ThomStratton.com

It looks like Dr. Helen Smith is not the only one noticing that public schools are becoming increasingly hostile to boys. This new article in from Time takes a look at how schools treat boys and decides they are failing.

I have to chuckle at the headline: “School Has Become Too Hostile to Boys.” So…you’re saying there’s a right amount of hostility?!

…are doomed to parrot falsehood, to the detriment of all.

Considering the modern propensity to re-evaluate historical figures and periods by modern standards, you’d think we would spend more time actually studying history than we do. Unfortunately most of us continue on, regurgitating the ideas and memes we hear tossed around in popular culture and comment-thread debates without question.

That’s one conclusion I’ve reached from my experience with David Abulafia’s “The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean“. It seems as though any time a discussion of religion comes up these days someone eventually points at The Crusades as proof, PROOF, that religion is a terrible thing, and the sole cause of all misery throughout history. While there is no denying the Crusades were induced by religion, books like Abulafia’s make it clear that such things never happen in a vacuum.

Taken as a whole, Mediterranean history demonstrates clearly that religion is only one of many driving factors of change in the world. Only a fraction of the conquests of the Old World were directly religious in nature. Resources and the lack thereof account for far more conflict than religion ever did. Conducting war is an expensive business, and war on anything beyond a small scale was something few rulers undertook lightly. While there are those notable nations and individuals who sought conquest for its own sake, most peoples preferred trade as a means of keeping themselves going. More often wars arose when one party or another tried to control or stop trade, while religion mainly served to help define the “other” when convince people to go fight.

As for religion, Mediterranean history is rife with it. Most religions of antiquity aren’t around any more, and I doubt there are many who miss “the good old days of Moloch, when they sacrificed children through immolation. With the exception of Judaism, none of the main religions we think about when we cast back through history for examples even existed prior to the meridian of time. Christianity and Islam, on a historical scale, are practically contemporaries. Initially all three got along fairly well, as they share common scripture. Muslims considered jews and christians “children of the book”, and initially worthy of respect and tolerance. It was only later–and intermittently–they were considered infidels and deemed worthy of death.

It could be argued that the christian idea of the Crusade was borrowed from the muslim notion of Jihad; all three religions borrowed ideas from one another quite freely early on. There is certainly no New Testiment basis for such an endeavor. Nothing even remotely like them occured in the previous centuries where both religions co-existed. All three religions (though the jews were so reduced under the Romans and other nations they were hardly a factor at this point) respected one another’s holy sites as a rule, and were more than happy to benefit economically by fleecing one anothers pilgrims (another idea freely borrowed from one another).

It was the muslims that broke that balance first when the Seljuks seized the Holy Land, killed pilgrims and descrated holy sites. Christians, who cared little when the muslims conquered North Africa, the Middle East, and part of Asia, were rightfully incensed at this change in relations. The resulting back-and-forth warfare over the next century or so was unfortunate, certainly, but there were also periods of stability between flare-ups in which both sides got along, resumed trade, and left each other alone. We simply remember the Crusades because they were given easily-remembered names, and because when we weren’t fighting muslims there was little reason for them to even figure into our history books. They’re history books about our culture, after all. (Quick! Name the various Jihads in order!)

But when you study history under someone like Abulafia you gain a different perspective on events. The Crusades and the Jihads both were merely conflicts in a long history full of conflict. When the christians weren’t fighting the muslims they were fighting the various christian sub-sects. When they weren’t fighting sub-sects they were fighting different countries and cities. Muslim history is likely similar on their side. Wars between trade capitals were as common as any other type of war.

In short, conflict was the norm, and religion by and large was little more than a means of recruiting a bigger team for your cause–much like politics today. If you were at odds with the duke in the next country over you could waste a lot of your own wealthy fighting him, but that was risky. If you could find some other who also didn’t like him, even better. But if you can get him declared a heretic you could get a lot of people together to fight him, at very little cost to yourself! So why not? Such blatant power struggles were common, and had little to do with the religions behind them, really. They were convenient levers of power to pull, and little more than jersey colors to help determine the sides.

The question, then, is not if religion was the cause of the plentitudinous conflicts through history, but rather whether or not there would have been significantly less conflict had there been no religion at all. Based on Abulafia’s assessment, it does not appear so. When mankind wants to fight, they will fight. Take the Mongols, for example. Religion was irrelevant to them. The conquered were not forced to convert or die–most saw little difference in their daily lives under the Mongols, really. Yet the Mongols felt compelled to conquer the known world all the same.

Indeed during the late middle ages the Ottoman Turks were so open minded that they were able to conduct their ongoing war to advance Islam throughout Europe while freely utilizing christian and jewish officers, crews, merchants and inventors. All were welcomed, no conversion necessary. Jews evicted from Spain during the Inquisition were welcomed with open arms by the Ottoman Sultan, who sought their expertise in a variety of trades and crafts. The Ottomans wanted to make all of Europe into Muslim lands, but the people were free to remain whatever religon they pleased.

Like I said, I won’t try to claim that the Crusades were not religiously motivated, nor that they would have happened under some other name or banner had christianity not been a factor. But to use them as some sort of proof that religion is the chief cause of death and destruction in the world is highly inaccurate. More people likely died in the petty squabbles between neighboring lands than died on either side of the Crusades. The slave trade that ensured crews for the numerous merchant and naval galleys that criss-crossed the Mediterranean likely caused more pain, suffering, and death.

History, when you look deeper than one-line pronouncements of “Fact!”, shows a much more murky morality at work. For all the death and conflict over religion in the history of the Mediterranean, the fact is that the large majority of the time the different religions got along and were not really any more a significant factor in how people treated one another than race, nationality, social status, or wealth. Except perhaps the jews. Without their own land for support, they generally got a bum deal.

Unfortunately, it’s much easier to say, “Hey, what about the Crusades” when trying to quash someone’s argument than to say, “Well, what about the negative impact of the Inquisition on Spain’s economic growth contrasted with the economic gains of the Ottomans through their inclusive policies?”

‘Cause we all know the latter would be met with, “Huh?” And then you’d have to type up a lengthy explanation, you’d probably have to look up some details, and then you might make a mistake that someone would seize on, and then…

Far, far better to just parrot over-simplified, inaccurate history and be done with it.

Not so long ago I posted about the situation in Eqypt and my admiration for the military’s actions at the time. Events since then have changed my mind. They’re not showing so much forebearance and peaceful intent as I assumed they would lately, though I’ve been reluctant to admit it. Its times like these I should pay more attention to Michael J. Totten.

I’ve written about him before, too. He’s the best guide I’ve found for gaining insight on the messy politics and societies of the Middle East, though he will be the first to admit he’s not an expert. He may not be, but sure knows a lot more than most. What’s more important, he knows who the experts are, and does what he can to get us access. I was gratified to read his interview with Eric Trager, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who not only is an expert on Egypt but, as Michael claims, “has been more consistently right than just about anyone.” Read it, even if it’s longer than what you normally like to read.

The interview makes it quite clear that I was not entirely wrong about General Sisi and the Egyptian military, but I didn’t know enough to recognize the situation for what it is. Trager shines the light on what’s going on:

MJT: Why do you think General Sisi removed Morsi? Some Egyptian activists are calling it a “correction,” that the democratic revolution went off course, so the army stepped in and hit the reset button. I don’t buy it, personally. Sisi looks like he might even be somewhat of an Islamist himself. Either way, the man doesn’t strike me as any kind of democrat.

Eric Trager: I don’t buy it either, but I should say that during my conversations with officials in the Egyptian military leading up to Morsi’s removal, they didn’t seem at all eager to re-enter politics. The generals admitted they aren’t good at governing. They had a bad experience running the country after Mubarak. They aren’t trained to do police work, they’re trained to fight wars and defend borders.

But two things happened. First, we had a massive outpouring against Morsi due to his frankly undemocratic rule of the country and his bid to consolidate power for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Second, Morsi completely lost control of the state. By the time the protests started on June 30, he didn’t control anything. He didn’t control the police and he obviously didn’t control the military. He didn’t control any of the institutions of government, and it made his presidency untenable. So the military stepped in, somewhat reluctantly, first to respond to the protests and also to prevent impending state failure.

But once the army made the decision to step in, as reluctant as it may have been, it’s modus operandi unquestionably changed. It entered into a direct conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps even an existential one. The military believes it not only has to remove Morsi, it has to decapitate the entire organization. Otherwise, the Brotherhood will re-emerge and perhaps kill the generals who removed it from power.

That’s what’s in Egypt’s future right now—persistent civil strife between the military and its supporters on one side and the Brotherhood and its supporters on the other.

Bear in mind this interview came at least a week before the recent week’s bloodshed. Reading this section was a figurative face-palm for me. Of course we’re seeing what we’re seeing over there. I get it now. My take on the Egyptian military is not entirely wrong, but things are never, never as simple as they appear.

There’s one particular paragraph, however, that really hit me hard:

When I was standing in Tahrir Square after Morsi was removed, a felt a certain amount of sadness because I knew that violence would be an inevitable and significant consequence. People in the square were very happy, but people in another square a few miles away people were mourning. They believe something has been stolen from them, and they intend to fight to get it back.

The reason this hit me has nothing to do with Egypt. This struck me as a pretty fair analogy of the state of America today. So polarized has our social and political contention become that it has become increasingly difficult not to see any loss as significant. And every time that happens there is a large group of people “across town” who are not only rejoicing that they won, but also rejoicing that the other group lost. It’s becoming a zero-sum, scorched-earth game.

How long before we “eliminate the middle man” and instead of fighting over issues, just start fighting? Do we seriously think it won’t happen here?

Tell me this: when I first explained the analogy, who did you put in the role of “people in another square a few miles away…mourning”? It’s instinctive. We know who “the enemy” is, and we have no trouble branding them as such. One of the first steps in preparing soldiers for war is to dehumanize the enemy.

Remember that.

I’ll admit I’m rather pessimistic about where this country is headed. I hope this is another case where I’m wrong.

My kids start school today. My oldest is forging semi-boldly into the undiscovered country of middle school, though the school has done a phenomenal job of trying to ease the transition. My younger two are at the same school, but with new teachers and a new principal. I’m excited for them all. I wish I were going with them.

I always loved the first day of school. The morning air is starting to get that fall chill. My backback is loaded with brand new school supplies (Tom Hanks’ line about a “bouquet of newly-sharpened pencils” didn’t just thrill Meg Ryan, I’ll admit), and I’m wearing new clothes. There’s that tinge of uncertainty about my new teacher, and whether or not any of my friends would be in my class, but that was also out-weighed by the excitement of a new classroom. “New!” was the rally-cry of the day. A chance to start fresh, with new things to learn.

I haven’t gone to school in a few years now, but I still get a hankering for a fresh start from time to time. Since I’m an adult with responsibilities I can’t just wipe the hard drive and reinstall the OS, so to speak, but I can certainly change the desktop wallpaper. At least once a year I totally rearrange the layout of my desk at work. Though my supportive wife tries to convince me it doesn’t need it, I have to clean the garage annually–sometimes more. And there are days I look at my wardrobe and, even though I usually don’t care that much about clothes, I wish I could throw it all out and start over.

These urges get stronger as autumn rolls in. It’s that ‘back-to-school’ mindset. In many ways my year doesn’t start in January, but in September.

I’m not sure if my kids see back-to-school in the same light I do, but they’re excited. I’m excited for them. That yearly ritual of facing the unknown framed in the familiar is part of growing up and learning to deal with a world that tends to throw curves on much less predictable terms.

I want to go back to school. With a big, brand-spankin’-new bottle of Elmers Glue, a box of fresh Ticonderoga #2’s, a Mead spiral in my favorite color, and a unblemished Pink Pearl eraser. Those, my dear Professor Snape, are the key components for that magical brew to “…bottle fame, brew glory, even put a stopper on death”.

Not yet found enough things in life to get snooty over? Try water! Try different waters from around the world! Obsess over details like mineral content and TDS!

Guests can read a thorough description on each bottle, including a detailed account of the taste, the mineral content, and the “TDS”— total dissolved solids — which, Riese says,  affects the taste of the water. A low TDS means a smooth, clean drink and high TDS ensures a bitter, salty and often metallic taste.

Evidently this is already a big deal in Germany, where the general manager of the restaurant in the article above hails from.

Riese hails from Germany, along the Danish border, and says that in his home country, learning about water is an art form (there are 580 brands of mineral water in Germany alone). He has long been passionate about water and received his Water Education certification from the German Mineral Water Association.

Granted, there are dozens, if not hundreds of brands of bottled water available here in America, but none of them approach the $20 a bottle of a premium Berg from Canada. Most of them don’t even come in glass bottles.

The whole idea reminds me of a scene from the movie “Return to Me” when David Duchovney’s character Bob meets Minnie Driver’s character Grace while Bob is on a blind date with a woman designed to be one of the most abrasive women around:

Marsha: [as Grace is bringing water to their table] Oh no-no-no-no-no! Do you have *bottled* water?

Grace Briggs: Sure. Anybody else?

Marsha: I don’t want Swiss water. I got sick on an imported Swiss water.

[to her friend]

Marsha: Do you remember that night? As long as it’s not Swiss or tap water it will be fine, preferably French, no bubbles. I want it cold, no ice, no glass, just the bottle and a straw. Do you want to write it down? I don’t want Swiss water, I got sick on an imported Swiss water once…

Grace Briggs: I’m pretty sure I got it.

Marsha: [later, as Grace is telling her the specials] That sounds so *fattening*. Is every dish here cooked in *oil*?

Grace Briggs: No… some we boil in Swiss water.

What isn’t described here is how Grace goes to the kitchen, gets a bottle of  French water, dumps out the contents and fills it from the tap. Marsha just adores her “French” water from Brooklyn.

So yeah, mark me down as one of those who won’t be asking to see the Water Menu any time soon. I’m still pretty bitter about not getting to see any Artesians back in the 80’s.

By now we’ve probably all heard the story how Oprah Winfrey was in Switzerland, shopping in an elite shop, and wanted to see an expensive purse only to be told by the clerk that she couldn’t afford it. Yet another sign that there is rampant racism in the world. But one can’t help but wonder if there’s more to this story.

Does it have to be racism? Couldn’t it simply by elitism? Assuming the story is true, do we know that I would have been treated any differently had I been in that shop? I don’t exactly look like I could afford a $38,000 purse. I suspect the odds are good they would have treated me the same.

But is the story even true? The clerk in the incident claims it’s not. As someone who has worked in retail and is part owner of a store, you don’t make a living by making assumptions about who can afford what. And anyone who has worked in retail for very long knows you really can’t tell who is going to buy what based on appearance.

That’s not to say the clerk isn’t lying to save her butt, either. But her boss, Trudi Goetz, is calling the incident a misunderstand due to language, and I’m as inclined to believe that as anything. I’ve shopped overseas, and no matter how good a person’s English is, there’s plenty of room for misinterpretation. Body language also changes from country to country, so it’s as likely as anything that Winfrey was wrong in her assessment of the situation, too.

Since then Winfrey has tried to calm the furor herself, indicating that it might have been something less than racism. She admits that she deals with snooty store clerks regularly and tries not to dress down when going places like that, though she also doesn’t attempt to dress rich, either.

Which brings us back where I started. Was Winfrey profiled? Possibly. Was it for being black? No way to know for sure, but it seems just as likely that anyone else might have had the same experience, regardless of race or gender. It’s also possible that Winfrey is also guilty of bias, and assumed that the clerk’s response was one thing when it may have been something else.

We should all be less quick to judgment. It could have been something as simple as the purse being on a high shelf, the clerk’s feet were tired after a long day, and she was reluctant to climb up to get it if the customer wasn’t at least somewhat serious. You just never know.

As a follow-up from Wednesday’s post about Internet vs. physical bookstores, there’s this article I saw today. Independent bookstores are evidently doing better than expected.