Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 23, 2019 15:06:19 GMT -8
That is a constant theme to this lecture series on The Black Deat. And why watch a series on The Black Death on Christmas Eve eve? I don’t know. I suppose the presenter is chirpy and chippy enough to make it informative, even entertaining, without it being depressing. She’s a good presenter, caveats aside about plenty of filler. But I had to give up on the Jewish-and-Jesus lady. It’s just not the kind of presentation that leads to understanding. Sure, so far there is some background to the founding of the Jewish kingdom and such, but it’s all scattershot and superficial. Where is this going? Do I feel I have an understanding that I didn’t have before? The answer is “No, no, and no.” But about The Black Death series, it is done in such a way (padding and filler aside) where it does seem to be constructing a framework and going somewhere. And I don’t have the feeling the lecture is particularly slanted or dishonest. I sampled another one of their series. This one is on Geometry as presented (surprisingly) by a man. I think this guy is an Aussie. He got his Ph.D. from Princeton. And amongst his duties has been that as a high school teacher. You can tell. This guy has charisma and is a good presenter. I skipped ahead to what I thought would be interesting and started with the episode “Dido’s Problem” which is about finding the largest area contained within a perimeter (and something to do with the founding of Carthage). Next was an even more interesting episode, “The Geometry of Braids.” This sounds extremely dull and even girlish. But I assure you this is a segment so entertaining and (relatively) easy to understand, I think children could follow this as well and like it. I’ll start this lecture series from the beginning and see how it goes. But it would appear this guy is making the most of the format. I suspect I hit upon a couple of the episodes that didn’t require a lot of math and numbers. I think others will and may not be so interesting to the casual viewer. But we’ll see. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 23, 2019 15:12:39 GMT -8
I might check that out on Tubi. And I agree. The frequent commercial breaks can tend to make some things almost unwatchable.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 23, 2019 15:32:21 GMT -8
I don't know if high-school students could sit through this documentary, but I think it would help fill a big gap in the teaching of American history in public schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 23, 2019 15:36:41 GMT -8
So I gather the series on geometry doesn't merely teach principles, but applies them to real situations. That sounds like it could indeed be interesting, not that I'm in any position to take advantage of it. I suspect the largest area for a given perimeter would be using a circle.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 23, 2019 16:17:04 GMT -8
This is so true. The commercials broke up the continuity of the show so badly that I, early on, got a little irritated with the film. But I stepped back and realized it was the damn commercials that were the cause of the irritation and actually hurt the film.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 23, 2019 20:42:10 GMT -8
I had skipped ahead and now have started at the beginning. It’s doing both. My junior high (elementary school?) geometry is coming back to me. He gives some interesting practical examples plus a few neat tricks.
He’s done a few proofs so far of a couple postulates. He’s done sort of a soft proof of Pythagorean’s theorem although he said a much more formal, mathematical proof would be forthcoming. He did it visually with some cut-out triangles. It made such complete sense and a rare case where something potentially quite complex could be easily grasped.
Yes, when talking about an unbounded area. In the “Dido’s Problem” example it was about finding the largest area you could enclose started from the shoreline (or just a idealized flat coastline). Yes, it was a semicircle although he said that recent theorists have some caveats to that.
A couple of the examples he gave I didn’t really see the point. But he makes it all fairly interesting. He’s the sort of rare (very rare) high school teacher you might have had who still had a spring in his step and enthusiasm for the subject. I had a literature teacher like that. But they are rare. And he doesn’t seem like a phony. Gee, I hate to be too judgmental, but when you run into quality these days it can be truly astonishing.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 24, 2019 16:29:48 GMT -8
They have The First American playing right now on Amazon Prime Video. I watched it this afternoon. It’s a fine summary of George Washington, catching the essence of the man more than just merely listing dates and events. And, yeah, as Mr. Kung said, I don’t think Callista added much to the presentation. My reaction to this series isn’t even legal to say online. Literally. Suffice it to say, I think we need another revolution to drive out the Marxists. It’s not an honorable, Washingtonian thing to say. But it’s hard to watch this series about an extraordinary American while Vandals and Cretans of an anti-American and noxious slant try to destroy every last principle that Washington and his men fought for. It was a moving video. And it also shows just how much we need good leadership in this country. All that aside (like I said, it’s not legal for me to say what is on my mind), I thought it was interesting when it was noted that the British actually flew their flags at half staff when Washington died. I didn’t know this. There were some other factoids in this that made the series worth watching even if it does cover some familiar ground. Oh, if only we could cross that river again and defeat the Hessians. |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 24, 2019 16:42:22 GMT -8
An English friend and I have discussed Washington a number of times, and he is proud to claim Washington as an Englishman who was fighting for his ancient rights. As I recall, he even considers him the greatest Englishman who ever lived. I agree with him, but I say Washington was the greatest man who ever lived.
It was only with the creation of the U.S.A. that Washington became an American as we think of it. My friend regrets the separation of the colonies from the mother country and can only dream of what would have happened had the Revolution not taken place.
The Empire's capital would have most likely moved from London to North America and there would have been such a power as was even greater than the USA. It is impossible to predict for sure, but I suspect that slavery would have been abolished without a Civil War and I doubt the Germans would have been such trouble in the face of such a power.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 16:52:36 GMT -8
I didn't know the British flew their flags at half-mast after Washington's death. Of course, that was over 15 years after the Treaty of Paris, and George III had said that if Washington really retired rather than maintain his position of power he would be the greatest man alive (perhaps ever). And one must remember that there were always plenty of people in England who supported the colonial cause. Sir William Howe was himself a sympathizer, and his Parliament constituency wasn't happy when he broke his promise not to command an army against them. (His brother, Lord Howe, was the admiral in command in North America, which may have influenced his decision.)
The British might have done better if so many of their commanders there weren't sympathizers. And that doesn't even include Jeffrey Amherst, who gained fame defeating the French in the previous war and was very popular in America. He refused to help subdue the colonials.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 24, 2019 16:56:54 GMT -8
It’s hard to say. But I do think there would have been a different, and likely less bloodier, resolution to the slavery question, as you say. But then a lot of hopes and dreams went to die in the face of Southern intransigence.
It’s was interesting that Washington thought that it was an institution that would gradually fade away — aided, somehow, by gradual emancipation.
They also reiterated that Washington was the only notable Virginian amongst the Revolutionary fraternity who freed his slaves. This is a credit to him, surely. But it also goes to show what I think is the typical double-talk of the Jeffersonian liberals. “All men are created equal,” but not in my back yard. To not free his slaves even in his will does not reflect well on him.
Which is one reason that John Adams remains my favorite Founding Father after Washington. The more I read about Jefferson, the more I dislike him. Adams had his faults, Lord knows. But I think his type was more the prototypical, dynamic, hard-working, wholesome American than those talking high ideals from their desks at slave plantations.
There was a good bit about Washington’s personal servant (a slave) who was always by his side. And that Washington gained a new view of blacks, if only because they made up something like 10% of his force.
What is most astonishing is viewing this damned video and wondering if Washington might actually lose this time. I mean, it really makes absolutely no sense that he and the army prevailed. He is the greatest evidence for Providence. It could be just dumb luck. One never knows. But no other man could have faced that impossible situation (such as the need to give at least a token defense of New York) and still kept an army together.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 16:59:16 GMT -8
Harry Turtledove collaborated with the actor Richard Dreyfuss in a novel on the subject of Britain evading the Revolution. It's titled The Two Georges from a (fictional) painting of Washington formally meeting George III. It's set in more contemporary times (with, e.g., Richard Nixon as a used-car salesman).
A related novel is Prince Charlie's Bluff by Donald Thompson. In this one, the French force from Montreal arrives at Quebec a few hours earlier than it did, trapping Wolfe between the two forces. This ultimately leads to a Stuart Kingdom of Virginia. Washington plays an important role in it.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 24, 2019 17:03:49 GMT -8
The video noted something I don’t remember coming across before, that as a Whig, William Howe was sympathetic to the Cause — to the extent that it said that on several occasions he let Washington’s army escape rather than totally annihilating them. The thinking supposedly was that he didn’t want to destroy the army, just to let them suffer a few good defeats so that they would then quickly come back to the fold.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 17:04:57 GMT -8
I think I read a chapter in a book, or an article, that listed several instances where God seemed to be helping the American cause. The successful retreat from Brooklyn across a river controlled by Lord Howe's fleet was one of the most notable, but one could probably add the Trenton and Princeton campaign, the march to Yorktown, perhaps even the key southern victories of King's Mountain and Cowpens.
Jefferson did free the Hemings family in his will. He might have freed more of his slaves, but Jefferson was generally in debt and that limited what he could do. Washington was a more practical sort and could afford to free his. Sometimes competence is worth more than brilliance.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 24, 2019 17:08:47 GMT -8
It’s not a matter of “affording” to or not. It’s a matter of rejecting the principle that men can be owned by other men against their will. (If men want to be owned by the nanny state with the consent of their will, that’s another question.)
One thing at a time, surely. The Framers of the Constitution were right to compromise on the issue of slavery. But in order to write the word with a straight face “All men are created equal,” I sure as hell would have freed my slaves at least five minutes before issuing such an edict.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 24, 2019 17:27:20 GMT -8
Washington thought long and hard about the subject and thought it would have been cruel and irresponsible to grant immediate emancipation to all slaves. He thought they needed to be educated and taught some useful trade at a minimum.
I am with you as regards Jefferson. He was a dishonest SOB, typical intellectual who spouted alot but did little. He was AWOL in the Revolutionary War and was duplicitous during his time as Secretary of State. The lying bastard actively undercut Washington while serving in his cabinet. I have little more regard for Madison who worked with Jefferson to undercut Washington, but at least Madison wasn't in Washington's cabinet.
The best thing about Adams was his relationship with Abigail. He was certainly a hard-working man, but he was consumed by the Green-eyed demon as regards Washington. I believe Adams was a little man in a big situation, whereas Washington was a great man in a big situation. Adams knew this and couldn't get over it.
You have put your finger on why Americans have historically believed God, or Providence was wont to call him, was on our side. As to how no other man could have faced the impossible situation, I am glad this came through in the film. One historian pointed out that all the other founding fathers where very clear in their understanding that Washington was the indispensable man and that but for him, the Revolution would have failed. I don't believe this is taught any longer.
I was also very pleased that the piece pointed out that Washington rejected power three times. Once when his officers wished dispose of the Continental Congress, once after the war when he could have become king and the last time when he refused to become President for Life and stepped down after two terms. It took the scumbag FDR to break the wise precedent set by Washington and it was one of Truman's best acts to push and sign the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential terms to two eight-years terms, or ten years if they came into office through the death of a sitting president.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 17:29:46 GMT -8
This comes up in the musical 1776. Edward Rutledge objects to Jefferson's attack on the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence due to its hypocrisy. (He had a point. There were many American as well as British slave traders, but as far as I know George III himself wasn't one.) He points out that Jefferson is a slaveholder himself, to which the latter answers that he plans to free them. (And maybe he even did. We all know what happens to "the best laid plans of mice and men" -- they "gang aft agley". (I think I have Burns's Scottish dialect right.) So it was with whatever thought Jefferson had of freeing his slaves.)
I've read that a crucial event came when Jefferson discovered how much he could make breeding slaves for sale to others. That's when he began to move away from his idealism. Money talks, and perhaps never more so than for those who affect a lack of concern about it.)
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 24, 2019 17:31:00 GMT -8
Howe's behavior in the war has been debated by historians for over 100 years. Some have claimed he was a closet revolutionary, but I think this film presents the most likely reason for his actions.
Don't forget, Edmund Burke was a Whig and he spoke very strongly in favor of the colonists' cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Dec 24, 2019 17:36:52 GMT -8
Otto von Bismarck is supposed to have said something to the effect that God looks after fools, madmen, and the United States of America. If he did, some later German leaders would have been well advised to consider his words. Of course, God doesn't save us from ourselves. That's what free will means. And that's our main problem now. The problem isn't the existence of people like She Guevara; it's that so many people consider them reasonable choices to run the country.
She Guevara is too young for the presidency now, but in 2024 she could run, and if her popularity holds up (which is not guaranteed, of course) she may well be a likely VP choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Dec 24, 2019 17:43:46 GMT -8
The link is to a Wikipedia piece about a very interesting fellow from an old Virginia family who put his money where his mouth was and emancipated his slaves. He tried to get Jefferson to work with him to emancipate the slaves in Virginia, to no avail.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Dec 24, 2019 18:18:00 GMT -8
I think that’s a realistic look at the situation. Unfortunately, I’ll bet you 999 times out of a 1000 that when a Southerner says something like that, they’re just dragging their feet. In the case of Washington (one of those rare one out of 999, if not out of 9,999,999), I think he meant it. I see that we are more or less of the same mind on this.  I don’t think McCullough’s book on John Adams mentioned much about any green-eyed envy of Washington. But, hey, he was a politician. Being an egotistical ass goes with the territory. I think Adams was just less restrained at times about hiding it. But beyond human faults, I think there is a deep decency to John Adams (as there was with Washington) that is rare. Whether he shared any kind of Harvard disdain for the relatively unschooled Washington, I don’t know. But if the revolution could not have been won with any other general than Washington, I think the same is true that without this bulldog in the Continental Congress providing backbone and logistical support, we would have been hard-pressed to sustain the revolution, even as threadbare as it was most of the time. This was very nicely portrayed and explained in the video. He was the living embodiment of principal and good conduct over raw power. This is what America has lost. I see almost none of that today. Of course, this video also pointed out that Washington thought political parties were pure poison. It’s hard to argue otherwise. |
|
