Even were terrorists to strike a further, perhaps chemical, biological or nuclear blow against one of the English-speaking peoples' principal cities, it would not destroy that primacy. As George Will has observed, 'Al-Queda[sic] has no rival model about how to run a modern society. Al-Queda has a howl of rage against the idea of modernity.'"
What an odd thing for a historian to say. If history teaches us to do anything, it's to cultivate a sense of the tragic. Neither the Visigoths, nor the Alans, not the Sueves nor any other barbarian tribes had a rival model for how to run an Empire like Romes. But they did know how to destroy it, which suited their purposes. One thing that's so striking about accounts of the end of the Western Roman Empire is how unable the Romans were to foresee their doom. They thought it would last forever for them. Anyway, Roberts' glib triumphalism (I found other examples in my cursory examination of the book), according to Jake Weisberg, could account for why President Bush is so fond of Roberts. But on Weisberg's account, the book's not very reliable.
(HT: AS).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Even were terrorists to strike a further, perhaps chemical, biological or nuclear blow against one of the English-speaking peoples' principal cities, it would not destroy that primacy. I don't *feel* like a triumphalist, but I agree with the above statement. That's why I worry about people who seem willing to curtail all of our freedoms to prevent "another 9/11".
Now I wasn't there, so maybe I speak of what I know not, but "another 9/11" is not the worst that can happen.
Since this comment's off-topic, feel free to delete it, Rod, but if you're not going to retract what I believe to be a ridiculous slander of Baptist doctrine, I would appreciate your keeping your promise to explain that slander more fully. You're right, I'd forgotten about that, I'm not intentionally ignoring you. I'll go back today and answer it. Have to say, Bubba, that the reason I find it unpalatable to engage you is that you tend to overreact to any criticism I make of things you believe in. Anybody who knows me knows that I haven't the slightest hostility to Baptists, and if I have misunderstood Baptist doctrine, I'm perfectly willing to stand corrected, and in fact would appreciate it. You leap to the conclusion that I've "slandered" Baptists, knowing (as I presume you do) that to slander someone -- at least in the legal sense -- requires malice aforethought. Though you often raise relevant questions and make good points, I hope you can understand why it's not especially inviting to engage you when you impute the worst possible personal motive to everything I say.
Rod, here, to argue that I "impute the worst possible personal motive to everything [you] say," you're presuming that my use of the word "slander" matches the legal term in that it involves malice aforethought. I'm not sure anything I've written justifies that presumption. It may suffice to say that I often do draw negative conclusions about you -- conclusions that require leaps from what the evidence strictly implies -- but you clearly do the same.
It may not serve either of us in understanding the other to go through a litany of reasons we don't like each other. Instead, I'll stand waiting for your reply.
I cannot believe that I just deleted a post (mari lup's, naturally) because it called Bubba names. ;) Seriously, I do try to be fair here.
Thanks, Rod. I saw the comment actually, and it was at least worth a laugh.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.