Steve Harris
  • Home
  • About
  • Courses
  • Research
  • Other Sites
  • Contact
  • Condemned to Repeat It

Anomalies and Exceptionalism

9/26/2020

3 Comments

 
In 1941, Henry Luce urged the US to break out of its isolationism and create the “American Century.” In some ways, the flag had already been picked up from the British, whose “century” ran from Waterloo to the Somme. But whatever the precise starting points, the global leadership/hegemony of the “English-speaking peoples” has spanned most of the last quarter millennium and has encompassed multiple components of the “industrial revolution,” modern imperialism, globalization, and other aspects of modernity.

Luce mined a rich vein of rhetoric from John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” imagery (1630) to John O’Sullivan’s “manifest destiny” (1845), but in the aftermath of WWII, it wasn’t a hard sell. In contrast to virtually all other modern wars, WWII had a plausible claim to a clear-cut moral dimension. The “good guys” won. And, after all, who doesn’t like to feel that their success is well-deserved (or even ordained). In truth, the destruction of European power in the first half of the 20C (two wars and a depression), left the field pretty clear. Even the Cold War competition with the Russians didn’t really require that we break into much of a sweat.

Boy, those were the days! New cars, suburban houses, plenty of food, appliances, travel, space flight, pax Americana; how grand it was. For those of us born in the last 80 years, it’s seemed normal. It’s become baked in as the way things “should” be.

But its not. In fact, with a little, this aspect of modernity—the economic, military, and political global domination by the West— was anomalous.

For several reasons, modern industrialization began in Britain in the late 18C, closely followed by northwestern Europe and British progeny around the world, especially the US. The immense power—deployed economically, culturally, and militarily—was deceptive. Many attempts have been made to rationalize this global power shift and anchor it in some mode of moral superiority. But even if the root of that power was cultural rather than environmental or contingent, it is hard to translate into a justification for entitlement to that power, rather than a premise for humility and responsibility. Parts of 19C “liberalism” tried to move towards the latter, but got overwhelmed.

Through the end of the 18C, China was the most powerful civilization in the world, followed by India. European-led industrialization and imperialism eclipsed them in the 19C, only to be overtaken by the US in the first half of the 20C as European civilization imploded (twice), clearing the decks for an era of American dominance (itself distracted only by Russia punching above its weight for fifty years until it collapsed). China’s rise (return!) to global leadership has been treated with the arrogance of an incumbent monopolist. China has its own behaviors to answer for, but before we start lecturing, we should recall secret federal forces in Portland last month, George Floyd three months ago, or ICE child-separation policies in the last three years (just to take recent examples).

The late 20C wave of globalization which has spurred dramatic economic benefits in China and other parts of the Global South has, even more fundamentally than its material aspects, brought a change to the mentalités of the ancient capitals of Anglo domination. This has not been easy to swallow for those who have known nothing else. The backlash has shown up in Trumpery and Brexit.

Indeed, it is beginning to dawn on folks that American power is not God-given, that American economic pre-eminence is not an entitlement, and that we might have to (in the words of that old John Houseman commercial) “make money [& power] the old-fashioned way,” we may have “to earn it.”

(Whether this would be a good thing is a debate into which I do not enter today.)

Regardless of whether and how the US seeks to regain its global leadership position, in the meantime, we need to face facts. We will have to live/work in a world which is tired of generating surpluses for a small group of local elites and a small group of global elite countries; especially while most of them have to live in “third-world” conditions. Nor do they have to. Indeed, the biggest impediments to further global realignments are local and elsewhere: nationalism/autarky and corruption. I’m not suggesting such developments will be rapid, and they are hardly inevitable. Still, we “at the top” must contemplate them.

A central driver of the end of European empires in the mid-20C was the recognition, little-recognized, of the hollowness of “Western civilization’s” claims to moral superiority as a basis of colonial rule; undermined by the savagery of trench warfare and the Holocaust. Momentum/inertia carried them only so far. In our own version, significant components of American withdrawal from the world have been self-generated and reactive; but the results move in the same direction.

Beyond the economics and the atmospherics are the demographics. Much “attitude-adjustment” is needed here. Claims—implicit or explicit—of white superiority (often tied to claims of moral superiority) have to run head-long into the facts. Most folks aren’t white. Most folks aren’t male. In fact, “white” males (however defined) comprise less than 10% of the global population. So, when we see much debate about “minority” rights, it’s time to remember that we are watching through Alice’s peculiarly American looking glass.

Subconsciously, perhaps, the Trumpians and others of that ilk are aware of this. After all, my favorite Fox News show is titled: “Outnumbered: Overtime.” This would explain their virulent construction of a world where American history is immaculate, the “American Century” is perpetual and uncluttered by all those others. Indeed, in this worldview, their approach not only makes a great deal of sense, it’s absolutely necessary. Those who cannot tolerate the “real” world are facing an existential crisis. If you look down the road with Mitch McConnell or Steven Miller and see immigration and BLM and ‘Me too’ with disorienting terror, you might throw out your adherence to democratic norms and jam through every law and judge you could to keep the dike plugged for as long as possible. “Apres-moi, le deluge.”

However, for the rest of us, if you are not so wrapped up in an identity of superiority (insecurity), you might be okay with justice and tolerance of difference. If you’re not wed to a world-view defined by the anomaly of US power over the past 75 years (or “Western” power over the past 250 years), you might just want to get on with your life and help others to do the same.


3 Comments

Global Pandemic.1

9/20/2020

1 Comment

 






This spring, the Economist joined numerous other pundits in proclaiming the coronavirus pandemic as the end of globalization. In our breathless media age, rushing to find the first and the last, the dramatic and the provocative is all too ordinary. However, when considering globalization, the pandemic “is not even [to adapt Churchill] “the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

Of course, “globalization” is a bit of mushy phrase. Over the past thirty years, it has been used to connote a neoliberal triumph of corporate-driven capitalism; “exporting” jobs from reasonably well-off countries to emerging economics, particularly in Latin America and south and east Asia. Integrated supply chains deliver fashionista designs from Europe or U.S.-invented technology to manufacturing operations in Bangladesh, Vietnam, or Honduras for delivery to stores across the globe. Populists are concerned partially by the loss of jobs and partially by the loss of control by their governments. The consumer beneficiaries of this labor market competition are rarely heard.

From a broader and more considered perspective, however, globalization can be characterized as the process of connection and communication gradually expanding from hubs of human settlement and activity, including migration, trade, information and technology transfer, and even travel. Globalization has been going on in this way for millennia, as scholars have described, in the gradual establishment and thickening of trade routes and the interconnection of regional economies and cultures. It certainly hasn’t been a smooth curve, punctuated by natural and climactic developments, wars, famines, and other human activities; a list in which the disruptions of the past few months only loom so large because of their currency.

Globalization describes both the measurable flows and connections: number of containers shipped or intercontinental Zoom calls. But, even more than the material and financial measurements, globalization is best characterized by a mentalité: an awareness of the scope of the world and the connection that each individual has, through jobs, migrations, sympathies, or ‘stuff,’ with others on the planet.

Globalization is both a process and a state. We have been in the process of globalizing and now we live in a globalized world. One might say, from this perspective, we are just about to reach the end of the process of globalizing. Of course there’s more to come; but in terms of connectivity, goods, migration, and information, as a global population of ~8B, we are past the 80%-20% mark.

Most people are conscious of the scope of the world. By this I don’t just mean cosmopolitan elites eating fusion food. In rich societies, ordinary folks are part of the “jet-set” (that old term for the “rich-and-famous”). Global smartphone penetration is now about 50%. Social media and markets connect individuals and companies as consumers. Billions of workers (farmers, miners, and factory-workers) know they are paid through global commerce. Indeed, it is the very awareness of the impact of all this that has spurred the reaction.

This would be pretty hard to unravel; even if we have a Covid hiccup in travel for a couple of years, even if the Trumpish trade wars fester for a while. To be sure, there is nothing inevitable about further integration—more travel and migration, more trade, more exchange of ideas—or even maintaining the current levels. There are those who imagine a return to an idyllic (simplistic) world: autarkic, controllable, comprehensible. “America First”-ers and Brexiteers have their counterparts everywhere. Reconstructing global manufacturing, services, and agriculture would surely bring an increase in local jobs, but at the cost of jaw-dropping increases in consumer prices. This virus, or the next, or some other cataclysm may pause or reverse the course. The pause in the 20th century lasted for sixty years. But then….

More fundamentally, in terms of mentalité, its hard to imagine the psychological disconnect required for “the end of globalization.” Cultural ties are resilient. Migration plus telecommunications means that cultures are cross-embedded and will stay that way.

The shape of 21st century globalization will surely change from what we have seen for the past forty years. China (and perhaps even India) will likely resume leadership of global economies. Subsaharan Africa has yet to be heard from. Technologies continue to restructure the meaning of geographical location. The underlying economics will press forward. Reallocation of global wealth distribution will lead to new travel and migration patterns. Even the rich West, embedded in some degree of self-centeredness, will likely see itself as part (not the dominator) of the world. Globalization ain’t over yet…not by a long shot.



1 Comment

Brexit

9/14/2020

3 Comments

 
I do regret not having started this blog a year or so ago when the Great British Brexit Baking Show was still running. But all is not lost, the “sceptered isle” is managing to extend its self-flagellation.

Our story so far involves the three worst prime ministers in recent British history:
  • David Cameron, who cravenly agreed to hold the 2016 referendum on leaving the EU (bad enough) and then authorized a proposition which failed to include a sensible ‘check-step’ of a confirmatory vote once a deal had been negotiated, likely because the Tories were so smug about winning. Oops.
  • Theresa May, brought in to implement the referendum decision in which she did not believe, who lacked the courage to admit that there was no good deal and bumbled and mumbled along for 2 ½  years, when she finally gave up, only to be succeeded last year by…
  • Boris Johnson, the ill-combed Trumpian knock-off, who promised to “get Brexit done;” which he did by dissembling, flip-flopping, and de facto ceding Northern Ireland to the Irish and breaking up the “United" Kingdom.

The deal that Boris finally signed and ramrodded through Parliament allowed for Brexit to be declared “done”, leaving aside the implementation and writing of the post-Brexit trade deal with the EU (40+% of British trade). Johnson’s bombastic and confrontational negotiating style (also paralleling his American confrere) has, unsurprisingly, left the EU cold, despite his raffish charm and occasional latinisms.

The upshot is that with just over three months to go until implementation day, there is no prospect of a deal; with dire consequences for British consumers and companies, threats to the structure of Irish/Northern Irish society and economy, and aggravating disruptions for the Europeans.

So, Boris and gang decide to force the issue, in a manner reminiscent of a kidnapper telling the police hostage negotiator “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot,” all while holding the gun to his own head. This month they announced their implementation plan which would entail reneging on the deal (i.e. signed treaty) with the EU; an act which (as a minister confessed to Parliament) would constitute a breach of international law.

The exasperated Europeans would be well justified in letting the Brits go [hang] themselves. It’s unlikely the Tories in Parliament will stand up to Boris any more than Mitch McConnell and friends have stood up for traditional Republican values trampled by Trump. So much for the “rule of law” from the “mother of parliaments.” We will have to see how Boris extracts himself from this one. It can’t end well; it’s either bad or worse.

The “rule of law” is an essential trope advanced to preserve public order, usually for the benefit of the incumbent power structure. It is no wonder that is has been central to British culture for centuries, nor that Britain promoted the concept internationally as part of its global dominance in the 18C-20C. It is a mark of Britain’s decline that such a tenet has become expendable.

I am reminded of Churchill’s remarks 80 years ago, facing the Battle of Britain and the Nazi’s likely invasion of the island, in which he said: “Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’"

Well, 1940 was; even if the Empire collapsed a generation later. Now the flip-side. The Brits’ inability to come to terms with their diminished status/power/role resulting from that collapse fed the nihilism that led to Brexit and to this “unfinest” hour of imperial history. Soon it will become apparent that Brexit will be a classic, the stupidest decision taken by a major power since Hitler gratuitously declared war on the US in 1941 (now, that would be an interesting competition!). Britain’s slide from global hegemony to “special relationship,” to also-ran is not yet complete, but it was disguised by being integrated into Europe. Alas, a collapsed soufflé will not win any prizes on the Baking Contest.


3 Comments

Thoughts on the Semester

9/14/2020

0 Comments

 
Thoughts on the Semester

So, the semester just started. The core challenges are deeper than Zoom/wi-fi connectivity and recasting lectures and exercises into “remote modalities.”

Fresh faces, etc., etc. Freshpersons this year were born in 2001 (+/-). Wow.

The Berlin Wall, Soviet Union, and Cold War were all history well before this year’s class arrived in the world. (9/11, too!) Is it any wonder that so much history seems ancient when the embedded culture of their teachers seems so disconnected? Cultural references are vastly different, and not just in terms of technology (as a user of email and Facebook, Slack and Perusall, I am only semi-ancient); Marx: Karl or Groucho?

They (and we) are hardly the first to be in this situation. I was born nine years after WWII and, if I hadn’t been a history nerd and Jewish, that cataclysm and its Holocaust would have been as distant for me as the Cold War is for the current crop.

I see the challenge of engagement as far more than rehearsing the facts, events, trends, and contingencies. Part of it is relevance and parallels: how is Putin like Hitler? How is Trump like Kaiser Wilhelm? Was Obama’s Iran policy reminiscent of Chamberlain’s appeasement? Our pandemic is still pretty paltry compared to death counts of the Spanish Flu (much less the Black Death). A more important and subtle part is mentalités. How did people think and feel and see the world?: An upper-middle class English nurse during World War I whose fiancé and brother were killed during the War; an Italian peasant during the middle ages who said he had been dealing with demons; a Japanese modernizer in the late 19th century who admired, emulated, feared and resented the power of the West.

It is the hardest part of history, worse than faded archives or argumentative colleagues. Paul Fussell, who was quite good at it, said: “Understanding the past requires pretending that you don’t know the present. It requires feeling its own pressure on your pulses without any ex post facto illumination.”  Its particularly difficult in a large classroom where multitasking students are swamped with “presentness,” but we have to give it a try. The past doesn’t make much sense otherwise. What does “honor” mean to us; or “long-distance”? Not nearly the same as they did 200 years ago. We can’t understand why people acted in the way that they did without some effort at being like them.

Of course, much of being a real person today among all our friends, family, colleagues, and acquaintances requires the same thing. So the ability to relate to others, to consider their mentalités, is an essential social skill. It’s one, among many, for which history can be very helpful. This term, we will see who might be interested in all this.






0 Comments

Welcome

9/13/2020

4 Comments

 
Hi. I’m glad to have you here.

This blog is named for the famous quote of George Santayana, the Harvard philosopher of the late 19/early 20C, who admonished that “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” While most newly-declared History majors don’t know what nationalism was/is or what to think about Jefferson and slavery, they all seem to know Santayana’s quote. So much so that I have adapted it to: “those who do learn of Santayana’s quote are condemned to repeat it.”

In any event, I disagree with the quote, since it carries a whiff of “original sin” and implies that there are straightforward lessons from history, so that merely learning “History” will solve many of the problems of today. But there are two problems. First, as Mark Twain allegedly said, is that “history doesn’t repeat itself, it rhymes.” Figuring out whether “good” rhymes with “should,” “wood,” or “blood,” is not so simple; nor is figuring out the angle of historical rhymes. Second, as the 19C German philosopher G.F. Hegel said: “The only thing we can learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.” So, quick quotes and analogies wont’ cut it; without a considered approach to learning from History, Santayana was merely aspirational: we have to pay close attention to see what light history can shed.

Here’s my take: we study history because it comprises a humongous pile of examples of human behavior; much larger and, in many ways, easier to see than the world of the ‘present.’ its richness and complexity enable us to practice understanding ourselves, the choices each of us face and make as we live our lives, and to help use remember that everyone else in the world now or in the past sees the world from their own time, place, and mind. Indeed, the only “lessons” we can take away are that living is complex, difficult, and unpredictable. History thus sharpens our sense of being human; perhaps with a touch of humility and perspective about our place in society and the world.

I am fortunate to be able to teach European and world history—with forays into the history of democracy and historiography— at SF State. My biggest benefit is interaction with students, and technology now makes it easy to leverage this beyond those who are matriculated there. Perhaps you will find interest in my thoughts on history, society, the world and other topics. Perhaps you’ll even put your own two cents into the discussion. Perhaps you will pass one or two of these ideas or your criticism of them. You may even choose to sign up to take an RSS or email feed, so you don’t have to check back to see what’s new. I hope you will contribute to the discussion (not least so I can learn from your comments). In any event, just writing out my thoughts will force me to be a better thinker and writer, as well as provide an outlet for those ideas that pop into my head at 3AM (then chewed over in the light of day and grounded in a little research).

I will try to post something every week. Not on the news reports, except tangentially; rather, on how the past and present might be seen to interact, sometimes with critique, sometimes with proposals. I expect these will range from 2-3 pages and be (almost entirely) free of footnotes. Some upcoming topics include Brexit, the Electoral College, “Western” “Civilization”, pandemic statistics, global demography, public education, and the nature and uses of history. If I start delving into sports, recipes, or ranting about “he-who-shall-not-be-named,” I hope you will organize an intervention.

Welcome!



4 Comments

    Condemned to Repeat It --
    Musings on history, society, and the world.

    I don't actually agree with Santayana's famous quote, but this is my contribution to my version of it: "Anyone who hears Santayana's quote is condemned to repeat it."

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020

      Sign up for alerts when there's a new post

      Enter your email address and click 'subscribe.'
    Subscribe

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly