Fighting Muslim Extremists -- Again

The fighting was intense, often hand-to-hand with U.S. Marines against Muslim extremists.  Terrorism was commonplace with Americans killed and taken captive.  Muslim militants quoted the Koran, their holy book, to justify their actions.

Sound familiar?

It’s not 2011, however.  The original fight against Muslim terrorists took place in the first decades of the 19^th century.  Unfortunately, Americans do not know much about their own history.  We live for the moment, a byproduct of modern communications technology that allows instant communication and gratification.  Who cares what happened yesterday?

Sadly, that approach almost guarantees we will repeat the worst mistakes of our past. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly seem to resemble Vietnam in many significant ways.  Only the presence of an all-volunteer army is preventing war protests that blossomed through the 1960s.

We are also repeating what happened when the United States went to war against the Barbary pirates.  Then, as now, Berber militants used the Koran to support their actions.  They insisted that since their targets were non-Muslim, they could be disposed of with immunity.  That was also true for anyone who supported the infidels.

Unfortunately, that’s not what the Koran says.  It demands peace and calls for Muslims to leave Christians and Jews alone, identifying them as “people of the book” – the Bible.  Mohammad knew full well how much indebted he was to Jews and Christians for the ideas that animated his faith.  He thought of himself as the Pauline missionary to the Arab people, carrying the message from the same God worshiped by his monotheistic counterparts.

Nevertheless, some more-radical Muslims prefer direct methods of confrontation.  Those who caused 9/11 were driven by the overwhelming presence of American culture that, to them, undermined their beliefs.  In the current war, they are largely motivated by the desire to evict the American forces seen as invaders.  

In the 1800s, Muslim pirates were driven by greed.  They wanted money and found the various cargo ships plying the Mediterranean as tempting targets. 

Initially, we tried placating the leaders of the four African nations involved in piracy, but treaties were largely ignored.  Under President Thomas Jefferson, we went to war against them.  U.S. Marines – then naval fighters, launched a series of attacks that won the admiration of the placid European nations then willing to pay tribute while squabbling among each other.

The battle against the Muslim pirates was enshrined in the Marine Hymn: 

“From the Halls of Montezuma,

To the shores of Tripoli;

We fight our country's battles

In the air, on land, and sea…”

Americans established several precedents by fighting the Berbers:

·        We do not pay tribute or ransom.  We do not negotiate with terrorists.

·        We will defend our citizens anywhere in the world.

We leave after we establish our rights. 

We still follow those basic concepts.  Unfortunately, we seem to have no plans to leave.  Of course, that’s not surprising since our government and military leaders seem to have ignored history – just like everyone else.

We could learn a lot by looking at the past.  It certainly is one way to avoid continuing our mistakes into the future.

Bill Lazarus is an historian and author.  His books can be found on Amazon.com, Kindle and on his website, www.williamplazarus.com.

The Right to Die Today

In a quiet corner of American life, the question of the right to die has continued to foment although the best-known advocate of suicide, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, has died and the best-known organization, the Hemlock Society, dissipated in 2003.

The movement itself is stronger than ever.   The Final Exit Network, for example, openly advocates the “human right to death with dignity” and is one of many such groups worldwide.

As former FEN medical director Dr. Lawrence Egbert wrote in a recent essay, “I solidly approve of the idea that competent individuals suffering unbearably should have the right to end their lives when their quality of life is personally unacceptable and their future holds only hopelessness and misery. Such a right should include when to die, where, and how.”

In April, Egbert, 83, was found “innocent of conspiring to assist in a suicide” in an Arizona case.  Other investigations are taking place in such diverse cities as Athens, Ohio; Lincoln,

Nebraska; Mount Vernon, Washington; Middlebury, Connecticut; Washington,

D.C.; and Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Apparently, the prosecutors know nothing of human history.  Assisted suicide has a long history.  Ancient Greek stoics made a virtue of suicide.  Doctors in the Greek and Roman societies supported ending lives rather than prolonging agony.  In Athens, anyone wanting to die could get poison from city officials.

In ancient countries, children who were born ill or deformed were often exposed to the elements.  Such efforts reduced chances that such defects would be passed along to future generations, although, sadly, some children died because of their gender or other non-medical reason.

Eskimos, for example, have long been noted for putting their infirm, elderly relatives on ice floes and sending them off to die.  Their reasoning was simple: in such harsh conditions, few could survive unless everyone contributes.  Those who could not would have to leave for the safety of the family.

On the other side, since the 1300s, Western nations have objected to suicide.  “Laws in some parts of Europe dictated that a suicide's corpse be dragged through the streets or nailed to a barrel and left to drift downriver. The medieval ethos was distinctly uncongenial to any kind of self-murder," according to Ian Dowbiggin, in his 2003 book, A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America.

Opposition has thawed in the intervening years.  In 1980, the Catholic Church, under Pope John Paul 11, endorsed the right of patients to refuse “extraordinary means to sustain life.”  In 1988, the Unitarian Universalist Association approved a resolution supporting the right to die.

Within two years, public opinion polls show that about of Americans support physician-assisted death, up from around 30 percent six decades earlier.

Australia briefly legalized euthanasia in 1995.  The Netherlands and Switzerland eliminated criminal penalties for it soon after.  Colombia has allowed euthanasia since 1997.   Luxemburg followed suit in 2008.

This country, too, has seen a shift in attitudes. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court turned the issue over to the states.  By then, Oregon had already approved the "Death With Dignity" law.  In 2007 alone, an estimated 46 people took advantage of the law there.  A year later, Washington state voters agreed to allow “patients with six or fewer months to live to self-administer lethal doses of medication,” according to published accounts.  A month after that, Montana approved the right of residents to request physician-aided suicides.

The change has come about because of improved medical treatment that has allowed people to live far longer and to die from chronic illnesses that dehabilitate and debase their existence.  As a result, many people now have living wills, which request that no extreme steps be taken to extend life.  In many states, patients can refuse medical treatment.  For example, baseball slugger Harmon Killebrew recently announced he had stopped fighting his cancer and was moving into care of hospice.  No one stepped up to protest his decision, or similar ones made by less-prominent individuals worldwide.

The moral questions entwined with euthanasia continue to bedevil onlookers, but increasing consensus seems to be moving toward an idea that once was commonplace thousands of years ago. 

Author Bill Lazarus writes about contemporary topics.  He can be reached via his website at www.williamplazarus.com

Peace in Israel Only in the Past

They’re at it again.  This weekend, Israel and Syria battled each other.  Protesters from Syria, many of them the descendants of Palestinian refugees from 1948, CNN reported, tried to cross into Israel from Israeli-controlled Golan Heights on Sunday.  Naturally, gunfire followed.  An estimated 23 people died.  The previous month, Israeli troops were busy in Gaza where protestors were violently marking the anniversary of creation of Israel in May 1948.

If that reason weren’t sufficient, they’d have could come up with another one.  The two groups have been feuding since the 1920s.  One excuse is as good as another.  It seems like the two groups have been at war for forever.

That’s simply not the case.  For centuries, Jews and Arabs in the Holy land lived in peace.   Both have long histories.  Nomadic Arab Bedouins have roamed the Middle East for as far back as human history goes.  Judaism developed around the 1300s B.C.E.  The actual dating is not clear, but King David established a kingdom under the Jewish God by around 1000 B.C.E.  Most historians accept that date.  He called the land Judah, after the largest tribe in the Israeli family.  

However, a revolt under David’s grandson divided the land into two parts.  The northern half took the name Israel, linking itself with Jacob, the grandson of the supposed founder of Judaism, Abraham.  The southern half retained the named Judah, the source of the words Jew and Judaism.

Late in the either century B.C.E., Assyria swept in from the east and captured Israel.  The residents became the “10 lost tribes” of history.  The southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin survived.  They lived on independently until falling under Babylonian control in 597 B.C.E.

Judah would exist independently only briefly after that – from around 140 B.C. to 63 B.C.E.  Other than that, the land has had a dominant master, including the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks and then the Romans.  Eventually, in the 7^th century C.E., the Muslims moved in.

During all that time, Jews and Arabs lived side by side in what was first called Judea by the Romans.  After a series of wars against Judeans trying to shed the Roman yoke, the Romans changed the name of the land to Palestine – their version of Philistine, the hated enemy of David and other Judean kings.  The Romans also destroyed Jerusalem and banned Jews from living there.

The name did not carry any weight with anyone then.  Under Islam, the land was known as Southern Syria.  Residents considered themselves – if they thought about it at all – as Syrians.  The term Palestinians was not revived until the 20^th century where the English first applied it to Jewish settlers.

Jews had remained in what is now Israel – just not in Jerusalem – throughout the Roman reign.  They continued under the rule of the Islamic leaders.  When Spain forced Jews to leave in 1492, some came to the Middle East.  Like all non-Muslims, such as Christians, they paid a special tax, but were otherwise left alone.  They served in various positions to sultans and fought in wars against enemies.

Changes in the relationship began in the 1800s when Jews, appalled by nonstop anti-Semitism, envisioned a Jewish state in the old land of Judea. Backed by philanthropists in the United States and Europe, they began to buy land from Bedouins.  The wily Arabs didn’t own the land – like Indians in the United States, they didn’t believe anyone did -- but figured to earn extra money anyway.

Unfortunately at least for them, Jews believed they had made a legitimate purchase.  They began to slow arrive, creating communal farms, called kibbutzes.  There were still only a handful of them when future Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir moved there from the U.S. in the 1920s.

The arrival of immigrants irritated Arab nomads who found their grazing lands disappearing. 

At the same time, World War I erupted.  The Turks, then in control of the Middle East, sided with the Germans.  The English, desperate to win, agreed with Arabs that if they helped against the Turks, independent Arab states would be carved from the destroyed Ottoman Empire.  They also promised the Jews an independent Jewish state.

When the Allies won the war, the English and French largely ignored the agreements to set up protectorates throughout the Middle East.  Southern Syria fell under English control.  Syria went to the French.  The land was now known as Transjordan.

Ferment, protests, riots, massacres and terrorism followed.  

The murder of millions of Jews during World War II convinced Jewish leaders that survival required a safe haven, a homeland.  England had previously offered Uganda, but Jews wanted their sacred land.  They based their claims on biblical accounts of God promising Israel to the Jews.

Arabs based their rights on their long residency there.

In 1947, after a series of horrific terrorist acts and almost nonstop violence, English turned the matter over to the newly formed United Nations to resolve.  In 1947, the U.N. voted overwhelmingly to create in 1948 a Jewish state, to be called Israel, and an Arab state to be called Jordan.

Naturally, no one bothered to ask the residents.  As a result, surrounding Arab nations promptly declared war against the new state of Israel.  Many Arab residents fled, but were not welcomed in the Arab lands.  Instead, they created refugee cities in Gaza and along the border.  These people became known as Palestinians, although no such country or people ever existed.

The Arabs lost the war in 1948, and successive conflicts in 1956, 1967 and 1973.  As a result, they have resorted to terrorism to regain control.  Naturally, Israel has responded with force, in the past and again during the recent independence celebrations and for other reasons.

Such sad events are likely to continue until both groups agree to spare the disputed land.  That can be done only through elections.  Winners resolve to abandon partisanship to work for what is best for the country – akin to what a Republican or Democratic political leader in this country vows to do when elected.

Then, the technological advances that Israel has made can spread through the Middle East, enriching everyone.

Until then, however, the only left to do is recycle the old headlines.  They are not going to change until people stop focusing on names and the past and thinking about what matters in the future.

Bill Lazarus is been a long-time writer, educator and religious historian.  He holds an M.A. in communication from Kent State University and is a full-time instructor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  His latest book, Noel: The Lore and Tradition of Christmas Carols, was published in December 2010 and is available via Amazon.com or on his website www.williamplazarus.com. 

Needs an Education

In a recent blog published on the internet, Dale J. Stephens insisted that college was hurting Americans because it did not teach independence.  “Our creative, innovation and curiosity are schooled out of us,” he wrote.

Actually, all Stephens showed was that he lacked an education.

From the time that the first European university opened in Bologna, Italy in the 1100s to the 1970s, universities existed for the sole purpose of educating its students.  It was not designed to train students for careers, but rather to broaden minds so that when they left the campus, they were ready to take on any job, which is exactly what Stephens wants.

That education approach changed in 1970.  A national survey conducted in the spring showed that 70 percent of students went to college to get an education.  However, an identical survey conducted in the fall found that 70 percent of students had enrolled to get a job.

In between were the Kent State shootings, which refocused attitudes about government, education and personal futures.

The shootings followed a weekend series of events, including a mild disturbance downtown when bars were closed, the burning of an ROTC building by outsiders and a brief march downtown turned aside by police.

Monday, May 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen then shot and killed four Kent State students during what can be best described as a peaceful protest against first the Vietnam War and then the arrival of Guardsmen on campus.  Only one of the students, Jeffrey Miller, could be called a protester.  They also wounded nine others in the brief fusillade, including one student paralyzed for life.  

Horrified students across the nation shut down schools.  The national government, led by President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, attacked the protesters.  Opinions were sharply divided across the nation.  As a Kent State student and eyewitness to the shooting, I was also editor of the daily student newspaper in the fall.  On one radio call-in show, I was accused of being a Communist and funded by Cuba.  After being stunned by such an absurd claim, I replied I wished that were true: I could use the money since I was paying my own way through college.

The nation responded by changing priorities.  Students began to focus on future careers.  Politicians began to take potshots at education.   They had one point: failing male students faced loss of deferment, induction into the Army and a tour of Vietnam.  As a result, professors initiated what became known as grade inflation, giving passing grades to otherwise failing students and subsequently boosting the grades of better students.

Education became diluted, leading to political angst that America was falling behind the world.  That eventually begat No Child Left behind, the worst educational program ever devised.  In order to prepare all students for college – whether they belong there or not – the country effectively ended the trade schools and other forms of education that provided the “learning by doing” that Stephens calls for.

Actually, he’s simply asking for the type of approach to education fostered in the Middle Ages.  Those with an educational bent were in colleges.  Those blessed with physical talents became apprentices and studied with masters until they achieved that level.

Stephens’ showed an inkling of historical awareness by suggesting:  “Imagine if we went back to learning as practiced in French salons, gathering to discuss, challenge and support each other in improving the human condition.”

However, his essay ignored one important factor necessary for success.  Universities were designed to broaden the mind, not create graduates focused on one field.  That’s what has been happening on the single-minded drive to “educate” today’s students.  In response, today’s institutions of higher learning are increasingly recognizing that need by adding liberal arts courses to science-oriented majors.  

We need broad-mined graduates, people able to understand the scope and impact of their activities and not narrowly focused on their single field.  Otherwise, conversations in Stephens’ French salons would be very limited.

Stephens has started a program called UnCollege to promote his idea and even won a $100,000 scholarship to underwrite it.  He could have just as easily picked up the course offerings of a major university from before 1970 and copied that.  

Of course, he would have needed an education to know that.

Bill Lazarus began teaching when, at age 4, he taught his 2-year-old brother to read.  He is an instructor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and a published historian.  He can be reached by www.williamplazarus.com.