EQUALITY

With people across virtually the entire ideological spectrum being offended by inequalities and their consequences, why do these inequalities persist? Why are we not all united in determination to put an end to them?

Perhaps the most cogent explanation was that offered by Milton Friedman:

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.

Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice (6-7).
Free Press 1999. Kindle Edition. 


 

THOUGHTCRIME

Soviet Dissidents shared this advice through samizdat 
before the fall of the Soviet Union :

DON'T THINK.
IF YOU THINK, DON'T SPEAK.
IF YOU SPEAK, DON'T WRITE.
IF YOU WRITE, DON'T SIGN.
IF YOU THINK, SPEAK, WRITE AND SIGN,
DON'T BE SURPRISED.

JOEL KAI-EN HOE

29 May 2020
SINGAPORE
Dear Mr. Fitzhugh,

I am incredibly overjoyed at this piece of wonderful news! To date, getting published in The Concord Review and receiving the Emerson Prize is undeniably one of my proudest achievements, and it goes without saying that I feel extremely honored and humbled to have my work published alongside a host of other brilliant pieces of historical writing. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you and The Concord Review for your efforts in championing the noble cause of bringing back serious historical research writing at the high school level. Throughout my 5 years of history education in the Singapore education system (based on the Cambridge A levels), the most extensive historical writing assignment I worked on was only approximately 2,000 words long— arguably inadequate to cover any historical topic in great detail. In contrast, my independent research paper of more than 20,000 words, was unlike any project I have ever embarked on, both in scope and depth of research. I believe that it is only through extended historical essays such as those published in the Review that students are successfully able to encapsulate the full nuance and complexity that characterizes the study of history.

Looking back, the process of researching and writing my paper on the Roman military reforms of Augustus was indeed a very enlightening and eye-opening experience for me, as I was able to delve into the intricacies of the Roman military machine that had gone on to carve a extensive empire stretching from Britain to the Middle East. Even more importantly, I am really glad that through the Review’s publication of my paper, I have been able to contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding the Augustan army reforms, which have unfortunately been overshadowed by the earlier Marian reforms, as well as the subsequent structural changes made by the Emperor Claudius. From the outset, my goal was to shed light on this period of great change in the Roman army, to credit the underrepresented yet groundbreaking reforms that were crucial in establishing the Pax Romana; but I also sought to temper any glowing praise of Augustus' reforms by acknowledging some fundamental weaknesses in the system he had created, which precipitated the outbreak of army revolts in various provinces of the empire, as well as the tumultuous period of civil wars in 69 A.D.

During the process of research, I faced a host of obstacles. Most notably, it was a considerable challenge to pinpoint specific dates during which certain structural changes of the Roman military took place, since it was mainly through archaeological evidence and the works of some Roman writers that we glean information about the reforms. Moreover, I was faced with contradictory figures and statistics (say, about the size of the cavalry complement attached to the new legion). This necessitated the painstaking process of cross-referencing across as many sources as I could possibly find, and then settling on a number that was corroborated throughout multiple reliable sources. It is worth mentioning that in the process of researching for my paper, I was also exposed to a rather thorny historiographical debate between two main schools of thought regarding motivations for the far-reaching campaigns of conquest carried out both in the Republic and the early Empire. On the one hand, there was the theory of defensive imperialism, proponents of which postulated that Roman expansion was a reactionary attempt to protect themselves from foreign threats, resulting in the extension of Rome's frontiers to the conveniently defensible borders of the Danube and Rhine rivers. On the other, most contemporary historians argue in favor of the the thesis of aggressive imperialism—the active quest for resources as well as the ideological beliefs in their own superiority over their uncivilized barbarians neighbors. Indeed, when writing my paper and examining the motivations driving Augustus' program of imperial expansion, I struggled (and still struggle) to reconcile the 2 opposing schools of thought.

My point is, writing this paper for The Concord Review gave me a first-hand insight into the everyday life of history researchers and academics, and introduced me to essential research skills that I will undoubtedly put to good use in my subsequent years of tertiary education, as I am planning to pursue further studies in either History or Literature.

Given my strong belief in what The Concord Review is doing to promote academic history writing at the high school level, I have decided to donate my prize money to The Concord Review after discussion with my parents, in order to support the publication of more exemplary history research papers from around the globe! I hope that this will go a long way in allowing more budding historians to realize their potential in research writing and be recognized through the publication of their essays in this wonderful journal. As for the letter, you may send it to my home address. :)

Once again, thank you so much for this humbling recognition of my work, and I am looking forward to your reply!

Best Regards,
Joel Kai-En Hoe
Raffles Institution, Singapore
[Augustan Reforms 30/4]

INHERITED BIRTHRIGHT

I belong to the generation of patriots that fought World War II. On the occasion of Winston Churchill's death in 1965, I wrote (in Cornell's student newspaper) that those who came after us could not fully understand why we, who remember the great and terrible events of 1940-1941, should be so moved by his death; that they could not appreciate him as we did; that to them he was merely a name or, at most, a legendary figure, whereas to us he was, among other things, the embodiment of the greatest cause in our lives: the preservation of government of, by, and for the people at a time when it was most imperiled. We thought it altogether fitting and proper that (on April 9, 1963) he was made an honorary citizen of the United States. 

Britain had, of course, been fighting for more than two years by the time we went to war, and it is not to belittle her contribution to final victory to say that the war could not have been won without us; Churchill knew this and acknowledged it. We were "the arsenal of democracy"; more than that, we were, as Abraham Lincoln said-not boastfully but as a fact-"the last, best hope of earth." 

This was true in 1862 when Lincoln said it, as well as in 1941, and it is more obviously true today. Like it or not-and it is something of a burden, certainly a responsibility-America is to modern history as Rome was to ancient, and not only because we are the one remaining superpower. Modern politics began three hundred-plus years ago with the discovery or pronouncement of new principles, universal and revolutionary principles, respecting the rights of man. In 1776 we declared our right to form a new nation by appealing to these principles. Because we were the first to do so, it fell to us to be their champions, first by setting an example-this was Lincoln's point-and subsequently by defending them against their latter-day enemies, the Nazis and fascists in World War II and the communists in the cold war. Our lot is to be the one essential country, "the last, best hope of earth," and this ought to be acknowledged, beginning in our schools and universities, for it is only then that we can come to accept the responsibilities attending it. 

Our unique place in the world is recognized elsewhere, sometimes grudgingly or inadvertently. In 1987, the bicentenary of our Constitution, I was in Brazil, where the people had recently overthrown a military dictatorship and had begun the process of writing a democratic constitution. I had been invited to lecture on constitutionalism. At one place, a university in Recife, after I had finished my prepared remarks, someone got up and denounced, not me, but the local official who had who had sponsored my appearance. "Why," he shouted, "did you invite an American? What can they tell us about constitutions? They've had only one. Why didn't you invite a Bolivian? They've had a hundred!
I have enjoyed telling this story to students here, expecting them to appreciate it and hoping that they might even learn something from it. My hope is that they and their elders might learn something from this book, specifically, why this country deserves citizens who love and honor it, and are prepared to defend it. Political scientist Sheldon Wolin had this in mind when he pointed out that we are citizens not only in the formal or legal sense, but because we share a birthright "inherited from our fathers," a birthright to be cared for, improved, and passed on to future generations.

Walter Berns. Making Patriots (Kindle Locations 27-31). Kindle Edition.

THE RIGHT STUFF

My God!—to be a part of Edwards in the late forties and early fifties!—even to be on the ground and hear one of those incredible explosions from 35,000 feet somewhere up there in the blue over the desert and know that some True Brother had commenced his rocket launch…in the X–I, the X–IA, the X–2, the D–558-1, the horrible XF–92A, the beautiful D–558-2…and to know that he would soon be at an altitude, in the thin air at the edge of space, where the stars and the moon came out at noon, in an atmosphere so thin that the ordinary laws of aerodynamics no longer applied and a plane could skid into a flat spin like a cereal bowl on a waxed Formica counter and then start tumbling, not spinning and not diving, but tumbling, end over end like a brick…In those planes, which were like chimneys with little razor-blade wings on them, you had to be “afraid to panic,” and that phrase was no joke. In the skids, the tumbles, the spins, there was, truly, as Saint-Exupéry had said, only one thing you could let yourself think about: What do I do next? 

 Sometimes at Edwards they used to play the tapes of pilots going into the final dive, the one that killed them, and the man would be tumbling, going end over end in a fifteen-ton length of pipe, with all aerodynamics long gone, and not one prayer left, and he knew it, and he would be screaming into the microphone, but not for Mother or for God or the nameless spirit of Ahor, but for one last hopeless crumb of information about the loop: “I’ve tried A! I’ve tried B! I’ve tried C! I’ve tried D! Tell me what else I can try!” And then that truly spooky click on the machine. What do I do next? (In this moment when the Halusian Gulp is opening?) And everybody around the table would look at one another and nod ever so slightly, and the unspoken message was: Too bad! There was a man with the right stuff. There was no national mourning in such cases, of course. Nobody outside of Edwards knew the man’s name. If he were well liked, he might get one of those dusty stretches of road named for him on the base. He was probably a junior officer doing all this for four or five thousand a year.

Tom Wolfe, The Right Stuff (47-48). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [1983] Kindle Edition.

WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE

The policymaker undertakes multiple tasks, many of them shaped by his society’s history and culture. He must first of all make an analysis of where his society finds itself. This is inherently where the past meets the future; therefore such a judgment cannot be made without an instinct for both of these elements. He must then try to understand where that trajectory will take him and his society. He must resist the temptation to identify policymaking with projecting the familiar into the future, for on that road lies stagnation and then decline. Increasingly in a time of technological and political upheaval, wisdom counsels that a different path must be chosen. By definition, in leading a society from where it is to where it has never been, a new course presents advantages and disadvantages that will always seem closely balanced. To undertake a journey on a road never before traveled requires character and courage: character because the choice is not obvious; courage because the road will be lonely at first. And the statesman must then inspire his people to persist in the endeavor. Great statesmen (Churchill, both Roosevelts, de Gaulle, and Adenauer) had these qualities of vision and determination; in today’s society, it is increasingly difficult to develop them.

For all the great and indispensable achievements the Internet has brought to our era, its emphasis is on the actual more than the contingent, on the factual rather than the conceptual, on values shaped by consensus rather than by introspection. Knowledge of history and geography is not essential for those who can evoke their data with the touch of a button. The mindset for walking lonely political paths may not be self-evident to those who seek confirmation by hundreds, sometimes thousands of friends on Facebook.

In the Internet age, world order has often been equated with the proposition that if people have the ability to freely know and exchange the world’s information, the natural human drive toward freedom will take root and fulfill itself, and history will run on autopilot, as it were. But philosophers and poets have long separated the mind’s purview into three components: information, knowledge, and wisdom. The Internet focuses on the realm of information, whose spread it facilitates exponentially. Ever-more-complex functions are devised, particularly capable of responding to questions of fact, which are not themselves altered by the passage of time. Search engines are able to handle increasingly complex questions with increasing speed. Yet a surfeit of information may paradoxically inhibit the acquisition of knowledge and push wisdom even further away than it was before.

The poet T. S. Eliot captured this in his “Choruses from ‘The Rock’”: “Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?”

Facts are rarely self-explanatory; their significance, analysis, and interpretation—at least in the foreign policy world—depend on context and relevance. As ever more issues are treated as if of a factual nature, the premise becomes established that for every question there must be a researchable answer, that problems and solutions are not so much to be thought through as to be “looked up.” But in the relations between states—and in many other fields—information, to be truly useful, must be placed within a broader context of history and experience to emerge as actual knowledge. And a society is fortunate if its leaders can occasionally rise to the level of wisdom.
 
Henry Kissinger, (9-9-2014). World Order (348-350). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

THE ENGLISH SENTENCE

We were considered such dunces, [he recalls in My Early Life] that we could only learn English. Mr Somervell—a most delightful man, to whom my debt is great—was charged with the duty of teaching the stupidest boys the most disregarded thing—namely, to write mere English. He knew how to do it. He taught it as no one else has ever taught it. Not only did we learn English parsing thoroughly, but we also practised continually English analysis. 

Mr Somervell had a system of his own. He took a fairly long sentence and broke it up into its components by means of black, red, blue and green inks. Subject, verb, object: Relative Clauses, Conditional Clauses, Conjunctive and Disjunctive Clauses! Each had its colour and its bracket. It was a kind of drill. We did it almost daily. 

As I remained in the Third Fourth (β) three times as long as anyone else, I had three times as much of it. I learned it thoroughly. Thus I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary English sentence—which is a noble thing. And when in after years my schoolfellows who had won prizes and distinction for writing such beautiful Latin poetry and pithy Greek epigrams had to come down again to common English, to earn their living or make their way, I did not feel myself at any disadvantage.


Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill: Youth, 1874–1900 (Volume I) (Churchill Biography) (129). RosettaBooks. Kindle Edition.