Below is original letter sent to Today in response to an article about recent Chinese & Korean demonstrations against Japanese WWII actions. The cut-down version published make things appear much more shallow then I intended and did not contain any of the references I provided. Also, the different title used indicate the editors probably missed out on the key point I was trying to make (see my feedback to Today at bottom). Or presumably they did not think Singaporeans would be interested. That's perhaps the reason why Singaporeans did not feel as much as the Chinese & Koreans. How to if the people that feed them their daily doses of 'news' are the same?
{Original Letter}
Why Our Hearts Beat Differently
I refer to article “Why my heart does not beat for China” published on 27 April 2005. The writer was right in saying that people should not react to any event from the standpoint of their ethnicity. He should perhaps also have stated that people should also not do so from the standpoint of nationality (which is a relatively new concept from a historical context) but should perhaps do so from that of human decency. From this standpoint, we should perhaps try and make sense of the following observations from the writer:
1. ‘the vehement protests seem limited to China and Korea’
2. ‘that expressions of nationalist feelings in China do not strike a chord with Chinese Singaporeans’
To understand item 1, we should firstly start by recognizing that China and Korea are the Asian nations that suffered the most under Japan (far greater than the others by any measure).
Secondly, we should try to better understand the history and considerations behind the treaty of surrender of Japan. Geo-politics is a keyword here. (http://guywong.home.netcom.com/html/IvyRecon.htm).
Thirdly, we should find out more about the Yasukuni shrine which also ‘houses’ the graves of WWII Japanese war criminals, and what the ‘temple’ represents. The following could have been mistaken as a ‘mission statement’ in another context but was extracted from this encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine):
A pamphlet published by the shrine says "War is a really tragic thing to happen, but it was necessary in order for us to protect the independence of Japan and to prosper together with Asian neighbors." In others, the shrine runs a museum on the history of Japan, commemorating the soldiers who fought for Japan, remembering them as Kami (gods),and the English website claims that "Japan’s dream of building a Great East Asia was necessitated by history and it was sought after by the countries of Asia."
Item 2 can perhaps be explained by asking the following questions:
- how many Singaporeans are aware of the above?
- when do Singaporeans ever feel strongly about anything? (may be with the exception of making money)
It is also not uncommon for less informed humans who tend to be selfish to behave in a manner that basically says ‘if it does not affect me, it does not bother me’. To put this in reverse perspective, as far as I know the water issue with Malaysia and that of the IRs ‘strongly felt’ by Singaporeans also did not strike a chord with the people in China and Korea. That does not say anything about how far China or Korea has come as nations.
{Version published by Today}
Editor comments: IT'S a sign of how far we have come as a nation, that expressions of nationalist feelings in China don't resonate with Chinese Singaporeans, said Siew Kum Hong in yesterday's News Comment, "Why my heart does not beat for China". Readers give a wide range of reactions.
"If it does not affect me, it does not bother me"
THE writer was right in saying that people should not react to any event from the standpoint of their ethnicity. He should perhaps also have stated that people should not do so from the standpoint of nationality, but perhaps from that of human decency.
The writer observed that the vehement protests seem limited to China and Korea and that the expressions of nationalist feelings in China did not strike a chord with Chinese Singaporeans.
First, note that China and Korea are the two Asian nations that suffered the most under Japan.
Second, how many Singaporeans are aware of this? And when do Singaporeans ever feel strongly about anything (maybe with the exception of money)?
It is not uncommon for less informed humans who tend to be selfish to behave in a manner that basically says: "If it does not affect me, it does not bother me."
To put this in reverse perspective, as far as I know, the water issue with Malaysia and that of the IRs "strongly felt" by Singaporeans also did not strike a chord with the people in China and Korea. That does not say anything about how far China or Korea have come as nations.
{'Feedback' I sent to Today on the publication}
Hi,
I understand the need to be succinct but your published version of my letter had key references I made left out thereby making its contents appear shallow and in the process proved the one key point I was making - the lack of in-depth knowledge of world/historical events is the reason why Singaporeans do not feel strongly about anything. Similar behavior on the part of the providers of their daily dosage of 'news' does not help.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Let's Join the Club
For those that noticed, a current hot topic is on clubs. So here's one on some of the biggest clubs in history (notice how the British always setup their own exclusive clubs wherever they go):
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/todaystake/tt050503.htm1
(copy provided below)
If a macro example is too much for some to contemplate, a more micro one is attached for convenience ("Why Maids Are Not Allowed in Cricket Club") :
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2000_10_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html
So which and whose club are you in? Why did they let you in? In what way does it make you or them feel good?
By the way, the mighty British (some say great) once famously posted signs at a Shanghai park that said 'No Dogs or Chinese Allowed' (presumably it was grounds for one of their clubs).
That was after the Opium War gave them Hong Kong, MFN status, extra-terrestrial legal rights for British, the right to sell more opium to Chinamen, and China agreed not to call them barbarians anymore. The other powers quickly got the same soon after (may be out of admiration or respect for greatness of the British).
p.s. today got half-day off lah. Going to setup a teh tarik club tonite at Bedok Road with Benny Chin. Anyone care to join? Entrance fee only 70 cents - no need to sell anything for that.
History Lessons for Pax Americana
by Arthur Jones, NCR editor at large
Current political buzz equates President Bush's globalization with the dawn of Pax Americana. Doonesbury has already given Dubbya a centurion's helmet.
This fits nicely with the rehabilitation of Pax Britannica, (see Niall Ferguson's slightly fawning "Empire: Queen Victoria's Secret" (Basic Books) enamoured of pro-British Indians and other former serfs, and Ferguson's own nostalgia for English free trade and military and capitalist domination.
Edward Gibbon held the same views of heyday Rome. His "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", opens as Pax Romana, those two centuries of peace from the reign of Augustus (beginning in 31 BC) to around 180 A.D. Pax Britannica had a shorter run. Arguably from 1865 to the Japanese destruction of the Russian fleet in 1904-05.
Gibbon: "In the second century of the Christian era the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth and the most civilized portion of mankind. … Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence." Free constitution for Romans, but Rome's holdings were "provinces," not free states.
Pax Romana and Pax Britannica contain parallels and warnings for a United States that aims at Empire, with Bush a latter-day Queen Victoria.
The Roman Empire was an economic domination - there was no enemy worthy of the name. The British Empire was the same: in "India Britannica" (1983) Godfrey Moorhouse reminds that England's major rush to augment its India presence came because the supply of raw cotton to England's cotton mills was cut off by the American Civil War. For Britain, "King Cotton" was the oil of its day.
Empire created the mess that is today's colonial-era divided Africa, and military-coup-prone Fiji, where the British imported Indians -- who today nearly outnumber native Fijians. Empire is the Amritsar massacre, plus everything Gandhi opposed. That's the underbelly of Pax Britannica, just as condoning torture is the underbelly of the new Pax Americana.
Rome wanted an Empire of Roman citizens. And those who became such were well satisfied. The English operated differently. The first thing they did in a new colony was found a club and a race course and exclude the locals. The English wanted to be envied. Those locals admitted under sufferance to further the iron grip were well satisfied to be included.
The Americans want to be loved. Let's see how that plays with the Iraqis, the Arabs and Muslims.
Arthur's Daily Ditty
Pax Americana: Bush locuta est
Carpe diem, seize the dime,
Tempus fugit, fuggedabout the Times,
O quo vadis? Osama who?
Caveat emptor, caves' empty, too.
Pater Nosterv, thank you, Dad,
Iraq's oil's ours, pax, your lad.
(PS, Postscriptum:
Our motto's certain:
E pluribus unum et Halliburton.)
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/todaystake/tt050503.htm1
(copy provided below)
If a macro example is too much for some to contemplate, a more micro one is attached for convenience ("Why Maids Are Not Allowed in Cricket Club") :
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2000_10_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html
So which and whose club are you in? Why did they let you in? In what way does it make you or them feel good?
By the way, the mighty British (some say great) once famously posted signs at a Shanghai park that said 'No Dogs or Chinese Allowed' (presumably it was grounds for one of their clubs).
That was after the Opium War gave them Hong Kong, MFN status, extra-terrestrial legal rights for British, the right to sell more opium to Chinamen, and China agreed not to call them barbarians anymore. The other powers quickly got the same soon after (may be out of admiration or respect for greatness of the British).
p.s. today got half-day off lah. Going to setup a teh tarik club tonite at Bedok Road with Benny Chin. Anyone care to join? Entrance fee only 70 cents - no need to sell anything for that.
History Lessons for Pax Americana
by Arthur Jones, NCR editor at large
Current political buzz equates President Bush's globalization with the dawn of Pax Americana. Doonesbury has already given Dubbya a centurion's helmet.
This fits nicely with the rehabilitation of Pax Britannica, (see Niall Ferguson's slightly fawning "Empire: Queen Victoria's Secret" (Basic Books) enamoured of pro-British Indians and other former serfs, and Ferguson's own nostalgia for English free trade and military and capitalist domination.
Edward Gibbon held the same views of heyday Rome. His "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", opens as Pax Romana, those two centuries of peace from the reign of Augustus (beginning in 31 BC) to around 180 A.D. Pax Britannica had a shorter run. Arguably from 1865 to the Japanese destruction of the Russian fleet in 1904-05.
Gibbon: "In the second century of the Christian era the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth and the most civilized portion of mankind. … Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence." Free constitution for Romans, but Rome's holdings were "provinces," not free states.
Pax Romana and Pax Britannica contain parallels and warnings for a United States that aims at Empire, with Bush a latter-day Queen Victoria.
The Roman Empire was an economic domination - there was no enemy worthy of the name. The British Empire was the same: in "India Britannica" (1983) Godfrey Moorhouse reminds that England's major rush to augment its India presence came because the supply of raw cotton to England's cotton mills was cut off by the American Civil War. For Britain, "King Cotton" was the oil of its day.
Empire created the mess that is today's colonial-era divided Africa, and military-coup-prone Fiji, where the British imported Indians -- who today nearly outnumber native Fijians. Empire is the Amritsar massacre, plus everything Gandhi opposed. That's the underbelly of Pax Britannica, just as condoning torture is the underbelly of the new Pax Americana.
Rome wanted an Empire of Roman citizens. And those who became such were well satisfied. The English operated differently. The first thing they did in a new colony was found a club and a race course and exclude the locals. The English wanted to be envied. Those locals admitted under sufferance to further the iron grip were well satisfied to be included.
The Americans want to be loved. Let's see how that plays with the Iraqis, the Arabs and Muslims.
Arthur's Daily Ditty
Pax Americana: Bush locuta est
Carpe diem, seize the dime,
Tempus fugit, fuggedabout the Times,
O quo vadis? Osama who?
Caveat emptor, caves' empty, too.
Pater Nosterv, thank you, Dad,
Iraq's oil's ours, pax, your lad.
(PS, Postscriptum:
Our motto's certain:
E pluribus unum et Halliburton.)
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Date to Respect
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050420053609.nnix7s4b.html
http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/ri_filmmaker_holywatergate.htm
(see previous blog entry and extracts of above links in comments)
Let us note this date
To some a sacred mandate
New head a divine dictate
Enlightened ones celebrate
Fools like me contemplate
How come a noble state
Despite all that ingratiate
Low its guardians degenerate
Harbingers of great faith
Prone to such mistake.
Those who dissect
Do not demand respect
Nor only what delect
Otherwise reject
But take in perspect
Like why those young so perfect
Abused by nearer God prefect?
They say man is imperfect
Let’s forgive and forget
Great generosity of neglect
Not likely so if the same theirs beget.
Such detestable palate
Even me who seem inanimate
and soul-less would not imitate
Haunts me inordinate
Excuses used to placate
Reasons indeterminate
No insult intended mate
Just cannot appreciate
Won’t submit to such fate
Or those quotes you gyrate.
Greatest gift Nature bequeathed
That of the intellect
Should make us all suspect
That such man-made sect
Are also used by insects
But somehow I don’t expect
Some to come clean with circumspect
To all Gods I willingly subject
But cannot put this with respect…..(CCK 05:4:20)
(CCK 05:4:20 - Nice numerals & ditty to quote, divinity it does not denote)
http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/ri_filmmaker_holywatergate.htm
(see previous blog entry and extracts of above links in comments)
Let us note this date
To some a sacred mandate
New head a divine dictate
Enlightened ones celebrate
Fools like me contemplate
How come a noble state
Despite all that ingratiate
Low its guardians degenerate
Harbingers of great faith
Prone to such mistake.
Those who dissect
Do not demand respect
Nor only what delect
Otherwise reject
But take in perspect
Like why those young so perfect
Abused by nearer God prefect?
They say man is imperfect
Let’s forgive and forget
Great generosity of neglect
Not likely so if the same theirs beget.
Such detestable palate
Even me who seem inanimate
and soul-less would not imitate
Haunts me inordinate
Excuses used to placate
Reasons indeterminate
No insult intended mate
Just cannot appreciate
Won’t submit to such fate
Or those quotes you gyrate.
Greatest gift Nature bequeathed
That of the intellect
Should make us all suspect
That such man-made sect
Are also used by insects
But somehow I don’t expect
Some to come clean with circumspect
To all Gods I willingly subject
But cannot put this with respect…..(CCK 05:4:20)
(CCK 05:4:20 - Nice numerals & ditty to quote, divinity it does not denote)
Monday, April 18, 2005
Pope Trivia
The morning the last Pope died a few weeks ago, a local fella suggested we have a minute silence. Thinking it was some joke, I broke into laughter. Until, of course, I saw that the fella was quite serious. That was the day I decided to pen this little piece of 'memoria' of the Popes.
I then received 'feedback' from one of the more 'sensitive' ones (exchange at bottom) whose past exchanges with me had been quite 'amazing' to say the least e.g.
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2001_06_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html
See also comments for subsequent private exchange and see how such people can completely miss the point (in that case, my friend was trying to 'prove me wrong' by saying there was possibly one black Pope from Ethiopia, when I was trying to show something else i.e. it is just another man-made institution exhibiting all the common traits of one).
The other thing was our friend did not bother to check his facts again - I could not find record of a black Pope for the Roman Catholic Church. Again, I had to remind our friend that I was talking about that particular Catholic church, and he should not mix it up with others. (Phew! You see what I mean?)
Trivia Questions:
1. Why is the institution headed by the Pope known as the Roman Catholic Church?
2. How is the Pope selected?
3. How many Popes are there at any one time?
4. How many Popes were white?
5. Who are the Jesuits and why were they once disbanded soon after formation?
6. Is the Pope a celibate?
7. How many Asian Cardinals are there and who decides on that?
8. How long does it take the Vatican to declare that Galileo and Darwin were right and which Pope was behind it?
9. How old is the state of Vatican City?
Trivial Answers:
1. Why is the institution headed by the Pope known as the Roman Catholic Church?
This institution owes its existence to the Romans who were the ‘greatest and most benevolent’ super-power of their time (hey, if not how else would we have known such a great ‘book’). The most prominent players were a Roman emperor called Constantine, and a goyok seller by the name of Paul.
2. How is the Pope selected?
Over time, the Pope was selected in a number of different ways (no one formula is prescribed by the ‘book’ what). If you think that is a sign of Vatican dynamism, read on.
As democracy was not mentioned in the great ‘book’, that was not the selection approach for a long time – may be, this ‘greatest thing’ the world had ever discovered was not known to the Romans (never mind the Greeks were just next door).
So it was left to the heavens to reveal its choice to the world in its ‘own mysterious ways’. But this is a free world to which each enlightened ones read their own unique holy signs. But mostly, all those signs are so holey that the only one method that holds water was the one based on who holds the most swords or guns. And so it was that when the Romans were masters, influential Roman families will ‘compete to put their guy up for the job’ (if it sounds like the Republicans and Democrats, you are not wrong). If you are as powerful as the likes of Napoleon, you can afford to march all the way to Rome and install one of yours (if that sounds like present day Iraq, you are also not incorrect).
If you are desperate but not powerful enough to subdue the other guy trying to do the same, you can always have your own pope. In fact, once there were 4 of these fellas at the same time (installed by 4 different fellas, of course). Can you imagine that? The world having 4-times the holiness – you can’t get enough of those blessings, I tell you!
If you think that lacked class, you can always setup your own church like what the English did. In fact, you can as well re-write the bloody book to suit your needs, like what the English did. (“Who say cannot? Whack you, you know” was how the English got their new church and new set of books)
3. How many Popes are there at any one time?
As many as you like if you dare, or one which is his who is powerful (see 2).
4. How many Popes were white?
All. What do you expect? Go read answers to 1 and 2.
5. Who are the Jesuits and why were they once disbanded soon after formation?
As the Vatican was losing its influence in ‘old Europe’ about 400 years ago (and too many people telling them what to do), the Jesuits were formed by the Vatican to spread its teachings to the newly colonized parts of the world (they called it the ‘new world’). To do that the Jesuits had to firstly include the non-Europeans into the ranks of humans or gentiles in their lingo (how to sell goyok if the new skin cannot stick?) But that position was totally opposite to that of the Spanish and Portugese (the ‘super colonialists’ then) whose justification for widespread extermination of the ‘natives’ was because those ‘natives’ were sub-humans. So those powers pressured the Vatican to disband this group of nuisance and the Pope gave in. (This should be illuminating for pop-era clowns that think the ‘book’ has great positive effects on humans)
6. Is the Pope a celibate?
Depending on the situation: the Pope can be celibate or not (where the ‘book’ said he must be one or the other?) So it depends on how much earthly power the Pope has at that point in time. In medieval times, when they enjoyed relatively greater influence, they were not (hey, who dare ask such questions when the fella is all powerful?) So, we had cases like that of one Pope that had a few illegitimate kids and arranged to have them married to influential Roman families in a sort of ‘gene laundering’. In fact, it was all just about power, money and sex (see also 1, 2 and 3). In fact, some of these fellas would make Clinton look like a saint!
7. How many Asian Cardinals are there and who decides on that?
Depends on when you are talking about. None in Roman times. Either Chinamen were not considered humans (only their later day descendants are so), or they did not exist. Whatever the case, Chinaman cardinals are nowadays appointed by some council controlled by some mainly white men (who are they and who decides they are what they are? You mean you dare to ask? Whack you, you know. OK, let’s be more civilized. Go read 2 above again and go back to your corner.)
Today there are 10 Asians among the 115 cardinals. If this sounds like the ratio of Asian jurists in the war crimes tribunal for Japan’s WWII crimes, it is not a coincidence. Bit players in somebody else’s show.
8. How long does it take the Vatican to declare Galileo & Darwin were right and which Pope was behind it?
The last Pope John Paul II was the one who ‘set the record straight’ by declaring that Galileo was right after all and that the Earth does go round the sun. So the result of 1633’s Roman Inquisition on Galileo was overturned and Galileo was found ‘not guilty’ in 1992 (don’t know what happened lah. May be Galileo was intially crowded out by the others in the Mecca-like frenzies 'to be with Him' but finally got his audience with the Gods and they agreed with him. The Gods then SMS the obviously slower Popes who only got the message after the advent of the handphone. Thank you Motorola, Amen).
John Paul II was also the one who in 1996 said that Darwin’s theory of evolution (published in 1871) was ‘more than a hypothesis’ (hah, this time Darwin took his turn with the Gods much faster than his less fortunate predecessor. May be the Gods figured out the need of a ‘fast lane’ for the ones with brains. Too bad, the other retards dying ‘to be with the Lord’ will just have to wait a little longer).
Please don’t ask how come the Gods don’t just give those damn theories to the Popes (or the popey ones) and let them have the glory and save them all the embarrassments. Hey, the Popes have more important things to do (see 2, 5 & 6) and the Gods work in mysterious ways, okay?
8. How old is the state of Vatican City?
You go find out yourself lah. Everything also must tell you meh?
{Exchange with 'sensitive' one}
Hi CCK,
Once again we are very saddened to receive such an email from you as it is very disrespectful of the Church and in addition showing disrespect to us (Catholics) who we thought you had considered as your friends since we are on your mailing list. I think one should refrain from criticising any religion for that matter. You may find fault with any religion because humans have been appointed by God to bring the faith to other humans and because humans are prone to making mistakes, there will be the inevitable faults. This should nevertheless not detract from the fact that there is a God who created all of us and hence we should show reverence and respect to our creator.
Because of this, I am asking all those who are on your mailing list to pray for a conversion of your heart. Jesus said that we should forgive those who insult us and so we are praying for you the same prayer that Jesus prayed for those who tortured him and nailed him to the cross....Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.....(Luke 23:34)
Also, pls remove us from your mailing list to save us from further insults.
God Bless You
LP
Hi Liang Perng,
I am sorry you took the writing as an insult. It was not meant to be personal. Since that was the way you took it, pls do accept my apology (I still want to be your friend).
I recognise that the way the historical facts were presented was a bit crude but it was nevertheless intended to be light-hearted. I recognise that although it highlighted the fallacies of one man-made institution, the same apply to all man-made institutions of power. We should therefore exercise as much degree of wariness as respect.
The choice of this topic was merely a result of circumstances and had to do with the current publicity around this topic which I felt some people took incorrectly as having universal interest, applicability and truth (pls refer to my original introduction).
I have since re-drafted the historical findings below, and hope you find them more acceptable and enlightening.
Thanks for all your kind wishes too. Following your advice, I will try to be inclusive out of respect for the others: So may the Lord Krishna, Allah, Buddha, Mishtra, Et Cetera Et Cetera Bless Ya (just too many Gods to call upon lah)
Da Da.
CCK
1. Why is the institution headed by the Pope known as the Roman Catholic Church?
This institution owes its existence to the Romans who were the super-power of their time. The most prominent players were a Roman emperor called Constantine, and a great influencer by the name of Paul.
2. How is the Pope selected?
Over time, the Pope was selected in a number of different ways but democracy was not the common approach. But generally, who got to be the Pope was determined by who ruled Rome or Europe. At times when there existed more than one competing powers, there existed multiple candidates co-existing at the same time under the patronage of their own political rulers. Once there were 4 Popes at the same time. Hey, you can imagine how exciting those times can get.
History also recorded that the more powerful rulers like Napoleon always want to have their own candidates installed as Pope - if all else fail, they would do so by sending their armies into Rome.
It may be worthwhile to also note that it was recorded in history that once England decided to setup its own Church when it could not get the Vatican to agree to some of its wishes. It also re-drafted the Bible for the same purpose. It was likely that no one dared do anything about it because England was quite powerful then.
3. How many Popes are there at any one time?
It varies depending on the political situation of the time (see 2).
4. How many Popes were white?
Some Europeans have darker skin than others – so they are not all fully white. But they were all Europeans nevertheless. This is understandable because the Church is a European institution.
5. Who are the Jesuits and why were they once disbanded soon after formation?
As their influence waned for various reasons about 400 years ago, the Jesuits were formed by the Vatican to spread its teachings to the newly colonized parts of the world (they called it the ‘new world’). To do that the Jesuits had to firstly include non-Europeans into the ranks of humans or gentiles (the reason is because the Bible was meant for 'man'). But that position was totally opposite to that of the Spanish and Portugese (the most powerful nations in Europe then) whose justification for widespread extermination of the ‘natives’ was because those ‘natives’ were sub-humans. So those powers pressured the Vatican to disband this group of nice people who tried to go against the powerful Spanish & Portugese, and the Pope gave in. We can understand why that was the case - any human would have done the same under threat of force.
6. Is the Pope a celibate?
Depending on the prevailing situation: the Pope can be celibate or not (the Bible is silent on this). It depends on how much influence the Pope has at that point in time. In medieval times, when they enjoyed relatively greater influence, they were not. In one case, one Pope reportedly had a few illegitimate kids whom he arranged to have married to influential Roman families. Because the institution was not free from human fallacies, the figures involved in this institution (like all other man-made institutions around the world) are not immune to the usual dynamics of human politics: power, money and sex. And what this particular Pope did was understandable. Likely, he was only trying to strengthen the relationship between the Vatican and the various political forces.
7. How many Asian Cardinals are there and who decides on that?
Depends on when you are talking about. None in Roman times. It is best left to individual conjectures why there were no Chinese Cardinals then. For different fully understandable reasons, many people do not want to discuss that.
Today there are 10 Asians among the 115 cardinals. This ratio is very unrepresentative of the number of Asians in the world. May be this is because Asians traditionally play less important roles in the institution or are considered less able to contribute.
8. How long does it take the Vatican to declare Galileo & Darwin were right and which Pope was behind it?
The last Pope John Paul II was the one who ‘set the record straight’ by declaring that Galileo was right after all and that the Earth does go round the sun. So the result of the 1633 Roman Inquisition on Galileo was overturned and Galileo was found ‘not guilty’ in 1992 (we don’t really know what happened. What we do know is that some one realized it was a mistake a long time after it happened. It happens).
John Paul II was also the one who in 1996 said that Darwin’s theory of evolution (published in 1871) was ‘more than a hypothesis’ (history recorded that this delay was much shorter than the other one. We also do not fully understand why that was the case but it happens. It is just humans).
Some people may ask why incidents like above happened, and why the Vatican did not do more thorough and fair investigations before declaring that these bright people were ‘guilty’. We do not fully know why but suffice to say that all man-made institutions are prone to making mistakes, and, like all nice people, we should just accept them as they are.
8. How old is the state of Vatican City?
I suggest you try to find this out yourself. Having some understanding of the history behind all man-made events or institutions can be helpful in putting things in perspective.
I then received 'feedback' from one of the more 'sensitive' ones (exchange at bottom) whose past exchanges with me had been quite 'amazing' to say the least e.g.
http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2001_06_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html
See also comments for subsequent private exchange and see how such people can completely miss the point (in that case, my friend was trying to 'prove me wrong' by saying there was possibly one black Pope from Ethiopia, when I was trying to show something else i.e. it is just another man-made institution exhibiting all the common traits of one).
The other thing was our friend did not bother to check his facts again - I could not find record of a black Pope for the Roman Catholic Church. Again, I had to remind our friend that I was talking about that particular Catholic church, and he should not mix it up with others. (Phew! You see what I mean?)
Trivia Questions:
1. Why is the institution headed by the Pope known as the Roman Catholic Church?
2. How is the Pope selected?
3. How many Popes are there at any one time?
4. How many Popes were white?
5. Who are the Jesuits and why were they once disbanded soon after formation?
6. Is the Pope a celibate?
7. How many Asian Cardinals are there and who decides on that?
8. How long does it take the Vatican to declare that Galileo and Darwin were right and which Pope was behind it?
9. How old is the state of Vatican City?
Trivial Answers:
1. Why is the institution headed by the Pope known as the Roman Catholic Church?
This institution owes its existence to the Romans who were the ‘greatest and most benevolent’ super-power of their time (hey, if not how else would we have known such a great ‘book’). The most prominent players were a Roman emperor called Constantine, and a goyok seller by the name of Paul.
2. How is the Pope selected?
Over time, the Pope was selected in a number of different ways (no one formula is prescribed by the ‘book’ what). If you think that is a sign of Vatican dynamism, read on.
As democracy was not mentioned in the great ‘book’, that was not the selection approach for a long time – may be, this ‘greatest thing’ the world had ever discovered was not known to the Romans (never mind the Greeks were just next door).
So it was left to the heavens to reveal its choice to the world in its ‘own mysterious ways’. But this is a free world to which each enlightened ones read their own unique holy signs. But mostly, all those signs are so holey that the only one method that holds water was the one based on who holds the most swords or guns. And so it was that when the Romans were masters, influential Roman families will ‘compete to put their guy up for the job’ (if it sounds like the Republicans and Democrats, you are not wrong). If you are as powerful as the likes of Napoleon, you can afford to march all the way to Rome and install one of yours (if that sounds like present day Iraq, you are also not incorrect).
If you are desperate but not powerful enough to subdue the other guy trying to do the same, you can always have your own pope. In fact, once there were 4 of these fellas at the same time (installed by 4 different fellas, of course). Can you imagine that? The world having 4-times the holiness – you can’t get enough of those blessings, I tell you!
If you think that lacked class, you can always setup your own church like what the English did. In fact, you can as well re-write the bloody book to suit your needs, like what the English did. (“Who say cannot? Whack you, you know” was how the English got their new church and new set of books)
3. How many Popes are there at any one time?
As many as you like if you dare, or one which is his who is powerful (see 2).
4. How many Popes were white?
All. What do you expect? Go read answers to 1 and 2.
5. Who are the Jesuits and why were they once disbanded soon after formation?
As the Vatican was losing its influence in ‘old Europe’ about 400 years ago (and too many people telling them what to do), the Jesuits were formed by the Vatican to spread its teachings to the newly colonized parts of the world (they called it the ‘new world’). To do that the Jesuits had to firstly include the non-Europeans into the ranks of humans or gentiles in their lingo (how to sell goyok if the new skin cannot stick?) But that position was totally opposite to that of the Spanish and Portugese (the ‘super colonialists’ then) whose justification for widespread extermination of the ‘natives’ was because those ‘natives’ were sub-humans. So those powers pressured the Vatican to disband this group of nuisance and the Pope gave in. (This should be illuminating for pop-era clowns that think the ‘book’ has great positive effects on humans)
6. Is the Pope a celibate?
Depending on the situation: the Pope can be celibate or not (where the ‘book’ said he must be one or the other?) So it depends on how much earthly power the Pope has at that point in time. In medieval times, when they enjoyed relatively greater influence, they were not (hey, who dare ask such questions when the fella is all powerful?) So, we had cases like that of one Pope that had a few illegitimate kids and arranged to have them married to influential Roman families in a sort of ‘gene laundering’. In fact, it was all just about power, money and sex (see also 1, 2 and 3). In fact, some of these fellas would make Clinton look like a saint!
7. How many Asian Cardinals are there and who decides on that?
Depends on when you are talking about. None in Roman times. Either Chinamen were not considered humans (only their later day descendants are so), or they did not exist. Whatever the case, Chinaman cardinals are nowadays appointed by some council controlled by some mainly white men (who are they and who decides they are what they are? You mean you dare to ask? Whack you, you know. OK, let’s be more civilized. Go read 2 above again and go back to your corner.)
Today there are 10 Asians among the 115 cardinals. If this sounds like the ratio of Asian jurists in the war crimes tribunal for Japan’s WWII crimes, it is not a coincidence. Bit players in somebody else’s show.
8. How long does it take the Vatican to declare Galileo & Darwin were right and which Pope was behind it?
The last Pope John Paul II was the one who ‘set the record straight’ by declaring that Galileo was right after all and that the Earth does go round the sun. So the result of 1633’s Roman Inquisition on Galileo was overturned and Galileo was found ‘not guilty’ in 1992 (don’t know what happened lah. May be Galileo was intially crowded out by the others in the Mecca-like frenzies 'to be with Him' but finally got his audience with the Gods and they agreed with him. The Gods then SMS the obviously slower Popes who only got the message after the advent of the handphone. Thank you Motorola, Amen).
John Paul II was also the one who in 1996 said that Darwin’s theory of evolution (published in 1871) was ‘more than a hypothesis’ (hah, this time Darwin took his turn with the Gods much faster than his less fortunate predecessor. May be the Gods figured out the need of a ‘fast lane’ for the ones with brains. Too bad, the other retards dying ‘to be with the Lord’ will just have to wait a little longer).
Please don’t ask how come the Gods don’t just give those damn theories to the Popes (or the popey ones) and let them have the glory and save them all the embarrassments. Hey, the Popes have more important things to do (see 2, 5 & 6) and the Gods work in mysterious ways, okay?
8. How old is the state of Vatican City?
You go find out yourself lah. Everything also must tell you meh?
{Exchange with 'sensitive' one}
Hi CCK,
Once again we are very saddened to receive such an email from you as it is very disrespectful of the Church and in addition showing disrespect to us (Catholics) who we thought you had considered as your friends since we are on your mailing list. I think one should refrain from criticising any religion for that matter. You may find fault with any religion because humans have been appointed by God to bring the faith to other humans and because humans are prone to making mistakes, there will be the inevitable faults. This should nevertheless not detract from the fact that there is a God who created all of us and hence we should show reverence and respect to our creator.
Because of this, I am asking all those who are on your mailing list to pray for a conversion of your heart. Jesus said that we should forgive those who insult us and so we are praying for you the same prayer that Jesus prayed for those who tortured him and nailed him to the cross....Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.....(Luke 23:34)
Also, pls remove us from your mailing list to save us from further insults.
God Bless You
LP
Hi Liang Perng,
I am sorry you took the writing as an insult. It was not meant to be personal. Since that was the way you took it, pls do accept my apology (I still want to be your friend).
I recognise that the way the historical facts were presented was a bit crude but it was nevertheless intended to be light-hearted. I recognise that although it highlighted the fallacies of one man-made institution, the same apply to all man-made institutions of power. We should therefore exercise as much degree of wariness as respect.
The choice of this topic was merely a result of circumstances and had to do with the current publicity around this topic which I felt some people took incorrectly as having universal interest, applicability and truth (pls refer to my original introduction).
I have since re-drafted the historical findings below, and hope you find them more acceptable and enlightening.
Thanks for all your kind wishes too. Following your advice, I will try to be inclusive out of respect for the others: So may the Lord Krishna, Allah, Buddha, Mishtra, Et Cetera Et Cetera Bless Ya (just too many Gods to call upon lah)
Da Da.
CCK
1. Why is the institution headed by the Pope known as the Roman Catholic Church?
This institution owes its existence to the Romans who were the super-power of their time. The most prominent players were a Roman emperor called Constantine, and a great influencer by the name of Paul.
2. How is the Pope selected?
Over time, the Pope was selected in a number of different ways but democracy was not the common approach. But generally, who got to be the Pope was determined by who ruled Rome or Europe. At times when there existed more than one competing powers, there existed multiple candidates co-existing at the same time under the patronage of their own political rulers. Once there were 4 Popes at the same time. Hey, you can imagine how exciting those times can get.
History also recorded that the more powerful rulers like Napoleon always want to have their own candidates installed as Pope - if all else fail, they would do so by sending their armies into Rome.
It may be worthwhile to also note that it was recorded in history that once England decided to setup its own Church when it could not get the Vatican to agree to some of its wishes. It also re-drafted the Bible for the same purpose. It was likely that no one dared do anything about it because England was quite powerful then.
3. How many Popes are there at any one time?
It varies depending on the political situation of the time (see 2).
4. How many Popes were white?
Some Europeans have darker skin than others – so they are not all fully white. But they were all Europeans nevertheless. This is understandable because the Church is a European institution.
5. Who are the Jesuits and why were they once disbanded soon after formation?
As their influence waned for various reasons about 400 years ago, the Jesuits were formed by the Vatican to spread its teachings to the newly colonized parts of the world (they called it the ‘new world’). To do that the Jesuits had to firstly include non-Europeans into the ranks of humans or gentiles (the reason is because the Bible was meant for 'man'). But that position was totally opposite to that of the Spanish and Portugese (the most powerful nations in Europe then) whose justification for widespread extermination of the ‘natives’ was because those ‘natives’ were sub-humans. So those powers pressured the Vatican to disband this group of nice people who tried to go against the powerful Spanish & Portugese, and the Pope gave in. We can understand why that was the case - any human would have done the same under threat of force.
6. Is the Pope a celibate?
Depending on the prevailing situation: the Pope can be celibate or not (the Bible is silent on this). It depends on how much influence the Pope has at that point in time. In medieval times, when they enjoyed relatively greater influence, they were not. In one case, one Pope reportedly had a few illegitimate kids whom he arranged to have married to influential Roman families. Because the institution was not free from human fallacies, the figures involved in this institution (like all other man-made institutions around the world) are not immune to the usual dynamics of human politics: power, money and sex. And what this particular Pope did was understandable. Likely, he was only trying to strengthen the relationship between the Vatican and the various political forces.
7. How many Asian Cardinals are there and who decides on that?
Depends on when you are talking about. None in Roman times. It is best left to individual conjectures why there were no Chinese Cardinals then. For different fully understandable reasons, many people do not want to discuss that.
Today there are 10 Asians among the 115 cardinals. This ratio is very unrepresentative of the number of Asians in the world. May be this is because Asians traditionally play less important roles in the institution or are considered less able to contribute.
8. How long does it take the Vatican to declare Galileo & Darwin were right and which Pope was behind it?
The last Pope John Paul II was the one who ‘set the record straight’ by declaring that Galileo was right after all and that the Earth does go round the sun. So the result of the 1633 Roman Inquisition on Galileo was overturned and Galileo was found ‘not guilty’ in 1992 (we don’t really know what happened. What we do know is that some one realized it was a mistake a long time after it happened. It happens).
John Paul II was also the one who in 1996 said that Darwin’s theory of evolution (published in 1871) was ‘more than a hypothesis’ (history recorded that this delay was much shorter than the other one. We also do not fully understand why that was the case but it happens. It is just humans).
Some people may ask why incidents like above happened, and why the Vatican did not do more thorough and fair investigations before declaring that these bright people were ‘guilty’. We do not fully know why but suffice to say that all man-made institutions are prone to making mistakes, and, like all nice people, we should just accept them as they are.
8. How old is the state of Vatican City?
I suggest you try to find this out yourself. Having some understanding of the history behind all man-made events or institutions can be helpful in putting things in perspective.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Why is Japan Demanding Apology for Some Demos?
http://guywong.home.netcom.com/html/IvyRecon.htm
http://japaneseamnesia.blogspot.com/
Above for those that want to understand why the Chinese and Koreans are still unhappy with Japan's WWII legacy.
It should also be enlightening to those that foolishly parrot after the likes of Times. They claim "the US is the most benevolent great power in history. For example, who else would have allowed the vanquished like Germany and Japan to re-develop into great nations?".
Of course, those that quote above does not know that these nations WERE great powers (that was the reason why they fought in the first place), and were then needed to stand against another great power, Russia.
If you don't believe, go ask the Germans (or Charlemagne)
See 'Short History of the Great Wars': http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html
At the start of WWII when Japan declared war on the British, the latter revoked the Order of the Garter previously conferred to the Japanese god-king Hirohito. Considered as the 'world's highest order of chivalry' it was formed when the British and likes joined together to whack their opposition in what they called the Crusades.
The Americans were so happy with Japan's role in the new order that a few decades later Nixon arranged for Hirohito's award to be restored by the British. Now, you know why the Americans are such nice people?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jellytree/seekingjustice.html
http://japaneseamnesia.blogspot.com/
Above for those that want to understand why the Chinese and Koreans are still unhappy with Japan's WWII legacy.
It should also be enlightening to those that foolishly parrot after the likes of Times. They claim "the US is the most benevolent great power in history. For example, who else would have allowed the vanquished like Germany and Japan to re-develop into great nations?".
Of course, those that quote above does not know that these nations WERE great powers (that was the reason why they fought in the first place), and were then needed to stand against another great power, Russia.
If you don't believe, go ask the Germans (or Charlemagne)
See 'Short History of the Great Wars': http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html
At the start of WWII when Japan declared war on the British, the latter revoked the Order of the Garter previously conferred to the Japanese god-king Hirohito. Considered as the 'world's highest order of chivalry' it was formed when the British and likes joined together to whack their opposition in what they called the Crusades.
The Americans were so happy with Japan's role in the new order that a few decades later Nixon arranged for Hirohito's award to be restored by the British. Now, you know why the Americans are such nice people?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jellytree/seekingjustice.html
Short History of the 'Great Wars'
Took me a long time to write this (always in my head). And always remember this: Lee Kuan Yew related in his biography a conversation with Indira Gandhi about why India could not change some of its old customs. Indira Gandhi said something like this 'we are all covered by the dust of history'. With that, here is what I keep for my little 'tryst with destiny'.
Since the time of Charlemagne (about 800 AD), the Franks (present day French and Germans) were the lords of Western Europe. They were the ‘heirs’ to the Western Roman Empire (guess who had the East?), and took turns to claim it in the form of the Holy Roman Empire till the 18th century.
That was a long time and not so long ago.
One of the many people ‘super-power’ and Catholic Charlemagne whacked was the then paganish Saxons, and his offer to them upon victory was baptism or death. So the other fella gave in.
Always on the fringe of Europe, the other fella nevertheless remained a constant thorn on the side belly of Europe (the history surrounding the Spanish Armada is a good example). But full reversal of fortunes was only to be played out many centuries later.
At the end of the 19th century, Prussia (present day Germany) was catching up with the Industrial Revolution and fast developing. Together with the US it was considered 2nd only to Britain. Good quality and cheap Prussian goods were beginning to flood the European markets.
Credited largely to Bismark, this period was proudly known to the Germans as the 2nd Reich (the 1st Reich being the Holy Roman Empire - should be obvious but have to be explicit for the less endowed readers).
Prussia attracted and had a huge pool of talented scientific minds from the likes of Planck to Einstein, and consequentially had the most Nobel prize laureates of that period. This long history and technological prowess were the source of Teutonic pride and arrogance (that later showed its worst in Hitler’s ‘Aryan Supremacy’).
It was also the height of the industrial age, and automobiles and the likes raised the importance of oil and the desire to control it. These factors combine to drive Prussia’s desire for a bigger share of the colonial pie, and were cause for concern for the other European powers surrounding it like Britain, France & Russia.
These other powers therefore took concerted effort to limit the growth of Prussian influence and starve Prussia of both raw materials especially oil and market (which the other powers’ colonies amply provided).
See an example of how they piss Prussia off here - http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html.
As the other powers of Europe were for various reasons relatively weaker (the French for example relied on Britain as ‘king maker’ and guarantor of security) the real antagonists at that time were Britain aided by the US (a.k.a. Anglo-Saxons) and Prussia.
So the British got the French and Russians together in a ‘Triple Entente’ against Prussia and Bismark's 'Triple Alliance' which included Austria-Hungary and Italy (Italy as centre of the old Roman Empire should know who the big brothers of Western Europe are).
The US, already harboring ambitions of its own, was not a bystander.
An example of the deliberate attempt to ‘keep the lid’ on Prussia was an exchange in 1910 (years before WW I) between British politician Arthur Balfour and the American ambassador to Britain where the former explicitly suggested that a war with Prussia be started so that their countries’ ‘standard of living’ will not be lowered by the lost of trade (which of course were highest by virtue of the size of the empire they were milking), and to keep their supremacy.
Japan after being insulted by an American fella by the name of Commodore Perry in the mid 19th century, embarked on a modernisation period commonly known as the Meiji Restoration. The insult arose because the Americans wanted a safe base from which they ‘cover’ northeast Asia, and an island off the coast of China was ideal.
By start of the 20th century, Japan considered itself a world power with rights to ‘Asia’ (a name popularized by them for that purpose), and promptly demonstrated that by defeating the Russians and occupying chunks of northeast Asia.
When WWI started, they joined on the side of the ‘Allies’ hoping to get into the good books of the ‘greatest power’ then (Britain and its then deputy sheriff the US). Always safer to bet on the biggest bully! Their weakening of the Russians earlier (which the British appreciated) also helped them gain entry to the ‘club’.
WW I started largely with this back drop, and resulted in about 8 million casualties with Russia, France, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary having more than 1 million casualties each, and the ‘British Empire’ just a tad below 1 million.
The result of this war was the weakening of all powers involved (except the US which officially stayed out till 1917 which was towards the end), and effectively started the beginning of the end of the European powers, and (luckily for many of us) the colonial era.
Towards the later part of WW I, the Balfour Declaration was one of the excuses used by Britain to occupy the Middle East and control the area. That and conflicting agreements with the French and Arabs to gain their support against the Ottoman Empire (fighting on the side of Prussia) were behind some of the biggest problems our world witness today – the Palestinian problem and the politics/wars of Middle East oil exemplified by the occupation of Iraq today.
The Balfour Declaration, openly addressed to Jewish financier Lord Rothschild was intended to draw the support of Jewish financiers around the world in the war against Prussia in exchange for carving a piece of land in Palestine for the creation of a state for the Jewish people. For those with less imagination, the Balfour Declaration is akin to Britain giving an undertaking to Wee Cho Yaw to occupy a piece of China so that the Wee clan in Singapore can return to stay there.
A Rothschild once said “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply”.
Such arrogance and perceived Jewish support of the ‘Allies’ coupled with the fact that Balfour was part Jew were likely reasons for the German’s utter dislike/suspicion of Jews after that (anti-Semitism in Europe was common from before Charlemagne and not likely to be the only reason).
After Prussia surrendered, the Versailles Treaty subjected Prussia to among others punitive war reparations of such unreasonable magnitude and doubtlessly intended to continue to keep the lid on Prussia, that John Maynard Keynes (famous economist whose views present day text-book academics only know selectively) representing the British Treasury in the treaty negotiations, resigned publicly in protest and predicted ominously that it would result in great dissatisfaction on the part of the vanquished (the same observations were made by others).
That plus the Great Depression of the 1930s formed the background for the next and greatest of all wars - WW II.
Hitler and Nazism were as much a result of WW I as cause of WW II. If the use of ‘I’ and ‘II’ is not telling enough, then Hitler’s use of 3rd Reich should.
To make things worse, before starting negotiations for the surrender, Prussia had thought that terms of no annexations and indemnities previously offered by the US as peace brokers would be kept. This is was not to be the case after they surrendered and it is not likely the Germans would have forgotten that till today.
The strategic and geopolitical context of WW II was no different for every key participant – control of markets and source of oil & raw materials critical for further growth and prosperity (Balfour’s so-called maintaining of ‘standard of living’).
This time, Japan joined the Germans. The reason: they were pissed they did not get their fair share of spoils in Asia after WWI.
This time America (with the 'smarter' British this time) again let the others fight it out and exhaust themselves before they joined in as ‘victors’ when the beginning of the end had already begun. For the most part of WW II and to the chagrin of the desperate East Europeans, they used various excuses to remain on the fringes and entered the ‘European theater’ only after the tide had turned on Germany in mid-1944. By then, the brunt of the war and casualties had already been borne by the East Europeans and Germans – about 40 million casualties (the British & Americans suffered less than 1 million casualties in the entire war).
Likewise, Asians were left to their own devices during the Japanese occupation until the atom bomb was deployed – by then more than 10 million Chinese and countless other Asians had died in the hands of Japan which thanks to the ‘bomb’ had close to 2 million casualties.
This approach combined with the resulting exodus of wealth & talent from everywhere to the US safe haven as result of the various conflicts elsewhere over the centuries resulted in the single super power order we have today.
We also see this ‘fomenting of conflict every where else but my own home’ approach in recent times in the Korean peninsula, Taiwan Straits, Middle East, Central Asia and Central Europe.
A reversal of this approach was also cited by Osama bin Ladin as a reason for his Sept 11 attacks - Osama's opinion is that the US should not be left to live comfortably at home while they sow turmoil elsewhere.
At the end of WW II, America and a weakened Britain needed Germany and Japan to stand in between them and Russia.
Unlike what some historical fools think, Russia was the one that won the war in Europe and therefore the new threat to the British & Americans.
For that reason and perhaps realizing the disastrous effects of Versailles that Keynes warned about, Germany got off this time with much smaller war reparation and the Marshall Plan.
Japan had better ‘luck’. It got away without needing to account seriously for its actions nor return stolen wealth and, according to some, for a share of the stolen wealth with the British/Americans.
Perhaps, like the Japanese, the Americans & British thought the other Asians are lesser beings for them to be bothered with that. Which is why Japan (unlike Germany) to this day remains arrogant and refuses to acknowledge its WW II misdeeds including the Nanking massacre where its soldiers raped and murdered an estimated quarter of a million Chinese in a 6 weeks frenzy, in many instances merely for fun or show of bravado as can be seen in photographs.
This ‘indebtedness’ and fear of Russia and the communist threat (real or otherwise), and not to mention their total lack of control of oil (have you heard of a Japanese or German oil company?) resulted in these nations remaining quietly subservient to the US and its interest throughout the ensuing Cold War.
Before the end of WW II, because of his economic insights and perhaps his ominous prediction the last time around (another indication why both wars were essentially one war), Keynes was asked to help draft a new economic world order on the part of the British.
Keynes suggested the setup of a global currency (to be known as Bancor) so that no country can be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged.
It was an ideal the victorious politicians and their backers understood but would not accept. This resulted in Bretton Woods, and the use of the US Dollar as ‘de facto global reserve’ currency for the last 50 years.
Unlike Keynes, many present day half-baked economists seriously think today’s financial system is a perfect & fair system where all currencies are equally subject to the same rules which they think they understand (until you ask them to explain the likes of the Asian Financial Crisis and ‘irrational exuberance’).
This less than fair system was also the reason for Western Europe’s 40 year effort to create firstly the EU and then the Euro whose global effect we are seeing today.
France and Germany as big brothers of continental Europe since Charlemagme must surely be aware of the above history, and that they were at the short end of the stick for the turmoils of the last century.
The Euro and EU with Germany and France at its core now poses a new challenge to the Anglo-Saxon’s supremacy. We begin to see that recently with their opposition to the attack on Iraq. Bush’s people did not call Germany and France ‘Old Europe’ for no reason – he and his people are well aware of the history of the great wars and the heritage of Charlemagne.
Some quotes to contemplate with respect to the above:
If you will permit us to sacrifice your sons on the European battlegrounds, I promise you that this will be the final war — the war to end all wars — the war to make the world safe for democracy once and for all. – Woodrow Wilson before US joined WWI
I have said this before, but I will say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent to any foreign wars. – Franklin Roosevelt, campaign speech 1940.
"I have always said that I hoped if Great Britain were beaten in a war we should find a Hitler who would lead us back to our rightful place among nations." – Winston Churchill, letter to the Times
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. - Plato
CCK note: Plato was not incomplete. Some tyrants stir up wars in other people's home so that the latter will never get to grow peacefully and threaten their dominance.
Since the time of Charlemagne (about 800 AD), the Franks (present day French and Germans) were the lords of Western Europe. They were the ‘heirs’ to the Western Roman Empire (guess who had the East?), and took turns to claim it in the form of the Holy Roman Empire till the 18th century.
That was a long time and not so long ago.
One of the many people ‘super-power’ and Catholic Charlemagne whacked was the then paganish Saxons, and his offer to them upon victory was baptism or death. So the other fella gave in.
Always on the fringe of Europe, the other fella nevertheless remained a constant thorn on the side belly of Europe (the history surrounding the Spanish Armada is a good example). But full reversal of fortunes was only to be played out many centuries later.
At the end of the 19th century, Prussia (present day Germany) was catching up with the Industrial Revolution and fast developing. Together with the US it was considered 2nd only to Britain. Good quality and cheap Prussian goods were beginning to flood the European markets.
Credited largely to Bismark, this period was proudly known to the Germans as the 2nd Reich (the 1st Reich being the Holy Roman Empire - should be obvious but have to be explicit for the less endowed readers).
Prussia attracted and had a huge pool of talented scientific minds from the likes of Planck to Einstein, and consequentially had the most Nobel prize laureates of that period. This long history and technological prowess were the source of Teutonic pride and arrogance (that later showed its worst in Hitler’s ‘Aryan Supremacy’).
It was also the height of the industrial age, and automobiles and the likes raised the importance of oil and the desire to control it. These factors combine to drive Prussia’s desire for a bigger share of the colonial pie, and were cause for concern for the other European powers surrounding it like Britain, France & Russia.
These other powers therefore took concerted effort to limit the growth of Prussian influence and starve Prussia of both raw materials especially oil and market (which the other powers’ colonies amply provided).
See an example of how they piss Prussia off here - http://cckplanetblog.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_cckplanetblog_archive.html.
As the other powers of Europe were for various reasons relatively weaker (the French for example relied on Britain as ‘king maker’ and guarantor of security) the real antagonists at that time were Britain aided by the US (a.k.a. Anglo-Saxons) and Prussia.
So the British got the French and Russians together in a ‘Triple Entente’ against Prussia and Bismark's 'Triple Alliance' which included Austria-Hungary and Italy (Italy as centre of the old Roman Empire should know who the big brothers of Western Europe are).
The US, already harboring ambitions of its own, was not a bystander.
An example of the deliberate attempt to ‘keep the lid’ on Prussia was an exchange in 1910 (years before WW I) between British politician Arthur Balfour and the American ambassador to Britain where the former explicitly suggested that a war with Prussia be started so that their countries’ ‘standard of living’ will not be lowered by the lost of trade (which of course were highest by virtue of the size of the empire they were milking), and to keep their supremacy.
Japan after being insulted by an American fella by the name of Commodore Perry in the mid 19th century, embarked on a modernisation period commonly known as the Meiji Restoration. The insult arose because the Americans wanted a safe base from which they ‘cover’ northeast Asia, and an island off the coast of China was ideal.
By start of the 20th century, Japan considered itself a world power with rights to ‘Asia’ (a name popularized by them for that purpose), and promptly demonstrated that by defeating the Russians and occupying chunks of northeast Asia.
When WWI started, they joined on the side of the ‘Allies’ hoping to get into the good books of the ‘greatest power’ then (Britain and its then deputy sheriff the US). Always safer to bet on the biggest bully! Their weakening of the Russians earlier (which the British appreciated) also helped them gain entry to the ‘club’.
WW I started largely with this back drop, and resulted in about 8 million casualties with Russia, France, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary having more than 1 million casualties each, and the ‘British Empire’ just a tad below 1 million.
The result of this war was the weakening of all powers involved (except the US which officially stayed out till 1917 which was towards the end), and effectively started the beginning of the end of the European powers, and (luckily for many of us) the colonial era.
Towards the later part of WW I, the Balfour Declaration was one of the excuses used by Britain to occupy the Middle East and control the area. That and conflicting agreements with the French and Arabs to gain their support against the Ottoman Empire (fighting on the side of Prussia) were behind some of the biggest problems our world witness today – the Palestinian problem and the politics/wars of Middle East oil exemplified by the occupation of Iraq today.
The Balfour Declaration, openly addressed to Jewish financier Lord Rothschild was intended to draw the support of Jewish financiers around the world in the war against Prussia in exchange for carving a piece of land in Palestine for the creation of a state for the Jewish people. For those with less imagination, the Balfour Declaration is akin to Britain giving an undertaking to Wee Cho Yaw to occupy a piece of China so that the Wee clan in Singapore can return to stay there.
A Rothschild once said “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply”.
Such arrogance and perceived Jewish support of the ‘Allies’ coupled with the fact that Balfour was part Jew were likely reasons for the German’s utter dislike/suspicion of Jews after that (anti-Semitism in Europe was common from before Charlemagne and not likely to be the only reason).
After Prussia surrendered, the Versailles Treaty subjected Prussia to among others punitive war reparations of such unreasonable magnitude and doubtlessly intended to continue to keep the lid on Prussia, that John Maynard Keynes (famous economist whose views present day text-book academics only know selectively) representing the British Treasury in the treaty negotiations, resigned publicly in protest and predicted ominously that it would result in great dissatisfaction on the part of the vanquished (the same observations were made by others).
That plus the Great Depression of the 1930s formed the background for the next and greatest of all wars - WW II.
Hitler and Nazism were as much a result of WW I as cause of WW II. If the use of ‘I’ and ‘II’ is not telling enough, then Hitler’s use of 3rd Reich should.
To make things worse, before starting negotiations for the surrender, Prussia had thought that terms of no annexations and indemnities previously offered by the US as peace brokers would be kept. This is was not to be the case after they surrendered and it is not likely the Germans would have forgotten that till today.
The strategic and geopolitical context of WW II was no different for every key participant – control of markets and source of oil & raw materials critical for further growth and prosperity (Balfour’s so-called maintaining of ‘standard of living’).
This time, Japan joined the Germans. The reason: they were pissed they did not get their fair share of spoils in Asia after WWI.
This time America (with the 'smarter' British this time) again let the others fight it out and exhaust themselves before they joined in as ‘victors’ when the beginning of the end had already begun. For the most part of WW II and to the chagrin of the desperate East Europeans, they used various excuses to remain on the fringes and entered the ‘European theater’ only after the tide had turned on Germany in mid-1944. By then, the brunt of the war and casualties had already been borne by the East Europeans and Germans – about 40 million casualties (the British & Americans suffered less than 1 million casualties in the entire war).
Likewise, Asians were left to their own devices during the Japanese occupation until the atom bomb was deployed – by then more than 10 million Chinese and countless other Asians had died in the hands of Japan which thanks to the ‘bomb’ had close to 2 million casualties.
This approach combined with the resulting exodus of wealth & talent from everywhere to the US safe haven as result of the various conflicts elsewhere over the centuries resulted in the single super power order we have today.
We also see this ‘fomenting of conflict every where else but my own home’ approach in recent times in the Korean peninsula, Taiwan Straits, Middle East, Central Asia and Central Europe.
A reversal of this approach was also cited by Osama bin Ladin as a reason for his Sept 11 attacks - Osama's opinion is that the US should not be left to live comfortably at home while they sow turmoil elsewhere.
At the end of WW II, America and a weakened Britain needed Germany and Japan to stand in between them and Russia.
Unlike what some historical fools think, Russia was the one that won the war in Europe and therefore the new threat to the British & Americans.
For that reason and perhaps realizing the disastrous effects of Versailles that Keynes warned about, Germany got off this time with much smaller war reparation and the Marshall Plan.
Japan had better ‘luck’. It got away without needing to account seriously for its actions nor return stolen wealth and, according to some, for a share of the stolen wealth with the British/Americans.
Perhaps, like the Japanese, the Americans & British thought the other Asians are lesser beings for them to be bothered with that. Which is why Japan (unlike Germany) to this day remains arrogant and refuses to acknowledge its WW II misdeeds including the Nanking massacre where its soldiers raped and murdered an estimated quarter of a million Chinese in a 6 weeks frenzy, in many instances merely for fun or show of bravado as can be seen in photographs.
This ‘indebtedness’ and fear of Russia and the communist threat (real or otherwise), and not to mention their total lack of control of oil (have you heard of a Japanese or German oil company?) resulted in these nations remaining quietly subservient to the US and its interest throughout the ensuing Cold War.
Before the end of WW II, because of his economic insights and perhaps his ominous prediction the last time around (another indication why both wars were essentially one war), Keynes was asked to help draft a new economic world order on the part of the British.
Keynes suggested the setup of a global currency (to be known as Bancor) so that no country can be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged.
It was an ideal the victorious politicians and their backers understood but would not accept. This resulted in Bretton Woods, and the use of the US Dollar as ‘de facto global reserve’ currency for the last 50 years.
Unlike Keynes, many present day half-baked economists seriously think today’s financial system is a perfect & fair system where all currencies are equally subject to the same rules which they think they understand (until you ask them to explain the likes of the Asian Financial Crisis and ‘irrational exuberance’).
This less than fair system was also the reason for Western Europe’s 40 year effort to create firstly the EU and then the Euro whose global effect we are seeing today.
France and Germany as big brothers of continental Europe since Charlemagme must surely be aware of the above history, and that they were at the short end of the stick for the turmoils of the last century.
The Euro and EU with Germany and France at its core now poses a new challenge to the Anglo-Saxon’s supremacy. We begin to see that recently with their opposition to the attack on Iraq. Bush’s people did not call Germany and France ‘Old Europe’ for no reason – he and his people are well aware of the history of the great wars and the heritage of Charlemagne.
Some quotes to contemplate with respect to the above:
If you will permit us to sacrifice your sons on the European battlegrounds, I promise you that this will be the final war — the war to end all wars — the war to make the world safe for democracy once and for all. – Woodrow Wilson before US joined WWI
I have said this before, but I will say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent to any foreign wars. – Franklin Roosevelt, campaign speech 1940.
"I have always said that I hoped if Great Britain were beaten in a war we should find a Hitler who would lead us back to our rightful place among nations." – Winston Churchill, letter to the Times
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. - Plato
CCK note: Plato was not incomplete. Some tyrants stir up wars in other people's home so that the latter will never get to grow peacefully and threaten their dominance.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Support Kofi Annan
For those of us aware of world history/dynamics and events of the last few years, what the Americans and their mostly Anglo-Saxon allies are doing in Iraq is a throw back to times where the worst of human greed & selfishness were satisfied through a combination of the following:
- the bestial killing and subjugation of others to rob them of their wealth under various pretences as was common throughout history and exemplified by the last 500 years of colonial history. (Try guessing how many Iraqis had been killed by them this time around)
- the refusal to share and fomenting of conflicts among others while supplying/financing arms and keeping themselves a safe distance away with the aim of draining others of their wealth and resources before they can challenge their supremacy as exemplified by the 2 'world wars'.
The utter exhaustion of all the other nations while they remain relatively unscathed is what created the 'single super-power' world order they brag about today and which many present day fools believe is due to the greatness of their democratic or capitalist systems.
We can also witness similar workings today in the Korean peninsula, the Middle East, Taiwan Straits, central Europe and around the world.
As we all know, there is no great power today that can openly challenge their actions in Iraq. The world has few men with the combination of historical/global perspective and moral authority to call upon to bring some semblance of pressure to bear on these supremely greedy, arrogant and armed people.
Kofi Annan is perhaps the only one who can truly speak for the conscience of the entire world by virtue of his elected position as head of the United Nations which was indeed what he did.
For that reason, political machines in the United States are undertaking a concerted effort to discredit Kofi Annan, among others, blaming him for complicity in abusing the UN administered Iraqi Oil-for-Food program.
Aware of this campaign to erode Kofi Annan's moral authority, many nations and important people around the world had openly expressed their support for Kofi Annan.
Recent expressions of such support came from 2,700 UN staff and 70 Nobel Laureates. These people are telling us that the world should stand up for its lone moral voice.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4214401.stm)
So please forward this plea for like-minded people around the world to do the same by sending their e-mails supporting Kofi Annan to the United Nations at pubboard@un.org or add their support to this blog http://supportkofiannan.blogspot.com/
Historical notes:
1. Years before the start of World War I, a British politician by the name of Balfour was recorded to have suggested to an American official that their countries should start a war with Germany before it overtakes their countries for no reason other than 'to maintain their standard of living'!
During WWI, this same man was responsible for the so-called 'Balfour Declaration' that carved a piece of the Ottoman empire, which was fighting on the side of Germany, for the creation of the state of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians today.
2. 50 million lives perished in the 2 World Wars (this is the real holocaust) but Anglo-Saxon casualty was less than 1 million.
3. During World War II, Britain and the US stayed out of the main battlegrounds of Europe through most of the war by which time the Germans and East Europeans had already been exhausted by more than 30 million casualties. Only after that did the American & British 'heroes' went in to pick up the pieces.
4. By the time America 'saved' Asia from Japan on the cheap by way of the atomic bomb, China mostly and other Asian countries had lost well in excess of 10 million lives.
In WWI, Japan fought on the side of the 'Allies' but switched sides in WWII because the 'Allies' refused to give it what it wanted in Asia. So to ensure sufficient reward for Japan for joining its 'Cold War club', America accorded it favourable surrender terms that gave Japan the gall till today to refuse to apologize for any of its actions in Asia including indiscrimate massacres like that in Nanking where in excess of a quarter million Chinese were cold bloodedly slaughtered in 6 weeks. Today, Japan wants to sit in the UN Security Council as permanent member.
- the bestial killing and subjugation of others to rob them of their wealth under various pretences as was common throughout history and exemplified by the last 500 years of colonial history. (Try guessing how many Iraqis had been killed by them this time around)
- the refusal to share and fomenting of conflicts among others while supplying/financing arms and keeping themselves a safe distance away with the aim of draining others of their wealth and resources before they can challenge their supremacy as exemplified by the 2 'world wars'.
The utter exhaustion of all the other nations while they remain relatively unscathed is what created the 'single super-power' world order they brag about today and which many present day fools believe is due to the greatness of their democratic or capitalist systems.
We can also witness similar workings today in the Korean peninsula, the Middle East, Taiwan Straits, central Europe and around the world.
As we all know, there is no great power today that can openly challenge their actions in Iraq. The world has few men with the combination of historical/global perspective and moral authority to call upon to bring some semblance of pressure to bear on these supremely greedy, arrogant and armed people.
Kofi Annan is perhaps the only one who can truly speak for the conscience of the entire world by virtue of his elected position as head of the United Nations which was indeed what he did.
For that reason, political machines in the United States are undertaking a concerted effort to discredit Kofi Annan, among others, blaming him for complicity in abusing the UN administered Iraqi Oil-for-Food program.
Aware of this campaign to erode Kofi Annan's moral authority, many nations and important people around the world had openly expressed their support for Kofi Annan.
Recent expressions of such support came from 2,700 UN staff and 70 Nobel Laureates. These people are telling us that the world should stand up for its lone moral voice.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4214401.stm)
So please forward this plea for like-minded people around the world to do the same by sending their e-mails supporting Kofi Annan to the United Nations at pubboard@un.org or add their support to this blog http://supportkofiannan.blogspot.com/
Historical notes:
1. Years before the start of World War I, a British politician by the name of Balfour was recorded to have suggested to an American official that their countries should start a war with Germany before it overtakes their countries for no reason other than 'to maintain their standard of living'!
During WWI, this same man was responsible for the so-called 'Balfour Declaration' that carved a piece of the Ottoman empire, which was fighting on the side of Germany, for the creation of the state of Israel and the plight of the Palestinians today.
2. 50 million lives perished in the 2 World Wars (this is the real holocaust) but Anglo-Saxon casualty was less than 1 million.
3. During World War II, Britain and the US stayed out of the main battlegrounds of Europe through most of the war by which time the Germans and East Europeans had already been exhausted by more than 30 million casualties. Only after that did the American & British 'heroes' went in to pick up the pieces.
4. By the time America 'saved' Asia from Japan on the cheap by way of the atomic bomb, China mostly and other Asian countries had lost well in excess of 10 million lives.
In WWI, Japan fought on the side of the 'Allies' but switched sides in WWII because the 'Allies' refused to give it what it wanted in Asia. So to ensure sufficient reward for Japan for joining its 'Cold War club', America accorded it favourable surrender terms that gave Japan the gall till today to refuse to apologize for any of its actions in Asia including indiscrimate massacres like that in Nanking where in excess of a quarter million Chinese were cold bloodedly slaughtered in 6 weeks. Today, Japan wants to sit in the UN Security Council as permanent member.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)