Thursday, October 25, 2018

Reflection on A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC by Marc Van De Mieroop


          Author Marc Van De Mieroop writes, “The ancient history of the Near East is like a dark room in which the sources offer isolated points of light, some brighter than others. They shine especially clearly on certain places and periods, but leave much else concealed.” For historians, there are points in the historical record where there is much information, and then times when it all goes dark… ages of darkness. Dark ages. It is interesting to thing about the many dark ages that have occurred in different times and places throughout the world. In the West in the 21st century we often think about the “dark age” that occurred in Europe from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire until the Renaissance, but really this is just one dark age in a series of many times when certain regions, big and small, have regressed from what they once were.
In 3000 BCE, the Near East is full of small city-states, each controlling small amounts of territory in their hinterlands. These agricultural lands held most of the people, and they fed the artisans and craftsmen in the cities, along with a warrior class that would grow more and more powerful. The history of the region, and much of the world, is the history of these agricultural communities coalescing to form cities and those cities expanding their territorial reach over hundreds and thousands of years to become kingdoms and empires. In 2950, Egypt unified its Upper and Lower halves for the first time. The area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers was very prosperous, and many cities such as Uruk, Ur, Nippur, Mari, and more developed.
In many of these city states, there were local Gods, represented by a priest. As war-leaders arose in influence, and large scale conflicts began to occur between these growing cities, the war-leaders would often coopt the religion and proclaim themselves the sons of Gods, demi-Gods, or just Gods outright. Eventually these deified kings would regard themselves as gods of the entire land. A major path to power in the 3rd millennium was this religious-political fusion that remained potent through the days of Mohammed and even now. The first record we have of a true territorial expansion outside Egypt came seven hundred years after Narmer united the Nile. Sharru-kin, meaning “the king is legitimate,” though better known as Sargon, rose to power in Kish and probably usurped authority from there. He was able to extend his territory through much of Iraq and likely founded Akkad, a city that would lend its name to the Akkadian Empire and the Akkadian language, which was to become the lingua franca of the known world.
Soon more territorial kingdoms were extending their reach beyond their immediate agricultural hinterlands. Diplomacy was important between them, so important that the palaces were full of tablets of diplomatic correspondence that survives to this day. The people they ruled over most certainly could not read or right. Many were pastoralists, living a semi-nomadic existence. However, those who were educated were educated very well. The Babylonians accurately calculated the square root of 2, used the Pythagorean Theorem (long before Pythagoras), and could calculate the volume of a grain heap given its slope and circumference. Huge advances in politics, science, and economics were made in the early second millennium BCE. In it, we see the city-state of Mari expand into a kingdom in the Middle Euphrates Valley, an Assyrian kingdom in northern Mesopotamia, the rise of the Hittites, and the old Babylonian period, featuring Hammurabi, who promulgated his famous law code in 1755 BCE. In the 16th century, we know that the chariot was introduced just in time for a dark age. While some royal houses remained in Babylon, Terqa, and Hattusa, cities in general were at their smallest since the year 3000 BCE. Mari was completely destroyed.
The Middle East came out of this short dark age of just about a hundred years stronger and more interconnected than ever. From about 1500 to 1200 BCE, the area was full of very large kingdoms the covered the area from Iran to the Aegean Sea and from Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) to Nubia. The states were Kassite Babylonia, Hittite Anatolia, Egypt, and the Mittani, who ruled northern Mesopotamia and Syria before being replaced by the Assyrians. On the eastern side in Iran there were the Elamites and on the Western fringe was the Mediterranean state of Mycenae. There were also many city states in the Levant area of modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria as well as the Sinai Peninsula. The author tells us that this is an unusual period in ancient history, as no one power was able to dominate the others for three hundred years. They all rose and flourished after the sixteenth century dark age before plunging into another in the 12th century.
In this age of balance, normal people probably didn’t benefit so much, besides being spared of war and conscription. Debt-slavery was a common practice and growing. The only way out was to leave the place you lived altogether, and many did. Outcasts beyond the reach of the states lived in the steppes and mountains, where they were nomadic or semi-nomadic, feared by the sedentary folks. They were called “Habiru” meaning robber or vagabond. It wasn’t an ethnic group but a social group that would help to destabilize everything in the 12th century when over the course of several decades we see dramatic reductions in the archaeological records of overseas trade, burial with luxurious grave goods, and the size and number of fortresses built.
This collapse may have occurred for many reasons, but one major contributing factor is the arrival of the “Sea Peoples.” It is unknown where they came from exactly, but they arrived in mass to conquer and settle the eastern Mediterranean, coinciding with the collapse of each society they touched. In Palestine, the formerly urban culture regressed to villages, and new people settled the region, such as the Philistines. There is very little writing that survives from this period, though the Bible places the Israelite conquest of Canaan in this time period. The eastern states of Assyria, Babylonia, and Elam all diminished, allowing the Arameans to control the areas between them and isolate them from each other. This also led to the end of the courtly lingua franca Akkadian, which had dominated political writings for over a thousand years. However, in the 12th and 11th centuries, progress was made in the development of iron and steel. Another development was the domestication of the camel in the later second millennium/early first millennium, allowing people to trade (mainly incense) across the Arabian Peninsula. As the dark age lightens, we see a new world to come at the turn of the first millennium BC, a world of empires.
Some small states remained, such as the Phoenician harbor cities and the Neo-Hittite states in Anatolia. A few new ones popped up, such as Phrygians and Lydians (famous for Croessus) in Anatolia, as well as Judah and Israel plus some neighbors in Palestine. This is when Phoenician influence to spread and become very important. Unfortunately, they wrote on Papyrus, so we don’t have a lot of archaeological records from them directly, but we know that the inspired the writing systems of the Hebrew and Aramaic scripts, as well as the adoption of the Greek alphabet, which was to inspire the Romans, and eventually English, the language I’m writing in right now!
The fist millennium is witness to the first true empire: Assyria. The Neo-Assyrian empire (the third phase of Assyrian power after the Old Assyrian and Middle Assyrian) was militaristic and named each year after a military campaign by its leader. They had a standing army of tens of thousands of men and began to dominate their surroundings in the beginning of the ninth century, conquering all of modern-day Iraq, parts of southeastern Turkey, and the Levant down to the Negev Desert. They portrayed themselves as very warlike and powerful to intimidate their enemies and promised death and bloodshed to all who opposed their might. It has been estimated that 4.5 million people were deported during the three centuries of the Assyrian Empire. They had a good run, but after almost 300 years of domination, the Medes and Babylonians teamed up to sack Nineveh in 612.
The Babylonians came out on top, as the Medes were still kind of less advanced, coming from the Zagros mountains and the steppes of Iran. Babylon would end up conquering the whole region including the Levant, taking many early Jews as hostages (the story of Daniel). However it wouldn’t be long before a new power arose. While King Nabonidas was away, an unknown people called the Achaemenid Persians marched into Babylon and took it without a fight. Their leader, Cyrus, just 100 years after Babylonian hegemony was established, destroyed it. Him and his successors would build  the world’s first super-empire, encompassing the Near East and more, including Egypt, parts of Greece, Iran, Armenia, and all the way up to India. The empire would survive for 200 years until conquered by another faraway people to whom civilization had just spread, the Greeks, led by Alexander. Starting at 20 years old and dying at 33, he was the conqueror of the Persian throne and is considered the last of the Achaemenid emperors.
               I’m not sure exactly what I got out of this book except the ability to fill in some space in my historical timeline that was missing. It feels very irrelevant to the modern era, but it’s interesting to know how human civilization took shape really early on. These empires were all really ephemeral in that unlike the governments of today, they didn’t really provide much for their people. They were really the property of wealthy overlords jockeying for power. All in all a very accessible survey of the origins of Mesopotamian civilization up until Alexander’s conquest, though the author does speed through the Persians a little too much in my opinion.

Miscellaneous Facts:
  • The chronology of the first millennium is secure based on lots of reliable data, including records of a solar eclipse that occurred on June 15, 763 BCE. Historians and astronomers working together is pretty cool.
  • While the Nile floods in the late summer, just when it is needed to prepare wet fields for planting seeds, the Tigris and Euphrates flood in the late spring, damaging nearly full-grown plants. This lead to Mesopotamia developing a big system of canals and storage basins, control of which was very important.
  • A typical city in the 15-13th centuries BCE would have been something like Ugarit, a Phoenician city on the coast of modern-day Lebanon, which had a rural population of 20-25,000 in about 150 villages supporting approximately 6-8,000 people in the city.
  • In Middle Assyria, women were strictly controlled. Unmarried women, slaves, and prostitutes were forbidden to cover their head and married women were only allowed to leave their house if they covered their heads.
  • Modern Yerevan is where the ancient Urartian city of Erebuni used to be, and the name of the city remains the same (with slight tweaks) to this day. You can kind of see it: Yerevan, Erebuni.
  • The Bible provides a controversial record of the states of Israel and Judah from their formation in the tenth century to their disappearance in the late eighth and early sixth centuries, respectively. Otherwise, we have Assyrian references to them, though the Bible was likely written in the sixth century “Babylonian Captivity,” making them substantially later than the events they describe. It is also biased as a polemical defense of the Jewish people. In both Israel and Judah, they worshipped Yahweh but tolerated other faiths, especially so in Israel, where Canaanite cults and traditions “flourished.”
  • Assyria’s original capital was Assur, moved to Kalhu by Assurnasirpal II in 878 and to Nineveh by Sennacherib in 704.


Fantastic quotes and interesting writings:
“I am a king, offspring begotten by a king and born by a queen. I, Shulgi the noble, have been blessed with a favorable destiny right from the womb. When I was small, I was at the academy, where I learned the scribal art from the tablets of Sumer and Akkad. None of the nobles could write on clay as I could. There where people regularly went for tutelage in the scribal art, I qualified fully in subtraction, addition, reckoning and accounting. The fair goddess Nanibgal, the goddess Nisaba, provided me amply with knowledge and comprehension. I am an experienced scribe who does not neglect a thing. When I sprang up, muscular as a cheetah, galloping like a thoroughbred ass at full gallop, the favor of the god An brought me joy; to my delight the god Enlil spoke favorably about me, and they gave me the scepter because of my righteousness. I place my foot on the neck of the foreign lands; the fame of my weapons is established as far as the south, and my victory is established in the highlands. When I set off for battle and strife to a place that the god Enlil has commanded me, I go ahead of the main body of my troops and I clear the terrain for my scouts. I have a positive passion for weapons. Not only do I carry lance and spear, I also know how to handle slingstones with a sling. The clay bullets, the treacherous pellets that I shoot, fly around like a violent rainstorm. In my rage I do not let them miss.” – Tablet from Ur, a hymn dedicated to King Shulgi of Ur.

The below is extracted from an exchange between the leaders of Ugarit and Alashiya regarding the invasion of the “Sea Peoples.”
Letter from the king (of Alashiya) to Ammurapi of Ugarit
Regarding what you wrote me before: “Enemy ships were observed at sea!” If it is true that ships were observed, reinforce yourself. Where are your troops and chariots? Are they not with you? If not, who will deliver you from the enemy? Surround your cities with walls and bring your troops and chariots into them. Watch out for the enemy and reinforce yourself well!
Letter from the king of Ugarit to the king of Alashiya
Tell the king of Alashiya, my father; the king of Ugarit your son says… Father, the ships of the enemy have been coming. They have been burning down my villages and have done evil things to the country. Does my father not know that all my troops [and chariots] are in Hatti and that all my ships are in Lukka? They have not yet reached me, so the country is undefended. May my father be informed of this. Now the seven ships of the enemy that came have done evil things. If other enemy ships appear, send me a message so that I know.
Letter from the senior governor of Alashiya to the king of Ugarit
Regarding the things that the enemies have done to the people of your country and your ships, they have done these transgressions against the people of the country. Thus, do not be angry with me. Now, the twenty ships that the enemies earlier left in the mountainous areas, have not stayed behind. They left suddenly and we do not know where they are. I write to you to inform you so that you can guard yourself. Be informed!

From Sargon II of Assyria’s description of his campaign against the Urartians in the Zagros Mountains (modern-day western Iran):
“Mount Simirria, a great mountain peak that points upwards like the blade of a lance, and raises its head over the mountain where the goddess Belet-ili lives, whose two peaks lean against heaven on high, whose foundations reach into the midst of the netherworld below, which, like the back of a fish, has no road from one side to the other and whose ascent is difficult from front or back, ravines and chasms are deeply cut in its side, and seen from afar, it is shrouded in fear, it is not good to climb in a chariot or with galloping horses, and it is very hard to make infantry progress in it; yet, with the intelligence and wisdom that the gods Ea and Belet-ili destined for me and who broadened my stride to level the enemy land, I made my engineers carry heavy bronze axes, and they smashed the peaks of the high mountain as if it were limestone and made the road smooth. I took the head of my army and made the chariots, cavalry and battle troops that accompany me fly over it like eagles. I made the support troops and foot soldiers follow them, and the camels and pack mules jumped over the peaks like goats raised in the mountains. I made the surging flood of Assyrians easily cross over its difficult height and on top of that mountain I set up camp.”

Royal letter found in Nineveh
“The king's word to the governor (of Kalhu): 700 bales of straw and 700 bundles of reed, each bundle more than a donkey can carry, must arrive in Dur-Sharrukin by the first of the month Kislev. Should one day pass by, you will die.”

Van De Mieroop, Marc. A History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000-323 BC (Blackwell History of the Ancient World) (Kindle Locations 6418-6420). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Reflection on Penguin History of Canada by Robert Bothwell for Penguin Canada


               This is not a book about penguins. It was published by “Penguin,” and probably would have been pretty good if it was about penguins. However, penguins have never lived in North America, unlike mammoths, camels, mastodons, giant sloths, and horses, which were all hunted to extinction along with the giant beaver. Indigenous people would continue to hunt deer, moose, bear, and beaver until modern day. The history of Canada is about the rise of powerful First Nations tribes, European contact and conflict among Iroquois, Huron, Algonquin, and other tribes with the French and English, the victory of the English, and the slow separation of Canada from the United Kingdom.
               Canada was always more lightly populated than other parts of the Americas like the Andes, Mesoamerica, and the Mississippi basin. However, the Pacific coast was very socially complex and hierarchical due to abundant supplies of salmon. Two thousand years ago, they had a semi-nomadic society with permanent winter villages and hereditary slaves. However these people would contact European diseases long before they would meet Europeans. The first contact in Canada came from French sailing down the St. Lawrence River, searching for the fabled Northwest Passage to Asia. They initially traded with the French, and the French had some success in converting a few to Catholicism. After all, the old tribal religions had lost their potency in the face of European diseases that the old shamans and medicine men couldn’t cure. The Jesuits couldn’t cure them either, but regardless there was an erosion of traditional faith.
               The Huron clashed with the Iroquois, who had their population cut  in half by disease. To replenish, they sought to take slaves from the Huron. Between 1648 and 1650 the Iroquois systematically wiped out the Huron people. Why did this happen? It was a dispute over the newly lucrative fur-trading business, as European elites would pay top dollar for North American furs, especially beaver. The French, for their part, stoked hostilities, allying with the Huron as a buffer state between them and the Iroquois in what would become upstate New York. The French made the split, and with the Indians fighting against each other, the relative position of the French improved.
               The French established a small, settled society based on fur trading, small-scale agriculture, and the Catholic Church. The French Church, however, was not totally subservient to the Vatican. They appointed their own Cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns by royal decree, not papal decree. By 1660, the French had just 3,000 inhabitants, a tiny colony compared to the 50,000 English in New England and their additional 30,000 in Virginia, not to mention the 10,000 Dutch in New Netherlands. Canada always was the smaller cousin to the English colonies that would become the USA. That said, its isolation kept it independent. Quebec may have been taken by the English (through a siege) in the French and Indian War, but it withstood American attacks in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. It did so based on a rugged climate, tall cliffs on three sides, and a river that acted as a natural moat.
               The French used three men to govern New France: a provincial governor, chosen from the nobility, but with little real power, a lieutenant governor, who was the true manager of provincial power, and the bishop, who help authority over morals and education. This led to much confusion and made government largely ineffective, which was how the French king wanted it. An ineffectual government couldn’t rebel. The King of France had more direct authority and despite its low population, New France was able to move south, settling the Ohio territory while the disunited British colonies struggled to stop them. The first British settlements in modern Canada were in Newfoundland. Originally, the French had settled there as their fishing habits required a stable presence on land for the drying of the fish before export, while English techniques allowed them to dry the fish at sea. The English would be back though, and they would deport the Acadians (French settlers) from the region in the mid-18th century shortly before the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War).
               As the 18th century turned into the 19th, timber and agriculture replaced fur as the primary export of the colony, though fur would remain highly relevant in trade until the middle of the century. From 1790 to 1815, Lower Canada (Quebec area) grew in population from 165,000 to 300,000, double what it had been in 1760. When England and her former colonies went to war again in 1812, Canada held out against American invasion. At the time, the largest force of the war was 10,000 strong while Napoleon mustered 600,000 in his invasion of Russia, for scale. The Americans may have lost because they lost Canadian hearts and minds. Unlike during the Revolution, Americans burned farms, mills, and houses, making the Canadians not want to join their side.
               Montreal and Quebec declined in prominence when New York built the Erie canal, connecting Lake Erie to the Hudson and therefore securing New York City’s position as the dominant port of entry to the continent. Lower Canada was further weakened by “two nations warring in the bosom of a single state,” as governor general Lord Durham put it. The society was divided by Protestants and Catholics, English merchants and French farmers, the old elite, and new politicians. “Both languages were found on both sides of politics,” writes Bothwell. In 1837, French inhabitants revolted and the governor raised forces to put them down from the loyal anglophones. The government was victorious and the question was largely settled that Canada would remain British. However, that was not the permanent end of the question. In the late 20th century, the Quebecois would be back at it, attempting to gain independence of Canada, by that point independent of England.
               One major change in the relationship between Britain and her colony occurred thanks to the English liberalization of trade in 1846 that ended tariffs preferencing Canadian goods. It resulted that Canada lost a major share of its economy and trade was transferred from Montreal to New York (the Erie Canal at work too). The immediate impact was that Canadian leaders sought to transfer dependence from one nation to another, in this case the young United States of America. They drew up an “Annexation Manifesto,” but the British governor general handled the situation with skill, helped by an economic boom in the 1850s. In 1867, the several colonies confederated into one, Canada. The new, confederated colony would remain dependent on the British, but at the turn of the century the proportions began to shift. British investment in Canada dropped from 85% of foreign capital to 75% from 1900 to 1913, and US investment rose from 14% to 21%.
               World War One was the first war in which more men died in battle than from disease. It was a war in which many Canadian men would die, conscripted by their government. After the war began two decades of negotiations that resulted in Canada loosening its ties to Great Britain. In 1931, the Statute of Westminster renounced Parliament’s right to legislate for Canada, making it self-sufficient, legally and constitutionally.
               In the course of the Second World War, Canada’s economy doubled, largely thanks to military expenditures, and its troops were the third largest allied army, invading Italy and France as a key part of the allied coalition. Canada entered an era of tremendous activism in world politics and Prime Minister Pearson even negotiated the solution to the Suez Crisis of 1956, earning the Nobel Peace Prize. In the later half of the century, Canada replaced its military as a source of economic output with an energy industry based on oil and natural gas, found in abundance in the country’s large western regions. That government spending was not focused on social welfare, especially the new healthcare system, adopted in 1968 after American successes with Social Security. Canada became more and more closely tied to the United States economically, but further and further politically and socially. While they entered major trade agreements (especially important in the auto industry) with the Americans, many Canadians closely guarded their independence and became nationalistic and anti-American. Representative of the new nationalism, Canada adopted its signature Maple Leaf flag in 1965. In 1966, Canadians could no longer freely cross the border to the United States. Canada did not join with the USA in Vietnam, as no Canadian group supported the war, though many young Canadian men joined the American army to serve. It appears that in the 1960’s Canada and the USA began to drift apart from each other. It’s important to remember that Canada was largely founded based on the USA rejecting free trade with them, and it remained a major issue in Canadian politics in the 20th and 21st centuries.
               A criticism I have of this book is that First Nations tribes basically disappear from the narrative for over 150 years. Surely they continued to exist, but the book completely ignores them until the rise of Indian activism in the 1960’s. The author tells us that,
“Indians and Inuit were an increasingly important and increasingly noticed section of the population. Yet they were still governed according to the standards and practices of the eighteenth century, as wards of the crown, subsidized but subordinate and governed by civil servants out of the federal department of Indian affairs. Two hundred years of trusteeship had resulted in a constellation of (mostly) rural slums whose inhabitants enjoyed much less than the standard of living of their white compatriots.
This situation seemed at variance with the mood of the times—against discrimination, racial categorization, and second-class status. The solution seemed obvious: abolish the special status of the Indians, and integrate them into the larger Canadian community.”
However, Native leaders saw through this very easily. It was an attempt by the Canadian government to absolve itself of responsibilities to the Native tribes, to assimilate them into Canada’s culture, and to forget about them. Tribes institutionalized a sort of confederation, the National Indian Brotherhood, which became the Assembly of First Nations in 1980, to fight for their rights. There the author loses track of them again.
               Pierre Trudeau dominated Canadian politics from the late 1960’s until the early 1980’s. In short, he was a real tough guy and a very “cool” Prime Minister who won huge support at times. He kept French Canada from seceding in the 1970’s and 80’s and when the Quebecois radicals got violent, he used the police force to put down the terrorists and free hostages. He also formalized Canada’s Constitution in 1982 and included “The Charter of Rights” of Canadians. Upon his death in 2003, he was remembered as transformational and I think I’d like to read a biography about him, especially relevant as his son, Justin Trudeau is the current Prime Minister.
               After Pierre Trudeau, the Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney pursued free trade with the United States, which eventually became NAFTA. By 1998, as a result of NAFTA, trade increased massively, as 40% of Ontario’s GDP was exported to the United States, doubling in just nine years, though employment in manufacturing declined by 10%.
               Canada embarked on a path of major reforms to its federal system, mainly due to the power of the Quebec Separatist movement and the general feeling in the rest of Canada that Quebec should remain. In 1987, the relationship was fundamentally redefined at Meech Lake, and the “Meech” system has run Canada for decades since. In it, the federal government gave up power to appoint to the Senate and the Supreme Court to the provinces and also gave all the provinces vetoes on constitutional amendments. It also decreed that the provincial premiers and the prime minister would meet yearly to discuss the constitution. It really pissed off Pierre Trudeau. He called its supporters weaklings and was very upset to see so much power decentralized. Nevertheless, Quebec attempted to secede. It did not work out but came down to a very close vote. The United States did not support the secession, not did most English Canadians.
               The last major issue in the book is the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Canada would send troops to aid the USA in Afghanistan, but not Iraq, where there was generally no political will to do so. At best, Canadians supported the invasion without UN approval around 20%. In the 21st century, many Canadians are bot drawn and repulsed by the United States. They often describe Americans as honest, inventive, and hardworking, but are also more likely to associate Americans with rudeness, greed, and violence. Most recently, the book tells us that the conservatives reunited the Conservative Party to elect Stephen Harper as Prime Minister, though we know that Justin Trudeau beat him since the publishing of this book.
               In sum, this is a decent book for anyone who for some reason wants to learn Canada’s history. It is very reflective of American history and it’s nice to know a little bit more about our northern neighbors. Mainly I feel like I’ve gotten a little more familiar with the names of the major players and the big movements in Canadian history and now I don’t really know much more than the right questions to ask in a conversation, but that’s a start.

Miscellaneous Thoughts:
  • Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler on the basis that pre-World War One governments were criticized post-warfor rushing to war without exhausting all avenues for peace. Anthony Eden attacked the Suez Canal in 1956 because WWII politicians were criticized for cowardice and not beating Hitler early, appeasing him instead. UK politicians in the early to mid 20th century really couldn’t get it right.
  • First Ministers’ Conferences are an interesting idea and part of Canadian government that emerged in post-war Canada. It’s a weird thought to imagine the President of the USA having a yearly meeting with all the governors to discuss the constitution.


Sunday, October 14, 2018

Reflection on Modern Romance by Aziz Ansari with Eric Klinenberg


Modern Romance breaks down all the new norms around dating and romance that exist today generally for people 30ish and under. He covers texting, sexting, online dating, ghosting, and more. He analyzes how we ask people out (email, text, face-to-face, phone) and who does the asking (man or woman?) The book is a really quick read at just over 200 pages and it flies by because it is not a dry read at all. I guess this would make it a very wet read. You could just drink it up through a straw. It’s a little too goofy at times, but if you know Aziz Ansari as a standup comedian or as Tom Haverford on Parks and Rec, then you already knew what you were in for.
Some cool stats:
·        Half of eighteen to twenty-four-year-olds have received sexts and one third of older teens have sent a sext (though I wonder what they define as a sext)
·        People who own iPhones are twice as likely to sext as Android owners
·        The most popular time to sext is Tuesday between 10:00 AM and noon (very weird)
·        In the United States, 20-40% of married heterosexual men and 25% of married hetero women will have at least one extramarital affair during their lifetime
I didn’t take a ton of notes as I read this book because it was shorter and I just flew through it on a sort of “just-for-fun” read because this history of Canada that I’m reading is getting boring. I found it interesting that they gathered data in focus groups and people would allow Aziz to read their texts. The book is filled with specific anecdotes from real people and their real text messages. It’s very relatable for someone single in their twenties and is a great book for anybody trying to understand how young people are pairing off and how it may be different than things were 20-60 years ago.
Also, I have to thank my friend Jeremy Tache for recommending this book to me. It was very good and I read it in two days.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Reflection on America’s Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar

I'm not proud of this book report. It was a really good book but I've run into some personal stuff so I'm just gonna cut this reflection short with the notes I took so that I can feel good about moving on and reading something new.


               This is a really thorough book. It covers every phrase in the Constitution and its amendments from 1 to 26, the most recent. I came out of it with a much greater appreciation for many of our founders and the genius of the Constitution. I also came away understanding that a major part of that genius was the knowledge that it would need to be amended and the way that the founders set forth a standard for amendment. 
               Before the American Revolution, no people had ever explicitly voted on their own written constitution. Athens’s Solon had unilaterally ordained his country’s constitution. That makes the USA extremely unique, and our Constitution was very liberal at the time in many issues, though very accommodating towards slavery. The words “private property” do not appear in the Constitution at all. “Property” only appears once, in a reference to government property. While the Revolution dealt heavily with the rights to private property, the Constitution itself is truly based on popular sovereignty, beginning with the words, “We the People…”

Slavery
The Constitution did more to increase slavery than to destroy it. Article 1 temporarily banned Congress from using its power over immigration and international trade to end the importation of slaves until 1808. In addition, they codified the 3/5 clause, that allowed slave states to count their slaves as population for voting apportionment but not as actual, eligible voters. This compounded in effect in the state legislatures, which were heavily tilted in Southern states toward the plantation belts, that would eventually drive them into the Civil War. In the interim between the Constitution’s signing and the Civil War, slave states were encouraged to buy and breed as many slaves as they could to increase their voting power.
The statistics are disturbing. New Hampshire and South Carolina each had 140,000 free citizens according to the 1790 census, but NH only got four seats in the House compared to SC’s 6 due to its 100,000 slaves. Connecticut had 20,000 more free citizens than Maryland but one less seat due to Maryland’s 100,000 slaves. Virginia, thanks to its 300,000 slaves, earned five more seats than Massachusetts, which had a “significantly larger free population.” Surely the lesson from this is that in a compromise like the Constitution was, it pays to be on the side that receives long-term dividends. Slavery was able to grow much stronger as an institution thanks to the failings of the Constitution providing undue representation to the South, which manifested itself in slavery-friendly laws enacted and judges appointed. All in all, the first Congress convened in 1793 with the North having 58 seats and the South 47. If the 3/5 clause had not been enacted the South would have had just 33 and the North 57. Signers of the Constitution from the South also assured their voters that Congress would have no power to abolish slavery.

Interesting point about the American Revolution: If negotiations prevailed and Americans gained representation in Parliament, how could they participate in parliament while representing and meeting their constituents? It took months to cross the Atlantic and it would have been an impossible job.

Englishmen celebrated their strong Navy and weak Army as a cause for their liberal, democratic successes. A navy was a defensive tool because it could stop other armies from landing on their shores but could not oppose its own tyranny because of its weakness on land.
Only six men signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution