fpb: (Athena of Pireus)
Many of us have seen an excellent movie called GLORY, telling the story of the doomed but heroic assault by the black troops of the 53rd Massachusetts against the formidable coastal confederate Fort Wagner. With due respect for those brave men, that movie had the wrong subject. If they wanted to tell the story of black victims of oppression and dehumanization, taking up arms and proving themselves men on the battlefield, there is an episode that does it much better than even the fight for Fort Wagner; I mean the battle of Milliken's Bend (June 7, 1863).

As the situation of Vicksburg was growing dire, and Grant's wide-ranging operations had driven any hope of support far away (taking of Jackson and battles of Champion Hill and of Big Black River Bridge, mid-May), the Confederates pinned their last hopes on attempts to break Grant's inevitably long supply lines. A union depot was known to exist at Milliken's Bend, upriver from Vicksburg, and an elite unit, General John Walker's Texas cavalry division, was dispatched to destroy it.

The Texans attacked late in the night of June 6-7. The garrison at Milliken's Bend had had some advance warning of their arrival, and were reinforced by the experienced white troops of the 23rd Iowa; but the bulk of the local garrison was made up of two nominal regiments, the Louisiana Ninth and Eleventh: black volunteers, most of them escaped slaves, who had been enlisted for only a few weeks, with as much training as could have been expected for that period, officered by white soldiers promoted directly from private for the purpose, frequently illiterate, and often armed with out-of-date, broken-down Austrian rifles. Numerically, the defenders and the attackers were about equal, but given the different levels of skill and training of the Texans, the outcome would have seemed to be inevitable. The Texans broke the Union line, screaming "No quarter! No quarter!", and the Iowans and the Louisianans became separated from each other, each understandably convinced that the other had left.

And then the unlikely thing happened. Driven from their positions, pushed back till they had their backs to the river, the Ninth and Eleventh Louisiana did not break or even waver, but met the Texans man to man. Twice they retook the battlements from which they had first been forced. Massed and pushing in a tiny space, literally face to face and eye to eye, fighting with the bayonet more than with the gun, the superior skill of the Texans ceased to matter; and the resolution of the former slaves not to be driven back, at whatever cost, became the deciding factor. The savage melee went on from dawn till midday, when the two gunboats "Choctaw" and "Lexington", warned of the attack, finally reached the battlefield, and a few rounds of naval artillery convinced the Texans to seek friendlier climates.

There was, indeed, "glory" at Fort Wagner; but Milliken's Bend, I think, means more. First, the troops of the 53rd Massachusetts were well trained and armed and meant from the start to be a front-line unit; while the 9th and 11th Louisiana were the lowest grade of troop, meant only for "garrison duty", doing the jobs that better and more expensively trained units would be wasted on; and few people would have blamed them if, faced with such a unit as the Texas cavalry, they had abandoned the field. Second, however you look at it, Fort WAgner was a defeat; Milliken's Bend was a victory. And in spite of its small scale, it was a victory of some significance. The Confederate attack had been altogether misguided: Grant's supply line no longer ran through Milliken's Bend, and even if the Texans had won they would have achieved precisely nothing. But the waste of Texans at Milliken's Bend also means that this elite unit was not sent, as its overall commander, General Taylor, had pleaded, to attack a vulnerable New Orleans; and if they had been, Grant's whole strategy might have been in trouble.

But Milliken's Bend was even more important in the larger picture of the war. Since the beginning of the year, the Emancipation Proclamation had been operative, and the Union army had begun to recruit blacks from the southern state. But doubt about the military qualities, the discipline, and the goals, of this rabble of runaway slaves, ran deep in Union minds. The reports of officers after Milliken's Bend, some of which were reprinted on Northern papers, blew away these doubts and prejudices. One surviving officer, Captain Miller, wrote a letter to an aunt, who passed it to the local newspaper: ...Our regiment had about 300 men in the fight. We had 1 colonel wounded. 4 captains wounded, 2 first and 2 second lieutenants killed, 5 lieutenants wounded, and 3 white orderlies killed and 1 wounded in the hand and two fingers taken off. The list of killed and wounded officers comprises nearly all the officers present with the regiment, a majority of the rest being absent recruiting.
'We had about 50 men killed in the regiment and 80 wounded, so you can judge of what part of the fight my company sustained. I never felt more grieved and sick at heart than when I saw how my brave soldiers had been slaughtered, one with six wounds, all the rest with two or three, none less than two wounds. Two of my colored sergeants were killed, both brave, noble men; always prompt, vigilant, and ready for the fray. I never more wish to hear the expression, "The niggers wont fight." Come with me 100 yards from where I sit and I can show you the wounds that cover the bodies of 16 as brave, loyal, and patriotic soldiers as ever drew bead on a rebel.
'The enemy charged us so close that we fought with our bayonets hand to hand. I have six broken bayonets to show how bravely my men fought...It was a horrible fight, the worst I was ever engaged in, not even excepting Shiloh. The enemy cried, "No quarters," but some of them were very glad to take it when made prisoners...
And finally, the highest praise an officer can give his men in any army: What few men I have left seem to think much of me because I stood up with them in the fight. I can say for them that I never saw a braver company of men in my life. 'Not one of them offered to leave his place until ordered to fall back; in fact, very few ever did fall back. I went down to the hospital three miles today to see the wounded. Nine of them were there, two having died of their wounds. A boy I had cooking for me came and begged a gun when the rebels were advancing, and took his place with the company, and when we retook the breast-works I found him badly wounded with one gunshot and two bayonet wounds. A new recruit I had issued a gun to the day before the fight was found dead, with a firm grasp on his gun, the bayonet of which was broken in three pieces So they fought and died defending the cause that we revere. They met death coolly, bravely; not rashly did they expose themselves, but all were steady and obedient to orders.

The Army, too, paid attention. Grant, their own overall commander, noticed how, for all their lack of training and education, the black troops had behaved well. Assistant Secretary of War Charles A. Dana wrote, "The bravery of the blacks completely revolutionized the sentiment of the army with regard to the employment of negro troops." From then on, the US Army proceeded cheerfully to recruit and train as many blacks as it could find, and by the time the war was over, one tenth of the victorious army was black. And since then, no US military has ever been able to without those whom their Indian enemies baptized the "buffalo soldiers".

Sono uomo e son soldato, viva la liberta'! says the song of the Italian volunteers, who had gathered and fought a few years earlier for a very similar cause: I'm a man, and I'm a soldier - long live liberty!. A soldier: not just a rebel, a wanderer, or a bandit. The connection between liberty and soldiering is instinctive; to draw it as a Venn diagram, not every soldier is a freedom fighter, but every person who believes in liberty is potentially a soldier. And the reason is obvious. A soldier is a man who fights in the name of his society - his country and his people, his code of laws and his values. And liberty is not an individual but a collective quality. Nobody can really be free on his own, and freedom is not a principle unless it is, at the very least, society-wide. And there is no freedom without law, nor without individual self-discipline. Freedom would not last long if all we saw in it were licence to do as we please regardless of what that did to others. Finally, there is no freedom unless free men are willing to die rather than lose it. Liberté, Liberté chérie/ Combats avec tes défenseurs!

These men - these illiterate, ragged, barefoot, shoeless runaways - knew it; knew it better, it seems, than the learned judges and the honorable representatives of our day. For this reason, having escaped the chain, the whip, and the baying hounds, they freely handed themselves over to the uniform, the hard graft of basic training, the yells of the sergeant, the burden of back-pack and rifle in the heat of a Southern summer, and the terror of death and mutilation. They knew that if they wanted to be free, they had to fight with those who fought for freedom; and that there would be no freedom for them unless it was enforced on everyone - even their masters.

And so, this Fourth of July, let us all, Americans and otherwise, think of the men of Milliken's Bend; and if and when our time comes, let us try to deserve what they took for every one of us, black, white, or green, at the price of their bodies and lives.
fpb: (Default)
How can you possibly have failed to notice that the indoctrination of teen-agers with the mantra of "question authority" has produced nothing but the most appalling conformity? It would be Umbridge who would encourage everyone to "question authority" - since the person who does so automatically places herself in a position of unrecognized authority, and her authority is always the last to be questioned, if it is questioned at all. What "Question authority" means in practice is: "Never take MY ideological opponents seriously. Always assume that their motives are other than what they say, and that they are bad. And always listen to those little suggestions I have placed in your mind". Anti-authoritarian? Yeah, right
fpb: (Default)
One point about the fall of the Berlin Wall is not made often enough. It used to be a historiographical commonplace that Germany was the European country where liberal revolutions had always failed. That is no longer the case. There has been a successful democratic revolution at the very core of the old Prussian authoritarian state, in a part of Germany most of which had practically never enjoyed democratic government.
fpb: (Default)
Yes, we are fortunate. Like the great men of a time we thought we might never see again, we have our chance to defend freedom.Read more... )
fpb: (Default)
When I posted about the Muhammad cartoon controversy, I did not realize that it was becoming a worldwide affair. Read more... )
fpb: (Default)
It is not often that you will find me on the same side as the Reverend Ian Paisley (who once screamed "Antichrist!" at the Pope across the European Parliament) or as atheist brutes such as Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee; in fact, I do not recall it ever happening before. But every one of us, and many other shades of opinion besides, have been horrified for months at the worst yet of the many insane ideas to come out of the Tory Blur and his gang of reality-challenged free-market ideologues and PC addicts. This was his Religious Hatred Bill, a proposal to make attacks against any religion illegal.

All sides of the community, with the exception of most Muslims, regard this frightful piece of tyranny with horror. Artists and intellectuals joined with Evangelical Christians, atheists, Buddhists, in demonstrating against it before Westminster Palace. It would have criminalized anything that any particular religious group could reasonably describe as offensive to its principles - a long-held desire of Muslims, and perhaps of pseudoreligious scoundrels such as Scientologists, but of nobody else.

Bear in mind that we are talking about much more than the ancient offence of blasphemy. Blasphemy meant violently insulting God. Being "offensive" means a whole lot more. Even if you do not take into account the commonplace fact that there is nothing that cannot be offensive to someone or other (and I have certainly defriended one person and banned another, for making what I regarded as offensive remarks about my personal integrity, where they could not even see that they had been offensive), consider the following scenarii: 1) a man going up to a Muslim and denying that Muhammad was ever a prophet; 2) a man going up to a Buddhist and saying that what the Buddha taught was so much nonsense; 3) a man going up to a Christian and saying that the Christian religion was the product of collective delusion among the disappointed follower of a Jewish rebel executed by the Romans (and who, of course, never rose from the dead). Does anyone doubt that all these statements can certainly be, and be meant to be, offensive? But they can also be, and should always be taken as, reasonable challenges to the basis of the religion.

And religion ought to be discussed. There is the simple point that two contradictory views of reality cannot both be true. Therefore, even admitting that one religion is correct in its description of reality (by "religion", here, I mean any philosophy of existence, including therefore such a thing as modern atheism, a.k.a. "monistic materialism" or "humanism"), all others must be incorrect in some of their features. Therefore debate is necessary, not only to show (granted that it is possible to show it) the flaws in any religion, but, more importantly still, to refute in principle and practice the monstrosity of a notion of two equally right and equally valid, yet contradictory, descriptions of reality.

The Tory Blur's obscene bill was not only a liberticidal assault on freedom of thought, but an irrational display of misology - hatred of reason - which Socrates warned long ago was one and the same as misanthropy - hatred of human beings. It was widely regarded as a desperate attempt to fish for a few muddy Muslim votes (lost to Labour by innumerable Politically Correct decisions as well as by the war in Iraq) by putting the Muslim religion - which, alone of all the main religions practised in Great Britain, demands to be beyond discussion - in a position to take all opponents to court. And that being the case, I cannot describe my joy and relief when this crime against humanity was decisively rejected by both Chambers of Parliament.

Those of us who have long since seen through the Tory Blur's hollow front have come to regard with dread the moment when a new "initiative" or bill or program is announced; because the history of the last two Parliaments is so servile, so uncritical, so meanly disciplined and obedient, that for the last nine years the announcement of a new government policy was one and the same with its adoption - delayed, at most, by a few ineffectual amendments put in by the Lords and promptly removed by the Commons. But this time, at last, at last, the Commons forgot that they were were the servants of Mr.Tony and had to do his bidding; and they remembered only that they were citizens, free men, and adults, with the duties of adults. At least, enough of them remembered it, to deliver a decisive defeat to the Government, passing all the Lords' amendments; with the added and delicious insult that one crucial vote was lost by one vote because the Right Honourable Anthony Blair MP was not in the House at the time!

I had not dared to hope for this result; and even now, the battle is by no means over. The Tory Blur is obstinate as well as deluded, and I think he will try to railroad his Murder of Thought Bill through Parliament by some means or other. But, for once, and God be thanked (or whatever it is that you pray to), freedom and justice have prevailed in the Mother of Parliaments. When I heard about the vote missed by one voter, I laughed; but when I was clear that the most outrageous proposals of the Bill had been soundly defeated, I burst into song - the old Protestant hymn, Now thank we all our God; both stanzas. A great evil has been averted for now, and, God willing, it will remain averted.
fpb: (Default)
There used to be a nasty little joke going around about the more prejudiced sections of the English public: "Heard the last about (whatever war was going on at the time)? Italy has surrendered just in case." I do not seem to hear it any more; probably because people have learned better than to say it in my presence.

However, yesterday, it happened for real. Only it did not happen in Italy. It happened in Norway.

A few months ago, a Danish writer looking for an illustrator for a book on the life of Mohammed met with a problem: three professional illustrators in succession turned him down cold. The reason? They were afraid for their lives. Apparently word had got around the Danish artistic community that anyone who dared draw a likeness of the Prophet was liable to be murdered by some of his more committed followers.

A conservative news magazine called Jyllands-Posten heard the story and was furious. At its appeal, twelve cartoonists sprang forward and presented their own ideas of a likeness of Islam's founder. And the trouble began.

Denmark, like every other country in western Europe, has a Muslim minority, which, like all Muslim minorities, tends to overrate both its rights and its power. (The largest immigrant minority in Italy, for instance, in spite of our closeness to the Muslims world, is not Islam but the Eastern Orthodox churches.) Some violence, and a great many threats of violence, took place. Jyllands-Posten stood firm, stating in curt and admirably civilized words its own right of self-expression. The government was called upon to do something, and the Danish Prime Minister gave the dignified and courageous answer that the right to give orders to the Press is a right that a democratic head of government neither has nor wishes to have.

Muslim anger grew. How DARED this tiny little infidel country claim the right to draw pictures of the Prophet if they wished? That was an assault upon all the Muslims of the world! The nastiest kind of political fishermen started plunging hooks and sinkers in very muddy waters; and as the twelve original cartoons might not have been deemed outrageous enough (in fact, most of them were nothing more than drawings of conventional bearded Arabs in white clothes, only a minority being even humorous, let alone insulting), three more, truly outrageous ones, sprung up from nowhere, to whip the fanatical masses of the Muslim world into further fury. People who had never heard of Denmark in their lives were mustered in the streets to scream their hatred at the peaceful little country. The UN performed its usual blame-Abel-and-praise-Cain act. A boycott of Danish produce was called, and the Danish business community grew uneasy, begging the government to forget all this nonsense about dignity and freedom of expression - there were serious issues at stake here - money! (Thus the capitalists fulfilled once again their vocation of cowards, quislings and traitors at every time and in every country.)

(The episode of the three apocryphal cartoons I find particularly significant; not only because it is evidence of the deceit and propaganda on which Islamistic politics live, but also because it may have some psychological relevance. For a Muslim, consciously, the notion of drawing the Prophet in a truly vile and revolting guise would be something of the ultimate horror, even of suicide. And yet, one has to wonder whether the people who secretly produced these obscenities were not only fulfilling their propaganda duties, but letting loose those elements of inner revolt and suppression which are also visible in their incredibly short fuse and ease of hatred and violence.)

The Danish government, in spite of the occasional meaningless courtesy, did not give in. They behaved, in all and for all, as I would wish any free country's leadership to act. And then, yesterday, the Norwegian government, which had nothing to do with the affair at all, published this obscenity:

I am sorry that the publication of a few cartoons in the Norwegian paper Magazinet has caused unrest among Muslims. I fully understand that these drawings are seen to give offence by Muslims worldwide. Islam is a spiritual reference point for a large part of the world. Your faith has the right to be respected by us.
The cartoons in the Christian paper Magazinet are not constructive in building the bridges which are necessary between people with different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Instead they contribute to suspicion and unnecessary conflict.

Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism, and believes that this fight is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are the basis values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy.

Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Norwegian society. This includes tolerance for opinions that not everyone shares. At the same time our laws and our international obligations enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred or hateful expressions.


To compare this kind of vileness to Vidkun Quisling is to do the most famous of all collaborators an injustice. Quisling was never abject before his Nazi masters, and did not try to make "freedom of expression" mean the opposite of what it does. The current Norwegian government is abject with a depth and thoroughness hitherto unknown in Europe.

Two of my online friends are a Norwegian and a Muslim. They are both very dear to me. I regret having to publish this, and I have been silent both about the trash that now "govern" Norway, and about my view of Islam, in order not to give pain. But there are times when to be silent is to fail in your duty, and this seems to me one of those.

I ask everyone who reads this to reprint it in their LJ or place a link.
fpb: (Default)
Six years ago, an elderly philosopher wrote this article. It is long, but so much to the point and so good that I reproduce it whole.
Read more... )

Profile

fpb: (Default)
fpb

February 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
345 6789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 25th, 2026 01:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios