History/ Politics: How to respond to terrorism

This is the anniversary of the massacres in Israel in 2023, and we are witnessing the Israeli response. It is interesting to consider comparisons with not dissimilar outrages in the past.

After the New York Twin Towers were destroyed in 9/11, the Americans felt a similar outrage and an intense desire to do something in response, which led to the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This has hardly turned out well, to say the least! Then, almost as an afterthought, it was decided to get rid of Saddam Hussain in Iraq too, thereby (though no-one seemed to think of this at the time) had the effect of getting rid of the Number One enemy of the Iranians; the consequences of which are still with us.

In summer 1914, the Austrian government was justifiably outraged by the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and resolved to destroy the state of Serbia, which appeared to bear some responsibility for the killing. The result was the First World War, devastating much of Europe and preparing the ground for even more destruction in the Second.

By comparison, this is also the 40th anniversary of the Brighton bomb, when several people were killed or crippled and the I.R.A. came within an ace of killing Mrs Thatcher and her entire cabinet. It is interesting to see how the British government responded to this outrage - or, more pertinently, did NOT respond. We did NOT target the Sinn Fein leaders with assassination, did NOT shell the Bogside after ordering civilians to evacuate the area, and did NOT bomb I.R.A. bases in the Irish Republic. Looking back, I have wondered why not; and have come up with the following possible reasons for this restraint.

     It was believed that such actions would be morally wrong

     It was believed they would be politically counterproductive

     The Americans wouldn't have let us

     - and there is a fourth possible reason, whch I shall discuss later 

After the October 2023 massacre, by contrast, the Israelis did conclude that bombing of Gaza and Lebanon and the assassination of Hezbollah leaders was both morally right and strategically valuable, regardless of how many civilian casualties might result, and the Americans, after some initial doubts about the bombing, let them go ahead. At the time of writing, the bombing of Iraq looks likely to go ahead. This is where the fourth possible reason comes in, which is as follows:

    When all is said and done, the Irish are white people, whereas the Palestinians, Syrians and Iraquis are not. Surely no-one believes the Israelis could behave like this if they were attacking white people?(See also, how the Israelis will be permitted to bomb Iraq, whereas the Ukrainians are forbidden to bomb Russia)

Results of the contrasting policies: British restraint has led to peace in Ulster: Israeli responses look to continue war in the region for the foreseeable future. We can only hope that the long-term consequences do not resemble those of 1914.  

  

Wales: The Ladies of Llangollen

The "Ladies of Llangollen" were two Irish aristocrats, Lady Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, who were determined to live together. In 1778 they escaped from their disapproving families and fled to north Wales, where they bought a cottage in charming scenery in the hills above Llangollen and lived there, along with their Irish servant Mary Caryll, until their deaths fifty years later. They extended the property, created a garden and a dairy, and collected old stained glass and oak panelling and carvings, which they stuck on every available space. They preferred to appear in public dressed entirely in black, like clergymen.

  The story of the Ladies had much appeal in the dawning age of Romanticism  Their renown spread far and wide: they were visited by a host of luminaries from Byron and Walter Scott to the Duke of Wellington, and Queen Charlotte persuaded King George III to grant them a government pension to relieve their debts. Whether they had an active lesbian relationship or were only close friends remains a matter of speculation. 

Their home, Plas Newydd, is open to the public and is well worth a visit!

England: The Unitarian chapel in Shrewsbury

 This building in Shrewsbury High Street is one of the few remaining Unitarian chapels in the couuntry.

Unitarians believe in God, but see Jesus as a moral example rather than a divine being. They were once a very influential sect, particularly important in scientific education, which was generally neglected by the main schools and universities in earlier centuries. Charles Darwin's family were Unitarians, and he would have worshipped here as a boy, as comemmorated by this memorial 

Inside, there is no altar; instead a pulpit for preaching takes the central place

On the wall above is the coat of arms of King George I. This is because the building was ransacked and seriously damaged by Jacobite rioters in 1715, and the King, who had only come to the throne in the previous year, ordered the town to rebuilt it at their own expense. One of the brass plates below it records how the poet Coleridge once preached here, and so impressed the congregation that he was offered a permanent salaried position - which, however, he turned down!    

Cricket: Women's Hundred 2024

 This is my fantasy team for the 2024 Women's Hundred (English players only), based on this year's competition:-

             Wyatt

             Dunkley

             Capsey

             Sciver-Brunt

             Knight (capt)

             Jones (wk)

             Arlott

            Smith

            Cross

            Glenn

            Davies

The first six selected themselves, but choosing the bowling attack involved far more difficult decisions than last year. How could I leave out Dean? But if I selected her, whom would she replace?

 If I included three international players, I would pick Wolvaardt to replace Dunkley, Ismael for Davies and either Kapp or Sharma for Arlott or Cross, depending on the likely state of the pitch. Now that really would be a world-beating team!

Philosophy: the origins of religion

 When humans first began to think in abstract terms (which must have been hundreds of thouands of years ago) they would see the world around them as a mysterious and frequently alarming place. What kept the heavens above them moving in such a stately progression, with the same constellations appearing year after year with the changing seasons, and the regular phases of the moon? But why was this regulaity occasionally interrupted? Why were there a few stars which behaved differently: sometimes present but moving backwards, often nowhere to be seen? (There were fve of these strange stars: they were called "wanderers": we call them planets). And why at, very irregular intervals, were there eclypses of the sun and moon, and comets streaking across the sky? On earth there were equally alarming events: lightning strikes, devastating floods or droughts, epidemic? 

  Then there were fundamental metaphysical or existential problems: the mysteries of life and death. Where did we come from? what happens to us after we die? what is the purpose of our lives? what is the significance of our dreams? and why are some people much luckier than others? These continue to puzzle us today!

  In attempting to answer these questions, religion, superstition and magic are intertwined, and for much of human history it is meaningless to attempt to separate them. Natural phenomena are now seen as being caused by physical forces, operating according to discoverable scientific laws (gravity, thermodynamics etc), but this has only been the case for the past few centuries. In earler times humans thought that the world was full of mysterious superhuman personalities: spirits, gods, or a single universal God; who were observing us, sending us messages and sitting in judgement over us. 

  It was, and still is in some quarters, a widespread belief that events "above" (that is, in the heavens) were in some way linked with events "below" (on earth). But how? Perhaps the heavenly bodies, especially unexpected events such as comets or eclypses, directly influenced what happened on earth? Or perhaps the gods, through this medium, were sending us messages; forewarning us of what was to happen? and if so, how could we interpret these warnings? 

  Did events on earth, especially natural disasters, mean that the gods were angry with us, and if so, how could we propitiate this anger; gain their favour? Perhaps by offering sacrifices or observing certain rituals, we could appease the gods, avert disasters, change bad luck into good? Perhaps serving God, or the gods, is our highest calling in life?

  As regards dreams, are they perhaps sent by the gods to warn or advise us? And when we dream of people who have died, as we often do, does that mean they are in some sense, and somewhere, still alive? Person annihilation, of ourselves and our loved ones, is an unpleasant thought: perhaps they are still alive somewhere, and so will we eventually be: perhaps reincarnated, perhaps in some afterlife where the rights and wrongs we have encountered and caused to others will be appropriately rewarded or punished.

   It was ony quite recently that what we call "science" became separated from what would nowadays be dismissed as superstition or magic. The great minds of the Renaissance were fascinated by astrology and alchemy: it was only in later centuries that Newton's followers could envisage a purely mechanical universe, and that Sir James Fraser could dismiss magic as "science that diesn't work". Although it cannot be denied that some people are much luckier than others, the belief that you can change your luck by prayer or by performing certain peculiar rituals is regarded as mere superstition.  

  

  

Aphrodite Callipyge

 Literally, "Aphrodite of the beautiful bottom"; a Roman copy of a Greek original statue from around 300 B.C., now in the Naples museum.

One wonders what a statue like this was for. Was it supposed to be worshipped, in any sense that we can understand the term? Nowadays we would view it as simply an overlap between soft-core pornography and high art.  It is aften said that the early Christians were the first people to link sex with feelings of guilt: an outlook that did not exist in the ancient world. Is this correct? One can understand why Christian preachers would particularly detest a statue like this - and also fear the impact it would have on viewers   

Election repartee

 

With an election imminent, here’s my favourite piece of campaigning repartee, from John Wilkes, the 18^th century radical and troublemaker:

Wilkes, to voter, “May I count on your support?”

Disgruntled gentleman, “I would rather vote for the Devil, sir!”

Wilkes, “Yes, of course. But what if your friend isn’t running?”

....................................................................

Wilkes's most famous riposte was to Lord Sandwich (he of the snack of the same name):

Sandwich: "Wilkes, you will infallibly perish either of the pox or on the gallows!"

Wilkes: "That will depend, my lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."