Oh yeah, also shout out to Micah 4:4 getting into the inauguration, being quoted by Amanda Gorman (via George Washington (maybe also via the musical Hamilton, but it was famous before)) in her amazing poem (and what delivery!)
The full verse goes:
"Everyone will sit under their own vine
and under their own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the Lord Almighty has spoken" (NIV)
In its context, the verse contemplates a future world at peace under God's rule.
But Washington, most famously in his letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, took the verse as an ideal for the American republic, where people of every stripe "shall sit...
...in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."
(Full text here: facinghistory.org/nobigotry/the-…)
It was a promise that the US would be a country where everyone, regardless of race or creed, could build their own lives, free of interference.
As Washington put it, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights"
Of course Washington's assertion that "the Government of the United States [...] gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" rings a little hollow given that he held other men in bondage and that the government would indeed long sanction that bigotry.
But I think the aspiration, if not the reality, of Washington's use of Micah 4:4's vine and fruit tree, is a powerful and salutary vision for a pluralistic, multi-ethnic, multi-religious republic.
I'm always glad to see that vision put forward.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just to give a sense of how lacking in rigor this thing is, I submitted an article for peer review of about 80% the length a bit back. Where this 'report' seeks to answer vast questions about American principles over 200+ years of history... 1/5
Looking over the so-called 1776 commission, the thing I find most disappointing are the missed opportunities created by just how clownishly incompetent a document this is, from stem to stern. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
1/6
History is about evidence (which makes one question why this document lacks a bibliography or notes), but it is also about selection & interpretation. Two historians, working in good faith, may look at the same body of evidence &, because they look from a different angle... 2/6
...or at a different part, come up with different, but equally valid conclusions.
Consequently, I think there is good and valuable history to be written by people whose views and values differ greatly from mine. I want to welcome those people into the discipline. 3/6
Do note that Turchin appears himself in that thread and somewhat moderates the 'tone' of how the press frequently presents him (but then one wonders why that tone appears unaltered in the recent Guardian story theguardian.com/us-news/2021/j…)
Also note Dr. Fafinski @Calthalas response to the current Turchin/Cliodynamics discourse here:
First off, our sources for the life of Philip II are really poor. Unlike the multiple biographies we have of his son Alexander III ('the Great'), we have no sustained biography of Philip II. Consequently, we're left to piece together his reign from disparate sources. 2/25
There's a strong tradition that Philip II just left the Spartans alone. That tradition comes from Plutarch, who preserves that classic Laconic reply where Philip threatens that if he enters Spartan territory he would destroy them and they respond 'If' (Plut. De Garr. 17). 3/25
Alright, going back to live-tweeting my way through Steven Pressfield (author of 'Gates of Fire)'s rather...frustrating?...video series on the 'warrior archetype.'
You can see the two previous threads (which covered episodes 1-6) here:
So last time we worked through Ep. 6, "Come and Take Them" which was an account of Thermopylae that demonstrated a remarkably poor grasp of the historical battle or its sources and a general unwillingness or inability to read those sources critically as a historian ought.
This time it looks like we're sailing out of the Spartan-hagiography-by-way-of-gullible-readings-of-Plutarch and into Pressfield's actual theory tying this all together, with 'Episode Seven: What is an Archetype."
Alright, going to pick up again live-tweeting my reactions to the next few videos in Steven Pressfield's 'The Warrior Archteype series.' I looked at the first five videos last time here:
The short summary of the first five videos is that they presented a utopian Sparta, almost entirely from Plutarch, read very uncritically & thus fell prey to the Myths of Spartan Equality and Spartan Military Excellence, which I have already exploded here: acoup.blog/2019/08/16/col…
Now I want to change up my tone a little bit because in the first posts I was rather flip and dismissive and I want to offer a bit more intellectual charity here.
Now on to 'Episode Six' which is...oh good heavens...which is "Come and Take Them." Because of course it is.