I have been following this squabble with some interest because it has the unfortunate facet of stemming from the pen of a commentator who apparently was intending to address a real issue, but chose the most unfair and undeserving target. The real issue was the growing hype and even near demonizing of the complicated matter of illegal immigration from Mexico across the ludicrously open border. Since 9/11 the matter of border security has taken on another dimension, and justly so. However, it is impossible to ignore the decade’s long legacy of weak federal response ranging from half-hearted to outright impotent. It is unrealistic to expect any deep and immediate changes or fixes without some sober discussion of the true stakes and conflicting motives on both sides of the border argument, whether these sides be the right vs. left, or Mexico vs. America's interests. Enter an op-ed piece by Macarena Hernandez of the Dallas Morning News for October 15, 2005. In this article, Ms Hernandez laments of the insidious anti-immigrant climate brewing while discussing the recent tragic and brutal murder of a group of six Mexican farm workers in Georgia. These same workers happened also to be illegal aliens, but arguably, this has nothing to do with the crime, which was motivated by greed and brutality. Still, Ms Hernandez chose to make this about the current `high-volume' debate about illegal immigration in general, and how we look at it. She was actually trying to make this very good point:
"More globally, horrors like these demand that a nation descended from immigrants take a hard look at the ways we think and speak about these most recent arrivals."
Valid enough, and there is no denying the heated and even true hate talk that seems current these days about it. Not least driven by the continuing flaccid response of high officials on the matter, which fuels a sense of frustration and ire that might not otherwise be present with decisive leadership from both parties.Be that as it may, Ms Hernandez was trying to sound a note of warning about the current tone of the debate, and commenting on the reaction of some complaints to a chivalrous gesture by the Mayor of Tifton went on to make the egregious blunder of this statement:
"Were the complainers angrier about the red, white and green Mexican flag fluttering in the Georgia air than they were about the horrific murders? Do they watch Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, where the anchor and the callers constantly point to the southern border as the birth of all America's ills? (Sample comment: "Each one of those people is a biological weapon.") "
This is where it all went wrong. There are even some radio commentators she could have named that could approximate the charge of being hateful, but Bill O'Reilly does nothing to deserve it on either his TV program The O'Reilly Factor or his radio show. Ms Hernandez could not have chosen a more unjust example, for Bill O'Reilly is on record time and again as not objecting to the actions of illegal immigrants from the immigrant's *point of view*. He has said over and over in so many words, and one readily concurs `that one can hardly blame them. I would probably do the same in their shoes. The blame lies with the government in not taking steps to do its duty to find some way to either regulate the influx, or halt it.' Her error was made worse by attributing the comment of a listerner to O'Reilly, or least letting that impression stand.
Though not directly intended, the net-result was Ms Hernandez ending up insinuating that Bill O'Reilly of all people helped incite anti-immigrant climate. But his sober concern about securing the border is simple logic, and has always been balanced by recognition that the intent of the vast majority of the illegal immigrants is not even remotely malevolent, unlike any would-be terrorists from the Mideast.The resulting blow up was unfortunate, and the fallout from it is still falling, but I inject commentary here on it to point out that it could if harnessed, serve the useful purpose of helping to bring the debate on the illegal immigrant/worker issue back to some sense of equilibrium and sensible discussion. Neither Macarena Hernandez nor Bill O'Reilly would have wanted the impression that resulted, as their own statements make clear that they are simply trying to comment on crucial aspects of the issue, and are not bomb-throwers. I am familiar with both of Bill O'Reilly's shows and his genuine attempts to try to see the whole picture, and on the other hand, it was sad to seem some of the comments quoted by Ms Hernandez to her along the lines of "go back where you came from" (she is from Texas!) and the like.It all points to the over-charging of the atmosphere these days with sheer hyperbole and hype, and is making reasoned dialogue very difficult. But still, we must try.
- Anthony
Monday, October 24, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Grand Opening - Introductory Discussion Post
Welcome,
This is my first post in what is intended to be a place where various historical musings, reviews, and comments on current events will be written and offered for discussion. Those familiar with my historical writings on the naval actions of the Pacific War in World War II will find here a broader approach, but of related depth and emphasis on accuracy. I have for my first post chosen to review a very interesting new book of Late Roman Empire history, a favorite epoch of my investigation.
"The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun"
by Babcock, Michael A., Ph.D.
The Penguin Group, New York, NY July 2005.
To one interested in Roman Empire history, the title alone is sure to catch attention. After all, the received conventional view is that Attila the Hun died of natural causes, some manner of internal bleeding or burst vessel, on his very wedding night to a barbarian princess named Ildico, sometime in the early spring of A.D. 453. However, it doesn't take much examinaton of the circumstances and timing to cause one to scratch their head and ask questions. Questions that if pressed, soon end up challenging the veracity of at least the assumption that Attila's death was merely providential.
As it happens, Professor Babcock does far more than just ask questions. He first lays out the available sources and how we have derived the accepted version of Attila's demise. Then the case for at least questioning, if not outright scoffing, at this acceptance is made. Taking up the challenge, the author then launches into his quest and case, presenting one piece at a time the components of a complex tapestry that is as fascinating as its goal. By brilliant use of the sometimes overlooked field of philology, Dr. Babcock, proceeds to trace and unravel the intricate chain of evidence whose story actually begins before Attila's own death, with that of his brother chieftain (and apparent elder rival) Bledda. These events are interwoven throughout with the compelling story of the the "Last Roman" the famous General Aetius, and the complicated intrigues and military genius of the Eastern Roman Empire's Emperor Marcian. The cast of suspects for Attila's assasination, and even how it would be concealed is laid down in eagerly `page-turning' fashion. The context of Attila's famous invasion of Italy in 452 is also explored and some lasting and incorrect myths about this venture and the heretofore maligned strategy of Emperor Honorius and General Aetius convincingly debunked. The scope and range of the facets considered in the case never ceases to amaze and intrigue, including a surprising connection to Wagner's famed "Fall of the Burgundians".
To reveal the conclusions reached in this work would do it a diservice, but as an avid enthusiast of Roman and particularly Late Roman and Byzantine history, I think it is a must read. Even if you don't accept the conclusions (I personally do), there is a bit of something for everyone.
As I plan to post historical breifs and commentaries here, this was an appropriate work with which to begin.
- Antony
This is my first post in what is intended to be a place where various historical musings, reviews, and comments on current events will be written and offered for discussion. Those familiar with my historical writings on the naval actions of the Pacific War in World War II will find here a broader approach, but of related depth and emphasis on accuracy. I have for my first post chosen to review a very interesting new book of Late Roman Empire history, a favorite epoch of my investigation.
"The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder of Attila the Hun"
by Babcock, Michael A., Ph.D.
The Penguin Group, New York, NY July 2005.
To one interested in Roman Empire history, the title alone is sure to catch attention. After all, the received conventional view is that Attila the Hun died of natural causes, some manner of internal bleeding or burst vessel, on his very wedding night to a barbarian princess named Ildico, sometime in the early spring of A.D. 453. However, it doesn't take much examinaton of the circumstances and timing to cause one to scratch their head and ask questions. Questions that if pressed, soon end up challenging the veracity of at least the assumption that Attila's death was merely providential.
As it happens, Professor Babcock does far more than just ask questions. He first lays out the available sources and how we have derived the accepted version of Attila's demise. Then the case for at least questioning, if not outright scoffing, at this acceptance is made. Taking up the challenge, the author then launches into his quest and case, presenting one piece at a time the components of a complex tapestry that is as fascinating as its goal. By brilliant use of the sometimes overlooked field of philology, Dr. Babcock, proceeds to trace and unravel the intricate chain of evidence whose story actually begins before Attila's own death, with that of his brother chieftain (and apparent elder rival) Bledda. These events are interwoven throughout with the compelling story of the the "Last Roman" the famous General Aetius, and the complicated intrigues and military genius of the Eastern Roman Empire's Emperor Marcian. The cast of suspects for Attila's assasination, and even how it would be concealed is laid down in eagerly `page-turning' fashion. The context of Attila's famous invasion of Italy in 452 is also explored and some lasting and incorrect myths about this venture and the heretofore maligned strategy of Emperor Honorius and General Aetius convincingly debunked. The scope and range of the facets considered in the case never ceases to amaze and intrigue, including a surprising connection to Wagner's famed "Fall of the Burgundians".
To reveal the conclusions reached in this work would do it a diservice, but as an avid enthusiast of Roman and particularly Late Roman and Byzantine history, I think it is a must read. Even if you don't accept the conclusions (I personally do), there is a bit of something for everyone.
As I plan to post historical breifs and commentaries here, this was an appropriate work with which to begin.
- Antony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
