Looking Ahead: The 50th Anniversary of 1973

Last spring I posted an exercise:

“If you could go back in time and live out two full years in America, any two years between 1913-1992, what would they be?”

I chose the years 1925 and 1973, and we’re approaching the 50th anniversary of the latter. I plan on a series of special posts throughout the year 2023, to celebrate and analyze certain events of 1973. Here are some to expect on the dates listed.

January 1 — All in the Family: The show hit its peak during late season 3 (Jan-Mar 73) and early season 4 (Sep-Dec 73) and had a lasting impact on the social fabric of America.

January 22 — The Paradox of Roe v. Wade: Abortion made a constitutional right. Weak ruling, good result, now nullified.

March 1 — The Dark Side of the Moon: A watershed for rock music.

March 27 — The Godfather: The epic film wins Best Picture, becoming the new Citizen Kane.

October 1 — Birth of TSR (Tactical Studies Rules Inc): Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson create Dungeons & Dragons, which will be published the following year.

October 13 — Selling England by the Pound: The best album by the most important prog band.

December 15 — Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders: The American Psychiatric Association declares that homosexuality is not a mental illness or sickness, and removes from its manuals the listing of same-sex activity as a disorder.

December 25 — The Exorcist: A cinematic masterpiece that couldn’t have been made any time else. Its like will doubtfully be seen again.

Reading Roundup: 2022

Of the dozen or so books I read this year, I recommend the following seven. Four were published this year; two I was catching up on; and one of them was published five centuries ago.

1. The Critical Qur’an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. Robert Spencer, 2022. This is the Qur’an I keep close at hand now for ready reference. To describe it, imagine a certain translation of the Bible (say the RSV) that is footnoted with textual variants, theological commentary from Christian authorities spanning antiquity to the present, and also modern historical-critical commentary. The Critical Qur’an is a tool like that, and one that we’ve needed for a long time. Spencer’s book offers four features that are impossible to find elsewhere in a single volume: (1) Variant readings: It’s one of the first Qur’anic commentaries, if not the very first, to provide variant readings from different manuscripts, in the same way that variant readings are found in most study Bibles for the Tanakh and New Testament. (2) Tafsir commentary: Citations from mainstream Muslim exegetes (the tafsir) are provided, spanning the 8th to 21st centuries. This is highly valuable since all these theologians and jurists are held to be authoritative, and their commentary allows the reader to understand how the Qur’anic texts have been, and continue to be, understood in mainstream Islam. (3) Critical commentary: Citations from academic scholars shed light on the textual evolution of the Qur’an. (4) Clarity: This Qur’an clarifies difficult or troublesome passages, for example like the many exhortations to jihad; the words is usually translated as “strive hard” in the way of Allah — which is legitimate, since “jihad” means “strive” or “struggle” — but the primary meaning of jihad in Islamic theology is warfare against unbelievers. Importantly, the suras are explained in view of the doctrine of abrogation (the late suras of Medina supersede or take precedence over the early suras of Mecca) and that if there is any one sura that has the “final say” in mainstream Islam, it’s sura 9. This easily tops my list; see here for a full review.

2. Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media. Jacob Mchangama, 2022. Absolutely required reading — a history of the world seen through the lens of free expression. I’m surprised no one thought to write a book like this before. Even free-speech gurus will learn much from it; I certainly did. Its thesis is twofold, first that free speech almost always sets in motion a process of entropy — even its most passionate defenders want exceptions made (based on what offends them), while others ultimately can’t resist the censoring impulse. Second, that free speech culture is as important as the legal apparatus of free speech — perhaps even more so. Without the former, the latter is doomed to dissolve; the abundant examples of history make this clear. Thinkers like Baruch Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, and George Orwell warned about society’s tendencies to impose conformity apart from the government, and that unwelcome ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without an official ban. This is history as it should be written, in a clear arresting framework. At every point you want to keep going, to see how societies never learn their lesson. Full review in three parts: one, two, three.

3. Castaways. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, 1542 (English translation: 1993). Written by a Spanish explorer, this journal is a wealth of anthropological information about Native American tribes that are unattested anywhere else. It’s a fantastic read on its own right, and certainly the best book I’ve ever read about the conquistador era. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca lived among the coastal natives of Texas for six and a half years (Nov 1528 – May 1535) and then among the natives of Mexico for about a year (May 1535 – March 1536), and it’s incredible that he survived to leave us the details. He was naked for the full eight years, freezing during the cold seasons, and often lived on a diet of spiders, worms, and cacti. It’s no surprise that from the original expedition of 600 Spaniards, only he and three others survived (the only surprise being that any of them survived), mostly by being accepted among the various native tribes as witch-doctors who performed faith-healings. For a man of his times Álvar Núñez was admirable: a proud evangelical who came to accept the natives mostly on their own terms, and who was enraged when he finally reconnected to Spanish civilization in Mexico and found that his countrymen wanted to make war on the natives and enslave them. Full review here.

4. Slaying the Dragon: A Secret History of Dungeons & Dragons. Ben Riggs, 2022. If you really want the dirt on TSR, this is the book to read. My biggest takeaways: (1) “Saint” Gary Gygax was no saint, and he often lied about his supposed powerlessness and ignorance. Not only was he aware of TSR’s disastrous errors, he participated in them as they were happening. (2) Lorraine Williams was even less admirable, notwithstanding the author’s attempts to reconsider her legacy. After Gary hired her to manage the company in 1985, she managed a hostile takeover of sorts, forcing Gary out of the company by the end of the year. (Though Gary has largely himself to blame for being victimized here.) The biggest problem with Lorraine is that she wasn’t a gamer, disdained gamers (didn’t consider them social equals), treated her staff like shit, and as a result had a hard time holding onto talented writers. Genius designers kept leaving TSR for greener pastures. (3) By the middle of ’95, TSR owed its distributor Random House almost 12 million dollars, and Random House was demanding that most of this debt be paid off within two years. This was the culmination of a ponzi scheme that had been in place, going all the way back to ’79 (in Gary’s day), whereby Random House paid TSR for the products TSR gave it to distribute, whether those products sold or not. There is more here. Old-school gamers will definitely enjoy (?) this book.

5. Islam and Nazi Germany’s War. David Motadel, 2014. This won the Wiener Library Ernst Fraenkel prize, but it somehow never got on my radar until this year. It’s a study of how Nazi Germany used the Islamic religion to expand its influence and wage war. “Scholars have paid less attention to this phenomenon that one might imagine”, writes the author, and though I always knew of the Nazi-Islam bonding during World War II, I didn’t know nearly enough of the sordid details, for example that Germany’s accommodating policies with the Islamic world go all the way back to the late 1800s. The book’s thesis is that Berlin’s engagement with Islam in 1941-45 was at least as extensive as in 1914-18, if not more so. Motadel examines the way Nazi Germany promoted Islam, and the ramifications of that alliance in terms of both race/ethnicity and religion/ideology. Hitler devalued Christianity while extolling Islam; for him Christianity was soft, artificial, and weak, while Islam was a strong and a practical faith, and much more suited to the Germanic spirit. In the table talks he expressed regret over the victory of Charles Martel in 732 CE, saying that if Martel hadn’t been victorious, then the Germans would have been converted to Islam, which would have allowed the Germanic races to conquer the world. It’s intriguing that Hitler believed Islam was a superior religion, but that its Arab adherents were an inferior race. That second part was a problem for the Reich, no matter how diligently their propaganda machines tried papering over it (by upholding white supremacy in “Muslim-friendly” ways). This book is utterly fascinating and the research behind it impeccable. Full review here.

6. The Jazz-Age President: Defending Warren G. Harding. Ryan S. Walters, 2022. I can’t think of a better way to honor the 100th anniversary of Harding’s presidency. I rate him the second best president of all time for all the reasons Walters covers in his book. Harding slashed taxes and government spending, started a booming economy, and achieved world peace through international cooperation instead of war-mongering. He went to bat for African Americans, even going so far as to address a crowd in the deep south (Birmingham, Alabama) at a time when Jim Crow laws were in full swing: he insisted on the need for equal rights for blacks, many of whom listened to the speech behind a segregated barrier. He urged the passing of anti-lynching legislation, appointed liberty-conscious Supreme Court justices, and pardoned hundreds of political prisoners who had been unjustly criminalized by Woodrow Wilson during the first world war. To this day, Harding is remembered for almost none of this. After he died the scandals of his administration were uncovered — scandals that were no worse than those that plagued many other presidential administrations, and Harding didn’t even participate or gain anything from them. But for bizarre reasons, historians continue to exaggerate them. Read this book (as well as my Rescuing a Reputation) and allow the real Harding to overthrow the demonized Harding.

7. The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History. Dale Allison, 2021. Like Allison I aspire to be led to my conclusions, not led by them, and this book is a model of such aspiration. In 400 pages it reworks and hugely expands on the 177-page essay from Resurrecting Jesus (2005), and amounts to the best treatment of Jesus’s (alleged) resurrection that I know of. It covers a lot of interesting ground, the most interesting being the arguments for the empty tomb; those arguments have been revised for both better and worse, though the overall conclusion remains intact. I reviewed those particular arguments (from chapters 6 and 8) here, but the whole book is worth going through. There’s a chapter, for example, on the rainbow body phenomenon in Buddhist thought (disappearing bodies), and parallels between stories of people who achieve the rainbow body and the stories of Jesus’s resurrection. Allison mines the fields of psychology and parapsychology in accounting for how humanity copes with bereavement and dead loved ones, while steering clear of any reductionist explanations. With regards to the empty tomb, I think he makes a plausible case both for and against, and I agree with him that the scales tip slightly — ever so slightly — in favor of Jesus’s body being gone from the tomb on Easter morning. Though what that means or implies is still anyone’s guess.

Castaways: The Incredible Narrative of Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca

I never knew much about the Spanish explorer Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, and the last person I expected to steer me in his direction is Pastor Steven Anderson. In a recent sermon, Anderson gave a diatribe on the Spanish conquistador era and recommended Castaways, Alvar’s journal describing, in remarkable detail, his time among the Native Americans from 1528-1536.

For those who don’t know Steven Anderson, he’s a King-James-only fundie who falls on either side of the right-left divide in ways that surprise. He’s a supreme Nazi when it comes to sodomites (they should be executed by the state), but a bleeding heart when it comes to immigrants, even illegal ones (they should all be welcomed with open arms). He’s sexist to the core but abhors racism. He’s a right-wing climate change denier, but a left-wing greenie when it comes to respecting the earth (he’ll rip you to pieces if he sees you littering or not bagging your crap while camping, and he walks to work and eats organic). He’s anti-vax but pro-mask (per Lev 13:45), and throughout the year of 2020 railed from the pulpit against Covidiots who refused to wear masks and distance socially. He condemns Islamic jihadism, but he hates Zionism even more. He thinks Democrats are wicked, but Republicans more so (especially the “fake Fox-News Christians” who fawn over Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck), and that Donald Trump is the “most degenerate man to ever sit the Oval Office”. He loves the Declaration of Independence like any true American, but believes that Thomas Jefferson is burning in hell. He thinks Christopher Columbus is burning in hell too. Both men “removed God’s word” (Rev 22:18-19) — in the Jefferson Bible (Jefferson) and the Book of Prophecies (Columbus), which in turn earns them being “removed from the book of life” and any chance of salvation.

Anderson has a heart for ethnic underdogs, and like Álvar Núñez lends his sympathies to the plight of Native Americans. He makes clear in his sermon that he has no use for myths like the noble savage and advanced native civilizations at the time the Spanish landed. The natives had civilizations to be proud of in the past, but — as Álvar Núñez found out first hand — many tribes had degenerated by the 1500s, living hand to mouth, with no clothes to keep warm, and relying on faith-healers who blew in your face to heal you (about as effective as the western practice of leeching). Álvar shared the miserable plight of these natives, but he came to admire and respect them, such that by the time he reconnected with the Spaniards eight years later he was revolted by the Spanish treatment of the Indians and by western superior attitudes.

Anderson’s sermon-review intrigued me, and so I got the book through interlibrary loan and read it in a couple days. The first quarter is a bit slow, but once Alvar reaches the Isle of Misfortune (chapter 11) it’s a page-turner to the finish line (chapter 38). I’ll review the parts of Alvar’s journal I found interesting and provide citations so that a lot of this comes through in his own words.

The Expedition

To summarize the expedition (see the map to the right): Álvar Núñez began as second in command of a group of 600 men who intended to establish colonies and garrisons in what is today Florida. They landed in Florida in April 1528, and it was a disaster from the start. Six months later they had been emasculated to a force of 242, over half the men killed by disease, nasty weather, and attacks from natives they were trying to conquer.

They fled the Apalachee Bay on September 22, crammed into five makeshift boats, and two of the boats reached Galveston Bay south of Houston on November 6. By now there were only 96 survivors (thanks to hurricanes, thirst, and starvation), and by February there would be only 15, and by the year 1532 there would be four — the final four who would eventually make it back to Spanish civilization (in 1536): Álvar Núñez, Alonso del Castillo, Andrés Dorantes, and Estevanico (Dorantes’ African slave). Incredibly, these four men continued surviving in the wilderness of Texas, and then in Mexico, bonding with various Native tribes (sometimes as their slaves), learning their languages, sharing their atrocious living conditions and being forced to take on the role of faith-healers.

The “Isle of Misfortune” (November 1528 – February 1533)

Álvar’s longest stay was in the place he first arrived — the “Isle of Misfortune” in Galveston Bay — for nearly four and a half years. The isle was most likely what is today Follet’s Island, fifty miles south of Houston. The survivors called it the “Isla de Malhado” (“Island of Misfortune”), as most of them eventually died on it, whether from accidents, starvation, or exposure. They were all emaciated and naked, having lost their clothes and possessions when the boat capsized and was lost upon arrival. Álvar writes that “one could have counted our bones without difficulty, as we looked like the very image of death” (p 42).

The natives’ reaction to the sorry state of these white strangers is moving:

“At the hour of the sunset the Indians, believing that we had not left, came looking for us again. I gave them to understand by signs how a boat had sunk and our members had drowned. When the Indians saw the disaster that had come upon us, and the disaster we were in, with so much ill luck and misery, they sat down among us, and, with the great grief and pity they felt on seeing us in such a desperate plight, all of them began to weep loudly, and so sincerely that they could be heard a long way off, and this lasted for more than half an hour.” (p 42)

Thus did Álvar and his men begin to live on this place that had very little firewood, and houses built of reed mats on oyster shells. The natives had no more clothes than they did, except for some of their women, and there was no chief. According to Álvar’s description, this tribe of Indians valued children above all, made women do the hard work, and hung their elderly out to dry:

“The folk that we found here are tall and handsome; they have no other arms than bows and arrows, in the use of which they are extremely skillful. The men have one nipple pierced from side to side, and some of them have both, and they wear a reed two and one-half handbreadths long and two fingers thick stuck through the hole; they also have their lower lip pierced, and a piece of reed as slender as a half a finger stuck through it.

“The women are the ones who do the hard work. They live on this island from October to the end of February. Their staple food is the roots I have mentioned, gathered underwater in November and December. They have creeks and have no more fish at this time; from then on they eat roots. At the end of February they go elsewhere to seek food, for then the roots begin to sprout and are no longer good. Of all people on earth they are the ones who love their children most and give them the best treatment; and when it happens that someone loses a child, the parents and kinfolk and the whole tribe weep for him, and their lamentation lasts a whole year, for every morning before dawn the parents begin to weep first of all and after them the whole tribe, and they do the same at dawn and at midday; and after they have bewailed them for a year they do funeral honors to the dead child and wash and clean off the soot with which they have covered their bodies. They mourn for all their dead in this way, except for the old, of whom they take no heed, for they say that they have had their time and are of no use to anyone; rather, they occupy space and take food from the children’s mouths… ” (pp 46-47)

He also notes that every man had a wife, but the medicine men (faith-healers) were allowed two or three wives, and that “there is great friendship and harmony among the wives” (p 47). Álvar and his men soon became forced into the roles of medicine men — Christian witch-doctors, as it were — and successful ones apparently:

“On that island they tried to make us into medicine men, without examining us or asking for our credentials, for they cure illnesses by blowing on the sick person, and by blowing and using their hands they cast the illness out of them; and they ordered us to do the same and to be of some use. We laughed at it, saying it was a joke and that we did not know how to heal, and because of this they withheld our food until we did as they had told us.” (p 49)

By making the sign of the cross and saying a prayer like the Our Father and blowing on people, he ended up healing many people, and before long, the Natives were asking him to heal many more people and bless their food. Whether his cures came from a placebo effect, coincidence, psycho-somatic causes, or truly miraculous powers is anyone’s guess. It’s like studying the historical Jesus; to me it really doesn’t matter.

From Misfortune into Slavery: February 1533 – September 1534

After almost four and a half years, in early 1533, Álvar left the Galveston Bay area, heading southwest along the Texas coast. He got a shock in the Guadalupe area (red circled area on the right map), when he found three members of his expedition (whom he hadn’t seen since 1529) — Alonso del Castillo, Andrés Dorantes, and Estevanico (Dorantes’ African slave). They were still alive, but enslaved by the Yguazes and Mareames tribes. Alvar joined them in slavery for a year and a half before they all managed to escape.

The Yguazes and Mareames tribes were closely related and had some unpleasant customs, particularly killing people after they dream of doing so, and automatically killing their daughters at birth:

“They kill even their own children as a result of dreams, and when daughters are born to them they let the dogs eat them and throw them away. The reason they do this, according to them, is that all the Indians in that land are their enemies and they carry on continual warfare with them; and if by any chance their enemies should marry their daughters, these enemies would increase so much that they would conquer them and take them as slaves; and for this reason they preferred to kill their daughters rather than let a possible enemy be born to them. And when these Indians want to marry, they buy wives from their enemies.” (p 60)

They also worked their women brutally hard — more so than the tribes in the Galveston Bay area — giving the women only six hours of rest between day and night. Álvar writes that the men of these tribes are mostly thieves, “for though they get on well among themselves, if one so much as turns his head, even his son or his father will rob him of whatever he can” (p 61). They are also “tremendous liars and drunkards” (ibid).

Álvar suffered no matter what tribe he was living with, but his time in this region was by far the worst stretch of his eight years. Everywhere the tribes starved, but the Yguazes and Mareames suffered so much from hunger that they ate spiders, ant eggs, dirt, wood, deer shit, “and other things I will not mention; and I firmly believe that if there were stones in that land they would eat them” (ibid). He and his three friends (Alonso, Andres, and Estevanico) were abused horribly and tried to escape three times; they were beaten and almost killed each time. Finally, after a year and a half, they managed to escape.

From Slaves to Shamans: September 1534 – May 1535

Fleeing southwest, they came to the Avavares tribe (see the green circled area on the map above), a complete 180 from those they had left. Where the Yguazes and Mareames made slaves of foreigners and abused the hell out of them, the Avavares treated (peaceful) foreigners as honored guests. Just as the natives on the Isle of Misfortune had done, the Avavares brought their sick to Álvar and his men to be healed. Alonso was the one to perform this first faith-healing, but eventually all four of them became witch-doctors:

“On the same night that we arrived, some Indians came to [Alonso] Castillo and told him that they had dreadful pains in their heads, imploring him to cure them; and after he had signed them with the cross and commended them to God, the Indians said that all the pains had left them at that very moment; and they went totheir homes and brought many prickly pears [cacti] and a piece of venison, which was something we could not identify; and as the matter became known among them, many other sick folk came that night to have him cure them, and each one brought a piece of venison, and there were so many of them that we did not know where to put the meat. We offered many thanks to God because His mercy and favors toward us increased daily. And after the cures had been accomplished, they began to dance and make their revels and festivals until dawn; and because of our arrival, the festival lasted three days.” (p 68)

Though they wanted to keep pressing west (to reconnect with Spanish civilization), they stayed with the Avavares for eight months since winter was setting in. Álvar and his men were treated well and honored, but they went through long periods “without a bite to eat, nor able to find anything that could be eaten”. They were still naked as ever, and Alvar writes that “as my feet were bare, the blood ran from them freely” (p 69). But he and his men continued to work healings and became loved by Avavares. When the four men departed the following spring,

“The [Avavares Indians] implored us to remember them, and to pray to God that they might always be well, and we promised them this, and so they departed the happiest men in the world, having given us the best that they had. We had stayed with those Avavares Indians for eight months and reckoned this period by the moon. During all this time the Indians came from many places to seek us and said that we were truly children of the sun. Up to this time Dorantes [Andres] and the black [Estevanico] had not done any healing; but because of the many entreaties we received, coming from many different places to look for us, all of us became medicine men, though I was paramount among us in daring and in attempting any sort of cure.” (p 73)

Fleeing West then South: Across and Down Mexico (May 1535 – March 1536)

From this point on, Álvar, Alonso, Andres, and Estevanico kept fast on the move, staying only a few days in one village before moving to the next. Their general misery continued as before:

“I have already mentioned how we were naked everywhere in this country, and as we were not used to it, we shed our skin like snakes twice a year, and with the sun and wind developed great sores on our chests and backs, which hurt us badly because of the large loads we carried, which were very heavy and caused the cords to cut into our arms. And the land is so rugged that and heavily forested that we often sought firewood in the woods, and when we had finished getting it, blood would run in many places from thorns and thickets we encountered, which broke the skin wherever they touched us. Sometimes it happened that I went for wood in places where, after gathering it had cost me much blood, I could neither carry nor drag it. When I was in these difficulties, my only solace was to think of the Passion of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, and the blood he shed for me…” (pp 75-76)

An interesting point: Whenever they left a village, a group of natives would accompany them to the next village, since escorting travelers was an imperative custom for them — and with a rude twist: upon arrival, the escorts would plunder the village they just came to as payment for their escort services. (If the receiving village had advance notice, the villagers would hide their belongings as best they could.) This was a tolerable custom, because the members of the receiving village would then have a chance to recoup their losses by serving as escorts to the next village; etc.

Their fame as healers grew significantly during the trek across Mexico, to the point of being burdensome:

“All that night the Indians spent in ceremonies and dances, and next morning they brought us all the folk of that village for us to touch and make the sign of the cross over them… All during this part of the journey we were very much hampered by the large number of people who were following us and could not escape from them though we tried, for their eagerness to come and touch us was very great.” (pp 88-89)

The natives usually paid them with the plunder they had just taken, though Álvar and his men usually returned the plunder (when they were able do so without insulting their hosts).

By late 1535 they had crossed westward into what is today Chihuahua and then westward more into Sonora. There (directly south of what is today the Tucson region of Arizona), they stayed for three days in the land of the Pima tribe. They told the Pimas they were searching for Christians (Spaniards), while assuring the natives that they intended to tell their fellow Christians “not to kill Indians, nor to make slaves of them, nor to take them from their lands, nor to do them any other harm at all” (p 107).

Indeed, Álvar was sickened by how terrorized the Pimas and other tribes were due to Spaniard warfare and pillaging. The natives in this region, he writes, were

“… so unhappy that it seemed they wished to die. They brought us blankets that they had hidden for fear of the Christians and gave them to us, and even told us how on many occasions the Christians had entered the land and destroyed and burned the villages and carried off half the men and all the women and children, and that those who had managed to escape from their hands were wandering and in flight. We saw that they were so frightened, not daring to stay in any one place, and that they neither wanted nor were able to sow crops or cultivate the land but rather were determined to let themselves die. And they showed great pleasure in us, though we feared that once we reached the Indians who had a frontier with the Christians, and were making war on them, these others would treat us ill and make us pay for what the Christians had done to them.” (pp 107-108)

So not surprisingly, when Álvar, Alonso, Andres, and Estevanico reconnected with Spaniards, it wasn’t the most joyous reunion. They had lived with the natives for so long that Indians had become people of integrity to them, and not just a race to be subjugated and plundered. Álvar writes:

“… we had many and great altercations with the Christians, because they wanted to make slaves of the Indians we had brought; we were so angry that when we departed we left behind many Turkish-style bows that we had brought and many pouches and arrows; we had great trouble persuading the Indians to return home and to feel safe there and to plant their maize. They wanted nothing but to go with us until they had left us with other Indians, as their custom was, for if they returned without doing this they feared they would die, and because they were with us they feared neither the Christians nor their lances. The Christians were angry at this, and had their interpreter tell them that we were men of their race and that we had been lost for a long time, that we were unlucky and cowardly people, and that they were masters of that land whom the Indians must obey and serve. But the Indians paid little or no heed to what they were told. Rather, they said that the Christians were lying, for we cured the sick and they killed the healthy; and that we had come naked and barefoot and they well dressed and on horses and with lances; and that we did not covet anything, rather we returned everything that they gave us while the Christians stole everything they found and never gave anything to anyone. And so they told all our deeds and praised them, in contrast to the Christians.” (pp 112-114)

After this incident (it happened in March 1536), Álvar and his men managed to send the Indians off in peace, and they traveled with the Spaniards, finally reaching their own civilization in southern Mexico. Álvar’s journal would be published six years later in 1542.

Man of His Times

It should be stressed that there’s no mistaking Álvar for a modern (much less postmodern) multiculturalist. If he came to like and respect the natives more than his own people, he didn’t extend that respect to the sphere of religion. He writes passages like this throughout his journal:

“We told them [the Indians] that there was a man in Heaven whom we called God, who had created heaven and earth, and that we adored him and had him as our Lord, and that we did what he commanded us to do, and that from his hand came all good things; and that if they would do this they would be much the better for it. And we found in them such a disposition to believe… And when all the Indians departed, we commanded them to build churches and place crosses in them, and we had the children of the important chiefs brought to us and had them baptized. And then our captain rendered homage to God, promising not to make or allow any raids nor to take slaves in that land among those people whom we had reassured, and said that he would keep and enact this until His Majesty and the Governor should establish what was most to the service of God… May God our Lord in his infinite mercy resolve that in Your Majesty’s lifetime and under your power and dominion, these people may come to be truly and willingly subject to the true Lord who created and redeemed them.” (pp 105, 119-120)

In this sense, I suppose, Álvar was similar to the modern Pastor Steven Anderson. Of first importance is the salvation of souls, and following the one true faith. After that you can make room for all the justice and equity you need.

Takeaway

Castaways is one of the best books I’ve read in a long time, and certainly the best one of the conquistador era. Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca lived among the coastal natives of Texas for six and a half years (Nov 1528 – May 1535) and then among the natives of Mexico for about a year (May 1535 – March 1536), and he survived all this to tell us the gritty details. No other Spaniard was able to do something like that. For a man of his times he was admirable: a proud evangelical who came to accept the natives mostly on their own terms. His book is a cultural goldmine for tribes that are otherwise unheard of.

I can understand why this book would appeal to someone like Steven Anderson — an evangelical who takes door-to-door soul-winning as a divine mandate, and believes that without Christ it’s impossible to avoid burning in hell for eternity. But he also believes that accepting Christianity should be a free choice. Anderson hates imperial subjugation and forced conversions; he condemns U.S. military intervention abroad; he believes that all immigrants should we welcomed in America, regardless of ethnicity or creed. He believes in suffering for the cause of Christ, and Álvar Núñez is a supreme model of that. For myself, I admire Álvar for his integrity and compassion, not to mention his determination to survive. I would have given up the ghost quite early, without any grace for my hosts.

The Right’s War on Woke Schooling

As the left changes education from above (often for the worse, granted), the right has been revving up in backlash. In Tennessee a few days ago, the McMinn County School board removed Maus from its curriculum, and just yesterday in Missouri, the Wentzville School board banned Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. Protests against school censorship sometimes work: in Pennsylvania back in the fall, the Central York school board reversed its decision to ban anti-racism books and resources in response to student objections. Victories like that are nice but rare; for the most part, what school boards decide is where the buck stops.

Part of me actually welcomes censorship attempts, because on the national level they inevitably backfire. In the case of Maus, the sales are already soaring. The same thing happened last spring, when the wokes went crazy over Dr. Seuss: Seuss books suddenly became bestsellers again. There’s no better way to ensure readership, boost sales, increase library circulation, and reattain relevance than to try denying access to something. Whether in service to the left or the right.

Andrew Sullivan has an excellent piece about The Right’s Ugly War on Woke Schooling. Worth making the time to read, and here are the highlights.

“What we’re seeing now is the reaction to this left-wing power grab. And — guess what? — it’s a right-wing power grab. If the left has stealthily changed public education from above, the right has now used the only power they have to fight back — political clout in state legislatures. 122 separate bills have been introduced since January 2021, 71 in the last three weeks alone. They all regulate speech by teachers in public schools, but many are now also reaching into higher education — a much more fraught area — and outright book banning. The bills are rushed; some appear well-intentioned; others are nuts; many are very vague, inviting lawsuits to clarify what they can mean in practice. In most cases, if passed, they will surely chill debate of race and sex and history — and increasingly of gender, sex and homosexuality — in high schools. And that’s a bad thing for liberal education…

“One important point, often elided in the press: This is not about free speech as such. Regulating curricula and teaching methods in public schools is unavoidable. No one argues that K-12 teachers can teach anything: the content is always subject to political consensus and democratic input. And it could be argued that the overhauled curricula and teaching methods in recent years were imposed without democratic input, and that this is a healthy, democratic correction.

“And in some ways, it is. It’s a good thing that parents are more engaged with their kids’ education, running for school boards, examining curricula, exposing extremist teachers and administrators. And I absolutely get where the parents are coming from. What else are they supposed to do, confronted with a woke educational establishment that lies to them, and brooks no compromise?

“The trouble is that banning courses restricts discourse, and does not expand it. It gives woke racialist theories the sheen of ‘forbidden knowledge.’ It removes the moral high-ground from those seeking to defend liberal learning from ideologues of any variety. And it sets an early lesson for kids that the right response to bad arguments is to get authorities to suppress them — exactly what the woke believe — and not to marshal arguments that refute them.

“A better way is to insist that any course or lesson that involves critical theory must include an alternative counterpoint. If you have to teach Nikole Hannah-Jones, add a section on Zora Neale Hurston; for every Kendi tract, add McWhorter; for every Michael Eric Dyson screed, offer a Glenn Loury lecture. Same elsewhere. No gender studies course without a course on biological sex and gender-critical viewpoints. No ‘queer theory’ class without texts from non-leftists, who are not falsifying history or asserting that homosexuality is socially constructed all the way down. This strategy doesn’t ban anything; it adds something. It demands that schools make sure they’re helping kids think for themselves.

“When I wrote back in early 2016 that Trump’s election would be an extinction-level event for liberal democracy, this is what I meant: the illiberal left and illiberal right constantly upping the ante in a cold civil war of raw strength and power, culminating in various varieties of performative or real violence, and constitutional crises. The war is particularly acute when the elites have replaced liberalism with the successor ideology, and the populist right wants to go full post-liberal as well, with all the ugly and authoritarian excesses that will entail.”

Reading Roundup: 2021

This was a good year for books. Here are my ten picks. Most of them were published this year, but I was late catching up on others. Especially my #1 choice.

1. Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (Expanded Edition). Jonathan Rauch, 1993 (2013). Rauch stood at a crossroads in ’93 and saw the coming of 2014. It began with alarming trends — feminists joining hands with fundies in attempts to censor pornography because porn “hurt” people — and reached a defining moment with Salman Rushdie. Suddenly liberals were pandering to the inexcusable and retreating from their most important values. They haven’t looked back since. It’s so rare to find a superb analysis of the processes that go into formulating our opinions (instead of just focusing on “where we stand”), and Rauch outlines different processes that people use to get at the truth. He argues for the liberal science approach (public criticism is the only way to determine who is right) and shows that the egalitarian and humanitarian approaches are not only misguided but dangerous. Hearing that Islam is a religion of violence is hurtful to many Muslims, but that’s a necessary truth that needs confronting. Hearing that biological sex is not on a spectrum may be hurtful to transgendered people, but what hurts is often factual. Science can screw up and fail, but it has a built-in mechanism to improve on itself when it does. On whole, when everything is subjected to public criticism, the result is a system that has never been surpassed anywhere in human history. After hundreds of years, the community of liberal science has outlived all its challengers. It has criticized itself and been made the stronger for it. You certainly can’t say that about the fundamentalist, egalitarian, or humanitarian approaches. The results speak for themselves: offensive speech is a precious commodity. Full review here.

2. Boundaries of Eden. Glenn Arbery, 2020. This novel started my new year and blew me away. (It would be at #1 if Kindly Inquisitors weren’t so goddamn perfect.) It blends genres subtly across a philosophical canvas, and is a bit hard to summarize. Call it a heritage mystery, a southern Gothic, a drug-cartel thriller, and an unsparing look at the mind of a serial killer. It’s about the way sins of the past impinge on the present, and the pain that comes with digging up the past. The main character is Walter Peach, who runs a newspaper in the central county of Georgia, treats his wife and kids like sewage, falls in love with his niece, openly fawns on said niece around his family, while at work he publishes screeds against Mexican cartels that no one takes seriously. Pivotal to the drama (and Peach’s past) is an abandoned 40-year old house buried under a sea of kudzu. Some of the scenes inside the house show that Arbery could be a horror writer if he wanted to; he has a gift for summoning dread that many horror writers only aspire to. Some of the most horrifying parts, though, are revelations unearthed about the main character’s mother, her slave heritage, and crimes committed in the name of justice. Well crafted and multi-layered — even poetic at times — Boundaries of Eden begins like a Faulkner classic and slow-burns into something much more; it never cheats the reader because it’s a novel that does everything, and because Arbery is simply incapable of writing a dull paragraph. I didn’t want it to end.

3. Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity. Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, 2020. Critiques of postmodernism usually strawman their subject, but Pluckrose and Lindsay do right by it, allowing us to scorn postmodern theories with a clean conscience: theories saying that objective truth is unobtainable, and that the scientific method is overrated; that power and hierarchies are the number one evil; that words are powerful and dangerous, and language can be as harmful as physical violence. This stuff was always bonkers, but when applied to social justice agendas of the woke left it goes off the cliff, giving us Critical Race Theory (all whites are complicit in racism), Queer Theory (sex isn’t biological and exists on a spectrum), Postcolonial Theory (describing Islam as a religion of violence is hateful), Fat Studies (the desire to remedy obesity is hateful), and so on. The authors conclude that while racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and social injustices continue to be problems, postmodern theories are religious anti-solutions making the problems worse. The proper solutions lie where they always have — and where they have produced tangible positive results — namely, in classical liberalism. This is a perfect book to read in tandem with Kindly Inquisitors (#1), which the authors have clearly learned from. Full review here.

4. Silent Earth: Averting the Insect Apocalypse. Dave Goulson, 2021. This is a strident plea to protect insects before they’re wiped out, and the planet along with them. The author (an entomologist and conservationist) explains how global insect populations are declining through habitat fragmentation, industrial farming practices, pesticides, and climate change — and in some cases the decline is by as much as 75%. It continues to astonish me that many people don’t realize how critical pollination is. Nearly 90% of plant species require pollination in order to produce fruits or seeds, including most agricultural food crops, and while honeybees and bumblebees do most of the pollination legwork, other insects do too, like butterflies, wasps, and beetles. In some parts of the world farmers have to do the labor-intensive job of hand-pollinating their crops. Goulson calls for action to protect insects and rethink our heavy reliance on pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. We can help insect populations recover in a variety of ways: by reducing lawn space in favor of flowering plants, mowing grass less often, incorporating wide ranges of native plants into our gardens, and giving predatory insects a first crack at the problem that pesticides address. If we don’t want fruits and vegetables to become the food of kings — and for humanity to be reduced to eating wind-pollinated cereal grains — this is a book we’d do well to heed.

5. Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem: How Religion Drove the Voyages That Led to America. Carol Delaney, 2011. I’m not a fan of Columbus, and there’s certainly no reason to have a holiday in his name, but after reading this book I appreciate him more in the context of his time. He wasn’t a greedy colonizer but a zealous apocalyptic. Many fifteenth-century Christians believed that the apocalypse wasn’t far off (especially since the fall of Constantinople to Islam in 1453), and that conditions had to be fulfilled before Christ could come again: the Turks had to be defeated and Jerusalem liberated from Muslim control. Columbus believed a crusade was necessary, and he knew there was enough gold in the east to finance a holy war. He also knew that if the Great Khan could be converted, that would mean a reliable eastern flank to converge on Jerusalem at the same time European crusaders attacked from the west. He presented his plan to Queen Isabella in 1486, which she liked but wouldn’t run with until the conquest of Muslim Granada was over six years later. The rest is famous history. What’s not well known is the religious fervor that drove Columbus: by discovering new islands and evangelizing “savage” peoples, Columbus was preparing the world for the Last Judgment, and acquiring the necessary riches to finance the Last Crusade. Delaney is no apologist for Columbus, but she does show how he’s been over-maligned. At least he tried treating the Indians decently, unlike many of the men he led, and especially unlike the governors (Bobadilla, Ovando, etc.) who came after him. Full review here.

6. The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. Jonathan Rauch, 2021. The sequel to Kindly Inquisitors (see #1) addresses the major epistemic crisis facing America today — a two-pronged assault elevating falsehoods above facts, from the populist right and elitist left. Rauch starts by showing how human beings are biologically and socially conditioned to believe whatever they want, irrespective of evidence, and that our institutions of expertise tame those tribal urges through rigorous practices such as peer review and fact checking. He draws a parallel between this constitution of knowledge and two of liberalism’s other institutions, constitutional government and free-market economics. All of them together, working at their best, result in political cooperation, economic prosperity, and reliable scientific findings. But recently there have been two particular forces seriously undermining the constitution of knowledge. The first is the nihilism of the internet, with its metrics and algorithms that are sensitive to popularity but wholly indifferent to truth. Fake news, trolling, and junk science flood the web giving the alt-right a voice everywhere. Instead of banning ideas, the right swamps and swarms them with garbage to overwhelm people. The second is cancel culture, rooted in what Rauch calls “emotional safetyism,” which construes disagreeable or upsetting arguments as threats that need policing. His list of the dozen ways in which emotional safetyism poisons us is one of the best exposes on the subject. So is his seven-fold criteria of how to tell whether you’re being criticized or cancelled. The left has gone a long way in turning a culture of critical review into a culture of confirmation bias and censorship. Full review here.

7. Sins of Empire. Brian McClellan, 2017. I gave this novel a try based on its reputation as a fantasy set in a world of guns and magic. The world evokes our Napoleonic era and there’s a mood to it unlike typical fantasy that feels like fresh air. I was hooked immediately by the three major characters. First is Michel Bravis, my favorite; he works for the secret police force and is an antihero, a coward who does everything in his power to obtain a promotion by kissing the asses of those above him. He’s my favorite character because of this; he’s so real and authentic. Second is Ben Styke, a legendary military veteran rotting in a labor camp until he gets pulled out and set on a course of action that he’s not really clear about. Finally there is Vlora, or Lady Flint, the general leading her company of Riflejacks mercenaries, who gets summoned to the city for a new contract, but quickly learns that nothing is safe or as it seems. It’s a good story and I look forward to the next two books when I have time for them. McClellan’s plotting is impressive, as he focuses on mysteries as much the usual fantasy tropes, and his self-serving characters are very entertaining. Fantasy novels don’t always have the most engaging characters, but Sins of Empire has plenty of them.

8. Prey: Immigration, Islam, and the Erosion of Women’s Rights. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, 2021. Vilified for speaking truth and common sense, Hirsi Ali has now turned her guns on the problem of Muslim immigrants in Europe, especially since 2015, when more than a million migrants and refugees crossed the border and ignited the well-known crisis. It’s important to stress that Hirsi Ali’s book doesn’t demonize migrant men from the Muslim world. As she says, there’s no racial component to her argument at all. A certain proportion of men of all ethnicities will rape and harass women. But the rates are vastly lower in some parts of the world than in others, especially in places where men are raised to respect a woman’s autonomy. In many parts of Europe now, women who walk outdoors (assuming they don’t stay shut inside at home) have adopted some of the mannerisms of women in the Middle-East and Africa — shrinking from men, being on guard, and avoiding drawing attention to themselves. The simple act of traveling or enjoying lunch in a cafe has become a thing of the past for many women. The unpleasant fact is that hard-won gains that women have made are being eroded in Europe by immigrants from the Muslim world where such rights to women are not granted, and the problem is compounded by the fact that Muslim immigrants have a poor track record of assimilating to western culture even by the second or third generations. Islam’s demands are too absolute to allow for it. Hirsi Ali rejects right-wing populist solutions (expelling illegal immigrants and restricting Muslim immigration), and instead advocates a massive reform of the European systems of integrating immigrants, from which she herself has benefited. Full review here.

9. The Plot. Jean Hanff Korelitz, 2021. A novel-within-a-novel that focuses on the inner turmoil of the author, and kind of reminds me of Misery (no surprise that Stephen King loves it). Misery was about a guy who was forced to write the story he didn’t want. The Plot is about a guy who writes a story that’s not his. Jake is a third-rate novelist who steals a story from a former student now dead, becomes rich and famous for it, and then out of the blue gets trolled by an anonymous stalker and repeatedly called out for plagiarism. Panicked, he tries to uncover the person who is harassing him, and one bizarre twist leads to another. Turns out (major spoiler) that Jake stole a real-life story of a murder, and when he decides to rewrite his novel as a piece of true crime, he ends up in much deeper shit. I never read anything by Jean Korelitz before; she’s pretty good. But while The Plot is a cracking suspense novel, it’s also, I think, a serious mediation on — and rather unflattering look at — writers in general. Their egos, insecurities, vanities. At points I felt a bit naked reading it.

10. Leave It As It Is: A Journey Through Theodore Roosevelt’s American Wilderness. David Gessner, 2021. Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was mostly a terrible president, but he did one thing for which we owe him a debt of gratitude: saving hundreds of millions of acres of land from being developed and despoiled. Gessner reminds us that the GOP was Teddy’s party, and that many of our most important environmental laws came from the Republican party, all the way up through the end of Nixon’s presidency. In fact I would argue that Teddy and Richard Nixon were the best pro-environmental presidents. (The GOP anti-environmental shift came with Reagan.) Yes, they were overall failures. Aside from Donald Trump, no president was so narcissist and drunk on his self-regard than Teddy Roosevelt; and also aside from Trump, no president so openly disdained the Constitution and claimed himself to be above the document like Teddy did. And Tricky Dick was a Constitutional crook. Yet we do owe these men gratitude for their environmental causes, Teddy for land preservation, Nixon for signing loads of progressive legislation. Gessner’s book is a tour of all the sites we can savor thanks to Teddy, and let’s hope these sites will be around for a long time to come.

What He Said: Mark Twain

Today’s the man’s birthday. Here are ten of his best quotes, with an 11th bonus to the right in the pic.

1. The funniest things are forbidden.

— Hell yes. Whether by wokes or fundies.

2. The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.

— Some say that we shouldn’t come down hard on those who read garbage — “because at least they’re reading something” — but I don’t subscribe to that school of thought, or at least not entirely. Twain had it better.

3. The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog.

— Come to think of it, growing up I did like my dog more than I cared for most people.

4. There are no people who are quite so vulgar as the over-refined.

— Zinger.

5. When you catch an adjective, kill it.

— More writers should heed this.

6. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can’t conceal my frenzy from the reader, and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.

— A strong reaction, but admittedly Pride and Prejudice is a horrendous ordeal for anyone to suffer through.

7. Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn’t any. But this wrongs the jackass.

— Ouch.

8. Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write ‘very’. Your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.

— I’ll try this sometime.

9. The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become.

— Which is why censors, silencers, and cancelers are their own worst enemy.

10. One accustoms himself to writing short sentences as a rule. At times he may indulge himself in a long one, but he will make sure that there are no folds in it, no vagueness, no parenthetical interruptions of its view as a whole; when he is done with it, it won’t be a sea-serpent with half of its arches under the water, it will be a torch-light procession.

— My favorite Twain quote.

Parthenogenesis: Virgin Births in Birds

On my birthday comes an interesting article about virgin births being more common than we thought. I knew that parthenogenesis (“virgin birth”) was common in aphids, lizards, and fish, but apparently in birds too. The Atlantic reports:

“In species where parthenogenesis has been extensively studied, the process begins not long after the egg itself is created. When a cell divides in two to make an egg cell, the other half becomes a polar body, which contains a near-identical copy of DNA. Normally, the polar body disintegrates. But studies of other birds have revealed that on occasion, the polar body somehow merges again with the egg, acting like sperm fertilizing it. Because of birds’ chromosome system—ZZ makes males and ZW makes females—all avian parthenotes are males. If an egg with a W chromosome merges with its polar body, the resulting WW embryo will not be viable. Only the ZZ parthenotes ever hatch. But that doesn’t explain why some females go through parthenogenesis but not others.”

There was a good Regenesis episode dealing with a parthenogenesis in a teen girl whom the Norbac scientists initially thought was raped by her father. You can watch it on amazon prime, Regenesis: Season 3. It’s episode 10, “Unbearable”. Wes is part of the Norbac team and also the uncle of the girl (Molly) who is pregnant. He thinks that his brother Eliot (Molly’s father) raped her, and wants his colleagues to prove it with all the DNA testing so he can call the police. The relevant part goes from 34:50-40:47:

Wes: “Did Eliot get Molly pregnant? I want to know, I want to call the police.”

David: “What’s the name of Eliot’s ex-wife?”

Wes: “Andrea.”

David: “Molly got 50% of her DNA from Eliot, and 50% of her DNA from Andrea. The baby got 50% of her DNA from Molly, which breaks down to 25% from her grandmother, and 25% from her grandfather. And she got 50% of her DNA from whoever the father was. Now if Eliot is the baby’s father, that means that 50% of the baby’s DNA comes from Eliot as its father, and 25% of its DNA comes from Eliot as its grandfather, for a total of 75%.

Maiko: “No, but that’s the thing. We checked, and it’s only 50% of Eliot’s DNA in that baby, not 75%.”

David: “Well… then Andrea fucked the milkman. The only way this is possible is if Eliot is only the biological father of the baby, not the biological father of Molly. Call the police, Wes.”

Carlos: “No, but wait a minute, David. We have DNA profiles of Eliot and Molly. And with 100% certainty, Eliot is Molly’s biological father. We keep going in circles.”

David: “Well… then shit.”

Then David examines the DNA analyses of Molly’s baby and finds that it is 100% identical to that of Molly — a clone, an identical twin, a genetic copy, whatever you want to call it. So Eliot is not the father of the baby, because the baby doesn’t have a father. David speculates: “In other for parthenogenesis to occur, Molly’s egg needed to gain an extra copy of DNA somehow. Fertilized without the fertilizer. And then the hard part: that egg DNA somehow had to come alive. Normally it’s the sperm that does that. So we need to look for something that could trigger all of this. My guess is a bacterium. A bacterium that somehow infected her developing eggs.”

Fun science fiction, and not wildly impossible. Scientists say that human virgin births are technically possible though very unlikely.

Reading Radar Update

Loren’s Recommendations

It’s my month to be featured on the Nashua Public Library’s Reading Radar (our staff pick display). I have some new recommendations, and I reproduce all my picks here on this blog, since I’ve reviewed many of them in the past, and supply the links at the end of the blurbs. Fiction and non-fiction alike are included in the following recommendations. (Click on the right image for my feature page on the library website.)

1. The Twelve Children of Paris, by Tim Willocks, 2013. A crusader enters Paris during the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) and goes on a slaughter-mission, tearing up the city to find his lost wife. His salvation, if he deserves any, comes from a group of abused children he rescues along the way. Full review here.

2. The Accursed Kings, by Maurice Druon, 6 volume series, 1955-1960. George Martin calls this series the “original Game of Thrones”, and I can see why. It’s historical fiction (not fantasy) set in France (1314-1336), showing the downfall of the Capetian dynasty amidst self-serving ambitions. Endless family quarrels, clashes between church and throne, civil war, adultery, backbiting, regicide, baby-switching, baby-killing, you name it.

3. Cynical Theories, by Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, 2020. A book I wish everyone would read. The authors explore the tension between classical liberalism and woke postmodernism, and the differences between their approaches to social justice. They conclude that classical liberalism stands the test of time against the emptiness of woke theories. Full review here.

4. Veritas, by Ariel Sabar, 2020. A real-life conspiracy thriller, the true story of a pornographer who conned Harvard University into believing that a “gospel of Jesus’s wife” was genuine. This brilliant piece of investigative journalism was nominated for the Edgar Award for Best Fact Crime. Full review here.

5. The History of Jihad, by Robert Spencer, 2018. Featured front and center: the first book of its kind, that covers all theaters of the Islamic holy wars, starting with Muhammad and then proceeding through every century, showing how jihad has always been an essential ingredient of Islam. It even covers the jihads in India (usually hard information to come by). While there are many peaceful and moderate Muslims, there has never been a form of moderate Islam; it’s not a religion of peace, which is why disproportionate numbers of Muslims have been jihadists in every day and age. Full review here.

6. Recarving Rushmore, by Ivan Eland, 2014. If you want a book that ranks the U.S. presidents who were good for the causes of peace, prosperity, and liberty (like Tyler and Harding), then read this book. If you want to stick with presidents who have been mythologized (like Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan), or who were charismatics, then get any of the mainstream rankings that fill the shelves of libraries and bookstores. Full review here.

7. Free Speech on Campus, by Erwin Chemerinsky & Howard Gillman, 2017. “We should prepare students for the road, not the road for the students.” Sounds elementary, but college campuses are among the last places today you can be guaranteed a free exchanges of ideas. The majority position of students (58% of them, in 2017) is that they should not be exposed to ideas that offend them — and these students are the future of our legislators and supreme court justices. If every college student read this book, it might go a long way to making strong thinkers again. Full review here.

8. Koko, by Peter Straub, 1988. A novel about four Vietnam vets who believe that a member of their platoon is killing people across southeast Asia. Then they think it’s a different member. Then more surprises unfold. An absolutely brilliant story, and you can taste the sweat and tears that went into it. Full review (retrospective) here.

9. Boundaries of Eden, by Glenn Arbery, 2020. Last but not least, and in fact I’ll call it my #1 pick. It’s a heritage mystery, a southern Gothic, a drug-cartel thriller, and examines the tormented mind of a serial killer. It’s that rare novel that does a bit of everything, very literary, and I didn’t want it to end.

 

Reading Roundup: 2020

Most of my reading this year was rereads of novels I enjoyed long ago — the prescribed medicine for Covid quarantine. But there were new items too, five in particular, and by far the best of that handful was the expose of the Jesus-Wife hoax. You should read Veritas if nothing else on this list.

1. Veritas, Ariel Sabar. I don’t care what else was published in 2020 that was good and I didn’t read. Veritas is the book of the year, a piece of detective work that shows rare command of so many specialties — early Christian texts, canonical and gnostic; papyrology; peer review processes; online pornography; the fine line between liberal theology and academic study. Sometimes the hardest lie to refute is the Big Lie, since it requires so much ground to cover — even when the lie is obvious from start. Veritas shows the depths to which professionals sink in willful naivete, and the lengths to which forgers will go to bamboozle the academy. I’m wiser than ever before about what drives forgers, and why certain scholars get easily played. Walter Fritz succeeded thanks to a divinity school in crisis. Harvard was on the brink of creating a secular religious studies department, and the divinity department (and Karen King’s status) was in jeopardy. The Jesus-Wife fragment came as a godsend to Karen King, for keeping progressive liberal theology married to academic scholarship. Full review here.

2. Rating America’s Presidents, Robert Spencer. Most historians tend to favor presidents who were charismatics, goal-oriented managers, foreign interventionists, and heavy into top-down government. But just because a leader is charismatic and can move you with speeches, doesn’t say anything about his policies and how good he was. That he accomplished his goals says nothing about how good those goals were. That he intervened militarily abroad and economically at home are just as likely bad signs as good ones. Robert Spencer grades the American presidents on the basis of their actual policies and their Constitutional fidelity. Were they good for America, or were they not? In most cases (26 presidents), I agree closely with Spencer’s rankings, aside from minor quibbles. And even in the other 14 cases, only 6 represent dramatic disagreements on my part (Spencer scores Jackson, Lincoln, and Trump high, where I score them low. He scores Hayes, Carter, and Clinton low, where I score them high.) We agree in any case on what matters most in a president’s policy-making decisions: the dangers of entangling alliances, the superiority of fiscal conservatism, and the importance of liberty. Full review here.

3. Age of Monsters, Robert Kruger. I read the draft for this novel in 2019 but it was published this year. It tells two stories — the aches and twists of teen love in the ’80s and a gaming campaign that loudens the relationship. An eighth-grade student in Portland Oregon falls for the new girl in town, and hooks her into his role-playing fantasies (the RPG sort, not S&M). The dark-priestess character she plays is a vessel of her real-world baggage, and together the teens use their imagination to confront real-world problems at school and home. There are Stranger Things vibes but it’s very much its own thing; Kruger started writing the story long before the Netflix series landed. It’s hard to make table-top narratives engaging as they are immersive, but Age of Monsters taps into the fire that made us grognards so passionate for old-school D&D in the ’80s.

4. Heroes of the Fourth Turning, Will Arbery. I saw this play dramatized over Zoom and it was brilliantly acted. Four graduates of a Catholic college in Wyoming have returned to campus for a weekend event, and spend an evening arguing with each other about a lot of things — abortion, divorce, the LGBT community, hate speech, to name a few. Justin laments the fading power of Christianity in the world. Kevin is a pathetic whiner who can’t shit or get off the pot. Emily is tormented by a painful chronic illness. And Teresa (by far the most entertaining character) is practically a clone of Ann Coulter who writes polemical essays for a right-wing publication. These four voted for Donald Trump in 2016 but had reservations about doing so. Their mindset is alien to those of a liberal or secular audience (like myself), but the play has been hailed as compelling by many viewers. It’s a fascinating stretch of dialogue between friends trying to make sense of entrenched values. Arbery neither endorses nor condemns them. He writes about them because it’s what he knows, having been raised as a conservative Catholic. See this review for more.

5. Presidential Elections and Majority Rule, Edward Foley. Since the 2016 election especially, people have demanded that we abolish the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote. But the electoral college is a very good if flawed system. A national popular vote carries the danger of mob rule — like the reign of tyranny during the French revolution, or the Brexit vote, when 51% or 52% of the people imposed their will on 49% or 48%. The American founders wanted more than just a simple majority rule; they wanted a compound form of majority rule, or a “majority of the majorities” — in other words, a majority of the electoral votes compiled from states in which the victor also achieved a majority of the statewide popular vote. That system works like a gem in two-party elections, where the winner by necessity obtains a compound majority of the vote, but when third-party or independent candidates are involved, they can rob another candidate of an honest victory. The solution, as Foley argues, isn’t to abolish the electoral college, but to establish rank choice voting (or some run-off equivalent) in all the states. Full review here.

PC Compass

I was experimenting with online quiz makers, and this one evolved into something more than I’d intended. I post it below for any who wish to take it. I’m not going to be disingenuous and say there are no wrong answers, for I obviously believe there are, and I designed the quiz on that premise. Have at it, and score yourself at the bottom. Or, if you want the computer to score you, take the quiz directly here.

1. Racism is prejudice plus power; prejudice alone is not racism.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

2. The classic film Song of the South should be released on DVD and for streaming, irrespective of claims that it promotes the myth of the happy slave.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

3. The terms “biologically male” and “biologically female” are problematic descriptors, which should be dropped in favor of “designated male at birth” or “designated female at birth”.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

4. Promoting safe spaces in an academic environment does more harm than help to a student’s intellect.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

5. How do you feel about this image? (Click to enlarge)

 

a. Deeply offensive
b. Inappropriate
c. Mildly amusing
d. Genuinely funny

6. To say that Islam is a religion of violence is bigoted.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

7. Whether one says “Merry Christmas” or “Happy holidays” doesn’t matter. It’s the thought of well-wishing that counts.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

8. It’s inappropriate for Caucasians to wear dreadlocks, for non-Scots to wear kilts, and for whites to wear Native American headdresses.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

9. Literary and/or cinematic figures like Paul Atreides (Dune), Danaerys Targaryen (Game of Thrones), and Neo (The Matrix) are “white saviors” whose narratives reinforce an implied superiority of whites over non-whites.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

10. Consider the following image, in which Jesus is high-fiving Moses, as they’re jacked off by Ganesha, who in turn pounds Buddha up the ass:

How do you feel about the absence of Muhammad from this image?

a. Approve the absence of Muhammad. People should not draw pictures of Muhammad, because it provokes Muslims to kill. To a large degree, the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who were assassinated got what they asked for.

b. Doesn’t faze me.

c. Dismayed by the typical exemption of Muhammad from pictorial satires. Western liberals are reinforcing Islamic blasphemy laws when they do this. Standing for free expression isn’t a provocation (much less a bigotry or phobia) but a moral obligation.

11. While a private business owner (like a baker) must provide equal access to all products and commodities (so as not to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or sexual orientation), the private business owner should be under no obligation to create or design a product in a way that violates his or her conscience or religious beliefs (such as wedding cakes for gay couples).

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

12. A person’s biological sex isn’t objectively bimodal; it’s subjectively determined by the individual, and on a spectrum.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

13. It is wrong-headed to criticize a particular religion and claim that it is more dangerous and oppressive than other religions. All religions have the same potential for good and harm.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

14. The word “bitch” should be used (in a name-calling sense) only by women or transgendered people, as a reclaimed term in referring to their close friends.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

15. How do you feel about this image? (Click to enlarge)

a. A mesmerizing piece of art
b. Fine with it
c. A bit sexist
d. Extremely sexist

16. Comedies like All in the Family and South Park are funny precisely because they are so offensive, by their satirical use of sexist, racist, and homophobic slurs.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

17. The theory that women’s rape fantasies reflect a need to surrender to male dominance is sexist.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

18. Consider the following statement made by a film critic: “I have blind spots when it comes to historical dramas.” The critic’s statement is offensive for its use of ableist language.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

19. Hate speech should be protected by law.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

20. A man should generally defer to a woman’s opinion on gender and abortion issues, and a white person should generally defer to a person of color’s opinion on racial issues.

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Disagree
d. Strongly disagree

 

Assign points to your answers as follows

1.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

Racism doesn’t require a power imbalance to be what it is.

2.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

The Song of the South is a cherished classic, and there’s no reason for the company to not meet the demands of its consumers who have been long awaiting its release. Even if it promotes a myth, so what? The market is flooded with films that promote wrong or bad ideas.

3.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

The terms “biologically male” and “biologically female” are objectively valid categories.

4.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

Safe spaces are anathema to a healthy undergraduate environment. College is the place to have one’s beliefs questioned and mercilessly skewered, to prepare for the real world, and to cultivate a healthy intellect.

5.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

In the image shown, Ben Carson is being satirized more for his ideas than for his skin color.

6.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

Saying that Islam is a religion of violence, regardless of how accurate that claim is (I believe it is accurate), does not constitute bigotry. Bigotry is about people. And just as no people are beneath dignity, no idea is above scrutiny. Especially when it comes to religious ideas.

7.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

Consider the spirit in which things are said, and you’ll get through life a lot happier.

8.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

Of all the PC tropes, none is more sadly absurd than “cultural appropriation”. If one adopts certain elements of another culture, then wonderful. No one needs the blessing of the people who belong to that culture, anymore than someone from that culture needs any vice-versa blessings.

9.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

In the examples listed, the heroic figures do not reinforce the negative tropes of white savior narratives. Had different heroes been listed — such as John Dunbar from Dances With Wolves, Nathan Algren from The Last Samurai, and Jake Sully from Avatar — that would be a different matter.

10.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +2 points

This also calls to mind the South Park creators, who got away with depicting Muhammad (alongside Moses, Joseph Smith, Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna) in season 5 (top image), but were later required by Comedy Central to block him out with a bar labelled “censored” in season 14 (bottom image).

11.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

The Supreme Court correctly decided (7-2) that a private business owner cannot be compelled to create or design a product in a particular way. The atheist bakers in question could refuse to design wedding cakes decorated with homophobic sayings, and the Christian baker in question could refuse to design a wedding cake decorated for a gay couple’s union. If you don’t like the fact that a business owner doesn’t create or design products in a particular way that you want, then tough rocks. Go elsewhere.

12.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

If a biological female can declare herself to be a man, then I, as a human being, can just as easily declare myself to be a member of a different species. Those who believe that sex isn’t bimodal live in a world of alternative facts. Gender may be a social construct, but biology is biology.

13.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

The claim that all religious systems have equal potential for good and harm makes about as much sense as the idea that all political systems — capitalism, communism, fascism, socialism — have equivalent potential. Ideas matter, and the ideas across different systems can vary dramatically.

14.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

Reclaimed words set a problematic double standard.

15.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

Pornography itself doesn’t reduce women (or men) to sex objects. It highlights an aspect of women (or men), and in this sense similar to fashion modeling. If a drawing like this is seen as sexist, the problem lies with the viewer, not the art.

16.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

Praise All in the Family, which did as much for the cause of social progressives in the ’70s as the hippie movement did in the ’60s. It was genuinely funny, because it was allowed to be funny, and to push the bounds as satire must. South Park is similar.

17.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

To whatever degree evolutionary theory accounts for rape fantasies (on which see here, theory #7 out of 9), claims about dominance and submissiveness being hardwired in our genes are devoid of value judgment and are thus not sexist. They only become sexist when the objective claims are used to justify or excuse sexist behavior.

18.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

I almost didn’t include this question, because it’s rather hard to take seriously, but there you have it. (One person I tested the quiz on thought it was so dumb it should be removed, and he was probably right.)

19.

a = +2 points
b = +1 point
c = -1 point
d = -2 points

Hate speech has to be legal for many reasons: (1) One person’s hate speech is another’s protest against oppression and social injustice (witness Aayan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz). (2) What is deemed hateful is often not hateful at all, but simply disagreeable opinions that are unpopular and inconvenient. (3) Even when something is genuinely hateful, and there is wide agreement about it, it is terrible policy to silence or criminalize it, as it only makes martyrs of the bigots who are being denied the basic right to speak their minds. (4) On general principle, the solution to hateful ideas isn’t silencing or criminalizing, but countering them with better ideas, and to set a good example in a free society.

20.

a = -2 points
b = -1 point
c = +1 point
d = +2 points

Minorities don’t get to pull rank like this. As a member of the LGBT community, I may have first-hand insights to LGBT issues that a straight person would miss, but I should not as a rule be deferred to by a straight person on LGBT issues. We should all listen to a multitude of voices and treat each other’s arguments on their merits.

 

The Score Chart

Score Profile
31 to 40
Not a PC bone in your body
21 to 30
Solidly anti-PC
11 to 20 PC skeptic
-10 to 10
PC as often as not
-20 to -11
PC friendly
-30 to -21
Proudly PC
-40 to -31
PC to the core

(My score: +36)