- Europe’s new counter-revolution Jan Zielonka, OUPblog
- Neutrality Loathsome Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
- German Digitalisierung versus American innovation Andreas Kluth, Handelsblatt
- Land Value Tax: An Idea Whose Time Has Come Philip Bess, American Affairs
Links
Nightcap
- The NLRB-Damore Memo Ken White, Popehat
- Justice Sotomayor on legislative history Jonathan H Adler, Volokh Conspiracy
- Bad legal news from China Scott Sumner, EconLog
- Hobbesians vs. Rechtsstaaters Federico Sosa Valle, NOL
Nightcap
- The Awesome, Amazing History of Antarctica Rhys Griffiths, History Today
- Centrally Planned Security Doesn’t Work Either Jeffrey Tucker, Daily Economy
- Gun Control: Centralized vs. Dispersed Rick Weber, NOL
- Antarctic Ice Study Finds Freezing, Not Melting Douglas Fox, National Geographic
Nightcap
- Male Violence Throughout History William Buckner, Quillette
- The Police Have No Obligation to Protect You Tho Bishop, Power & Market (Mises)
- Life in Syria Continues to Get Worse Krishnadev Calamur, the Atlantic
- The Architectural Sacking of Paris Claire Berlinski, City Journal
World War I: a pity
I will be dedicating many, if not most, of my columns at RealClearHistory to World War I over the next few months, mostly because it’s been 100 years since an armistice ended a war that was supposed to end all wars. Some of my thoughts will be heavy, but some, like this week’s, will be playful:
3. The Dervish state. This small state in the Horn of Africa was renowned throughout Europe and the Middle East for ably fending off challenges from Italians, the British, and the Ottomans during the roughly 25 years of its existence. The Dervish state openly resisted attempts at colonization during the Scramble for Africa and was recognized as a major ally by the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Being a small, independent state in the Horn of Africa, Dervish’s leaders played it smart and offered Ottoman and German troops assistance lightly, preferring instead to pay close attention to the realities of its allies’ war situation. When Istanbul and Berlin surrendered in 1918, no tears were shed by the Dervish. The state was conquered by the British Empire two years later, in 1920.
The piece is about some of the countries that played lesser roles in World War I. Please, read the whole thing. Any suggestions for next week’s column? (Bearing in mind that the theme is World War I.)
Nightcap
- Science fiction from China is epic AF Nick Richardson, London Review of Books
- What is the proper role of galactic government? Michelangelo Landgrave, NOL
- Science fiction & alternate realities in the Arab World Perwana Nazif, the Quietus
- Algorithmic wilderness: can techno-ecology heal our world? Henry Mance, Aeon
Nightcap
- Why French Federation Failed in Africa Tom Westland, Decompressing History
- Russia’s Centuries-Old Relationship with Kurds Pietro Shakarian, Origins
- Religious identity is once again trumping civic ties Ed West, Spectator
- The New Rise of Old Nationalism Mohsin Hamid, Guardian
Nightcap
- Maggie Thatcher still owns the Left John Harris, New Statesman
- Stalinist Terror, Communist Prisons Patrick Kurp, Los Angeles Review of Books
- 1968 and the Irony of History Michael Mandelbaum, American Interest
- When Populism First Eclipsed the Liberal Elite Michael Massing, New York Review of Books
Nightcap
- Enlightenment and the Capitalist Crisis Chris Dillow, Stumbling & Mumbling
- The Wall is the Wall: Why Fortresses Fail Jack Anderson, War on the Rocks
- Topiary in the land of al-Qaeda Nicolas Pelham, 1843
- Why Ketchup in Mexico Tastes So Good Jeffrey Tucker, Daily Economy
Political Science survey (take it!)
I received the following email from a graduate student at SUNY-Stony Brook:
A team of researchers from Stony Brook University have asked us to help them study the role that emotion plays in politics. I have completed the survey myself, and it only took me a few minutes to finish. The survey is completely anonymous.
Click the link below to begin the survey:
https://stonybrookuniversity.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bDvaFRlp0rmqYBf* * *
If you choose to post it, please let me know, and please discourage your readers from discussing the content of the survey by disabling the comment section on the post. It could bias my results if people go into it with specific expectations about the study.
Thanks so much for your consideration!Best Regards,
Brandon Marshall
Stony Brook University
Department of Political ScienceNote: This study has been approved by Stony Brook University’s Institutional Review Board protecting research involving human subjects.
The link is legit, though it took me about 10 minutes to complete it. On top of that, it wasn’t as cool as the ideology quizzes I link to, or the surveys Michelangelo occasionally conducts. The political scientists are trying to find out why Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other, so don’t expect any nuance or to learn anything new.
All the same, take the survey. Because science!
Nightcap
- It’s not gerrymandering if it benefits Democrats Aaron Bycoffe, FiveThirtyEight
- Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you Rod Dreher, the American Conservative
- Planting trees beneath Turkish bombs in Syria Matt Broomfield, New Statesman
- In the long run we are all dead Charles Goodhart, Inference
Nightcap
- Victor Hugo’s surreal, forgotten art Andrew Hussey, 1843
- Was Roosevelt’s “Europe First” Policy A Mistake? Salvatore Babones, Asian Review of Books
- Your God is Our God Elliot Kaufman, Claremont Review of Books
- The Seduction of the Gun Matt Lewis, Los Angeles Review of Books
Nightcap
- Catholic Debate Over Kidnapping A Jewish Boy Korey Maas, the Federalist
- God’s Own Music Ian Bostridge, New York Review of Books
- Church property cases and “neutral principles” Samuel Bray, Volokh Conspiracy
- What to Do About the Money Frank McGough, Origins
Secessions that didn’t work out
No, not that secession. It’s the ten most important unsuccessful secessions of the last few decades. That’s the topic of my latest column over at RealClearHistory, anyway. An excerpt:
You already know about Catalonia and its unsuccessful bid to secede from Spain late last year. (Check out our archives if you want to get up to speed.) A comparative approach is useful here. The unsuccessful secession movements in Africa have all been violent. The unsuccessful ones in Europe and North America started out violent but have evolved into democratic movements. The key to understanding this shift is the federative structures that exist, or don’t exist, in different parts of the world. The secessionist movements in Europe and North America are not looking to go it alone any longer. These movements don’t want full sovereignty. Separatists in Europe and North America want more decision-making power in federative structures. In the case of Quebecers, it’s Canada’s unique federation; for Catalonians (and the Scottish, for that matter), it’s the European Union. Once a federative body roots itself in a region of the world, separatist tendencies cease to be violent and they shift to more peaceful forms of resistance. Kurdistan provides a microcosmic example of this evolution, In Turkey, where the Kurds continue to be ignored and oppressed, violence reigns supreme. In Iraq, where the Kurdish region has been given autonomy and self-governance, grievances are aired out in the open, in the form of non-binding referenda and in arguments put forth in a free and open press.
I also spend a good deal of time explaining why the Confederacy is no longer relevant for understanding the world we live in. Please, check it out.
Nightcap
- Revisiting Bosnia Elliot Short, War is Boring
- Liberals and conservatives are wrong on guns Rick Weber, NOL
- Why doesn’t economics progress? Arnold Kling, askblog
- The Balance of the Federation: Canada 1870 to 2016 Livio di Matteo, Worthwhile Canadian Initiative