A Book Review

In his fairly short, yet incredibly dense work Cruel Delight: Enlightenment Culture and the Inhuman, James Steintrager delves into the intellectual and ethical analysis of the practice of cruelty and its relationship to humanity, as perceived by the thinkers of the Enlightenment. In presenting this morose subject of the human condition, Steintrager endeavors to embark on a multi-faceted analysis of the concept of cruelty through the lenses of Enlightenment philosophy, sociology, history, ethics, art, literature, and intellectual discourse, all within 150 pages. This alone should serve as warning indicator to members of the general academic audience who choose to peruse the pages of this text. Hoping to garner a deeper understanding of the Enlightenment and its accompanying socio-cultural history (the word culture is in the title), this reviewer quickly reached the second and most revealing academic warning at the end of the book’s introduction. Steintrager’s own words cannot be bested in describing the danger an academic is about to find themselves engaged in: “By presenting my material in such a way that a general academic audience will, I hope, find it accessible, I have potentially alienated specialists in my field and not at all guaranteed that general readers will be interested.” (Steintrager, xviii) Thus begins the reader’s cruel journey into the morass of Steintrager’s Enlightenment.

Cruel Delight is composed of three sections (Parts I, II, and III), each addressing separate aspects of the shared concepts of cruelty and inhumanity within the Enlightenment. It should be noted that this is the high-water mark of the text’s organizational structure. Part I, entitled The Inhuman is comprised of two chapters, the first attempting to grapple the construct of, as the author words it, “moral monstrosity,” while the second addresses the definition of inhumanity, in Enlightenment terms. The questions of moral monstrosity and inhumanity are broken down to their philosophical roots, with Steintrager drawing upon the works and ruminations of minds such as Smith, Diderot, Shaftesbury, Hume, Hobbes, and Kant. The list of intellectual heavyweights is impressive, no doubt. However, the muddled presentation of the first two chapters in searching for the root of cruelty within morality and inhumanity is likely to be extremely representative of the reality in which Enlightenment philosophers struggled with the issues at hand. This structure is great for specialists in Enlightenment philosophy (or is it?) but falls far short of roping in the general academic audience (but if they’re alienated, that’s alright, too.)

Is cruelty a trait of humanity, or is it an aberration which exists outside of but parallel to human existence? Is it directly opposed to benevolence, or is it, in fact, a product of benevolence? Is it malice, pity, or simply curiosity? A scant thirty pages (give or take a few) are given to tackling the intellectual and philosophical attempts of Enlightenment thinkers to address these huge questions on human nature. When reading the Steintrager text, one feels as if they are swirling within a vortex of Enlightenment discourse, catching fleeting glimpses of understandable reasoning and discussion, only to have it disappear and be replaced by related, yet substantially different analysis. The reader, in the end, finds that Steintrager has not presented a coherent summation of the subjects addressed, not surprising given the length of analysis, one which could easily fill volumes. There exists a vague impression upon the reader that cruelty and inhumanity are simply elements of the human condition, but such a conclusion is reached with little help from the author. One might be better off personally reading the primary source documents utilized in Steintrager’s analysis, keeping the concept of cruelty in mind, in order to reach a coherent consensus.

Part II, entitled Curiosity Killed the Cat, offers a reprieve to the reader, one that is needed yet unfulfilling at the same time. The broad presentation of this portion of the text brings the reader closest to the elusive spectre of “Enlightenment culture” referenced in the book’s title. At the heart of this “cultural” analysis is a series of four engravings, titled “The Four Stages of Cruelty” by William Hogarth, completed in 1751. Steintrager utilizes these four images to create for the reader a sense of Enlightenment culture and its underlying cruelty, with other source documentation being juxtaposed sporadically. For Steintrager, these engravings are sufficient in presenting to his audience topics ranging from the European cultural shift for animal rights to the process of habituation to the professional detachment among practitioners of medicine. As a student of history, the reviewer found this section of the book to be an absolute disappointment.

Steintrager repeatedly misses the mark in presenting the reader with a concise, or even chronological, glimpse into the culture of the Enlightenment. The major culprit once again lies in Steintrager’s organization (or lack thereof). As in the first portion of the book, familiar names are bandied about: Rousseau, Kant, Locke and Pope. However, they are utilized awkwardly as the narrative skips from one tangent of thought to another, then another and then back again. Steintrager (successfully) maintains the underlying discussion on inhumanity throughout the section, but the relevance and purpose of the theme have a tendency to be lost among the varying threads of thought the author is attempting to force into line. The reader is, again, left unfulfilled, having gained little perspective and insight into the aspects and evolution of Enlightenment culture parallel to the narrative of cruelty and inhumanity. On the other hand, the reader can take faith in the relevance of the discourse which closes the second section. A discussion of Enlightenment cataract surgery and its metaphysical impacts on individual objectivism in regards to morality makes perfect sense, after all.

The Bedside Manner of the Marquis de Sade, title to part III of the Steintrager text, was the author’s final opportunity to make amends with the general academic audience, this reviewer among them. As the final section begins, Steintrager presents to the reader brief anecdotal analysis of one of the Marquis de Sade’s more documented transgressions, “affaire d’Arcueil,” followed by some examples of contemporary Enlightenment response and a few of the Marquis’ personal writings. The reader is rewarded with a small amount of contextual historical analysis, but fulfillment is quickly lost as Steintrager presses forward. Presenting Sade as something of an amateur surgeon, Steintrager elevates this conception to equally important footing in regards to the Marquis’ infamous sexual practices. Sade was as morally monstrous as the surgeon and human vivisector of the Enlightenment era, nothing more, or so it would appear to be in Steintrager’s analysis. A consensus, however, remains elusive even under repeated re-readings of the chapter dedicated to Sade and his namesake sexual practice of sadism.

Chapter six, dedicated to ethics and human vivisection starts out strong. At last it appears as if Steintrager will salvage a portion of his text, as his discourse on ethics and cruelty is both well-organized and intellectually understandable. The Enlightenment argument for and against human vivisection is presented along ethical lines, with the theme of cruelty and inhumanity running parallel in a solid analysis. This brief portion of the text is both well-written and enjoyable, but it is soon revealed that this glimmer of academic hope is to be crushed by the same problematic structure that has persisted throughout the text. The discussion on ethics quickly deflates and is succeeded by discussions on female sexual repression and eroticized suffering as presented in art coupled with images of Enlightenment era mastectomy tools and techniques, of which there is not discussion presented in the text. It must be admitted that at this point in the book, the reviewer began writing expletives with his highlighter across the text, as all sense of continuity and cohesion fled the pages. Steintrager’s epilogue is also of no consolation to the reader as the author chooses not to summarize the arguments presented within the body of the text. Instead, Steintrager chooses to summarize and subsequently analyze the novel Vathek by William Beckford, failing to relate it to the body of the text and further confusing (and aggravating) the reader.

Bravo, James Steintrager! You have indeed remained true to your prophetic words. Not only have you possibly alienated specialists within the field of Enlightenment studies, you have mostly likely alienated the vast general academic audience as well. Poor structure, oversimplification and over-analysis prove to make this text a frustrating and unfulfilling academic read. In all fairness to the author, the specific mind-frame of the reviewer (in wanting historical contextual analysis) may have been asking too much, but given the extremely broad scope of the attempted analysis, the consolidation of the argument and narrative into such a short volume is unquestionably the author’s shortcoming. While the brief discussion and analysis on ethics in chapter six is a strong point, it falls far short of compensating for the remainder of the work. The inundation of poorly ordered primary sources utilized in the first portion of the text followed shortly by singular analysis of the Hogarth engravings in the second serves to put the reader off balance and grasping at straws. There is a lack of continuity despite the presence of the theme of cruelty and inhumanity, weak as it may be. In regards to historical contextual analysis, an M.A. in French and Ph.D. in Comparative Literature do not a historical author make!

The Historical Evolution of Europe after 1945

With the end of the Second World War in 1945, Europe faced the overwhelming task of literally rebuilding itself from the inside-out and the ground up. As Bruno Foa states in his post-war analysis of the continent, “{I}t is already clear that the economic and social disturbances of the last war were child’s play in comparison with the crisis Europe is now facing . . . {T}he experiences of this war and the new dark age which began on January 30, 1933, have destroyed old frames of references and created conditions favorable to nihilism and despair.” Emerging from what has been dubbed a 30 year European Civil War, the old order of Europe – politically, socially, culturally, and psychologically – had been utterly destroyed. If Europe was to have any chance of finding its new center in the chaotic post-war reality, the old ways of thinking would have to be cast aside in favor of a more progressive and mutually beneficial approach to existence.

    The first order of business for battered Europe was the dismantling of imperialism and recognition of the new state of world affairs. With the United States and the Soviet Union dominating the affairs of West and East Europe, respectively, the self-determination of Europe as a whole, as opposed to individual nationalist states, became paramount in driving forward the economic and social recovery of Europe. The creation of the United Nations in the spring of 1945 was the first major step in bringing the newly emerging Europe closer to a unified reality. The ensuing Cold War, pitting Soviet and Western ideologies against one another forced Central and Western Europe to realize its need for a strengthened existence, as it faced the stark reality that the ideological war between East and West was likely to be fought on the same battlefields as the previous two wars. The implementation of the Marshall Plan in 1947 sped the process of re-stabilization in Europe greatly. As Brose points out, “Marshall’s ERP aimed to facilitate reconstruction, stimulate private European investments and intra-European trade, provide dollar liquidity for the purchase of American exports, and, perhaps most importantly, free Europe from social and economic instability so that it could avoid revolution and afford to help the U.S. militarily.” The infusion of American money (in addition to a not-insubstantial amount of Americanization) helped kick start Central and Western Europe’s miracle of economic recovery. This process proved ideologically and economically beneficial for the United States and Europe, a fact that was not overlooked in the lagging Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe. Additionally, while the Marshall Plan was successful in quelling revolutionary ideas in the west, it fueled the flames of democratic revolution in the east.

    The death of Stalin ushered in a new era of Soviet Communist control in the east. Helmed by Nikita Khrushchev and mobilized along the lines of his (in)famous Secret Speech, an ideological thaw settled over Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe. This slackening of totalitarian Communism, when coupled with the model and influence of resurging Western Europe, facilitated active attempts of democratization and self-determination in Soviet satellites, most notably Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, initially a peaceful student protest, serves as a quintessential example of the thinking the thaw produced. A peaceful student protest rapidly spiraled into outright democratic revolution, a result of Communist reaction to weakening control. “After a decade of Communist control over our country,” wrote Hungarian Andor Heller, “we are going to show our feelings spontaneously, in our own way – something never allowed under Communist rule . . . The peaceful demonstrations of the youth and the workers have been turned by Communist guns into a revolution for national freedom.” The Soviet military response, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Hungarians, severely undermined the hopes of democratic self-determination within the Soviet satellites. A little over a decade later, the economic reform movement in headed by Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia, raised the ire of the Soviet regime. In attempting to keep pace with the rapid technological and economic gains of Western Europe, facilitated by expanding trade agreements and free-market economies, Dubcek implemented the “Action Program” which in-turn sparked cries for social and political reforms as well. The Soviet response was again military in nature, and, although bloodless, showed that the failure of the “Prague Spring” effectively ended any hope of democratic reform in the east.

    The changing democratic and industrial landscape in Western Europe, however, was not without its share of problems. The student revolutions of 1968 challenged the newly established authority of a unifying Europe, particularly in France. Pressure from below resulted in the resignation of de Gaulle, thus removing the largest obstacle hampering deeper unification along economic lines. Additionally, Americanization had come full-circle in its influence of Western Europe. The continent had successfully followed the American model to such a degree that it had become self-sufficient to the point of helping the spread of democracy on its own, such as in Italy and Spain, while also allowing its citizens to be in the frame of mind to question and challenge the establishment, a mark of truly democratic freedom.

    The same democratic freedom, albeit a difficult transformation, was to eventually come to the whole of Eastern Europe. The western model of Democratic Capitalism continued to far surpass the Communism of the Soviet Bloc, which, despite the threatening illusion of strength and solidarity, was collapsing upon its disintegrating infrastructure. Despite the idealistic attempt to reform the Soviet Union back to its Marxist-Leninist roots through the dual efforts of Perestroika and Glastnost, Mikhail Gorbachev preside over the demise of the Communist Era of Russia and Eastern Europe. Much to the shock and delight of the West, the single largest threat to an autonomous and unified European state practically disappeared overnight. The time of the European Union had finally arrived.

    The question presented by the history of post-war Europe is whether the formation of the European Union, as it is today, was inevitable or not. Arguably, the reality of its existence is a product of inevitability for three reasons: the historic push for unification, the fully realized consequences of purely nationalist interests, and the necessity of mutual understanding and protection whilst in the threatening shadow of the Cold War. The push for unification, deeply intertwined with the call for pacifism, had remained a consistent undercurrent within the social dialogue of Europe since before the First World War. However, the evolution of the competitive-state system plunged the continent into two bloody conflicts, the result of which bared the soul of Europe unto itself and begged for a reevaluation of the old modes of thinking. As Western Europe rapidly reorganized itself along multi-beneficial lines while standing between the aggravated ideologies of the East and West, it made perfect sense for the reforming nations to come to grips with their collective past and direct themselves toward a brighter collective, or unified future. While the process has not been met with overwhelming approval or appreciation and continues to face challenges it may or may not be able to handle (the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia and the antagonistic reassertion of legitimate power in the Russian Federation, for example), the unification of Europe was, after 1945, immediately recognized as the best defense against a continuation of the European Civil War.

 

Bibliography

Brose, Eric Dorn. A History of Europe in the Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2005.

 

Fao, Bruno. “Europe in Ruins.” In Sources of Twentieth Century Europe, edited by Marvin

Perry, 284 – 287. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

 

Heller, Andor. “The Hungarian Revolution, 1956.” In Sources of Twentieth Century Europe,

edited by Marvin Perry, 358 – 360. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Perpetrator Motivations: Revisiting the Browning-Goldhagen Debate

When approaching the historiography of the Holocaust, a fundamental concern for historians and researchers lies in uncovering the motivations of the perpetrators. The question of motivation has consistently challenged scholars working in the field of Holocaust research, centering on the argument of intentionalism versus functionalism. Intentionalists believe that the Nazi Regime’s decision to exterminate European Jewry was methodically planned and executed process derived from Hitler’s rampant anti-Semitism and personal initiative. Functionalists, on the other hand, believe the Holocaust manifested along more utilitarian lines, with the methods and inclinations of the genocidal killers being dictated more by the “situation on the ground” in Eastern Europe which left the perpetrators with rapidly reduced options to deal with the increasing number of Jews in Nazi occupied territories. During the 1990’s, two books, Christopher R. Browning’s Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, became the focal point of the intentionalist/functionalist debate and through their differences of understanding, helped to reshape historian’s understanding of perpetrator motivations and the causation of the Holocaust.

    Ordinary Men, published in 1992, is an extremely microcosmic approach to understanding what motivated, as Browning describes, “ordinary” Germans to become genocidal murderers. By utilizing a wealth of documentation and post-war testimony regarding the actions of Order Police Battalion 101, Browning discovered a break in the misconception that the murderers of Jews were all fanatical Nazis and ideological automatons and was capable of giving a “human face” to the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Documents used by Browning showed that the members of Police Battalion 101, responsible for the deaths of 83,000 Jews, were men of all ages and from all walks of German life and not representative of the traditional model of genocide-inclined Nazis. Based on the surviving battalion roster, Browning was able to surmise that the battalion’s demographics in regards to social background were extremely representative of the German state as a whole. Given the demographic reality of the men in Police Battalion 101, Browning concluded that by 1942, prior to the battalion’s arrival in Poland and perpetration of genocidal violence, the men “would not seem to have been a very promising group from which to recruit mass murderers on behalf of the Nazi vision of a racial utopia free of Jews.” Additionally, Browning concluded the following analysis to be true of the men of Police Battalion 101:

Reserve Police Battalion 101 was not sent to Lublin to murder Jews because it was composed of men specially selected or deemed particularly suited for the task. On the contrary, the battalion was the “dregs” of the manpower pool available at that stage of the war. It was employed to kill Jews because it was the only kind of unit available for such behind-the-lines duty.

The problem Browning was left with was how to understand the manner in which these “ordinary” Germans were capable of facilitating the deaths of so many Jews.

    Browning believed that the origin of Police Battalion 101’s capability to participate in the murder of Jews was manifold. Following the traumatic initial massacre at Józefów, the men of Battalion 101 were consistently involved in ghetto-clearing operations, deportations, anti-partisan actions, “Jew Hunts,” and additional massacres. Browning asserts that while most men succumbed to the brutalization of their existence and killed, whereas relatively few did not, the majority of the men acted as follows:

The largest group within the battalion did whatever they were asked to do, without ever risking the onus of confronting authority or appearing weak, but they did not volunteer for or celebrate the killing. Increasingly numb and brutalized, they felt more pity for themselves because of the “unpleasant” work they had been assigned than they did for their dehumanized victims. For the most part, they did not think what they were doing was wrong or immoral, because the killing was sanctioned by legitimate authority. Indeed, for the most part they did not try to think, period.

Browning concludes that the combination of factors ranging from a brutalized existence to ideological influence to pressure for conformity resulted in the fundamental psychological shift necessary to create genocidal killers out of ordinary Germans. Goldhagen, however, would summarily disagree.

    Published in 1996, Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners, is a far broader approach to perpetrator motivations and presents a sweeping analysis of German history and culture both before and during the Nazi era. Unlike Browning’s multi-causal approach, Goldhagen vehemently asserts that Germany’s cultural history of not just anti-Semitism, but eliminationist anti-Semitism is the prime-mover in motivating German perpetration of the Holocaust. Goldhagen directly challenges Browning’s assessment while simultaneously indicting all Germans when he states:

Germans’ antisemitic beliefs about Jews were the central causal agent of the Holocaust . . . The conclusion of this book is that antisemitism moved many thousands of “ordinary” Germans – and would have moved millions more, had they been appropriately positioned – to slaughter Jews. Not economic hardship, not the coercive means of a totalitarian state, not the social psychological pressure, not invariable psychological propensities, but ideas about Jews that were pervasive in Germany, and had been for decades, induced ordinary Germans to kill unarmed, defenseless Jewish men, women, and children by the thousands, systematically and without pity.

According to Goldhagen, the history of German cultural anti-Semitism developed in a manner far different than the rest of Europe, essentially substantiating the Sonderweg thesis normally applied to German political development. Unlike the rest of Europe, German anti-Semitism was especially virulent and destructive and took on a form that was not just exclusionary in form, but eliminationist in regards to European Jews.

    Because the German conscious is grounded in such a radically different conception of anti-Semitism, Goldhagen maintains that it had developed into a defining cultural axiom, and that all that was necessary for ordinary Germans to make the leap to genocidal murder was the green-light from higher authority, namely Hitler and the Nazi party. Goldhagen states German anti-Semitism “was in this historical instance causally sufficient to provide not only the Nazi leadership in its decision making but also the perpetrators with the requisite motivation to participate willingly in the extermination of the Jews.” In essence, Hitler and German society were in collective agreement in regards to the status of Jews, and because of this symbiosis, ordinary Germans, like the members of Police Battalion 101, would become motivated genocidal executioners not because they required to, but because they wanted to.

    Goldhagen’s argument of cultural anti-Semitism as a motivating factor is beneficial, but at the same time is too narrowly (and harshly) focused. From a historical perspective, it is erroneous to group all Germans into the category of anti-Semite, particularly under the heading of eliminationist anti-Semites. Additionally, Goldhagen’s thesis of German anti-Semitic heritage does not sufficiently explain the genocidal actions of the Ukrainian Hiwi auxiliary troops or Lithuanian civilians, both of which perpetrated atrocities against Eastern European Jews with little or no instigation from German occupiers.

For historians, both author’s works provide valuable insights into understanding the motivations of the Holocaust’s perpetrators. At the same time, however, neither is completely sufficient in fully explaining why Germans, such as the men of Police Battalion 101, continued to brutalize and kill Jews time and again. German anti-Semitism, when compared to European anti-Semitism as a whole, does not provide sufficient force alone to facilitate the murderous actions of the perpetrators. At the same time, external environmental and psychological factors can certainly create a complicit atmosphere, but are not concrete enough to drive individuals to cruelty, torture and murder. These revelations have left historians to conclude that the perpetrators of the Holocaust were motivated by a symbiosis of the two arguments, part intentionalist, part functionalist which has moved the historiography down what is known as the “crooked road to Auschwitz.” Although Browning poignantly states in his response to Goldhagen, “[t]hat these policemen were ‘willing executioners’ does not mean that ‘wanted to be genocidal executioners,’” it does not negate the fact that they killed time and time again.

 

 

Bibliography

Browning, Christopher R. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution

    In Poland. New York: Harper Perennial, 1998.

 

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.

    New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

I need to blog more…….

I have decided that, while I usually lack the energy to blog in any sort of regalr fashion, I do have a wonderful outlet for writing and intellectual stimulation in the wonderful instituation known as Undergraduate research.  I am going to make good on an intention which formed somewhere in the past six months and start posting written works from school in my blog.  I take pride in what write for my history classes and I am told often by Nikki that I am a great writer (I don’t see it), but after this PSA post, I am going to start.  Enjoy.

The Philadelphia Phillies win the World Series!!!

And no one cares……………………

Bleh……….

I’m pretty sure that I am getting sick.  I’ve felt fatigued the past few days and have had a dull, aching headache I can’t really seem to get rid of.  In addition, I’m congested, but in a really gross old-nastiness-rooted-in-the-deep-recesses-of-the-nasal-cavity kind of congestion, and over the course of the day my throat has been bothering me more and more.  Now is not the time for me to get sick!

It is only Wednesday, I have a midterm paper to finish writing in addition to a mid-term Friday.  I don’t get my sick leave from work until Sunday, but I can’t call in without getting written up until next Friday.   Grrr….. and now I have to sit through two hours of Art Appreciation lecture.

All I want to do is take a nap and wake up when my B.A. is done…….

Politics, politics, politics……

I don’t usually mix politics and ….. well….. anything.  I try not to at least, but seeing as it’s an election year and the battle lines have been drawn between red and blue, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal, I try as much as possible to keep my head down and just get through to the election process.  Being the only Democrat AND liberal in my immediate family, I take more than my fair share of shots and am often told how “wrong” or “misguided” my political views are.  For the most part it boils down to this:

I don’t listen to the speeches the candidates make.  They’re politicians and all politicians have lied, cheated, bamboozled, fandangled, and twisted things to one degree or another to get where they are at.  It comes with the territory.

Our political parties get up in arms about how left-wing or right-wing they or their opponents are, how ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal the opposition is.  I’m a historian, and I’m going to set the record straight.  You want to talk about the left and right wings??  Okay, watch and learn:

Nazi’s are on the Right, Stalin-era Communists are on the Left.  Considering the fact that we haven’t established a military state complete with the Gestapo and Stalinist purges, coupled with the mass executions of millions of citizens, I’d say our politics are pretty damn run-of-the mill-smack-dab-in-the-boring-middle.  So rant all you want, Republican+Democrat = Two sides of the same EXACT coin.

Our politicians need to stop worrying about lobbyists and special interests and start focusing on what is best for THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, not the Let’s-pretend-we-are-so-different political parties.

Now, you may ask, “Matt, what sparked this political rant??” I will show you!

I received this in an e-mail from my brother-in-law:

This is for my anti war Obama voting brother in law…the media is not what they always seem.  I checked these out because I couldn’t believe it.

It’s essential to separate facts from political rhetoric, particularly when discussing military conflicts and military fatalities. These military losses may surprise you! Military losses, 1980 through 2006 As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006: 1980 ……… 2,392 (Carter Year) 1981 ……… 2,380 (Reagan Year) 1984 ……… 1,999 (Reagan Year) 1988 ……… 1,819 (Reagan Year) 1989 ……… 1,636 (George H W Year) 1990 ……… 1,508 (George H W Year) 1991 ……… 1,787 (George H W Year) 1992 ……… 1,2 93 (George H W Year) 1993 ……… 1,213 (Clinton Year) 1994 ……… 1,075 (Clinton Year) 1995 ………. 2,465 (Clinton Year) 1996 ………. 2,318 (Clinton Year) 1997 ………. 817 (Clinton Year) 1998 ………. 2,252 (Clinton Year) 1999 ……… 1,984 (Clinton Year) 2000 ……… 1,983 (Clinton Year) 2001 ………. 890(George W Year) 2002 ……… 1,007 (George W Year) 2003 ……… 1,410 (George W Year) 2004 ……… 1,887 (George W Year) 2005 ………. 919 (George W Year) 2006 ………. 920 (George W Year) 2007……….. 899 (George W Year) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths George W. years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton’s presidency when America wasn’t involved in a war! In 1980, during the reign of President Jimmy Carter, (Nobel Peace Prize winner), there were 2,392 US military fatalities! Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race: European descent ……………… 69.12% Hispanic …………………………. 12.5% Black …………………………….. 12. 3% Asian ………………………………. 3.7% Native American ………………….. 1.0% Other ………………………………. 2.6% Now… here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom: European descent (white) ………. 74.31% Hispanic ……………………………. 10.74% Black ……………           …….. ….. 9.6 7% Asian …………………………………. 1.81% Native American …………………….. 1.09% Other …………………………………. 0.33% It’s all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. The Hillary-Obama campaigns say the current administration does not ‘listen’ to anyone and continues the war, costing precious American lives. The Clinton administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death than the Bush Administration, in addition, Clinton also forced the military to release Osama Bin Laden when we actually had him detained

The following is was my response:

in Response to your e-mail regarding military deaths from Carter to Bush Jr., I fund this information regarding military action during Clinton’s presidency.
1992-2003 — Iraq. Iraqi No-Fly Zones The U.S. together with the United Kingdom declares and enforces “no fly zones” over the majority of sovereign Iraqi airspace, prohibiting Iraqi flights in zones in southern Iraq and northern Iraq, and conducting aerial reconnaissance and bombings. (See also Operation Southern Watch) ^[RL30172] 1992-95 — Somalia. “Operation Restore Hope” Somali Civil War On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed US armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a UN Security Council Resolution. The operation came to an end on May 4, 1993. US forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). (See also Battle of Mogadishu)^[RL30172]

1993-Present — Bosnia-Herzegovina.

1993 — Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 US soldiers to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to participate in the UN Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.^[RL30172]

1993-95 — Haiti. Operation Uphold Democracy US ships had begun embargo against Haiti. Up to 20,000 US military troops were later deployed to Haiti.^[RL30172]

1994 — Macedonia. On April 19, 1994, President Clinton reported that the US contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had been increased by a reinforced company of 200 personnel.^[RL30172]

1995 — Bosnia. NATO bombing of Bosnian Serbs.^[RL30172] (See Operation Deliberate Force)

1996 — Liberia. On April 11, 1996, President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the “deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens” in Liberia he had ordered US military forces to evacuate from that country “private US citizens and certain third-country nationals who had taken refuge in the US Embassy compound….”^[RL30172]

1996 — Central African Republic. On May 23, 1996, President Clinton reported the deployment of US military personnel to Bangui, Central African Republic, to conduct the evacuation from that country of “private US citizens and certain U.S. Government employees,” and to provide “enhanced security for the American Embassy in Bangui.”^[RL30172]

1997 — Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania. (See also Operation Silver Wake)^[RL30172]

1997 — Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.^[RL30172]

1997 — Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.^[RL30172]

1997 — Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations. ^[RL30172]

1998 — Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq.^[RL30172] (See Operation Desert Fox)

1998 — Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.^[RL30172]

1998 – 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. ^[RL30172]

1998 — Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20th, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.^[RL30172]

1998 — Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.^[RL30172]

1999 – 2001 East Timor. East Timor Independence Limited number of US military forces deployed with UN to restore peace to East Timor.^[RL30172]

1999 — NATO’s bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.^[RL30172] (See Operation Allied Force)

Considering the fact that the US provides the majority of military personnel and material utilized in NATO and UN military actions, and considering the world seemed to erupt into violence in the 90’s, simply showing military casualty statistics is a misleading representation of the context in which those casualties concerned.  I may be a conservative liberal Democrat, but I am also a military historian.

By the way, This e-mail is just for shits an giggles.  I’ve been pretty low-key on the political rhetoric, but I had to flex some nuts in response this time around.

Considering the fact that the state of California’s delegates are going to go to Obama, and the popular vote really doesn’t count for anything in our system, I figure it doesn’t matter who I vote for.  The next president isn’t going to magically fix all the problems in our nation or the world, but it was satisfying to flex my historical muscle.

Heroics

4 years of swimming, 2 summers of waterpolo, 3 years of coaching swimming and 5 years of lifeguarding.  My teens and early 20’s were spent mostly in and around water.  I love swimming, I miss competing, and I know there is still an athlete hiding underneath the extra 60 pounds I’ve packed on since high school.  I just finished watching Michael Phelps and the U.S. men’s 4 x 100 Medley Relay win the gold medal in world record time.  Number 8 for Phelps.  History happening before my eyes.  Eyes that were brought to tears.

In our new age of sports doping, it is truly inspiring to see Phelps become the most decorated olympian ever.  At the same time, 41 year old Dara Torres, mother on a two year old, won 3 silver medals in her now 5th olympics.  These accomplishments were due to training, dedication, and commitment, not illicit and illegal substances.

Today is a great day for the sport of swimming, a great day for sports, and a great day for the United States.

Here’s to you Michael and Dara.  Thank you for becoming symbols, inspirations, and a heroes.

For the Greater Good / Bruenor, Eater of Children / All in my Head…

I don’t really work hard at my job.  I have to get up early and clock in by 5:00 am, but after that, my brain pretty much goes on auto-pilot.  My job, which usually consists of sticking large stickers on palletized product over and over again, is definitely NOT the most stimulating activity.  Fortunately (or unfortunately) this allows me to think……. constantly.  I was going to sit down and write a deep and meaningful post about the situation with our dog, Bruenor, but I had all of my good thoughts earlier and I can;t piece the flow back together.  For the sake of getting it off of my chest and opening up a little, I’m going to run it down in a bullet point format:

Re-homing Bruenor makes me sad, even though it is best for him and us.

Matt’s sadness often leads to Matt’s depression.

I’ve struggled with depression for about 14 years and I am going to take the necessary steps to start to REALLY deal with it.

Maybe I’ll expand later, maybe not.  I probably will.

It was far more intellectual and cathartic running it over in my head at work, and I really wish I could have stopped and written a blog then and there, but I don;t get an office…..  Or a computer….. Or a chair….. or Air conditioning…..  Althoug I did stick stickers on about 150 pallets of a/c units today.  Ironic much?

My Brain is Full…

Short, sweet, and to the point.  My brain is full.  My last quarter at Cal State was intellectually stimulating and brutal at the same time.  Having been exposed to sorts of different writings of European Intellectuals from the Renaissance to the birth of the Post-Modern era, I have been able to conclude on thing:

I am a Post-Modern Agnostic Humanist with Existential tendencies…

On that note, my week and a half summer vacation is concluding, school starts on Tuesday, and my mind is swirling.  This blog should be pretty interesting, considering all the craziness that exists within my head and my life.  So, to my friends, family, and strangers who either happen upon my blog by chance or choose to read on a regular basis, I invite you to enjoy the “Free-Range Intellectualism.”  Welcome, welcome.

**Legal Disclaimer:  The views expressed in this blog are the opinions of one mind, the writer, and said writer is entitled to their thoughts and opinions.  Should you deem these thoughts inappropriate, offensive, or just downright wiggity-whack, just take comfort that your own mentality is far more stable than that of the writer….