Today there have been a lot of articles in the news about the reaction, or lack thereof, from President Obama’s Administration regarding the protests and prelude to revolution in Iran.  Instead of whole-hearted praise and warm greetings to those protesting what appeared to be a rigged election, it has been a measured, cautious approach.  Some call this outrageous, others call it being too weak.  I, on the other hand, see it as exactly what the US should be doing, and here is why:

In 1989, when protesters in Berlin began to bring down the Berlin Wall, the world was elated.  Everyone wanted a piece of the wall (and I think you can still find some pieces on eBay, though I’m not sure if they are authentic), and everyone was talking about the success of the US policy against Russia.  The media was praising this, and looking to the President, then President George Bush (Sr.) for words of support and praise.  Instead, President Bush was reserved, much like President Obama is currently.  He was criticized for his apparent lack of concern or support for what almost every President since John F. Kennedy had called for:  the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But President Bush had a reason to be reserved:  Having worked for the CIA, he knew of a common technique used by the KGB where rumors of CIA and US support would come to those who revolt against Soviet rule.  The protests would then be made with the hope and understanding that the CIA would back the revolt, and the KGB would then sweep in and quickly wipe out all dissidents.  President Bush didn’t want the same technique used in Germany, and so merely said he was watching things closely and didn’t say anything regarding the fall of the Wall. 

As a result, the fall of East Germany under the rule of the Soviets was completely a German matter, and was not controlled or instigated by the US.  As such, the reunification has since been a German decision, and no one can claim that Germany is by any means under the control of the US Government.  Also, other countries were able to break free from the Soviet State, and become independent without US intervention, and therefore their governments became truly theirs, representative of the people. 

So now let’s look at Iran.  There is a lot going on there that is promising to those looking for freedom and a true democracy in that country, free from the influences of the US or any other nation.  These demonstrations are truly Iranian in nature, and President Obama is determined to keep it that way.  It’s worthy of President Bush, and I imagine he probably had counseled with the former President on this very issue.  There are no other sitting Presidents who have had this type of experience, and no other President that could have boasted such a successful outcome. 

So, to the people of the Media, before you criticize the President for taking such a cautious and reserved stance, keep in mind what is at stake here.  The minute the US is seen supporting any type of demonstration, the current regime can dismiss it as foreign intervention, and kill people without conscience.  But if it remains purely an Iranian event, the Iranians can decide for themselves if a regime change is necessary to bring true democracy to the country, or even if they really want a true democracy. 

It was announced today in the news that Hugo Chavez is requesting an end to term limits, and eliminating central bank autonomy in Venezuela. I’m sure the US Government is already labeling this move as a precursor to dictatorship, which it is in essence, but let’s look at it again. Here is a man who is trying to make serious change in his country, and finds the constitutional limits on his power to be a problem. So, he asks the checks and balances in his way to grant him the right to ignore those limits in order to achieve his goal.

What his real goals are is completely immaterial for the discussion that I want to bring up, it’s the fact that he is asking for these powers outside of a critical national crisis, i.e. a war. We are seeing, my friends, is the rise of a dictator due to social considerations.

First, I want to dispel the stigma that surrounds the idea of a dictatorship. Not all dictators are evil, as many throughout history were placed in order to achieve their ends, and most have . For those of you who would argue that point, I would like to point out that Abraham Lincoln was effectively a dictator during the Civil War (along with just about every other president during a war). Dictators, as defined by the Romans, had unlimited power (as in extent of exercise) for a limited space of time (usually a year). Exceptions would be Sulla, Marius, and Caesar who all managed to become dictators for as long as they wished, finally ending in the Empire when Augustus passed it on to his heir.

So my fundamental question is, why would the people want to have a dictator in place, and lose their voice in the government? There are a couple reasons that I can think of, and would appreciate any feedback from those that have additional perspectives.

Social Trust in the Dictator
Believe it or not, people can trust a dictator if they trust that he will act in their interest. Generally this is achieved when a high majority of the people governed desire the policies of the potential dictator. In Chavez’s case, it is his popular socialist movement that appeals to the people who are essentially poor and need some way out of their poverty. One such way is by allowing the government to help them through given social reforms and programs.

Another is through religious devotion to the leader. Many leaders of religious states instill trust based on the leader’s devotion to their religion. This can be dangerous, because if the leader deviates from the perceived “righteous” course, he can and will be quickly replaced. Unfortunately, politics doesn’t mix well with religion, and many leaders of religious states quickly find their end.

Economic Need for Quick Action
As was quoted in Men In Black, “A person is smart, people are dumb stupid panicky animals…” As such, a person will realize that the economy is so badly run by “people” (i.e., generally committees and officials) that a serious change needs to be taken immediately before complete collapse and chaos reigns. At that point, usually the Executive will try to assume, whether legally or illegally, powers that will allow them to act. Generally these periods of dictatorship need only be fleeting, and the executive should generally step down once the goal is met.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Once someone gets the taste of power, they begin to feel entitled to it. One such example was the economic need that drove Adolf Hitler into dictatorship to save Germany from bankruptcy, but ended in the effective end of Germany (being divided between four countries). Once they feel it is their right to rule over people, they do not relinquish their power without a show of force by another powerful entity that is not loyal to the executive (usually through the Military). Hence, military coups.

Basic Needs are Not Met
The most serious, and often most compelling, reason for a dictatorship is the lack of basic needs for the people. This goes far beyond the economic need, because people are not getting a specific need, whether it be food, water, shelter, warmth, or safety. At these periods, people are quick to relinquish their sovereign rights over themselves to another person in order to acquire that right.

Such conditions are the aims of terrorists seeking power over the majority. They try to instill that basic need for safety in order to bend the will of the people in their direction. In some cases it can work and has been very effective. The problem is once the terrorists are in power, the safety is not given but rather becomes a part of life. That may keep the people in line for a small period, but there will always be a plot to oust such a government.

The Security of the Community is in Peril
Slightly different is the need of the security of the community. This is when legitimately selected executives are generally granted dictatorial powers during their term in office to direct the military forces in the best direction possible to protect the nation. Abraham Lincoln had such powers while during the Civil War. James Madison had the same during the War of 1812, though ousted from Washington D.C. at the time.

This is generally rare, and only placed when there is a constant, direct threat against the community to the point that people feel there is no other option but to give up their sovereign powers to a single authority.

So, why is Chavez trying to gain these powers? From what is reported, it’s because of economic needs within his country, and he is counting on the popularity of his social reforms to achieve his goal of dictatorship. This is because he feels that the period of his legitimate term is unable to generate enough of a change in the direction he wishes to take the country.

Now the right will be issued based on the sovereign will of Venezuela, but I would like to point out the process that is being taken to reach the dictatorship, and how it is possible for a people in a republic to allow their say in the government to be voided. It’s a fascinating process for those who study history, because it tells us how dictators can even be considered within a political environment that gives people the right to participate in their government.

It will be interesting to see how Chavez acts in the next couple of days.

Since the apparent success of the American Revolution in the 18th Century, Americans have been trying to spread their ideals of Republicanism and Democracy across the globe. And in almost every instance, those ideals have failed. South America continues to struggle between democracy and totalitarian dictatorial governments. France needed to try for a Republic 4 times before the current system managed to succeed. And Iraq is currently going through the same growing pains that these other countries had gone through.

My question was, why? Why is it that the American Revolution seemed to succeed when others struggled? What makes a country ready for revolution, and what makes the revolution succeed? Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with America, but rather the society that existed at the time of the revolution. Other countries, such as England, Canada, and India, have all managed to reach a democratically lead government as well. It all has to do with the conditions of the society that is seeking independence, and how they go about preparing for the coming storm.

The Tradition
In order for any type of Democracy or Republic to work, you need to have a tradition of self government. the American Colonies were pretty much autonomous in their day to day management, which made moving to a new representative government of the same type possible. It was built around the corporate structure with leadership, with the ability to elect those that were best suited for the job. All this started at the town level, and slowly progressed upward.

The brilliance of this model is that is can be scaled rather easily. A small number of people representing the larger percentage of the group. Generally the person elected would represent the majority consensus on most of the issues, and therefore would be well qualified to handle all government matters and leave the rest of the people to live their lives as usual.

As this model spread up through the towns to regions (counties, parishes, etc.), and eventually to the entire colony, the people became familiar and comfortable with their model of government. So when it came time to cast off from Great Britain, Parliament, and Monarchy, they already had a system of government set up, just waiting for the next tier.

Popular Support
Yes, in order to perform such a dramatic change to the Political system, there needs to be a social and economic support system in place. This is perhaps the most overlooked portion of the search for Democracy. In 1775, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington were all concerned about the possible success of the revolution, because independence was not a concept that was very popular. At least until Common Sense was written.

Once that pamphlet was in circulation, the popular support of independence grew at such a pace it took the Tory support in Congress by surprise. In the 5 months from the publication of Common Sense the nation was impatiently waiting for the Declaration of Independence to be made.

The lesson here is that the populace needs to know what representative government means, and how it will benefit them. They also need to have a general understanding of how it will be a benefit over the previous government. Too many “revolutions” have been quickly stamped out or overtaken by dictators because this all to crucial fact has been neglected.

It also means that those getting their independence would need to apply the concepts to everyone, including those that were previously in power. Yes, even the oppressed can become the oppressors if they are not careful. It’s important to realize the dangers of dehumanizing another group to get your political agenda advanced. Everyone needs to be part of the political process, not just a few groups.

Universality of Beliefs
Religious conviction is probably one of the greatest gifts mankind can possess. It’s a moral compass in a world where morality becomes marginalized too often. That being said, excluding people based on religious conviction from society leads to oppression, and undermines the basic premise of democracy: That people have inherent rights based on their existence, and not by the grace of the government. Too often are these concepts forgotten in all political circles, and too often are people willing to give up some of these rights in the name of safety.

These rights and liberties that are universal across all cultures should represent the basis of law, and therefore warrant government protection. Once law, or government intervention, begins to eliminate these liberties, the government has become corrupt and needs a reformation. At this point, those rights that were oppressed give the oppressed a rallying point for action toward change.

Once the action has been put into place, the oppressed have a choice to make: Either they become in turn the oppressors, and return the same injustices upon those who were previously the oppressors, or they can opt to include those who were the oppressors into the system, acknowledging their rights as fellow humans. Notice I don’t say that agreements need to be made, just that the basic human rights need to be acknowledged.

The Revolution
I love the story of Gandhi. He was truly a brilliant man in his execution of the Indian Revolution against the British Empire. Instead of mobilizing a huge army and getting thousands of people killed, he gained public support by passively resisting the Empire. As such, India became independent, and now the largest Democracy in existence. And, I might add, one of the few true Democracies in the world. The idea of a radical revolution doesn’t mean active disobedience, violence in the streets, and open conflict.

Radical revolutions begin at the core, looking at the one issue that ties one to the existing regime and then replacing it with a tie to a new regime. Gandhi did so by calling into question the intents of the British Empire with regard to India. The American Colonies had Common Sense to question the reason for continued ties to the British Crown. That is the real revolution. Once the revolution is over for the population in general, they are then defending their new core beliefs with a united cause.

Even when you look at labor disputes from the 1920′s, they were generally diffused by the management conceding to one or two demands instead of all the labor unions demands. Why? Because they were the core issues that the workers really wanted. They got it, so why continue to strike? It took years for Labor Unions to understand this and adapt accordingly.

Liberty, and Justice for All
Yes, that is for all involved, not just one ethnic group, one religious group, one gender, one level of education. It’s for everyone. Too often are the oppressed masses put into power, only to become the new oppressors. If we spend more time looking at the universality of liberty, then we can perhaps stop that vicious cycle from continuing.

With these pieces in place, with the work of some very brilliant and caring individuals, it is possible to build a revolution that will lead to a successful representative government. Unfortunately, too many people quest for just that and fail to see the work necessary to bring it about. Perhaps, if we all spent more time studying our History, we would understand how the process works, and how it can succeed.

Recently my family has been on a book binge. That is, they spend a lot of time at Barnes and Nobles, picking up random books on varying subjects. One such book was 46 Pages: Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence by Scott Liell (ISBN: 1-56731-781-2). This book, as it suggests, is about the writing of Common Sense, and it’s effect on the American Independence movement at the time. While my emphasis has always been Ancient Roman, Greek, and Celtic history, I am non the less fascinated with any revolutionary movement and the social impact that led up to it.

Setting the Stage
Perhaps unlike most historical commentary, this book excels at setting the stage. Picture yourself in the shoes of the Colonies and their grievances. They felt, as is natural, that the Administration of the colonies were poor, and were appealing to the one person they felt could properly manage it: the King. Yes, the colonies were not all distrustful of a Monarchy that ruled them, but rather the Parliament that failed to manage them properly. They appealed to the King to intercede on their behalf, and they would stop their little rebellion and return to the British fold.

Being a US Citizen, and having subsequently being educated in the United States, I have been indoctrinated since grade school with the belief that the Revolution was throwing off the King’s oppression, and settling for a rule by the people. Perhaps it’s because the concept is easy for grade school students to understand (stops all those questions about why we don’t have a king). Personally, I think it’s because most Americans believe that now. Why do they believe it? Because of Common Sense

Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine is a very interesting character. Villafied by the British after the Revolution, he became the sole reason for the American Revolution and the desire for independence. Why? Because he was able to appeal to people at their level, while introducing the common man to political concepts that were previously exclusive to the rich and upper middle class.

He began as a student who hated “Dead Languages”, and became an apprentice in his father’s Corset shop. He then became an Excise tax collector, and was introduced to political debate as he went to London to secure a cost of living raise for his fellow tax collectors. At this time he was introduced to Benjamin Franklin, George Lewis Scott, and Edward Gibbon (author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire).

From there, he was fired (the second time) from the Excise group, and he felt it was because of his lobbying of Parliament. This time, he gained the support of Benjamin Franklin, and came over to the Americas, specifically to Philadelphia. it was at this time that he began his campaign for Independence, trying to convince the Colonists that anger and frustration with Parliament shouldn’t be separated from the Crown.

The Book
Over all, I found the book well written. It was a little difficult to get into, but after the first chapter the book began to read more of a story and less than a lecture. In my opinion, all history books should be organized and published for recreational reading, and not as text books. The great books of History (i.e., Livy’s History of Rome, Plutarch’s Lives, etc.) were all written in this style.

Scott Liell did a wonderful job in my opinion, as he not only commented on the 46 Pages that changed the Colonies, but also included them in the Appendix. If you ever wanted to know more about this little-known document, I would highly recommend this book.

For those of you who know me rather well, you know that the majority of my family tree comes from Scotland. Many is the time that I have recited the immigration story, as I find it very unique. It was not the result of economic need and forced immigration as with many Highland villages. Nope, it was in an effort to escape from the wrath of royalty. Was this religious persecution or political pressure? No! It was because my ancestor lost his temper and threw his workman’s tools into the front seat of Queen Victoria’s favorite carriage. Why was this a problem, you may ask? Because it had to go through the dashboard to get to the front seat. Needless to say, he decided it was time to leave the country.

So, with that little tidbit out there, and with my BA in Ancient History, you may understand my fascination with the Celts of Britain and Ireland. They represent a large portion of my background, and indeed the background of a large percentage of those living in the United States and Canada. So I have been interested in researching the culture that has had a huge impact on my up-bringing, whether I was aware of it or not.

With that now understood, here is my review of The Celts: A History by Peter Berresford Ellis.

Thousands of years ago, before Rome was breaking itself from the Etruscan empire, there existed a group of people with a similar language, belief system, and cultural interaction (laws, crafts, etc.). These have been referred to as the Celts, representing a distribution from the Po Valley in modern Italy to the majorty of Spain, to the central region in modern Turkey (Galatia), Following the Rhine to the great Northern Islands of Britain and Ireland.

The Celts were an Iron Age people, which meant that they used Iron in much of their daily implementation from weapons to cookware. Because they can be grouped into this larger designation, many modern Archeologists have tried to deny the label of Celt to this culture, preferring to designate them “Iron Age” instead. Peter Ellis does an excellent job in explaining how the logical distinction between other Iron Age groups (i.e., the Greeks, Romans, Numedians, etc.) can be drawn with the use of linguistic and cultural lines.

Ellis then continues on to address the cultural aspects of the Celtic people, referring to both the insular Celts (Britain and Ireland), and the Gaulic, or Continental, Celts. These chapters seem to be in a defensive mood, first addressing those that question the existence of a “Celtic” people, and then defending the image of the Celts against the works of the Roman references to the Celtic tradition. In some portions of the book, such as when the question of human sacrifice is addressed, Ellis seems to attack the Roman criticisms by pointing out the Roman use of human sacrifice. But at no time does he admit to the Celtic use of human sacrifice, as archaeological evidence (i.e., bound and beaten victims found in bogs with golden bonds) has indicated. The closest he came to an admition is the acknowledgement that all Indo-European cultures have at some time performed human sacrifice. I would like to add, that in those instances it generally was a period of great need for the people, and seen as the only way to pacify particularly hostile dieties.

The first problem that is addressed in the book is that of no written cultural records in a native Celtic tongue. Ellis points out that the Celts had an Oral tradition that kept their records. For those that are not familiar with the Oral tradition of maintaining histories and cultural experiences, I would like to point out that both the Illiad and the Odyssey were both compositions that were handed down to Homer through an oral tradition, and many aspects have been proven historically accurate that would have been obscured at the time of Homer, some 300 years after the fall of Troy. So oral tradition has been proven to keep many facts accurate over long periods of time.

That being said, there are several written records by both Romanized and Christianized Celts, as well as ancient Irish records that help shed light on the Celtic culture and mythology. As such, it becomes the job of the scholar to wade through the biases that they are faced with to try to get a clear picture of the ancient Celts as they existed. The same it true for any book written, as all scholars have their own level of bias. Ellis is unique to a number of scholars that I have read in that he acknowledges that bias at the beginning of the book, and allows it to surface in assumptions could be made based on incomplete evidence.

The one portion that interested me the most was that of Celtic architecture. Nothing, in my mind, has more impact on a culture than their architecture. The Celts were incredibly practical when it came to their designs and buliding materials, and created villiages and cities that were easy to maintain as well as completely functional in their given environment. The best example that I can think of are the insular Celts and their use of round wattle and cob housing. The shape maximized the efficiency of heat retention, while the building materials provided for a quick and easy way to construct and maintain a lasting structure. A great example of such architecture can be found at the current Butser’s Ancient Farm, where a number of ancient structures have been created in a 1 to 1 scale archaeological experiment.

For those interested in a quick introduction to Celtic belief systems, Ellis provides a comprehensive overview of the belief system as given to us by archaeological finds and existing epics in the old Irish. As one reads the evidence presented, it becomes clear how the Celts can be considered Indo-European, as it parallels various Sandskrit, Latin, and Germanic belief systems.

All in all, the book is an amazing read, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in a quick overview of the Ancient Celts as a cultural identity. The list of suggested reading also provides a number of additional references should you become interested in more indepth examinations into the Celtic peoples of the pre-Roman era.

I thought I would go a little off topic here, but recently I have been thinking about Graffiti. Why you ask? Because there is a lot of it on the University campus. People seem to need to validate their existence by providing a “permanent” expression of their own intelligence. There are two schools of thought on graffiti: As an expression of artistic desires, or as a public eye-sore that defaces the location.

The Artistic Expression
Many times graffiti can be truly artistic. Several of the remnants of public lavatories in Pompeii have been preserved as historical evidence of prose and poetry. Modern facilities can likewise have well worded and metered phrases, which despite the subject matter can represent someone with true poetic talent.

Likewise, images and lettering on walls can also have a truly artistic flare. Images left behind in caves, on the side of rocks, and even on the side of hills have been the subject of study and wonder since before recorded history. I remember looking at many of the images left on railway stations in Germany with admiration and a tinge of jealousy. And yet, they remain labelled as “graffiti”, because it was made in a location without the location owner’s consent.

Defacing Property
Defacing property has a long history, and has often been rewarded with harsh punishments. One of the more interesting instances happened in Athens, when many stone phallic symbols were broken from their bases. These phallic symbols represented the god Hermes, and therefore was considered religious in nature. The citizenry called for justice, and the perpetrators were exiled from Athens. That’s how serious vandalism was treated.

Graffiti has also been called vandalism, in that it makes changes to the property to which the owner did not commission. It resonates with the basic desire of possession, and the need to control those possessions. The noncommissioned change of such property is a violation of that feeling of control.

The Point
Basically, the real point here is that regardless of your point of view, there is another that will counter it. I am neither encouraging, nor discouraging the practice, though as a qualifier I think the owner should be given the courtesy of being asked. In the end, within a couple hundred years or so, the common scribblings on a restroom wall will probably be studied as a sign of wide spread literacy. Different lavatories will be examined and cross referenced with others to analyze the distribution of literacy and intelligent thinking.

So here is a little project to think about. Next time you visit a public display of graffiti, look for the quality of the expression left. What does it tell you about the creator? How does it compare with other locations that you have observed?

And if you are someone that likes to leave their mark, think about how it can impact the owner of that property. Be sure to give them the same courtesy that you would want from them, whether you receive it or not.