An Oakeshott Type XVI:

This sword type is the kind Ewart Oakeshott classified as a XVI.





Albion Swords makes several modern versions of this type, including this one. You can see all the plates from the I:33 manual that they mention thanks to ARMA.

Trial by Ordeal

A Defense of Trial by Ordeal:

I was interested by this paper on trial by ordeal (h/t: Instapundit). The author uses economic theory to suggest that trial by ordeal actually sorted outcomes correctly. The concept is that belief in the reality of miracles would cause innocent men and women to choose the ordeal; guilty men and women would refuse. Priests would judge whether the person choosing an ordeal was sincere or cynical, and then manipulate the ordeal so as to ensure the correct outcome.

Several counterarguments arise immediately in one's mind, but he seems to offer an explanation for all of them as you go through the piece. Are they sufficient explanations? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

What I would like to add is that the idea of priestly manipulation of justice goes very well with our debate from last year about trial by combat. One of the reasons that priests would have objected so strongly to being forced into trial by combat was that it put justice in the hands of the warrior class, instead of in the hands of fellow priests. One of the reasons that the warriors might have been so staunch in their insistence on trial by combat as a final appeal was to preserve their independence from such manipulation.

This works if warriors are cynical about priestly manipulation of the ordeals, but also if they are not. An innocent warrior might reasonably prefer to fight than to carry a hot iron bar, trusting God to protect him in either case, but being more comfortable in his vocation. A guilty warrior, expecting God to convict him, might reasonably prefer to die with honor than to be burned by boiling water, and then disgraced by execution. With cynical warriors of either type, the odds of success must seem higher in trial by combat, where they need only do what they have spent their lives training to do.

An interesting piece. Good work.

Discussion Plutarch.

Ok, I hope everybody has had a chance to read the lives mentioned here.

So, what do you all think? Was Plutarch's comparison apt?

Discuss. Support your arguement.

UPDATE: Bumped to the top by Grim because of the importance of the discussion; newer posts below.

The Met, IV:

An opinion on Iran

An Informed Opinion on Iran:

Michael Totten has an interview with a CIA agent from Iran's Revolutionary Guards. He has an opinion on the subject of why Iran wants nukes.

MJT: So do you think if they acquire nuclear weapons they will actually use them?

Reza Kahlili: They will.

MJT: Against Israel?

Reza Kahlili: You have to look at the parallel projects that they're working on, the missile delivery system and the nuclear project. Currently they cover part of Europe. Their goal is to cover all of Europe. They're not going to announce they have a bomb unless they have overcome the glitches of putting together a nuclear bomb and a nuclear warhead. But once they do that, they will make enough bombs so that all of Europe is under their coverage. Then they will begin their most aggressive behavior in trying to control the Middle East, moving toward the goal of destroying Israel, bringing the imperialistic system of economics to a halt, creating chaos, and waiting for the Mahdi to appear. It's all right out in the open. Just look at their Mahdi philosophy.

What does he think we should do about it?

Immediately, the Western countries should cut off all shipping lines and air lines, and deport all Iranians who work in offices connected to the Iranian government. They're Quds Force members. They're intelligence guys. Deport them. And stop sending refined oil to Iran. They rely on that.

Corner the country and give them a deadline. And if the Iranian government doesn't give up its program, take it out. Do not allow this country to become nuclear armed. Sanctions are not going to work.

In the worst case scenario, if there is a military confrontation, do not invade the country. Do not destroy the country. Take the Revolutionary Guards out. If you take the Revolutionary Guards out, this government can't last 24 hours.

We know all their bases. We know all their officers. We know all their buildings. If they move in convoys, take them out. And that will be the end of this government.

Predictions like that are common: often it proves that an enemy you expect to destroy quickly and easily proves much more dangerous than you expected. Collapsing central authority with no ground forces to restore order would be, essentially, the same core mistake made in Iraq when we disbanded the Iraqi army and put nothing in its place.

Could the Iranian people restore order themselves? It's possible. It's also possible that different factions could spark a civil war that would consume the lives of thousands or hundreds of thousands.

While I have no desire to wage war with Iran, though, I do believe he's right about their penchant for confrontation. There is no doubt that Iran has been hip deep in supporting every kind of terrorism and insurgency, and their weapons -- planted by insurgents they trained -- have killed many American soldiers and Marines. Why wouldn't they use a nuclear weapon, when they've never hesitated to use any other weapon that came to their hand?

Zen and Racism

Zen and Racism:

The National Post sent someone to attend an anti-racism seminar, at which some remarkably bad advice was given.

Sandy, Jim and Karen work at a downtown community centre where they help low-income residents apply for rental housing. Sandy has a bad feeling about Jim: She notices that when black clients come in, he tends to drift to the back of the office. Sandy suspects racism (she and Jim are both white). On the other hand, she also notices that Jim seems to get along well with Karen, who is black. As the weeks go by, Sandy becomes more uncomfortable with the situation. But she feels uncertain about how to handle it. Test question: What should Sandy do?

If you answered that Sandy's first move should be to talk to Karen, and ask how Jim's behaviour made her feel, you are apparently a better anti-racist than me.

That, for what it's worth, was the preferred solution offered by my instructor at "Thinking About Whiteness and Doing Anti-Racism," a four-part evening workshop for community activists, presented earlier this year at the Toronto Women's Bookstore.

My own answer, announced in class, was that Sandy should approach Jim discreetly, explaining to him how others in the office might perceive his actions. Or perhaps the manager of the community centre could give a generic presentation about the need to treat clients in a colour-blind manner, on a no-names basis.

The problem with my approach, the instructor indicated, lay in the fact that I was primarily concerned with the feelings of my fellow Caucasian, Jim. I wasn't treating Karen like a "full human being" who might have thoughts and worries at variance with the superficially friendly workplace attitude.

Moreover, I was guilty of "democratic racism" -- by which we apply ostensibly race-neutral principles such as "due process," constantly demanding clear "evidence" of wrongdoing, rather than confronting prima facie instances of racism head-on. "It seems we're always looking for more proof," said the instructor, an energetic left-wing activist who's been teaching this course for several years. "When it comes to racism, you have to trust your gut."

A number of problems with this approach leap to mind, especially the idea that we should dispense with due process before throwing around charges of racism; but let's focus on just one specific problem. If I go to Karen in the way the speaker suggests, I am forcing her into a role that is based on her being black. Far from treating her as a "full human being," I'm treating her as an explicitly black human being. After all, why am I assuming that she has "thoughts and worries" about Jim, with whom she is apparently friendly and on good terms? Because she's black. Why should she be the person I go to, instead of the person who is exhibiting behavior that may (or may not) be racist in motivation? Because she's black.

My own answer to the test question would have been more along the lines of, "Mind your own business," but I imagine that was not an option on the quiz. If Karen is indeed a "full human being," however, surely she ought to be trusted to handle her own problems -- if indeed she has problems, which she doesn't seem to have; and if indeed she is worried or secretly angry at Jim, which she shows no sign of being.

Now, how about an answer to a better question: not, "How should I respond if I suspect racism in others?" but the real question these young activists should ask, "How should I respond if I suspect racism in myself?"

[M]ost were involved in what might broadly be termed the anti-racism industry -- an overlapping hodgepodge of community-outreach activists, equity officers, women's studies instructors and the like. Most said they'd come so they could integrate anti-racism into their work. Yet a good deal of the course consisted of them unburdening themselves of their own racist guilt.

Well, how should you respond to that? Ideas about race have been a factor in our society, with a deep and troubled history; and so many people remain focused on the notion that race is real and important that it's difficult to move about without rubbing up against someone who really wants you to be conscious of his or her race (as they define it, of course).

(Cf. with the person in this story who objects, in the strongest terms, to people attempting to be 'color-blind.')

So you're aware of race, because of the history and because it continues to be brought forward as relevant by people you meet. On the other hand, you wish to treat people as -- well, let's stick with the term "full human beings." So how do you do this?

Anyone who has done Zen-type meditation knows the answer. You can't really control what you think: conscious control of consciousness is surprisingly limited. For example, if I tell you not to think of a purple elephant, at once you are forced to think of one: there's nothing you can do about it. By the same token, learning to quiet you mind in meditation is quite hard, as thoughts continue to arise long after you've decided to stop thinking and breathe.

What you're supposed to do, to make it work, is just this: recognize the thought you're having, and let it go. Go back to doing what you're supposed to be doing, which in the case of zazen meditation is just sitting and breathing.

In a while, you'll probably have another thought, but it's no big deal. Just recognize it, and let it go. There's no penalty for failure, because there's no failure; we don't have perfect control over our thoughts. Just let it go, don't worry about it, and get back to what you're supposed to be doing.

Race is like that too. You know how you're supposed to treat people. Do that. If you find yourself having a race-oriented thought you don't want, recognize it... and let it go. Get back to what you're supposed to be doing, which is talking to and working with another human being.

Anybody who's been in the military understands all this. It's funny, because these same anti-racist/anti-capitalist activists doubtless consider us the worst kind of oppressors (and racists!). Yet the American military's actual behavior has stood as an example before the entire world of what true anti-racism looks like, and of practical friendship between peoples of different origin.

Met III

The Met, Part Three:

Easter

Easter:

This is the first Easter that has found me at home in three years.

When I was a boy, Easter was not something about which we made a big deal. My family were Christmas-oriented, and it is easy to see the allure of Christmas over Easter: it is easy to celebrate the birth of a beloved child, which is a natural time for joy unmixed by sorrow. On Easter, we focused on the 'coming of spring' aspects, as I recall: hunting eggs, and white dresses for the girls.

Easter is far more problematic as a holiday. For one thing, it requires a different kind of faith: not faith that a particular child might have been engendered by God for some purpose, but faith that a given man, condemned as a criminal and put to death, rose from the grave as a living God. Yet it is a claim that has quite a history: the number of myths along these lines, with holy weeks about the coming of spring, is formidable. Why this one, among them?

I have nothing to add to the words of better men, who have written on the subject with greater wisdom. The best that I can do is turn your attention to an old book review, by the famous "Spengler," on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Children of Hurin.

Tolkien knew far more about the pagan past than [T. S.] Eliot; as the great philologist of his time, he produced the first readable translation of "Beowulf", as well as seminal editions of the most important Anglo-Saxon classics. He loved the material more than any man living.... Readers who enjoyed The Lord of Rings as a work of fantasy (which it most surely is not) will find the present volume tough going, for it comes out of the world of Anglo-Saxon epic. As the editor reports, Tolkien originally cast it as poem in alliterative verse in the Anglo-Saxon fashion.

What did he want to say in that poem? You'll have to read the rest of the review -- or the book itself, if you prefer.

Or you may listen to the sound of what might almost be angels, or faerie. The greatest truth lies in beauty, I have heard.



Happy Easter, and a joyous spring. May God save this merry company, and all mankind.

Continuing to Eat the Hero's Portion

The Met Collection, II: Viking Swords

Dellbabe sends some more of the photos she took for us. These swords include an Ulfberht blade: a name many of you will recognize right away. Unfortunately the inlay is not visible, but it must have been impressive when the sword was new and cared-for by a fighting man.

Good Friday

Good Friday:

There are many celebrations today, to which I can add little. However, Dad29 posts a song that I happen to know. Here is the Baltimore Consort performing a very good version of it.

Tomorrow Shall Be My Dancing D...

The Hero's Portion

The Hero's Portion:

I am today instituting an award for excellent service to the Hall. I'm naming it after the ancient tradition of serving the choicest cut of meat at a feast to the hero of the hour. Or three such heroes, in some cases.

"The Champion's Portion at my feast is worth having; let it be given to the best hero in Ulster."

The carving and distribution of the viands began, and when the Champion's Portion was brought forward it was claimed by three chariot-drivers, Laegaire's, Conall's, and Cuchulain's, each on behalf of his master; and when no decision was made by King Conor the three heroes claimed it, each for himself. But Laegaire and Conall united in defying Cuchulain and ridiculing his claim, and a great fight began in the hall, till all men shook for fear; and at last King Conor intervened, before any man had been wounded.

"Put up your swords," he said. "The Champion's Portion at this feast shall be divided among the three.

The first winner of this award is Dellbabe, who took these photos and sent them to me for the enjoyment and enlightenment of our merry band.





I would be happy to issue this award regularly, if others wish to send things to be published that are of interest to our community. Obviously, co-bloggers may assume that they get to eat the Hero's Portion most any day it isn't otherwise awarded, due to their standing commitment and leadership.

Putting the Ale in Female

"Putting the Ale in Female"

Now that's a headline. Thanks, ladies.

Jane Peyton, an author and historian, says the fairer sex are behind the popularity of beer, and have been involved in its production since brewing began between 7,000 and 9,000 years before Christ.

Well, indeed: Hammurabi's Code holds...

If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water; If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

Word of the Day

Word of the Day: Vair

"Vair (from Latin varius "variegated") is the heraldic representation of patches of squirrel fur in an alternating pattern of blue and white."

Today I discovered that squirrels had eaten a hole in my coolant line, causing my truck to overheat and suffer several failures on the drive home today. Starting tonight, I am exploring several amusing ways to use squirrel: squirrel sausage, chew toys for the dog, target practice, etc.

Perhaps I'll make myself a vair-lined mantle for the winter.

Hooah, Hood.

Hooah:

Now this is a film with timing.

(H/t: Lars Walker.)

Who Else?

Self-Esteem:

With the coyness of someone revealing a bizarre sexual taste, my patients would often say to me, "Doctor, I think I'm suffering from low self-esteem."

Who else, but Theodore Dalrymple?

One has only to go into a prison, or at least a prison of the kind in which I used to work, to see the most revoltingly high self-esteem among a group of people (the young thugs) who had brought nothing but misery to those around them, largely because they conceived of themselves as so important that they could do no wrong. For them, their whim was law, which was precisely as it should be considering who they were in their own estimate....

The small matter of cleaning one's shoes, for example, is not one of vanity alone, though of course it can be carried on to the point of vanity and even obsession and fetish. It is, rather, a discipline and a small sign that one is prepared to go to some trouble for the good opinion and satisfaction of others. It is a recognition that one lives in a social world. That is why total informality of dress is a sign of advancing egotism.

As always, a veritable mine of useful ways of thinking about the problems of the world. Yet he leaves something out, one of the core problems of 'self-esteemism,' which we can learn by reading the evolutionary psychologist I mentioned a couple of posts ago. Consider 'the imposter syndrome.'

One little known topic that has resonated strongly with female readers is the concept of being a “fraud.” Pinker interviews several women who have succeeded in their fields; in many cases, traditionally male fields. Two themes emerge. First, these women have been encouraged strongly and consistently to rise through the ranks and obtain positions of power. Second, each of these women believes that at any point someone will realize that she is a fraud, an imposter, a sham: that she doesn’t really know what she is doing. To be clear, these women obtained these positions precisely because they do know what they are doing. They fully deserve the promotions they have received, and yet, the lack of confidence not only exists, it is pervasive. Scores of female CEOs, actresses, academics and others admit to feeling that at any point they will be “found out,” “exposed,” or “unmasked.” In the epilogue Pinker describes the massive influx of letters and emails from successful women who feel the same way.

Just as the patient 'coyly relates' their desire to be propped up in their self esteem, the fact is that at some level we recognize when others are doing so. The very fact of having been "encouraged strongly and consistently" means recognizing that you are receiving an advantage that can't be afforded to everyone; teachers, guidance counselors and college admissions officers can't encourage "everyone," let alone "strongly."

That very fact is probably at the root of this phenomenon. Those who have succeeded in the face of constant failure, who have been discouraged and beaten down and have still clawed their way to the top (or at least some comfortable level!) will not doubt that they got there on merit. No one, male or female, gets through Marine Corps Boot Camp feeling like a fraud. The fact of treating people with an eye toward 'building their self-esteem' actually undermines the real thing, which is self-confidence.

"Seemingly Odd"

"Seemingly Odd"

Greg Sargent has the scales fall from his eyes. Almost.

Yesterday I noted the seemingly odd finding by Gallup that more Americans blame Democrats than Republicans or conservatives for the rash of violence that greeted the passage of the reform law.

Now Gallup has released some new numbers that shed a bit of light on this:

Regardless of whether you favored or opposed the health care legislation passed this week, do you think the methods the Democratic leaders in Congress used to get enough votes to pass this legislation — were [they] an abuse of power, or were [they] an appropriate use of power by the party that controls the majority in Congress?

Abuse of power 53%

Appropriate use of power 40%

No opinion 7%

A surprising 58% of independents, too, said Dem tactics constituted an abuse of power.

This suggests, I think, that the claim by Republicans and conservatives that Dems were going to “ram” the bill through Congress via dictatorial fiat really succeeded in riling up people up a great deal — even though Republicans repeatedly used the reconcilation tactic themselves to pass ambitious legislation.

Actually, I doubt that it's so much 'the claim by Republicans and conservatives that...' as it is the actual fact that which is doing the work here. However, at least you've made the big jump: the reason people blame Democrats for the threats of violence is that they don't see the problem as 'Republican rhetoric stirring up violence.'

They see the problem as 'a provocation by Democrats that might justify violence.'

We talked recently about the non-enforcability of the mandate meaning that violence probably isn't justified; and wouldn't have been, anyway, until the mandate went into effect. However, it's worth noticing that this is America's natural and native political tradition. The Founders were revolutionaries -- not in the vague 'this is revolutionary sense in which the term is mostly used today, but in the sense of forming armies and shooting people over political differences.

A wise politician will consider this poll carefully. The survival of the Republic is not guaranteed; adequate abuse will provoke a war. If one is not wanted -- and I surely do not want one, having seen the effects of war on a country -- it is time to start thinking about restoring the proper, Constitutional order. It is time to start thinking about how to restrain the Federal government so that it is not prone to such abuses in the future.

OK that Women are different

Is it OK that Women are Different?

An evolutionary psychologist joins our party.

Thankfully, she goes beyond just differences in performance, assessment, or feelings regarding these differences. In particular, she examines the role testosterone plays in male risk taking (including those amusing Darwin Awards) and the role oxytocin and empathy play in female career choices. It is important to note that this is not the shallow glossing over seen in other books. Pinker is thorough enough to leave this biopsychologist satisfied, but also understandable enough for nonacademics. My brother, who didn’t go to college and shows little interest in biology, lazily picked up the book in my car last week. He read a line about gender differences out loud, and immediately launched into the SSSM explanation; “because that’s what girls are told to do.” Then he read farther. He became quiet. Then he asked to borrow the book when I was done with my “book report.”

Pinker does more than dryly discuss the biology; she provides example after example of women who have succeeded in this “man’s world” and found it wanting. As Pinker explains, let’s move on past the idea that a woman can’t do the same work as a man, and discuss why she may not want to. Any woman who has wondered if her preferences run counter to the feminist cause should pay close attention here; believing that a woman should have every right to pursue the same goals as men is different from believing that every woman should want to.

Welcome aboard.

The First

"The First..."

Shelby Steele posits an explanation for the off-the-cliff style of the current President.

Reagan came into office as a very well-defined man with an unequivocal sense of direction. Agree with him or not, you knew what kind of society he wanted. Mr. Obama, despite his new resolve, remains rather undefined—a president happy to have others write his "transformative" legislation. As the health-care bill and the stimulus package illustrate, scale is functioning as vision. From where does it come?

Well, suppose you were the first black president of the United States and, therefore, also the first black head-of-state in the entire history of Western Civilization. You represent a human first, something entirely new under the sun. There aren't even any myths that speak directly to your circumstance, no allegorical tales of ancient black kings who ruled over white kingdoms.

If anything, you may literally experience yourself as a myth in the making. After all, you embody a heretofore unimaginable transcendence over the old human plagues of tribalism, hatred and ignorance. Standing on ground that no man has stood on before, wouldn't it be understandable if you felt pressured by the grandiosity of your circumstance? Isn't there a special—and impossible—burden on "the first" to do something that lives up to his historical originality?

The concept is that 'the first X' has a kind of obligation to institute massive, historic changes in order to justify their having been 'the first X.' If that's right, it's a solid argument against electing anyone else to the office who could plausibly claim to be 'the first X,' regardless of what X might be.

The alternative that might allow you to support a 'first X' would be if they (like Reagan) articulated a clear vision of what they intended to do, along the lines of: 'As the first X president, I will return our government to the clear Constitutional principles that the Founders intended. Everything I do will be intended to restore the government that Washington would have wanted: the first X president will strive to be just like the first president.'

Heh

NYC Cops Field M-4-16 Submachinegun Assault Rifle Machine Gun Carbines:

The NY Post needs to tighten up its shot group.

Stand clear of the submachine guns.

In an unusual move, a heavily armed NYPD security battalion with enough firepower to wipe out Downtown Brooklyn descended onto the city's subway trains yesterday in response to suicide bombings in Russia that killed dozens of passengers in Moscow's subway.

Bleary-eyed New Yorkers began their work weeks with a morning rush hour that featured city cops in full military gear, including helmets, goggles, body armor, sidearms and M16 assault rifles.

'Submachinegun M-16 assault rifles.' Right.

The photographer must have asked, because in the slideshow captions they get so close...

An armed officer on the Counter Assault Team carries an M-4 Colt Carbine machine gun on the No. 6 train.

So close.

As for wiping out downtown Brooklyn, maybe so. I was going to remind everyone of the great line from Casablanca: "There are parts of New York I wouldn't advise you to invade..." But I was there not that long ago, and I'm not sure it still qualifies.

Plutarch's Lives

I've had to go back and read a bit of this, and so I'll beg indulgence on the tardiness of it.

Most often these days any published Plutarch seems to be merely chunks of his original work--for instance, my first experience was a Penguin classic called "Fall of the Roman Republic" which had all the relevant Roman lives for the 1st century BC. But none of the Greek lives, much less the comparisons. This is sad, as it obscures Plutarch's purpose a great deal. However, I was able to find a print copy of the complete lives that Barnes & Noble has recently issued as part of it's "Library of Essential Reading".

Now, I am traditional in that I prefer my books in hand, rather than online, but in the spirit of the times, the internet has become the world's library. So I have found online a complete transcription of the Lives here. (Send Mr. Thayer a thank you note--He seems to have retyped rather than scanned the text--quite an undertaking.)

Obviously the next thing to do was to pick which lives to read (and feel free to read them all). I had at least one life in mind and but then considered several others, but finally went back with my first thought.

So, we will read the pair of Alcibiades (Greek, 5th century BC) and Coriolanus (Roman 5th century BC). Make sure you read the comparison as well.

And if agreeable, we'll commence with some sort of discussion next Monday. And if people really like it, well read some more.