However, the North required a wall and vigilant defense. As Rome’s foundations were beginning to crumble, Britain seemed not to notice.

His second implicit question was “What ended the Roman Rule?” “The Roman world, like an aged man, wish to swell in peace and tranquility and to enjoy in philosophic detachment the good gifts which life has to bestow upon the more fortunates classes. But new ideas disturbed the internal conservatism, and outside the carefully guarded frontiers vast masses of hungry, savage men surged and schemed. The essence of the Roman peace was toleration of all religions and the acceptance of a universal system of government. Every generation after the middle of the second century was an increasing weakening of the system and a gathering movement towards a uniform religion. Christianity asked again all the questions which the Roman world deemed answered for ever, and some that it had never thought of.” (pg. 44-45) As the Roman Empire declined, they moved out of far away, hard to defend Britain. The Anglo-Saxons of Germany took this as their chance to invade. The Britons fought back, possibly under the mythical King Arthur, but eventually had to make peace with the onslaught of Saxons. This led to powerful chiefs which eventually gave way to kings who rewarded their loyal followers with land. This became the germ of feudalism.

I believe the next question to be, “How did England come into its own as one of the leaders of Western Civilization?” Compared to Rome, Saxon England was barbaric small kingdoms fighting for supremacy. Eventually all become Christian and some of the great Christian thinkers and saints live in England at this time, in order to unify the faith. Saint Augustine is sent to help the islanders maintain pure theology and Saint Patrick makes tremendous inroads in Ireland. King Offa could reasonably make a claim to be the King of England when he conquered most of the warring territories. He even gained the respect of Charlemagne. In addition, Bede re-reckons the calendar so that the dates originate at the birth of Christ. “In the eighth century indeed England had claims to stand in the van of Western culture…England, with an independent character and personality, might scarcely yet be part of a world civilization as in Roman times, but there was a new England, closer than ever before to national unity, with a native genius of her own.” (pg. 87) Churchill cannot overstate the importance of Christianity in uniting the island and creating a stabilizing force.

While the Muslims conquered most of the eastern and southern Mediterranean Sea, the Vikings began making a play for the northern territories. Four hundred years after the Saxons invaded England, they were repaid in kind by the Vikings. Because the church, filling in the void left by the Romans, had become so powerful and rich in Britain, it provided a tempting target. When Ivar the Boneless conquered England in the name of the Danish, they didn’t just plundered. They stayed. “The Danish settlement in England was essentially military. They cut their way with their swords, and then planted themselves deeply in the soul. The warrior type of farmer asserted from the first a status different from the ordinary agriculturist.” (pg. 103) The Saxons very nearly succumbed and the estates founded by the Danes had a definite military flavor.

Next Churchill asks, “How did England unite such a disparate group of people into one nation?” Along came Alfred the Great, leading to the time of Wessex ascendancy. Churchill describes him thus, “The sublime power to rise above the whole force of circumstances, to remain unbiased by the extremes of victory or defeat, to persevere in the teeth of disaster, to greet returning fortune with a cool eye, to have faith in men after repeated betrayals, raises Alfred far above the turmoil of barbaric wars to his pinnacle of deathless glory.” (p. 117) Churchill believes it was Alfred who basically founded England as we know it. Concerning him, he states, “We discern across the centuries a commanding and versatile intelligence, wielding with equal force the sword of war and of justice; using in defense arms and policy; cherishing religion, learning, and art in the midst of adversity and danger; welding together a nation, and seeking always across the feuds and hatreds of the age a peace which would smile upon the land. This King, it was said, was a wonder for wise men. ‘From his cradle he was filled with the love of wisdom above all things,’ wrote Asser. The Christian culture of his Court sharply contrasted with the feckless barbarism of Viking life. The older race was to tame the warriors and teach them the arts of peace, and show them the value of a settled common existence. We are watching the birth of a nation. The result of Alfred’s work was the future mingling of Saxon and Dane in a common Christian England.” (p. 122)

The House of Wessex continued to unite and reorganize most of England under the rule of law. But under the foolish Ethelred The Unready things begin to fall apart. His widow marries the Danish king who reintroduces stability and respects the Wessex way of life. But eventually the kingship returns to the Saxons under Edward The Confessor, the last Saxon king. By this time, the England was weak and was experiencing internal conflicts and contradictions.

Now we get to the question, “How did the French become so entangled with England?” William of Normandy, the illegitimate child of the Duke of Normandy, cousin of the last Saxon King, Edward the Confessor, angled to get the English throne. He made childless Edward promise it to him. And for good measure, he kidnapped the king’s brother-in-law, Harold, and made him swear fealty as well as a condition of his release. When Edward died Harold determined to get the throne for himself. He was first threatened from the north by a distant upstart and was forced to fight for the crown at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. This was immediately followed by the crossing of the channel by William in 1066 and the ill-fated Battle of Hastings.  William the Conqueror takes the throne and begins the Norman line of kings and the great entanglement with France that was to haunt the country for hundreds of years.

At first, William tried to keep the nobility French and impose French customs on England, but he was eventually forced to unite Norman with Saxon culture. His land reforms and redistribution led the beginnings of manorialism where, although the people might be free, the land was tied to the Lord and all belonged to the king.

William’s heir, Henry I further stabilized England, but on his death a succession crisis arose. HIs nephew, Stephen, claimed the throne, but Henry had stated he wanted his daughter, Maud, to succeed. A woman ruler was quickly denounced so she offered her son, Henry Plantagenet. The resulting civil war commenced in Henry II’s favor largely because he married Eleanor of Aquitaine who brought with her significant French territories. Of him, Churchill states, “The accession of Henry II began one of the most pregnant and decisive reigns in English history… He was accepted by English and Norman as the ruler of both races and the whole country. The memories of Hastings were confounded in his person, and after the hideous anarchy of civil war and robber barons all due attention was paid to his commands. Thus, though a Frenchman, with foreign speech and foreign modes, he shaped our country in a fashion of which the outline remains to the presents day.” (p. 199)

Henry II spread his influence throughout the area. He is known for his feud and possible inadvertent murder of Thomas Becket over issues of power and investiture. Because he was the most powerful Duke in France, the French king kept a wary eye on him. Despite his successful reign, Churchill states, “…Henry knew well that his splendor was personal in origin, tenuous and transient in quality.” (pg. 213)

Churchill then answers the question, “Where did English legal institutions that we would recognize today get their start?” Of Henry II Churchill sums up his importance, “ The Plantagenets were rough masters, and the temper of the age was violent. It was the violence however of vigour, not of decadence. England has had greater soldier-kings and subtler diplomatists than Henry II, but no man has left a deeper mark upon our laws and institutions… Henry II possessed an instinct for the problems of government and law, and it is here that his achievement lies… his fame will live with the English Constitution and the English Common Law.” (p. 215) His genius was in creating a system of courts under himself that used juries and promised greater justice than the provincial courts. This led directly to the English Common Law and the formation of the unwritten English Constitution as royal justice began to create national precedents.

His four sons each in turn rebelled against him, seeking to usurp the throne. His eldest, Richard, joined forces with the French King Philip to defeat his father. This kind of pattern was to play out repeatedly. “Although Richard was an absentee King (he fought in the Crusades and was captured then ransomed from the Duke of Austria) whose causes and virtues had proved a drain and disappointment to his subjects, his realm had not suffered so much as it would have seemed. The intrigues of the nobles and the treacheries of Prince John had been restrained by an impersonal Government ruling with the the force and in the name of high and also well-grounded principles. The system of administration devised by Henry II — the Civil Service as we may call it — had stood the test, and, undisturbed by royal interventions, consolidated itself, to the general convenience and advantage. It was proved that the King, to whom all allegiance had been rendered, was no longer the sole guarantee for law and order. There were other sureties upon which in addition the English nation could rely.” (p. 239)

Upon Richard’s death in battle, his brother, John, attained his long sought after prize. Churchill describes him saying, “He united the ruthlessness of a hardened warrior with the craft and subtlety of a Machiavellian… his cruelties were conceived and executed with a cold, inhuman intelligence… In him the restless energy of the Plantagenet race was raised to a furious pitch of instability.” This led the nobility to revolt against him forcing him to sign Magna Carta in 1215. “If the thirteenth-century magnates understood little and cared less for popular liberties or Parliamentary democracy, they had all the same laid hold of a principle which was to be of prime importance for the future development of English society and English institutions. Throughout the document it is implied that here is a law which is above the King and which even he must not break. This reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which men have held it. The reign of Henry II, according to the most respected authorities, initiates the rule of law. But the work as yet was incomplete: the Crown was still above the law: the legal system which Henry had created could become, as John showed, an instrument of oppression. Now for the first time the King himself is bound by the law.” (p. 257)

John’s death came at a time when the nobility, fed up with him, had actually called for the king of France to usurp the English throne. But upon his death, the conflict ended and his nine-year-old son, Henry III inherited the title. He further alienated the English aristocrats by his love of foreigners and intrigues with the church. The common people turned to the King’s brother-in-law, Simon de Montfort for leadership and reform.

The resulting Civil War led to the first glimpses of a modern Parliament as the barons chose sides between de Montfort and the King. Prince Edward finally killed de Montfort in battle. Yet de Montfort had lighted a fire among the people and would forever be remembered as their saint. Ironically, the new king, Edward I was forced to draw deeply on Simon’s ideas to maintain support within his country.

“Few princes had received so thorough an education in the art of rulership as Edward I when at the age of thirty-three his father’s death brought him to the crown. He was an experienced leader and a skillful general. He had carried his father on his shoulders; he had grappled with Simon de Montfort, and, while sharing many of his views, had destroyed him. He had learned the art of war by tasting defeat. When at any time in the closing years of King Henry III he could have taken control, he had preferred a filial and constitutional patience, all the more remarkable when his own love of order and reform is contrasted with his father’s indolence and incapacity and the general misgovernment of the realm.” (p. 285) Under his rule, feudalism begins to die, Parliament begins to establish its authority through the ability to deny taxes to finance wars, Whales is defeated as well as William Wallace and Robert Bruce in Scotland, and peace is made with France through a marriage of his own as well as marrying off his son and heir to a French princess.

After the Norman invasion and the establishment of the Plantagenet line of kings, Churchill answers the question, “Why did England decline?” Edward II, the son of Edward I, was a weak and ineffectual king. He lost Scotland at the battle of Bannockburn. And it’s possible he was gay. For this he was rejected by his French wife. She took his son to France where she and her lover conspired to have Edward II removed, killed, and replaced with Edward III.

As a side note, at this time Ireland was never truly under British rule, but did fall under its sway. Meanwhile in Scotland, the loose and weak confederation came to be ruled by Robert the High Steward, hereafter euphoniously called the Stuarts.

To its shame, England continued to lose vast amounts of territory in France. But with the invention of the long bow, her army appeared invincible. When the French king demanded a show of fealty from Edward III, also known as the Duke of Normandy, combined with mercantilist concerns over the wool trade across the channel, Edward III asserted his claim to the French throne through his mother’s side. This was all the English needed to launch what would become known as the 100 Years War.

Throughout Edward III’s reign, reform becomes a major theme. Wycliff sought church reforms that would pre-date and lend credence to the later Reformation, although he was largely rejected in his lifetime. John of Gaunt, Edward III’s third son, sought to reform government The war with France weakened both countries, most of the English territories in France were lost,  and the crown prince died before his father. Therefore the crown passed to his ten-year-old son, Richard II. No one objected. Well John of Gaunt might have been less than pleased.

Richard II became king under the regency of his uncle John of Gaunt. He had a son himself and was not anxious for Richard to come of age and take over the kingdom. Soon, King Richard II was unlucky enough to find himself king during the Black Plague. The social upheaval caused by so much death lead to peasants pushing for more power and eventually uprisings. This led to the aristocracy pushing back and in the process humbling the king. Richard did not stay humbled for long and sought vengeance on the kingdom. At one point, he banished John of Gaunt’s son, his cousin Henry. Churchill says, “The character of Richard II and his place in the regard of history remain an enigma. That he possessed qualities of high order, both for design and action, is evident. That he was almost from childhood confronted with measureless difficulties and wrongful oppressions against which he repeatedly made head is also plain. The injuries and cruelties which he suffered at the hands of his uncle Gloucester and the high nobility may perhaps be the key to understanding him. Some historians have felt that he was prepared not only to exploit Parliamentary and began maneuvers against the governing classes, but perhaps even that he would use social forces then and for many generations utterly submerged. At any rate the people for their part long cherished some such notion of him.” (p. 299-300)

After the upheaval at the end of the Plantagenet line, “How did England restabilize?” Richard’s cousin Henry soon took advantage of Richard’s unpopularity with the nobility and marched on London from his exile, and claimed the throne for himself. His reign was constantly marked by the label of usurper. He gained the prize but sank under the weight of it. His son was seen by those in leadership at the time to be a perfect antidote. He was much more sure of himself and made a strong king.

Henry V sought to cement his reign with victories in France. The battle of Agincourt restored English possessions in France, but reopened the bloody 100 Years War. It also gave Henry V the power to declare himself king of France. But he died young, leaving a nine-month-old infant son, Henry VI.

Of Henry VI, Churchill states, “Through his father he inherited the physical weakness of the house of Lancaster, and through his mother the mental infirmities of Charles VI.”  (p. 413) This is an auspicious beginning. France rebelled against the baby being declared King of France. Under the glorious vision and direction of Joan of Arc, France rose up and drove the English out. It was through her victories that the French king Charles IV was crowned, yet that didn’t stop him from abandoning her on the battlefield to be killed by forces loyal to England. Churchill sums it up thusly, “Joan was a being so uplifted from the ordinary run of mankind that she finds no equal in a thousand years. The records of her trial present us with facts alive today through all the mists of time. Out of her own mouth can she be judged in each generation. She embodied the natural goodness and valor of the human race in unexampled perfection. She glorifies as she freed the soil from which she sprang.” (p. 422)

Now that the House of Lancaster is firmly in place, “How did the War of the Roses between the Lancastrians and the House of York begin?” HenryVI was a very weak king who actually sunk into imbecility for a period. Meanwhile the Duke of York had built a popular following while ruling over Ireland. His followers pushed for him to be named the heir when it seemed that Henry would produce no offpsring. Because Henry IV of the house of Lancaster, had largely been seen as a usurper, Richard, the Duke of York, seemed to have a legitimate claim. Of Richard, Churchill states, “He was a virtuous, law-respecting, slow moving, and highly competent prince. Every office entrusted to him by the Lancastrian régime had been ably and faithfully discharged.” (p. 433) Had Henry not lost almost all of the French provinces, Richard would have been content to rule over his territory there. As it was, he felt moved to exert authority over all of England.

Thus begins the War of the Roses. Richard, of the House of York, represented by a white rose, at first worked to legitimately gain the throne. The red rose of Lancaster was supported by the majority of the nobility. Richard was killed in a skirmish, and the younger generation, including his son Edward, took up the fight. Open war broke out. King Henry VI was weak and incapable of fighting, so his wife took up the challenge to ensure her young son would rule. “…the Lancastrian cause was sustained by the unconquerable will of Queen Margaret. Never has her tenacity and rarely have her vicissitudes been surpassed in any woman. Apart from the sullen power of Lancaster in the North, she had the friendly regard of two countries, Scotland and France. Both had felt the heavy arm of England in former reigns; both rejoiced at its present division and weakness.” (p. 450-451) Nevertheless, she was defeated and the king locked up in the tower. She and her son took refuge in France. Edward IV took the throne, the first king of the house of York.

Edward IV loved war and the pleasures of peacetime. He did not love ruling. He fell in love with a commoner and brought her and her large family into the royal fold. This did not sit well with the nobility who saw their power diluted. They turned to the ex-Queen Margaret, urging her to renew the fight now that her son was old enough to take the throne. Unfortunately, he died in the battle at Tewkesbury. This last hope for the House of Lancaster meant the king, locked up in the tower, was no longer necessary. The forces of York murdered him. But the house of York was not as secure as it seemed. Edward died young, leaving two young sons. His brother Richard saw an opportunity to grab the throne under the guise of a Regent for the two princes. 

Churchill’s next question seems to be, “How and why did this period of internal fights end?” In order to “protect” the young boys, Richard had them secured in the Tower. Within two years, they disappeared. Everyone assumed Richard had them killed in order to secure his position as king. Richard III worked hard to be a good king, but he could never be forgiven the murder of his nephews. When his only son and heir died, Richmond Tudor, who could trace his lineage back to Edward III, was the obvious claimant. Richard was killed in battle and and Richmond married the daughter of Edward IV. “The marriage of Richmond with the adaptable Princess Elizabeth produced the Tudor line, in which both Yorkists and Lancastrians had a share. Richard's death also ended the Plantagenet line. For over three hundred years this strong race of warrior and statesmen kings, whose gifts and vices were upon the highest scale, whose sense of authority and Empire had been persistently maintained, now vanished from the fortunes of the Island.” (p. 499-500) This marks another turning point in the history of the English-speaking peoples. The  next volume will undoubtably pick up here.

In answering his own internal questions, Churchill makes much use of previous histories. He doesn’t seem to do original scholarship. He also seems to rely extensively on his own conclusions and opinions. Because his assertions are largely fact-based, he seems to support his assertions. He is not generally making statements of opinion. As an amateur historian, he doesn’t list his qualifications except that he has served in government and war and seen many historical events firsthand and so his personal views might be interesting. I believe they are in fact very interesting.

The final stage of analysis is called the Rhetoric Stage. At this point, the questions go beyond the contents in the book to an analysis of the what exactly is the point the author is making.

I believe that the purpose for which Churchill is writing is to show the English-speaking people, who had just won WWII what exactly they were fighting for, what he would call the character of the people and their distinctive qualities and position. His story certainly offers hope and forward motion if England can hold onto what makes her great. He traces the times of barbarism to the quintessential English institutions always assuming they represent progress. It would seem that in Churchill’s reckoning, to be human is to be civilized and live under good, well-run government operating on the legacy bequeathed to it. Things go wrong in history when people desire power over the good of the nation and exhibit a tendency to usurp the throne. 

I believe that free will is one of the central characters in this story. While “Acts of God” happen and the leaders are forced to respond, it is people exercising their free will that leads to all the troubles. Although they are frequently tossed and turned by events beyond their control, even the lower classes have the power to support whom they would see as their king. 

Churchill is an indirect advocate of social problems. He holds in high esteem the English institutions that he would like to see preserved. It is clear he sees that they are fragile and thousands of years of history can be erased if we are not careful. Churchill would say that the end of history is to secure human rights under a government that respects and promotes those rights. I love that Churchill is unapologetic about his love for support of virtuous English institutions. He is also unapologetic about the stabilizing influence of the Church and Christianity on the nation. The perpetual struggle for power between the Church and the King seem to provide, for Churchill, a good balance, combined with the aristocracy’s desire to protect their own interests.

Because he is an eyewitness to history, I give him great deference. I believe his telling of events and support his conclusions. Civilization is fragile. Men, exercising their will to power can upend all that has been secured. As he lurches from generation to generation from ruler to ruler, we see how a weak ruler can lose the goodwill of the people and open the nation up to a usurper. All that took thousands of years to gain can be lost should the people stop fighting for their rights as Englishmen.

Creative Schools by Ken Robinson

I was first introduced to Sir Ken Robinson through an animated video he did on education. It was the first time I had seen a video like it. Both the content and the whiteboard animation were riveting. I asked people to watch it for just a short time for the entertainment value alone, but all kept watching the full 10 minutes because the content was so interesting. He has also given some TED talks on education and one of them became this book, Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education.

He declares, “The revolution I’m advocating is based on different principles from those of the standards movement. It is based on a belief in the value of the individual, the right to self-determination, our potential to evolve and live a fulfilled life, and the importance of civic responsibility and respect for others… As I see it, the aims of education are to enable students to understand the world around them and the talents within them so that they can become fulfilled individuals and active, compassionate citizens.” (p. xxiv)

He further states, “The great irony in the current malaise in education is that we actually know what works. We just don’t do it on a wide enough scale. We are in position as never before to use our creative and technological resources to change that. We now have limitless opportunities to engage your people’s imaginations and to provide forms of teaching and learning that are highly customized to them.” (p. xxviii) And all of that is just in the introduction. He’s off to an exciting start! As a veteran of homeschooling, I have known for some time now that it is possible to customize and education to the student. I’ve been advocating that as well. Now it’s about how to do it.

While he is a political liberal, I believe he probably eschews labels when it comes to his educational theories. In fact, his first chapter is called, “Back to Basics,” but it’s not so much a call for a return to knuckles rapped by a ruler with each wrong answer. Rather, he wants a return to the basics of what teaching and learning are. “Whatever the reasons, research and practical experience show time and again that the critical factors in raising student achievement on all fronts are the motivation and expectations of students themselves. The best ways to raise them are to improve the quality of teaching, have a rich and balanced curriculum, and have supportive, informative systems of assessment. The political response has been the opposite: to narrow the curriculum and wherever possible to standardize content, teaching, and assessment. It has proved to be the wrong response.” (p. 24-25)

He believes that education has been built on the metaphor of a factory. “ The students who feel alienated by current systems of standardization and testing may walk out the door, and it’s left to them and others to pay the price in unemployment benefits and other social programs. These problems are not accidental by-products of standardized education; they are a structural feature of these systems. They were designed to process people according to a particular conception of talent and economic need and were bound to produce winners and losers in just those terms. And they do. Many of these ‘externalities’ could be avoided if education genuinely game all students the same opportunities to explore their real capabilities and create their best lives.” (p. 38) We need to change metaphors. He suggests that of a garden in which students are plants given all they need to thrive.

We need to change the way our schools function. “Modern education systems are cluttered with every sort of distraction. There are political agendas, national priorities, union bargaining positions, building codes, job descriptions, parental ambitions, peer pressures. The list goes on. But the heart of education is the relationship between the student and the teacher. Everything else depends on how productive and successful that relationship is. If that is not working, then the system is not working. If the students are not learning, education is not happening. Something else may be going on, but it’s not education.” (p. 71-72, emphasis mine)

Students are “natural born learners,” and yet we have manages to sap the joy of learning. He describes a typical high school where, “students sit at desks, facing the front, while the teacher instructs, explains, and sets assignments. The mode of learning is predominantly verbal or mathematical; that is, students mainly write, calculate, or discuss with the teacher. The curriculum is a body of material to be learned. It is arranged into various subjects, usually taught by different teachers. There are frequent tests and a lot of time spent in preparing for them. Inevitably students grasp some material more quickly than others, but the class is intended to get through the material at the same rate and over the same amount of time. Whether individuals keep up with or fall behind the class as a whole is taken as on indication of their general ability.” (p. 75) Maybe the problem is not a lack of ability, but a lack of engagement. We must figure out how to allow students to interact with the world and those around them in a way that goes beyond conventional academic work.

Next, he explores “The Art of Teaching.” Going back to his garden metaphor, he states, “The job of a gardener is to create the best conditions for [plants to grow.] Good gardeners create those conditions, and poor ones don’t. It’s the same with teaching. Good teachers create the conditions for learning, and poor ones don’t.” (p. 102) He advocates that teachers use every tool in the wheelhouse, whether it’s direct teaching of facts or facilitating exploratory group activities and projects. “Getting that balance right is what the art of teaching is all about.” (p. 103) 

He then lists the core competencies that schools should frame their curriculum around. 

1. Curiosity — The ability to ask questions and explore how the world works.
2. Creativity — The ability to generate new ideas and to apply them in practice.
3. Criticism — The ability to analyze information and ideas and to form reason arguments and judgments.
4. Communication — The ability to express thoughts and feelings clerkly and confidently in a range of media and forms.
5. Collaboration — The ability to work constructively with others.
6. Compassion — The ability to empathize with others and to act accordingly.
7. Composure — The ability to connect with the inner life of feeling and develop a sense of personal harmony and balance.
8. Citizenship — The ability to engage constructively with society and to participate in the processes that sustain it.

The key is to recognize that while the teacher may be teaching many things, is anyone actually learning it? As these competencies are woven throughout the curriculum, the students become true learners. 

What about testing? It’s all important in the educational system we have today. He tells one interesting anecdote of a teacher who abolished grades altogether. He felt the students were working for grades and not learning. Although the school does require a final grade. So he collaborates with the students and together they determine what their grade should be. This is a fascinating idea! He advocates a more holistic form of assessment than traditional standardized assessments. In addition, he provides the purpose of assessment in the first place, “Properly conceived, both formal and informal assessments should support students learning and achievement in at least three ways: 

• Motivation: Effective assessment spurs students to do well. It provides constructive feedback to help them understand how they’re doing and to encourage them to improve where they can. 
• Achievement: Effective assessment provides information on what students have actually done and achieved. It also provide relevant comparisons with how others have done against similar criteria so that students and others can make their own judgments of their progress an potential. 
• Standards: Effective assessment sets clear and relevant standards that can raise students’ aspiration s and contribute to the guidance and practical support they may need in reaching them.” (p. 180-181)

The last few chapters of the book are words of wisdom for administrators who are seeking to change the educational environment they find themselves in. I didn’t mark anything in these chapters because right now my focus is on my training as a teacher. Maybe someday, I’ll need to review them!

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

I read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley because it seems that anyone who considers himself educated should have read it. Well I’m trying (very hard!) to be educated, so on my list it went. 

It’s an interesting book and often juxtaposed with 1984 (which I HAVE read!). In fact, the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death by neil Postman, makes much of the comparison. Both portray a dystopian future, but they arrive at two different places. 1984 is an all-controlling totalitarian government full of brainwashing and doublespeak. It is full of lies which all will believe, eventually, through use of force and terror. In contrast, Brave New World is a place of supreme happiness and contentment. But freedom is similarly limited and totalitarian control is exercised to keep everyone in a drug and entertainment-induced state of bliss. Postman thinks our future is more Brave New World than 1984. I tend to think it's a combination of the two.

The fable, Brave New World, opens somewhat in media res, with a tour of a fertility factory where babies are produced in test tubes and randomly sorted in groups. These groups are then artificially incubated into exactly the type of citizen needed for this futuristic society to function in a stable manner. Stability is the key.

One of the cream of the crop men, an Alpha Plus, Bernard Marx, exhibits some oddities and a bit of free-thinking. He decides to visit a Native Reservation where people live the “old-fashioned” way. While there, he is both repulsed and fascinated by the people he finds. He decides to bring a mother and her adult son back with him. Not wanting the life she had nor being able to fit into the extremely homogenized "civilized" life offered to her, the mother decides to kill herself in a drug-induced pleasurable coma. The son, however, begins to investigate the “civilization” so interested in investigating him and his “barbarism.”

At this point, the young man, John, called Mr. Savage by the civilized inhabitants of London, takes over as the main character. He has met a woman and fallen in love with her. He wants to make himself worthy of her undying love and convince her to marry him. All of these concepts are foreign to her and she panics when he attempts to explain them to her. 

In the end, John is convinced there is no place for him in this “brave new world.” It’s a sad and hopeless ending. It seems to indicate that this is where we are heading. If we want to get rid of all that is painful in our world we must totally submit our freedom to be replaced with the narcotic of pleasure and entertainment. 

According to John, this is not acceptable. He knows there is more. There is love and failure and hurt and pain and danger and freedom and sin. These are real and make life worth living. He has no desire to be in a stupefyingly blissful state. He is horrified that people are willing to make the trade. By this point, however, it is obvious that the people are too far gone to recognize what they’ve lost. 

I suppose that is the point. Know what you are losing. Understand the trade-offs as we seek a better world. Some pain and unfairness is inevitable and efforts to end these realities for good can result in something much worse. Very interesting thesis. 

Oedipus Rex by Sophocles

Oedipus Rex was the third "Great Book" in Hillsdale's online course Great Books 101. This play was much shorter. I read the whole thing in about 20 minutes. I really enjoyed this play. Oedipus' emotion and powerful reactions come through so clearly in the text. You can tell by his presence that he is not someone to be trifled with, yet at the same time, you suspect he is his own worst enemy.

Upon Oedipus' birth, there is a prophecy that he will murder his father and marry his mother. In order to negate this destiny, his parents leave him to die in a field. Eventually he is adopted and raised as the child of another set of parents, completely unaware of the situation of his birth. As an adult, the prophecy is repeated again. In order to foil this declaration, he runs away. While on the road, he meets a rich man, robs and murders him, meets a widow and marries her, and becomes King.

The story opens with the city under a plague. The oracle makes it known that the plague can only be lifted if the town punishes the man who killed his father and married his mother. Oedipus rashly declares he will make it his life mission to uncover the perpetrator.

Slowly he comes to realize that he is that man. With each dawning revelation, Oedipus sinks further and further into dismay and disbelief. His emotions are palpable. The reader can almost hear Oedipus saying to himself, "Oh, what have I done?" We can feel Oedipus begging for the tale not to be his own, yet the weight of the truth is crushing. Finally, when all is revealed, his wife kills herself. Oedipus destroys his own eyes, feeling no longer worthy to see; he who was so blind. He weeps for his children and their future.

Clearly the story introduces the role of fate. In an unresolvable, paradoxical way, knowing the future seems to be what caused it to happen. Yet at the same time, Oedipus is a picture of a rash man. He must act on the spur of the moment doing what seems best at the time. He kills a man and his party, yet we never get a sense that it was justified. He marries the widow without looking into how she became a widow. He boldly promises the harshest of punishments for the man accused of being the source of the plague without first looking into the facts of the story. He blinds himself and sentences his daughters to a life of misery assuming no one will want to marry them with their blighted parentage. He offers no comfort to his wife.

My heart broke as I read the story. It is a slow-motion train wreck. The weight and power of the emotions come through the ancient text in vivid colors. I cannot recommend it highly enough!

Discussion questions from the course:

1. What is the role of the chorus in Greek drama, and why is its role so important?
   The chorus plays multiple roles. They serve to fill in details in the story. They offer a chance to hear the thoughts of the characters. In addition, they play the role of the audience. They ask the questions the audience is or should be asking. They reflect the emotions the audience is feeling. Their role is an important way for the audience to become a part of and connect to the story.
2. How does the virtue of Oedipus lead to his tragic downfall?
   Oedipus is hamstrung by his promise. He must punish the man who brought the plague on his town, even if that man is himself. Even as he begins to suspect his own complicity, he must follow the story to the end. His honor and virtue demand it. Finally, as he realizes his own mental blindness, he physically blinds himself in an ultimate act of retribution. He does not stop his wife from killing herself and effectively ending their sinful marriage. His sense of justice demands nothing less.
3. Is it possible to reconcile the concept of free will with the seemingly inevitable outcome of the play?
   In an ironic way, had the original parents not known of the prophecy, none of this would have happened. So it seems as if the prophecy actually caused itself to be true. Is it possible that there is some other scenario in which Oedipus would have killed his father and married his mother if he had known their true identities but the prophecy had never been given. It's hard to imagine. Patricide was not uncommon in the ancient world, but to marry one's own mother was certainly considered depraved. So in a sense, the prophecy put the chain of events into action. However, Oedipus did not need to kill a random noble and his party on the road. He did not need to marry a widow. Once he heard the prophecy as an adult he could have decided to never kill or marry anyone, just in case. He thought by running away from his "parents" he had solved the dilemma. Did he even consult with his adopted parents? Would that have disabused him of the notion that leaving them was the answer? Even though Oedipus is clearly destined for a particular outcome as told by the prophecy, it was his free-will choices that brought it to pass. 

The History of the Ancient World by Susan Wise Bauer

I really do love history. So anything that deepens my historical knowledge makes it onto my list. I’ve known about Susan Wise Bauer’s history books for a long time. We read all her Story of the World books when homeschooling. I also knew she wrote versions for adults. But a recent conversation included, “You should read Susan Wise Bauer’s The History of the Ancient World.” Well that sealed it, and out I went to obtain a copy.

Ancient history is somewhat of a lacuna in my historical knowledge. I know Biblical history, and a fair amount about the Greeks and the Romans, but the Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites, Phoenicians, etc… not so much. Her book was a refreshing look at the people and personalities that made up the ancient world. 

I love how Bauer uses personalities to tell the story. Of course dates and maps are essential, but the people are made real. Their stories resonate as human nature has not changed. She manages to use dry historical documents to invite the reader into a long ago world full of fleshed out characters, with dreams and ambitions, faults and strengths, loves and desires. I looked forward to finding out, what happened next!

She eschews “pre-history,” that time before “particular human lives and audible human voices emerge.” She starts off, “Many thousands of years ago, the Sumerian king Alulim ruled over Eridu:…[his] rise to power marked the beginning of civilization, and his reign lasted for almost thirty thousand years.” What a fantastic way to begin! This is what we have recorded so it’s where she starts. It gives us a glimpse of a people who did not separate the material from the supernatural. Their kings, “descended from heaven,” and so a 30,000 year reign over a civilization which had always existed made perfect sense. 

Yet civilization did not always exist. It had a beginning and it appears to have begun in “the Fertile Crescent, not because it was an Edenic place overflowing with natural resources, but because it was so hostile to settlement that a village of any size needed careful management to survive.” Someone had to manage food and water in order for the people to live if not flourish. 

These Sumerians left us with, “The Earliest Story.” “At some point during the living, storytelling memory of the human race, water threatened man’s fragile hold on the earth. The historian cannot ignore the Great Flood; it is the closes thing to a universal story that human race possesses.” It is as story that echoes throughout every ancient civilization. And, it seems, we have within us the desire to return to the time before the flood. We are also seeking that perfect Eden, whether through prosperity or power, man seeks to remake the world. 

After the flood, we return to the Sumerian king list. The thousand-year reigns trail off, and we enter a period known more as “quasi-historical” in a town called Kish which sits between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Kingship is hereditary. An aristocracy begins to develop. 

Meanwhile, down in Egypt, the Scorpion King begins to develop an empire. The northern and southern parts of the Nile are eventually united and the first Dynasty begins. 

A third area was being settled as people passed through the Khybar pass towards the Indus River of India. The history here is hard to trace because so little exists, but she fleshes out what she can. Here a flood story also exists that tells of the civilization being wiped out and beginning again. Once again, small villages began to grow into towns, but the journey, “took its people that much farther from paradise.” 

Over in China, the Yellow River provided the water needed for another civilization. The small settlements were led by three god-kings, followed by three sage-kings. The sage kings recognized that power should not be hereditary, but should flow to the wisest and most deserving. This problem of heredity kingship is a theme which mankind will return to again and again.

Following these accounts of the earliest civilizations known to man, Bauer lists a series of “firsts.” She begins with the first written records. Writing developed from the need to celebrate great events and to determine what belongs to whom. The Sumerians began to make marks indicating how many cows one owned or how many bags of grain were traded. They wrote in triangular shapes called cuneiform. The Egyptians used hieroglyphics which looked like what it meant. These shapes eventually became phonetic and influenced our letters today.

The next first was of a war chronicle. Gilgamesh of Urek, conquers his neighbors. Urek was a Sumerian town and sought to have dominion over the other towns of the plain between the rivers. While Gilgamesh appears to have taken power over the surrounding towns, his accomplishments die with him. So it begins: one ruler seeks power over those outside his purview. Gilgamesh is also the subject of the first epic hero. Although an actual person, he was held to be a god, although not immortal. This semi-mythical king defeats every foe except the final enemy, death.

The first civil war occurred between the north and south of Egypt. As it became clear that the first dynasty kings were not really gods, the empire began to split up. It would not be reunited until the third dynasty reconquered all the territory again. This newly unified nation begins the Old Kingdom. We also see in Egypt the first attempts to overcome death occur with the great pyramids. They created these massive structures as a place to house their souls and remind the Egyptian people that the spirit and might of the Pharaoh was ever present and death was not the end.

Around 2350 BC, we get our first reformer. Urukagina of the Sumerian town of Lagash decided it was time for some serious societal changes. He “got rid of most of the tax collectors and lowered the taxes. He cancelled fees for basic services. He forbade officials and priests to seize anyone’s land or possessions in payment of debt, and offered amnesty to the debtors. He slashed Lagash’s bureaucracy, which was bloated with pork-barrel positions. He also, apparently, took authority away from the priests by dividing religious and secular functions, thus preventing exactly the kind of authority that had allowed [previous king] Mesilim to set up his stele by the authority of the god Sataran.” Where is Urukagina when you need him now?

Meanwhile, in the nearby Sumerian town of Kish, we find our first military dictator. Sargon played into the weaknesses found in the surrounding cities, the kind of weaknesses that Urukagina sought to alleviate. He could appeal to the inequalities found in the area and turn that from “a loose coalition of cities into an empire.” That didn’t take long.

Although civilizations had been fighting internal enemies and neighboring towns for a while, Naram-Sin faced the first barbarian invasion. He ruled the now-combined Sumerians and Akkadians, a group slowly changing from a “spreading army that occasionally stopped to eat” into more of a nation. The Gutian hordes attacked. They are referred to as “barbarians” because they had no written language, therefore no inscriptions or tradition or histories we can point to. In addition, they did not come to set up their own culture and displace another, but simply to destroy. 

Eventually, we meet the first monotheist. While the peoples of Sumerian Ur struggled with the Gutians, a man named Terah, together with his family and son Abram, set off for the west, at the command of God. This begins the history of the Jewish people. “Plenty of races have claimed to trace their ancestry back to one particular god-favored individual, but this is the first time it happens within recorded history… by divine fiat he was separated from the rest and began something new: one Semite out of the rest, one God rising above the chaos of polytheism. He was the first monotheist.”

Meanwhile, Mesopotamia is starting to see its first empires. Assyria is on the rise in the north, Babylon, under Hammurabi, is starting to build an empire in the south. While Hammurabi is not the first law-giver, his laws are the most complete to survive. They concern themselves over an amazingly long-range of problematic behavior. This incarnation of a Babylonian empire would not last long, only to arise later as another short-lived empire. But Assyria would continue to grow and clash with its neighbors. 

Over in China, the Shang family supplanted the Xia. “Just as the prehistoric Longshan culture itself extended overtop of the Yang-shao and the Xia grew up overtop the Longshan, so the Shang state lay overlapping the Xia land.” This pattern would repeat time and again. As a dynasty seemed to lose the Mandate of Heaven (an idea conveniently  begun by the group which replaced the Shang) through corruption, another family or group would take the helm, promising to restore order and justice. The Shang dynasty experienced a bit of jockeying for power from the nearby feudal lords. As a result, it shifted its capital numerous times. This kind of flexibility allowed to hold onto power for over 600 years.

In Egypt, the Middle Kingdom comes to an end and the Semetic Hyksos rule over a not-quite-united kingdom. These northern rulers still had to contend with a competing dynasty in the southern city of Thebes. Eventually, Ahmose of Thebes takes back Lower Egypt and reunifies the country. This begins the New Kingdom in 1570. It was at this time, in the chaos of succeeding rulers that Egypt gives us its first woman Pharaoh, Hatshepsut. Several years after her, the son of Amenhotep IV, Akhenaten, arises and tries to change the national religion of Egypt to the worship of the sun god Aten. However, this campaign appears to have barely out-lived him, undone by his replacement, Tutankhamun. It also appears that it was during this New Kingdom time that the Egyptians lost their Semetic (Jewish) slaves in what has become known as the Exodus. Eventually internal battles, battles for succession, and battles with the Mediterranean Sea Peoples so weaken Egypt, that the New Kingdom collapsed into chaos by 1070. 

Well before this, we get our first glimpse of Greek civilization in Crete. Little is known about the semi-mythical time of King Minos. Hints are derived from the Minoan myths about a half-bull creature sent human sacrifices by local tribute-paying islands. This seems to indicate that Crete was a center of power. Natural events like a volcano eruption may have led to its quick demise around 1628. Eventually the northern Mycenaeans became the most powerful Greeks in the area. These would be the Greeks who battled the city of Troy to a fairly devastating conclusion and gave us the legends told in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The weakened Greeks were eventually invaded by the nomadic Dorians from the north. So began a Greek dark age.

In India, northern Aryan nomadic tribes crossed the mountains and settled in the crumbling Harappan cities. There the cultures mixed, eventually giving us the Indian people. These Aryan people were instrumental in defining Hinduism and the caste system in India. They eventually gave the land oral compositions written down in the Rig Vedas. Eventually they migrated east, taking power in more and more of India giving us the foundations for the epic tale of the Bharata War. 

In Mesopotamia, the constant warfare between the Assyrians and its neighbors continues. They battle the growing power of the Hittites to their west and the Elamites to their east. In addition, Babylon in the south is the scene of constant struggles for power and begins to establish itself as a powerhouse. However, like the Greeks, the Mesopotamians entered their own dark age as barbarian tribes invaded and overtook all three powers, the Hittites, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. 

Eventually the Shang dynasty grew corrupt. A neighboring tribe, the Zhou, decided it was time to displace the oppressive ruling family and replace it with a new dynasty. The Mandate of Heaven was then given to the Zhou. It would remain with the Zhou until it was lost to a competing group. This very circular reasoning allowed whatever group that came to power to justify its reign. Almost immediately the Zhou experienced a threat and had to split into the western Zhou and eastern Zhou. 

After escaping from Egypt, the Jewish people eventually make their way into their ancestral homeland on the eastern Mediterranean shore. There the 12 tribes conquer the land and King David unites them as the nation of Israel. Soon, however, the kingdom is divided and weakened. Eventually a rejuvenated Assyrian kingdom began to attack and defeat the northern tribes of Israel. It wasn’t long before all 10 northern tribes were slaughtered or carried off into captivity.

While not quite uniting as a nation, as the Greeks came out of their dark period, they began to create a shared past. Now three different people groups, the Mycenaeans, the Ionians (Greeks on the eastern Mediterranean coast), and the Dorians claimed a similar heritage. It was because of the Iliad, which praised the joining together of disparate Greek-speaking peoples in order to defeat a common enemy, that a kind of Greek vs. non-Greek identity began to arise, although this ancient oral tale had not yet been written down. The Olympic games were designed at this time to lessen conflict between the groups and further solidified their identity.

But while the Greeks competed in the games, over on the Italian peninsula, the tiny city of Rome was taking shape. It would not remain independent for long as the Etruscans had their eye on it. Meanwhile, Assyria finally mastered all of Mesopotamia, claiming kingship over Assyria and Babylon, even forcing a puppet ruler on Egypt. However, the victories were marred by the inability to conquer the southern tribes of Israel. And the Chinese fought with outside barbarians while feudal lords jockeyed for position within the Zhou dynasty.

At the height of the Assyrian empire, Ashurbanipal constructed a glorious library of almost 30,000 tablets. But the ascendence died with him as the very normal struggle for power ensued. This weakening gave an opening to two groups of people in the east known as the Medes and the Persians to begin to assert authority.  

Despite the attempts to unify, some Greek cities began to assert themselves as the center of Greek authority. Lack of land had forced Greek people to migrate all over the eastern Mediterranean. As small settlements began, larger urban centers like Sparta and Athens sought to establish dominance over them. 

In 605, the Babylonians took advantage of Assyrian weakness and experienced a brief renaissance under Nebuchadnezzar, as Assyria is conquered and brought under Babylonian rule. Eventually the reinvigorated Babylonians do what Assyria failed to do and take Jerusalem. But not long after, Nebuchadnezzar II loses his mind. (See: Daniel) “And so that ancient Sumerian unease with kingship is resurrected in the tale of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness… men are frightened by kingship because every man desires power, and desiring, is ruined by it.” Cyrus the Great of the Medes and the Persians waited at the doorstep for an opportunity to seize control. Eventually he would rule most of the near east, freeing the Jews to return to their homeland under his protection.

However, the makings of a Persian rival were appearing in Italy. Rome broke free of Etruscan kingship and began a Republic around 509. Invasions from the barbarian Gauls led to a return to dictatorship. Although a temporary position, it shows the republic struggled from the beginning with power dispersion. 

Further east, fighting for power led to philosophical discussions. In India, small kingdoms began to fight for territory and power. Even the Persians moved into as much of India as they could conquer. Into this chaos was born a prince disillusioned with what he saw. Siddhartha rejected the traditional Hinduism for not providing hope in this life and began a more enlightened religion known as Buddhism. In China, the five hegemonies had ended the Zhou dynasty and created a similar chaos. “In a world where force of arms seemed to be the only glue holding a state together, Confucius offered another way for men to control the society that surrounded. The man who understood his duties towards others and lived them out became the anchor of a country.” Virtue topped power. Sun-tzu also despaired of war and wrote the Art of War as an attempt to help powers avoid fighting. But the fighting and constant warfare continued. 

Not content with much of the near east, Persia moved in to take over the Greek cities on the Mediterranean coast. The other Greek cities united, temporarily, to defeat this threat. While barely mentioned in Persian history, these Persian Wars constitute a significant time period in Greek history. From this time we read about the Battle of Marathon, Thermopylae, the 300, Salamis, and the ultimate defeat of the Persians at Plataea. This unity was short-lived as once again Athens and Sparta sought hegemony among the Greek city-states. From this we get the Peloponnesian Wars, where a series of brutal battles between Sparta with her allies versus Athens and her allies. While Sparta ultimately won, the “victory” greatly weakened both powers. It is within these two periods of constant fighting that we find the golden age of Greece. Pericles, Leonidas, Socrates, Alcibiades, Lysander, Themistocles, and Thucydides among others gained their fame at this time. 

While Greece was consumed with infighting, Rome was expanding and simultaneously weakening. This provided the opening for the first sack of Rome by the barbarians. The republic, like all bodies of men, squabbled over power and direction. The Gauls took advantage of this vacuum in 390. Thirty years later, the Romans had rebuilt and restructured their republic to give the plebeians more power. They also engaged in the Latin Wars which were their attempt to sustain hegemony over the other Latin speaking peoples. As they grew in power, they began to threaten the Phoenician port city of Carthage, just across the Sea from them.

Far to the east, the warring states of China began to fall to the law and order Ch’in. This despotic people banned music and poetry as well as philosophical works like those of Confucius. But they grew powerful, ushering in the next dynasty. Their ruler Cheng became the first Emperor as he united all the disparate kingdoms. To protect it, he linked all the walls that had been built to repel invaders into one Great Wall. In death, he made sure his final resting place was fit for the first emperor, filling his tomb with almost 7,000 life-sized porcelain soldiers and horses. But the brutality of this dynasty meant they quickly lost the Mandate of Heaven. After the second emperor died, it was gone. 

Greek weakness opened the door to the Macedonians to the north. Philip II and eventually his son, Alexander, were able to claim all of Greece as their own. In fact, the Greeks could barely even muster the will to fight back. Alexander went on to conquer almost all of the known world with the exception of the growing Rome. Yet he died young and his empire immediately devolved into a series of warring factions. The near-eastern portion, the Seleucids, would go on to engage in near constant battle with the Egyptian section, ruled by the various Ptolemys.

One area Alexander did not take completely was India. Here the Mauryan Empire had managed to unite most of the sub-continent. One particular king, Asoka, seems to be the first to ever acknowledge that taking over another area and subjugating the people was wrong. He had become a convert to Buddhism and after eschewing further conquest, spent his time pursuing “the Way, the Rightness, the Duty, the Virtue.” Unfortunately this did not have the desired unifying effect and his kingdom collapsed upon his death. 

When Rome humiliated Carthage by taking its possessions, a young son of the king, Hannibal was raised to forever hate the Romans. One fought in the first Punic War and the son in the second. Hannibal ruled in the portion of the empire on the Iberian peninsula. He famously took his elephants over the Alps intending to finish the war once and for all. He did not defeat his hated Rome however. And his single-minded focus led to the weakening of Carthage and its ultimate fall.

With an ascending Rome, Carthage humiliated, and Greece/Macedonia in disarray, Antiochus III of the Seleucids was the new enemy of Rome. The Macedonian Wars tell the story of the two foes fighting for control of the country between them. With Macedonia destroyed by the Romans, the Seleucids turned their attention once again to Egypt. In the middle of this constant war, Israel was run over roughshod. 

With the short-lived Ch’in empire gone, the Han empire expanded its borders and sought to send ambassadors out into the world to report back on what was happening. These kinds of travels to the west eventually led to the creation of the famed Silk Road. While the Han faltered for a few decades, they were eventually restored to power. During this second phase, they introduced Buddhism into China. It was also during the Han empire that thousands of “poor, desperate, landless, and angry Chinese“ rose up in a futile attempt to gain power. This battle eventually led to the splitting up of China into three kingdoms.

Finally, Rome heeded the words of Cato and destroyed the resurrected Carthage. Next they swallowed Greece with little resistance. But as more lands were conquered and more people brought into the Roman republic, the strain between the haves, the have nots, and the slaves become obvious. People demanded the full rights as citizens. Into this scene stepped Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, fighter for the common people. Of course the elitist Senate would not stand for this. “The wound dealt to the Republic by Tiberius Gracchus’s death ... widened and festered. The only men ruthless enough to fight against tyranny were themselves inclined to it.” Eventually men like Pompey, Cicero, and Caesar would come to power and seem to be the hoped for reformers. Yet it was one of these very men, Julius Caesar, who would destroy the Republic and lead to the first emperor, Octavian, Caesar Augustus, upon his death. The Roman Empire had begun. However, this empire had a problem with succession. It tried valiantly to think of itself as still a Republic. Successors would be hand selected and “adopted” by the currently reigning Emperor. But as the military gained in power and status, they demanded a say. As the reigning Emperors appeared to lose their mind at some point, the military would feel the need to step in. Yet they rarely spoke with a united voice and some Emperors ruled for just days. “The empire was now run by something like a secret Junta: a band of powerful soldiers who could put up or remove a figurehead ruler, but who held the real power themselves.”

Into the Roman milieu entered a Jewish prophet named Jesus of Nazareth. This poor son of a carpenter, who if not for the following he inspired, would have never made it into the history books. But a political death and miraculous resurrection secured his place as the one person around whom all of history revolves. Interesting to see him in a history book, because his real history-making power was to come. 

In 209 AD, Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome, named his sons as co-rulers after his death. It seems, he “had dealt the empire an almost-fatal wound. The Republic had died, but the empire had grown up to replace it, like an adopted cousin with a faint family likeness. The empire had sickened, under Caligula and the emperors who followed him, but it had made an unlikely recovery. The Romans had managed to figure out how to combine imperial rule with republican trappings, while avoiding the sort of dynastic declines which had been a problem ever since the Chinese had first cautioned about it back on the banks of the Yellow river valley three thousand years earlier. But now, the principle of hereditary succession was about to pull the power of the empire apart.” Eventually Diocletian would divide it into an Eastern and Western half. Constantine would attempt to reunite it, but it was now something altogether different. 

So the book ends. 

I really enjoyed Bauer’s storytelling abilities. This is how history should be told. She makes people come alive and pop off the pages. My only regret is that it is just SO MUCH history and I can’t possibly summarize or remember it all. Oh well. That's why I write about it. On to the The History of the Medieval World.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

After reading a bunch of books that were responding to Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, I decided that I should read the book for myself. I wanted to see if it was being represented correctly. It lived right up to my expectations as a shallow, easily defeated treatise written by an arrogant, fanatical religious believer... in Natural Selection.

He starts off clearly irritated that religion holds a special place in most cultures and seems quite perplexed as to why believers would work so hard to defend it. This already has more than a whiff of disingenuousness. My response: Really?

Then he moves into defining his terms. The God Delusions follows from The God Hypothesis which he states as, “There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it including us.” OK with me except for the “superhuman” part. God is not just a really cool human. He is other. I think this actually trips up Dawkins again and again, because he has a hard time seeing God as anything other than human.

He goes onto note that America, in contrast to Britain, is a very religious nation. He seems unsure why that is, but suspects it is because Britain, unlike America, made Christianity a state-sponsored religion. Yep, I agree with him, and I really do think that’s it. He also goes to great pains to disabuse us of any notion that the Founders were Christians. Ugh. I know enough history to know this isn’t true. But... whatever. 

Lest anyone should say that the question of God’s existence falls outside the purview of science, Dawkins is quick to disagree. “Either he exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question...” Um, yeah, except the whole “Scientific Method” thing Dawkins praises so highly doesn’t work with what is outside the material world. Like his belief that God is some kind of superhuman, his belief in a god rooted in the material world is a stumbling block to his methodology.  He goes on, “If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour.” Kind of like when He came to earth as a man, testified about himself for three years, died, and rose again? Kind of like that? According to Dawkins, none of that Gospel drivel counts as evidence. He easily dismisses all Scripture (except the parts he chooses to mock) as nothing more than a game of “telephone.” 

He spends some time comparing God to a teeny, tiny, almost invisible teapot orbiting the earth. He says the onus is on the one proposing the idea to prove it exists. One would never say, “Take my word for it.” Right. A teapot is a material object. It’s nothing like God or religion. It’s a weird comparison and reveals how hung up he is on God as Material Object.

Then he introduces his most unanswerable question by reviewing the arguments put forth over time for God’s existence. He correctly answers that they all, (like the Unmovable Mover, The Uncaused Cause, or the regression theory) end up making the case for an eternal God. But, he would say smugly with an arrogant assumption that the question cannot be answered, "Who made God?"

I posed this question to my believing friends. I got blank looks and an “Are you stupid?” vibe. Here’s the answer, Richard Dawkins. No one. He’s God. That’s kind of the definition. If He had a maker, that would be God. Or that thing’s maker would be God. There is none so blind as he who would not see. In fact, the more complicated the universe has been shown to be, the more finely-tuned and improbable, the more Dawkins believes his question is unanswerable. What kind of a marvelous thing or process could even create a God capable of designing such an amazing world? It’s mind-blowing. It’s like regression in reverse. That kind of a radically complex being is simply an impossibility in the eyes of Dawkins. 

He goes onto admit that although this world sure does look designed, that just goes to show how amazing the god of Richard Dawkins is: Natural Selection. The awe and reverence he gives to Natural Selection is a rare and beautiful thing. (Not Chance, which he says is of course impossible. He admits that chance is too random and astronomically improbable.) Natural Selection is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect in every way, all wise and wondrous to behold. It is ruthless, cutting out any and all that do not live up to it’s perfect standard. It is unforgiving. One maladroit DNA strand and it’s hellfire and brimstone for you. It is stunning in its beauty and simulation of design. It is able to take impossible tasks, chop them up into manageable pieces, and in the process produce nothing short of a miracle. It is so subtle and invisible, you’d almost swear the world WAS designed. But you’d be wrong. And it has one enormous benefit over the real God. Natural Selection has no moral code. One can have guilt-free sex with anyone, at anytime, anywhere. Your offspring may not be able to reproduce, but that’s the price you pay when you throw in with Natural Selection. 

He makes short work of any real scientist who may be counted as a believer in a real God. He repeatedly posits that they are either acting on the societal mores or they are loons, and he feel sorry for them. That’s pretty persuasive stuff right there!

He also dismisses any personal testimony of interactions people may have had with God. Either they were delusional, under a form of mass hypnosis, falling prey to the societal norms (like the believing scientists), the victims of illusions, or just liars. Well that takes care of that. Billions of people have had “religious experiences” that Dawkins is quite sure are not real. Next.

Again and again with the “Who made God?” This is a big one for him. In fact, since the universe regresses back into simpler and simpler functions and organisms, the first “cause” must have been the most simplest of things. It could not have been an omnipotent, omniscient, creative, and extraordinarily complex God. That makes sense. So this "God" must either be too extraordinarily complex to exist or too simple to have created anything. Heads I win, tails you lose. that's some good thinkin' right there.

Of course, he is flummoxed as to why his all-powerful god of Natural Selection would have created a being so bewitched by idolatry to another. Namely the real God. After all, his god is a ruthless utilitarian. He goes into a quite long and convoluted discourse about religion being a by-product of some other, beneficial adaptation or maybe it’s the memes we live by, or maybe it’s because children most naturally believe what they are told growing up. I’m not sure and neither, it seems, is he. Moving on. Not much to see or even ponder here. It’s obvious he’s working himself up into a fevered pitch of irrationality to avoid any semblance of doubt in his god.

After lambasting the real God as a sadistic masochist, he goes on to state why his god is actually better at creating a moral universe. “We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation... Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth... there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity a a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising.” All this built-into-the-DNA morality despite most of humanity’s existence being routinely described as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” I guess those people didn’t get the memo.

In fact, he can prove through various studies that morality seems to be remarkably consistent within all people groups. Except that it isn’t. I mean it is where Western (and Judeo-Christian) values have made great inroads. But studies that look at humanity over time and everywhere have actually found a very short list of consistent moral rules. (See: Haidt - The Righteous Mind) This proves to him that morality is a result of evolution and not some ramblings handed down through a millenniums-long game of telephone. Besides, it’s downright rude to say people wouldn’t behave themselves without a god looking over their shoulder. Except they don’t. Ever see a city where the police go on strike? How’s that “natural morality” thing workin’ out?

He goes on and on for some time mocking the Bible and the standards it sets to show we, in fact, do not get our morality from the Bible. Otherwise we’d all be sacrificing our children (Abraham) or sleeping with them (Lot). He ignores context and thousands of years of scholarship on these issues, but what’s a little commentary when mocking is so much easier and fun? (In fact, he readily admits to not being familiar with what the theologians have written because he does not want to waste any of his precious time learning about something that is clearly false.) Plus isn’t is obvious that human are getting better and better. Women and blacks have the right to vote! And don’t say Hitler or Stalin. That’s not fair. Hitler was most likely a Christian. (Seriously, that’s his response.) And don’t say the prevalence of abortion. That’s not a bad thing, just a matter of perception. Besides, we are actually MORE moral for being able to see the mother’s side unlike those Neanderthals who believe abortion kills actual, innocent, defenseless babies. He goes on a bit of a rant about the inability of people to even determine what actually is human life, because all life is on a evolutionary spectrum. In the next paragraph, he states that he cannot bear to detail Saudi Arabia’s crimes against women because they are too horrible to list. Apparently HE can determine what is human life and that it is valuable (unless it’s in the womb).

He also details how religions like Islam demand absolute adherence, and no ability to question or doubt, and therefore people are willing to die and/or kill for it. If only people were taught absolute adherence to things like questioning your beliefs (Is that belief up for questioning?) and eschewing absolute obedience to God, there wouldn’t be any suicide bombers. Oh yeah, and Christianity. That’s it. That’s another of his arguments against Christianity. Islam.

His next chapter details his belief that raising children to believe in a certain religion is child abuse: a term he uses without any kind of apology. He compares it to actual physical and sexual child abuse, and determines that instilling a belief system in a child is worse. Sigh. Of course he would love to instill HIS belief system in the child instead. That’s not abuse. At the very end he recognizes that something would be lost if we were to abolish all religious teachings. Rather he states, “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” Hard to imagine destroying the foundation and the house still stands, but maybe in his belief system, that’s possible. Just don’t tell a child that. It’s abuse.

He finishes up with a chapter detailing why we don’t “need” God. He likens God to an imaginary friend that may have provided some sort of purpose to us as children, but that we have now outgrown. He believes that our lives are as meaningful as we choose to make them. He then goes on to show how his own life is given meaning by science. He goes through  wonderful litany of the wonders that science has exposed. I am certainly in awe of all he delineates. However, those awe-inspiring facts simply make me appreciate my God even more. He worships the creation rather than the Creator. 

I checked out this book three times. Each time, I couldn’t finish it because I would get so frustrated with his sloppy thinking and non-sequiturs. But I finally finished it! I started it because I had read several books debunking it and felt it only fair to read the real thing. However now, I don’t think all those books are necessary. Simply read this book. It debunks itself.