SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Win Smith who wrote (141601)7/27/2004 12:24:43 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
'Rivers of Gold': Conquerors and Missionaries nytimes.com

[ The book review had a couple interesting history boook reviews, reviewed by prominent historians. Though the reviewers are unaffiliated with the NYT, I'm sure the local vendetta operators will find something to complain about anyway. It's always someting. First up: Paul Kennedy on Hugh Thomas ]

By PAUL KENNEDY

RIVERS OF GOLD
The Rise of the Spanish Empire, From Columbus to Magellan.
By Hugh Thomas.
Illustrated. 696 pp. Random House. $35.

AROUND 500 years ago, our hitherto slowly altering world began to change, and in amazingly swift ways -- ways that have affected us all, and make it impossible ever to go back. From a small and rather miserable peninsula -- an area commonly known as Christendom or Europe -- at the southwest corner of the gigantic Eurasian landmass, men began to venture forth in frail yet efficient wooden sailing vessels across thousands of miles of ocean. Carried westward and southward by winds and currents, they discovered what they came to term the ''new world,'' although it turned out to be many new worlds.

While this development is commonplace in all our history books, and was recalled in many ways at the quincentennial celebrations a decade ago, it is important to note how extraordinary it was. This was not an adventure undertaken by a fleet of Indonesian ships arriving off the Scottish coast in 1500. Nor by a Zulu flotilla bringing an army of conquest to Maine. It consisted of a small collection of rash, visionary and often fearful West Europeans going forth to catalyze the globe. Today, billions of people, descendants of the venturing nations and descendants of those who were invaded, still stand in the historical shadow of this epic transformation.

Many generations of historians have attempted to explain the reasons for Europe's amazing rise to world power. Was it due to its move toward rationality and science during the Renaissance, or its capacity for organization, or the competitiveness of its nation-states (as opposed to the dull uniformity of Oriental empires), or its favorable geographical position, or its gunpowder revolution?

Probably it was due to all of them, a sort of fusion of historical forces. But it also needed something else: human ambition. It required people willing to risk all in pursuit of power, wealth, glory and divine approval. And it is this human ambitiousness that is at the core of Hugh Thomas's magisterial and sprawling new book, ''Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire, From Columbus to Magellan.'' Here is a work that seeks not so much to explain the backdrop to early European imperialism as to describe for modern readers the visions and sufferings of the driving personalities who accomplished the conquest of so much of the globe in so short a time.

The focus is upon Spain, and rightly so. The Portuguese may have been the first Europeans around Africa; the Dutch and French may later have implanted themselves around the Indian Ocean; and the British may have brushed them all away, in the 18th-century wars of the Elder and Younger Pitt. But it was the Spanish explorers and conquistadors who set the pace and tone, not only in the Western Hemisphere but also in the Pacific.

A book the size of ''Rivers of Gold'' would be an astonishing work by any author, yet its publication simply affirms Hugh Thomas's record as one of the most productive and wide-ranging historians of modern times. Born in 1931, for many years a professor of history at the University of Reading and made Lord Thomas by no less than Margaret Thatcher in 1981, he first caught public attention with an enormous tome, ''The Spanish Civil War,'' in 1961. Ten years later he released his vast study ''Cuba: The Pursuit of Freedom.'' Then came his great ''Unfinished History of the World'' (1979). In 1997 he published ''The Slave Trade.'' But Thomas has also written about European unity and about the British radical John Strachey. Ten years ago he published another large work, ''Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes, and the Fall of Old Mexico,'' which is the closest in theme to the present volume.

''Rivers of Gold'' takes just about 700 pages to describe only the first 30 years of the Spanish conquests, from Columbus's first voyage and return in 1492-93 to Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe in 1519-22. It is an old-fashioned, almost self-indulgent narrative, and thus rich in its descriptions of characters, events and landscapes (it is also admirably illustrated). As a contrast, one might look at Henry Kamen's recent book, ''Empire: How Spain Became a World Power, 1492-1763,'' also a splendid work, but one more discursive intellectually, if much tighter in its analysis. Thomas prefers atmospherics and, in his case, it works.

His book begins by siting this tale of conquests in the context of the very recent ''reconquest'' of Spain from the Muslims, along with the unification of the monarchies of Ferdinand and Isabella -- and for very good reason. For to the poor but intensely Catholic noblemen and gentry of Castile and Aragon -- who had fought so fiercely to drive the Moors out of Granada and then pursued them into North Africa; who were locked in lengthy conflict against the Ottomans in the Mediterranean; and who had overwhelmed the Canary Islands -- it was only one step more to venture farther afield in pursuit of glory, gold and entry into heaven.

The people who carried out this mission were larger-than-life figures, many of them scoundrels, many of them ruthless, most of them obsessed. The greatest strength of Thomas's book is to bring so many of them to life -- so much so that one fears several swashbuckling Hollywood movies will emerge from this volume. The 10 chapters on the incredible story of Christopher Columbus cover not only his years of petitioning the monarchs and grandees of Europe to finance a venture to the West, and not only his extraordinary first exploration, but also his later voyages, including his epic fourth voyage in 1502-4, which was so full of setback and adventure. Thomas admirably recovers from history the character of Queen Isabella, surely one of the most inventive and decisive female monarchs of that era, along with Elizabeth I of England. There is the tale of Cortes's bold conquest of Mexico, told with a grand admixture of details on the religiosity of Cortes's men, their advantage in horses and fine swords, and the crucial support of the local tribespeople who hated Montezuma's blood-bath regime. Most empires rely heavily upon collaborators, and Spain's was no different.

Readers will learn as well the remarkable story of the missionary Bartoleme de las Casas, perhaps the most experienced of the doughty souls described in this book. He sailed on at least two of Columbus's voyages and survived numerous dangers, but then returned to Spain in 1519 to argue before the new King Charles I (who was also Emperor Charles V) against the dreadful cruelties being inflicted upon the Indian tribes in the West. In its way Las Casas' work marked the beginning of the Franciscans' and Dominicans' campaign for native human rights, undertaken because, as children of God, indigenous peoples were also expected to learn about Christ.

Thomas has researched in all the available Spanish and Latin American archives. He seems to have read all the sources. The index is a masterpiece. The 85 pages of endnotes are studded with interesting comments. The bibliography is vast (though I was a little disappointed to see no reference to William Prescott's 1843 classic, ''The History of the Conquest of Mexico''). This book is more than mere summer reading, yet I imagine that many people will eagerly lug it off to their cottages and resorts.

''Rivers of Gold'' provokes one further thought. For the past few years, the United States has been attempting its own imperial or demi-imperial experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Five hundred years after Cortes, neo-conservative adventurers are leading us eastward and seeking to transform the Middle East. But perhaps they should pause, at least long enough to read Thomas's book. It brings much evidence of imperial arrogance and torture, yet it also contains compelling details of how to treat a conquered nation with compassion. This is worth some reflection.

Many years ago Barbara Tuchman wrote a book, ''A Distant Mirror,'' about how the turbulences, extremism and brutalities of the Middle Ages were being echoed in our own time. Her book or, rather, her message was generally dismissed by reviewers, especially those who were academic historians. We might wish to treat ''Rivers of Gold'' more carefully. It stands on its own firm historical ground as a grand and sweeping account of the world's transformation half a millennium ago. But to those who enjoy analogies, it can equally serve as a memorial about empire and about imperial ambition.

Paul Kennedy is the author or editor of 16 books, including ''The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.''



To: Win Smith who wrote (141601)8/4/2004 3:52:25 PM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
ON SEPT. 11, DID ANYTHING GO RIGHT? nytimes.com

[ A story from last week I've been meaning to post, another bit of conventional reality analysis on the 9/11 commission report. An extra conventional bit within that conventional analysis:

Did the report find that Iraq had any connection with the Sept. 11 attacks?

The commission says it had no indication that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990's "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship,'' a conclusion very different in tone from assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials.

The report also says that available evidence "does not support'' a claim initially made by Czech intelligence that the hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001.


Of course, we don't need no stinkin' evidence around here, when we got the Salman Pak incantation to chant when the question comes up. ]

The big news this week?

The release of the final report by the bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks.

How big a report?

A 567-plus page book, covering everything from Osama bin Laden's appeal in the Islamic world to the rescue efforts on Sept. 11 to the planning for the Iraq war.

Who is criticized?

The question is, who isn't?

"Across the government, there were failures of imagination, policy, capabilities and management," the report states. But it did not single out any individual for blame.

Agencies deserving of special mention: the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, Congress and the State Department.

Who comes out worse, President Bush or President Clinton?

Neither comes off well, but if there has to be a winner, the report seems to portray Mr. Clinton as better informed and more engaged than Mr. Bush.

Mr. Clinton and his national security adviser, Samuel Berger, the report says, had "a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden's reported location."

And it describes how Mr. Berger took the lead in December 1999 in mobilizing the F.B.I. and other domestic agencies to address the so-called millennium plot, in which attacks planned in Jordan and Los Angeles were disrupted.

The report says that Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, did not seem to regard the coordination of domestic agencies as part of their responsibility after they took office in 2001, even as warnings of a possible attack continued to grow.

Did any government agency do anything right?

Pats on the back are hard to find. But the report does say that the emergency response at the Pentagon "was generally effective," because there was a formal management structure for federal, state and local agencies to work under.

The report also says that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which was otherwise heavily criticized for its communication and management problems, made some changes after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that helped evacuate the buildings more quickly.

During the Sept. 11 attacks, for most civilians who weren't trapped or physically incapable of enduring a long descent, the general evacuation time for the towers was one hour. In 1993, the evacuate took more than four hours.

Did the report find that Iraq had any connection with the Sept. 11 attacks?

The commission says it had no indication that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990's "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship,'' a conclusion very different in tone from assertions by Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials.

The report also says that available evidence "does not support'' a claim initially made by Czech intelligence that the hijacker Mohammed Atta met with a senior Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001.

What about Saudi Arabia?

The commission says it found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials had directly financed Al Qaeda, though it did say that charities sponsored by the government had likely diverted money to Al Qaeda.

And Iran?

While the commission found no evidence that Iran knowingly supported Al Qaeda operationally or financially before the attacks, the report describes ties between Iran and Al Qaeda that are more extensive than previously made public.

At least eight of the Sept. 11 hijackers passed through Iran on the way to or from Afghanistan from October 2000 to February 2001, the report says. The hijackers' passports, it says, were not stamped by Iranian authorities, although it is not clear whether anyone in the Iranian government knew at the time the men were part of the terrorist plot.

The report says that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the attacks and captured last year, has said only that the hijackers were taking advantage of a well-known Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports.

Did the report say whether the invasion of Iraq made future terrorist attacks against the United States more or less likely?

No, but the report does warn that if "Iraq becomes a failed state, it will go to the top of the list of places that are breeding grounds for attacks against Americans at home."

And the report seems to indirectly criticize the Bush administration for failing to match its military effort against terrorism since Sept. 11 with an equally aggressive diplomatic campaign, leaving the United States unnecessarily isolated from its allies.

It turns out the phrase may have been misinterpreted, though it doesn't make the passengers' actions any less heroic.

In the last minutes of the flight, the passengers mounted an assault on the cockpit, the report says. On the plane's voice recorder, which captured the sounds of the fighting, a passenger is heard to say: "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!''

Then a passenger yelled, "Roll it!'' This phrase, some aviation experts have speculated, was actually a reference to a food cart being used as a battering ram.

What does the report recommend?

The report's biggest package of recommendations is to overhaul the intelligence operations, calling for a cabinet-level national intelligence director within the White House who would control the budgets of all 15 federal intelligence agencies to unify and better coordinate their disparate functions.

Will these recommendations be adopted?

Well, the intelligence director's office would take substantial power away from the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and the Pentagon, and it would essentially strip the National Security Council of its role in coordinating the actions of intelligence agencies.

The Pentagon, the C.I.A., Tom Ridge, the secretary of Homeland Security, and some in Congress already oppose the call for a national intelligence director.

Lawmakers of both parties have said they expect hearings on the report's proposals in August.