The Life of Gebelein Man

 

One of my enduring curiosities is trying to relate to the people who lived and died in the distant past. There's no limit to my fascination having read books and articles along with viewing numerous documentaries on human development. The only problem I have with this interest is that I have to sort through a near unlimited supply of pseudo-scientific crap about ancient civilization like Atlantis. Or the misnamed History Channel's pushing of the idea “ancient aliens” hanging out with the Egyptians or Sumerians or any other culture that built great structures or pushed the bounds of human creativity.

Luckily, I stumbled upon a podcast that is now in the middle of a series detailing the development of humanity from the deepest parts of prehistory to the collapse of the the Bronze Age civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean. That podcast is called Tides of History and it is hosted my a guy named Patrick Wyman. The most recent episode dealt with predynastic Egypt and the rise of the Pharaohs.

My post isn't about how incredibly more complicated the unification of Egypt appears to have been. In that episode Wyman details how unification of that ancient land wasn't a given. That even after the traditional history of Narmer ( or Menes) conquering Lower Egypt things were still in flux. Truthfully, I won't relate anymore of the overall episode because I need to listen to it again.

What I want to concentrate on is the discovery of the six Gebelein predynastic mummies. And one in particular who carried the nickname of “Ginger” until recently.

Dated to around 3400 BC, the hot sands and heat of Egypt naturally mummified these six individuals. Excavated at the end of the ninetieth century by Wallis Budge, these bodies were the first complete predynastic bodies to be discovered. These bodies were found in foetal positions lying on their left sides along with a few grave goods like pots, the remains of wicker baskets, along with pieces of linen.

Two were identified as male, one female, with the other two undetermined genders. But it is the one nicknamed “Ginger” because of his red hair that fascinated me. Because of 3D medical imaging, Ginger, now just called Gebelein Man was between 18 and 20 and in good health when he died. His cause of death was from a copper or stone blade penetrating his left shoulder blade that shattered the rib beneath sending bone fragments into the surrounding muscle and lung. It is generally believed Gebelein Man was taken by surprise because there is no evidence of defensive wounds.

There are many situational possibilities concerning the reasons for his death. Gebelein Man could have been a foot soldier of some petty king or warlord that made up predynastic Egypt. Or Gebelein Man could have been the victim of his own ambitions involved in criminal activity that ran afoul of the local authorities or another, bigger crime lord.

Here is where my fascination ramps up to high gear. From what little we're certain of the circumstances of Gebelein Man's death isn't all that different the untold number of souls that ave died all through history, even up to present. It is all too common for an unnamed soldier to die for the glory of some transient leader or political entity that itself will disappear far sooner than later. And how many millions have died through the ages working every legal and illegal angle to make a buck?

While the possible commonalities of Gebelein Man's death are all too familiar, his world, life, beliefs were as alien to us as they come. There is no way Gebelein Man had any true concept of the world beyond his small village on just a section of the Nile River. While in excellent health, his life was always libel to be cut short from any number of diseases that could sudden strike. As for his beliefs, time has wiped away his culture and the society that fostered it. Remember, he lived long before the pyramids were built and Egypt was united.

So it's the juxtaposition of those two differing elements of Gebelein Man's existence that fill me with wonder. The fact that we have his well preserved remains makes him more than some abstract idea floating in the sea of time. He was completely as human as anyone alive today. Ultimately, his life should remind all of us that our own existence is tenuous at best.

The Monster Thomas Thistlewood

It isn't openly talked about in socially respectable circles anymore, but there was a time when Southern apologists would lament about how slavery was actually beneficial to people of African decent. The usual- and highly flawed- argument by the apologists involved how Africans were living like savages in their native lands. That by forcibly bringing them into bondage would both civilize them and have the added benefit of delivering them to Jesus.

More to the point, Southern apologists love to push the idea that the slave master actually cared about his chattel. In fact, one old and deluded individual that taught me literature in the sixth grade would go as far and essentially say that slave masters would take good care of the African people they held in bondage because they made them money. Truth be told, this teacher's reasoning sounded wrong to even my young, unaware ears at that time but being white and raised in the south the topic of slavery and its ramifications are mostly ignored.

Thinking back on it now, it truly disturbs me that a supposedly educated and gentile man could rationally equate the evil of human bondage to something akin to an employer/employee relationship. Understand, this teacher I write about was in his late 60's back in 1978 and whose appearance can best be described as looking like Albert Einstein without the mustache and with a deep southern drawl. I can't begin to excuse this teacher, but I am well acquainted with the deluded culture that produced his beliefs.

Southern slavery apologists were put on the defensive with the broadcast of the miniseries Roots the previous year and it was a beginning of my understanding of the monstrous terror that was slavery. It continues even now with me watching America's Long Struggle against Slavery offered on the Great Courses Plus streaming service. These lectures, taught by Richard Bell, PhD go deep into the origins of African slavery and its true horrific nature. This is where I learned about the monster that was Thomas Thistlewood.

Born in 1721, Thomas Thistlewood was a British citizen who migrated to Jamaica to become a plantation overseer and eventually a land and slave owner himself. What makes Thistlewood “special” was the detailed diary he kept documenting his treatment of slaves, including graphic accounts of rape. This diary would grow over the years to over thirty-seven volumes and over 14,000 pages.

Thistlewood's diary chronicles the purchases and sale of slaves, their work assignments, illnesses and death rates. Where things really delve into the monstrous, Thistlewood records in meticulous detail his brutal methods of punishment for the most minor infractions. One of Thistlewood's favorite punishments was something called “Derby's dose.” This involved another slave defecating in the offender's mouth and then having him gagged for several hours.

That's still not the worst part, Thistlewood even goes as far as to document the sexual exploitation of enslaved women in his control. This consisted of thousands of sexual contacts with around one-hundred women, with him making special note of the punishment he inflicted if they resisted. Thistlewood continued this practice even after becoming infected with a venereal disease.

Thistlewood became part of the plantation culture in 1750 that was rapidly developing in British-held Caribbean islands and South Carolina. The development of plantations revolved around the mass production of certain products, like sugar cane, tobacco, and rice with slave labor being the backbone. Because the plantation owners were pushing for ever greater economies of scale, that meant more slaves and harder work. This required the white masters to ensure their slaves were docile and controllable. The white slave owners did this by horrific and brutal treatment of their human property.

The brutality practiced by the plantation owners was also meant to prevent slave revolts. The owners promoted a system of having their human chattel inform on any plans among the other slaves that might harm them, their families and white overseers.

Moving further into the horrific, but typical behavior for plantation owners, Thistlewood had an almost spousal relationship with a particular female slave named Phibbah. Over the course of thirty-three years Phibbah was able to play her special relations with Thistlewood to acquire her own property which included land, livestock, and slaves. Phibbah even gave Thistlewood his one acknowledged heir, named Mulatto John. While Thistlewood gave Phibbah her freedom at his death, she was not the only female slave he had a near spousal relationship with.

Another woman, named Marina, also suffered his attentions but felt empowered enough to complain about his sexual abuse of other slaves. It appears, according to Thistlewood's diary, that he would often force his attentions on more than one slave a night and would sometimes give them a few coins afterwards for their troubles.

It would be nice to think Thistlewood was some sort of horrific exception, that few others would not take such special pleasure in dehumanizing other people. The trouble though is that by all accounts Thistlewood was typical of slave owners in the eighteenth century and beyond. From his diary Thistlewood appears to even consider himself something of an enlighten man. He was quite knowledgeable in the fields of botany and horticulture and read numerous books on religion and estate management. He also recorded his amazement of Halley's Comet swinging around the Earth in 1759.

I came away from learning about Thomas Thistlewood feeling dirty and disgusted. To a certain degree we in the twenty-first century cannot judge the actions of such people with our standards. Not with Thistlewood, he and everyone like him are guilty of the worst crimes against humanity imaginable. Luckily for Thistlewood, death prevents him from ever facing judgment for his actions.

While Thistlewood lived in Jamaica, the practices he detailed in his diary were common throughout the slave owning regions of North America. Some will certainly say it was different during the Antebellum era of the American South. Even if conditions for slaves in the nineteenth century American South were somewhat better, how can any sane person ever attempt to justify holding another human in bondage for economic gain?  

America's original sin is something that will haunt this country until its very end.

John Laurens--A True American Ahead of His Time

Anyone who has read any of my posts involving South Carolina understands I do not give this state much slack. My overall view of South Carolina is of a banana republic, corrupt, backwards, with a general population mired in a gleeful ignorance and a dog pack mentality. Yes, there are exceptionally brilliant and honest individuals from South Carolina who work hard to make the world a better place but, lets be realistic, they are quite rare.

Yes, by holding this opinion I am guilty of a similar intolerant and narrow-minded view I believe most of the general population of South Carolina has about anyone outside their worldview. Having spent most of my life in the state dealing with the people here, I am quite comfortable with my judgment.

As I wrote though, there are glorious exceptions and I just learned of such an individual. The trouble though is that he died at the tail end of the American Revolution.

John Laurens was born in Charleston, South Carolina in 1754, the son of Henry Laurens, American merchant, rice planter, slave trader, and fifth President of the Continental Congress. While Henry was typical of his times and place in society, his son was wildly progressive. John Laurens was an abolitionist, who had a plan to recruit slaves to fight for their freedom in the American Revolution as United States soldiers.

John Laurens wrote:

"We Americans at least in the Southern Colonies, cannot contend with a good Grace, for Liberty, until we shall have enfranchised our Slaves."

Gregory Massey, history professor at Freed-Hardeman University in Tennessee, wrote that what set John Laurens apart from others of his era what that black and white people shared a similar nature and could struggle for freedom together in a republican society. Quite frankly, I was blown away learning that someone in eighteenth century America held the extremely radical notion that black people shared the same humanity as us uppity white folks.

Of course you should realize that the current individual occupying the White House and many of his followers still do not truly believe that all men (and women) are created equal. Hell, the great thinker of Virginia, Tommy Jefferson, with all his eloquent and enlighten words falls hugely short compared to my boy, John Laurens, from South Carolina.

John Laurens wasn't just some desk-bound REMF- Rear Echelon Mother F*cker- during the American Revolution. He participated in the battles at the Coosawhatchie River and Savannah and Charleston. John Laurens was even taken prisoner in 1780 after the fall of Charleston.

Unfortunately for the new American Republic, John Laurens died in 1782 at the Combahee River in a skirmish with British soldiers who simply didn't know the war was over. Nothing substantial ever came of Laurens' desire to turn slaves into soldiers, simply put it was too extreme for southern society. Armed slaves, even in the cause of American independence from Britain, was a nightmare for the rich aristocratic planters whose money and power came from human bondage.

Professor Massey goes on to explain in his biography of John Laurens:

“Whereas other men considered property the basis of liberty, Laurens believed liberty that rested on the sweat of slaves was not deserving of the name.”

It's sad to say that John Laurens is by all rights no only a man ahead of his own time. But that even now in the twenty-first century his vision and understanding of our shared basic humanity is beyond the scope of many who live today.

On a side note, I cannot help but wonder what extraordinary enlightened individuals live today espousing views rejected by the mass of humanity as dangerous or ridiculous. But that in time will be accepted as being part of the natural rights of all free people.

Pondering Human Intelligence

That dot is Earth!

One of the ideas that I have toyed around with for years is the philosophical question as to whether Homo sapiens are a true intelligent species. My overall point being that most animals have enough sense not to crap in their homes, fight to the death, or practice fanatical or fantastical beliefs when there is no evidence to support them. Yes, I know some exceptions exist, such as chimps who have shown disturbing human-like behavior such as organized group warfare and murder.

If humans were truly intelligent it seems to me that we wouldn't totally trash the planet for resources nor destroy whole ecosystems for short term gain. But yet we are still doing both of those things all in the name of capitalistic profit even though we have ample information that those practices cannot go on for much longer. For Americans, water shortages are a relative minor pain in the ass that stop us from washing our cars or filling the backyard pools. In many regions of the world there is a real possibility that countries might have to go to war in the decades ahead to secure enough water for basic existence. And as for ecosystems, the world's oceans were once thought to be inexhaustible, but some species of fish are now commercially extinct because of decades of industrial scale fishing.

Nor would humans instinctively divide the planet into competing ant hills. Yes, world government is foolish wish given that our species can't really shed our primitive tribalist tendencies. That being my whole point, evolution has forced us to cooperate for the benefit of our individual groups but we can't seem to connect the dots and realize our species is just one big tribe. We gleefully divide each other into countless groups for the benefit of economic exploitation or outright genocide. If a starship full of intrepid alien explorers discovered our planet and after some observations realized we had divided the planet into over two-hundred omnipotent, self-serving nation-states the best thing they could do would be to quietly get the hell out of Dodge before we notice them.

On the matters of faith, while numerous religions have promoted the ideas of serving the greater good and that all men and women are brothers and sisters, you can't ignore the fact that many people believe that only they know the will of God. That delusion has brought about some of the bloodiest wars in history. Even now fanatical and self-serving devotion to various invisible friends causes otherwise decent people to commit monstrous actions. You would think that an intelligent species might be able to realize that if some A-hole religious leader commands his followers to kill their neighbors because that is what God commands, they wound just find a new holy man. 

I was raised Christian, but the idea that God would only let the followers of Jesus into heaven while truly saint-like Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and countless others have to burn in Hell because they practice a different faith is ridiculous. While officially agnostic, I still follow what I was taught in Sunday School as a young kid. As long as people treat each other decency and respect and don't trash the planet, they should get their Heavenly ticket punched. Yes, I believe that would even allows atheists and sorry ass agnostics like me through the Pearly Gates. Screw it, not to insult anyone but given the hypocritical and even monstrous behaviors of supposed “holy” men and women in all faiths, if all they have to do to wipe the slate clean is whisper a halfhearted prayer of forgiveness to get into Heaven, otherwise decent idjits like myself should be in like Flint.

Given my criteria on what it means to be an intelligent species Homo sapiens pretty much fails across the board. Yes, there are personal exceptions, but overall I tend to agree with a character from a science fiction movie, humans are more like viruses than mammals. No, this isn't some John Lennon-like lament over an imagined Utopian society, our species will never achieve such perfection.

On a personal level, what supports my idea is that we live in a wondrous universe filled with mysteries and intriguing possibilities but can't stop our squabbling for very long to explore it. There are questions that beg to be answered but we seem content to continue to crap in our home, fight to the death over stupid shit like who has the better ant hill, and obey the commands of delude psychopaths who believe they and God have one-on-one conversations. 

Mudskippers, humans are little removed from their behavior

This is sad to write, but my one of my few hopes is that Elon Musk succeeds in getting his dream of a permanent human colony on Mars established. I firmly believe that in such an alien and hostile environment where survival is the primary concern the age-old human sins that have kept us bickering like little mudskippers will be burned away. That over time humans would evolve into an intelligent species, not gods by any means, but a species that could look beyond their primitive desires and delusions and find a worthy purpose for our existence.

Well shit, after rereading this it did get a little John Lennon-like. Frak it, I'm getting a beer.

Another Long and Brutal Century

Despite my political beliefs being securely in the middle to hard left, it might surprise some that I am not popular with that crowd on the blogosphere. There was a time back during the worst of the Iraqi War and the Bush/Cheney years that I was part of the progressive “in crowd.” We all agreed that the Iraq War was strictly a neoconservative ploy to gain access to that country's oil as well as making it a secure geopolitical chess piece to counter Iran and China. I based my opinions not on propagandist rhetoric but some actual knowledge.

See for decades we've spent billions on orbiting spy satellites with high precision instruments such as cameras that can take a clear, readable picture of a car license plate from space. Those same satellites are also equipped with detection equipment not far removed from the stuff NASA uses to remotely detect the composition of planets, moons, asteroids, and all the other neat stuff out there. So on one hand you got super cameras that lets us see what people are doing on the ground. Like loading and moving really dangerous substances like chemical weapons. And on the other hand, those gadgets that lets us get an idea what a highly secure factory might be trying to brew up because making weapons grade nuclear material ain't like churning up homemade ice cream. So long story short, the massive goose egg that became the promised Iraqi hidden stockpile of WMD's is highly problematic for anyone except those who watch Fox News.

Where progressives and I quickly parted ways is when they began crowing about the “end of the American Empire.” Oh there were times you could feel their absolute giddiness when they proclaimed about how the evil United States was about to be chased out of all the countries both the government and American corporations oppressed. It only took me asking a couple of times just what was supposed to take the place of the American Empire before I became personae non gratae to those I otherwise agreed with.

Yes, I fully understand that the United States played holy hell with its principles in the ninetieth century as it jockeyed for position with the established European colonial powers. And during the Cold War the United States almost bathed in blood by paling up with dictators, death squads, and soulless corporations in an effort to blunt the Soviet Union which was engaged in the same game. My problem came from how progressives seemed to believe that there was some nascent global brother and sisterhood just off the geopolitical stage who would take over once the American Empire collapsed.

I fully agree empires are a huge pain in the ass since they are oppressive, in that the dominate culture tends to wipe out those they control. This can be accomplished by forced assimilation or actual genocide and while the former isn't as openly criminal as the latter, it still doesn't say much about our species ability to get along. Empires also present another problem in that they all become decadent over time and eventually collapse. All anyone has to do is read about how everything went to shit in western Europe after Rome fell and how once a ruling Chinese dynasty lost its heavenly mandate all that advanced culture and civilization was quickly trashed. Yes, people eventually picked up the pieces and moved on, but I've actually wondered what such a system says about human intelligence.

Despite the imperial system being dangerously flawed, its been the most common form of political organization for the last 2500 years. On average, empires are quite stable with most lasting several centuries, more than enough time for the cultures of conquered peoples to fizzle out. In general, empires are toppled either by external invasion or when the ruling elite get stupid with them splitting up into factions and pissing it all away in civil wars.

This dovetails into the why empires turn out to be rather useful. Empires provide something very crucial for the development of civilization and that is stability. Contrary to many who believe primitive humans lived in some sort of agrarian utopia, there is ample evidence that we've been killing each other since our ancestors decided to climb down from the trees. Admittedly, while we were just small bands of hunter-gatherers roaming the wide open planet, the killing was small scale. That changed once we started farming and settled down into permanent villages.

Being as simple as possible, farming and villages meant larger populations that had to eat. When the spring rains either failed or flooded everything destroying the crops, well you either starved or formed a raiding party to steal from the next village. Generally speaking the village still able to feed its people didn't take kindly to raiders, so they resisted. Sure, some villages traded peacefully but if you believe all was goodness and agrarian harmony, I have a used bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you real cheap. We're talking basic human nature folks, it's ugly and brutal with a disturbing tendency for monstrous behavior even in the good times.

After the initial slaughter, the elites of new empires like to settle down and enjoy the finer things in life. Happy elites like good food and expensive trinkets that might have been grown or made hundreds if not thousands of kilometers away. So they do things like provide armed garrisons all through their territory that keeps a lid on bandits so goods can be bought with currency they back and transported on roads they built. This allows commerce to expand lifting everyone up over time. We're talking centuries here folks, not some ancient version of the Marshall Plan.

An imperial population that feels safe and is well fed has time to create art, write books, establish schools, explore the planet, and try to expand human knowledge. Are there losers, injustice, and oppression in this equation? Yes on all counts, but this is the system that has been handed down to us from decisions made thousands of years ago. You can debate whether civilization was a good idea or not, but truthfully it's a mote point.

As far as the American Empire is concerned, yes there is considerable blood on our hands. The trouble though that the world today is built on the foundations of the Pax Americana, which took over after Pax Britannica couldn't handle the responsibility anymore. Here's where I really get trouble because I believe that for better or worse we and our British cousins have been pushing the world millimeter by millimeter towards something outside the usual imperial system. Never strictly out of some idea to help all humanity and with more than a strong dose self-righteous advancement. Nevertheless I feel that since the end of World War Two there is some vague inkling in wiser circles of thought that we have to abandon the idea of empire.

Even with its deep imperfections, the global system that's been built in the years since WW2 had done more to raise up all people than any other time in history. Other than slowly pushing reforms, you would think the men and women in government would be wise enough not to screw with its basic foundations. That, of course, is where things start to go sideways.

The Iraq War was nothing less than the neoconservatives sticking a match to a powder keg. You'd have to be a moron not to understand that the entire Middle East is a political Frankenstein's Monster built from the corpse of the Ottoman Empire after WW1. Once the fighting was over France and Britain divvy up the territory forcing bitter enemies into artificially created countries.

Going into Iraq on a shoestring crusade to either find nonexistent WMD's or spread democracy to countries with no relevant political institutions to support such governments will be something future historians wonder about for centuries. Throw in progressives believing the fall of the existing international system would bring on some delayed Age of Aquarius and you begin to wonder whether or not fantasies like Santa Claus and the Toothfairy need to be actively discouraged to get kids to understand the truth about the world sooner.

Now we have an idiot in the White House who has a hair up his butt to trash the entire global trading system by instituting tariffs on industries that truly aren't significant in the twenty-first century. If this escalates, which both the Chinese and Europeans say it will, we could be looking at history replaying itself leading up to another Great Depression made worse by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930.

The last thing humanity needs is another round of empire building. The stakes are way too high now with human population pushing eight billion and with emerging nations like China and India wanting their own places on the global scene. With the United States now lead by a man with a penchant for porn stars and not reading the daily intelligence briefing, navigating the difficult years ahead, even when that bastard is out of office, will be a monumental task.

Long story folks, we've totally screwed the international and domestic pooch both by reckless crusades and unrealistic and unworkable idealism. The Twenty-First century is going to be another long and dirty slog like the previous one. And despite the ugly flaws of the current international system, what might replace it will more than likely be much worse.

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors - A Book Review

 

Sadly, calm and rational thought is quite rare in our society and culture these days. If anything, the country seems to be in a state of permanent tantrum with everyone from full-fledged adults to elected leaders acting like psychopathic five year-olds. During the times I begin to feel overwhelmed by such depressing examples of lowest common denominator human behavior I grab one of my books written by Carl Sagan.

It was during the early 1980's when I became aware of the now late Dr. Sagan when he appeared in his version of the Cosmos science series on my local Public Broadcasting Service channel. His explanation of the science of evolution, the efforts of scientists to expand human knowledge, and the wonders of the universe did more to shape my mind than any other person or idea. Needless to say, when the book version of the Cosmos series was published, I rushed out to purchase it at the local book store. Even now decades later that worn hardcover book is one of my prized possessions.

For me, Dr. Sagan's prose can take on the cadence of poetry with its easy rhythms that allow an open mind to look at the universe in a scientific fashion. While never being condescending to the layman, he nonetheless spells out that the universe and human beings can be understood without resorting to supernatural beings or grand conspiracies.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: No, that last statement is not a jab in the eye of anyone religious. It's just that illnesses are caused by actual physical reasons like viruses, bacteria, exposure to toxic substances, or genetic mutations. Not because an evil spirit or demon invaded Aunt Agatha's body and gave her cancer. And that while Lee Harvey Oswald was a delusional A-hole, there is no evidence that he was part of a conspiracy involving Vice President Johnson, the Russians, the Mafia, or even time traveling humans who wanted Kennedy dead for some cosmic reason. Yes, that last one was a headline on a now defunct tabloid several years ago.

In an effort to ground myself and ignore the unrelenting rage that seems to dominate life these days, I picked up Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, a book that Carl Sagan wrote with his wife, Ann Druyan, back in 1993. In that book Sagan and Druyan trace the development of life from the beginning of the Earth and onward to the arrival of Homo sapiens.

They argue that our species worst traits like territoriality, fear of the stranger, greed, racial and ethnic hate, and all the rest are elements of a survival strategy used by many other lifeforms. In fact, they delve deeply into levels of consciousness exhibited by other animals making a convincing case that it is a “difference of degrees rather than kind.” The problem though is that while those primitive traits helped the small bands of human hunter-gatherers struggling to survive, we have now crossed a line that requires our species to supersede our baser behaviors.

Like Sagan's other works Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is a journey that delves into history and philosophy, and even biographical segments. Some have criticized it as meandering but for me it's food for a weary soul who thought by the twenty-first century humans would be further along than the news suggests.

Not to be pollyannaish, but it does end on an upbeat note. Humans have made great strides in the last couple of centuries. Sagan points out that chattel slavery, once justified as natural by both secular intellectuals and religious types has largely been wiped off the face of the planet. He also explains that our species is in the process of shedding other darker aspects of our nature. Almost seeming as if Sagan foresaw our current predicament after 2016, he explains these efforts to rise above our darker traits are tentative and need to be carefully cultivated. Needless to say, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is a testament to the better angels of human nature that I highly recommend.

A Fun Filled Examination of Closed Time Loops

One of the easiest and most abused science fiction story concepts is the one where some fool filled with good intentions goes back in time in an attempt to stop a terrible crime or prevent a tragedy. During the course of these temporal adventures the main character more than likely does something stupid causing events to unfold much worse that in the original timeline. This usually leaves two possibilities for the conclusion of the story. The main character will again use whatever device that allowed him or her to time travel and attempt to correct the alteration in the timeline returning events to how they originality unfolded. Or, return to their original temporal point and somehow learn to live with the alterations in the flow of events.

Needless to say, so many of these types of stories have been written over the decades that they have become extremely derivative of each other that originality is next to impossible. Especially to a jaded science fiction type like myself whose read more time travel stories that I can remember.

As time travel stories go I'm more of the Terminator/Star Trek/Doctor Who type but I've got to admit that for a short time my wife got me interested in the Starz movie channel series based on the Outlander books by Diana Gabaldon. Yes, those books and the series fit firmly in the categories of female romance/adventure but hear me out, because after binge watching seasons one and two I'm going to get metaphysical on the prospects of some time traveler changing history.

Backtracking for those who don't know, the Outlander books and television series centers on the female character Claire Randal who while visiting Scotland in 1945 is “magically” transported back to 1743 when she steps through a large stone. Without getting bogged down into the details at first Claire gets bounced around for awhile learning the ways of 18th century Scotland. What aids Claire in being accepted-- sort of-- by the locals is the fact that she was a combat nurse during the Second World War and is viewed by them as having close to magical healing powers far outstripping the doctors of that time.

Where things get titillating for Claire, and for certain members of the viewing audience, is when she hooks up with a Scottish dude of that time named Jamie Fraser. Given the nature of these books/television series sparks soon fly between Claire and Jamie with the birds and bees stuff getting fairly graphic, soft porn to some extent. I also have to mention part of the drama of the story revolves around the fact that Claire is married to a fairly decent guy who is back in the twentieth century and has no freaking idea what happened to his wife. This is where the story goes full female bodice-ripping romance because of the tension between Claire's conflicting desires to return to her twentieth century husband or stay with the hunky kilt wearing action hero.

The character of Jamie Fraser is a Scottish patriot and is all for pulling a William Wallace/Braveheart on the obnoxious English. But Claire is from the future and knows the growing rebellion will ultimately end disastrously at the Battle of Culloden. So Claire, deeply in love with Jamie, tells him what will happen even though this being 18th century Europe such ravings would almost certainly have caused her to be thrown into whatever passed as an insane asylum or burned as a witch. Jamie, being in love with Claire and impossibly open-minded for someone of that period, believes his lover's warning of impending doom and they begin working to alter the circumstances of the coming battle.

The overall crux of the story, at least in season one and two of the series, involves how the Scots are getting tried of being dominated by the English. With rebellion in the air the Scots are supporting Prince Charles Stuart's claim to the English and Scottish throne. Prince Charles Stuart, also known as “Bonnie Prince Charlie”, is a descendant of the last Catholic king of England, James II.

It is during the second season we are introduced to the doofus Prince Charles who is in France with his advisers looking to find ways to finance and them execute their scheme to take the throne of England by force. Which is a big task since Prince Charles is an idiot and there are other factors working to undermine the building Scottish rebellion.

While born in exile, Bonnie Prince Charlie was raised to sit on the English thrown. Reports suggest he was a dashing figure who was athletic, charismatic, and supremely confident. All that fine breeding just made him an empty suit with delusions of grandeur. For those who can't tell, no I don't like the privileged chump. He reminds me way too much of someone in this day and age.

As far as the ability to lead and organize a military campaign was concerned, he was worse than just incompetent. Despite his unassailable confidence in himself, objective observers say his intellectual ability was mediocre at best. He had no discernible tactical nor strategic vision on how to achieve his goals. Top it all off this example that inbreeding is still wrong whether it's done by white trash or rich aristocratic snobs, the Bonnie Prince was indifferent to the pragmatic issues of military logistics and how terrain effects the execution of a battle plan. Its been said many times anyone can play at being Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or General Patton. But what really wins battles is the ability to quickly bring enough beans and bullets to the theater of operations to overwhelm the enemy. And as far as terrain is concerned, any commander has to understand that while war has been compared to chess it's more the three dimensional kind.

Just to throw salt on this 18^th century Scottish wound, it was recorded that Bonnie Prince Charlie was actually quite indecisive when the shit hit the fan. His usual habit was to walk away when things got tough leaving his subordinates to either sink or swim on their own.

Right from the start Bonnie Prince Charlies' campaign seemed hapless. When a French warship dropped him on a desolate beach in western Scotland in August of 1745 he was accompanied by just seven supporters with little to nothing in the way of weapons or money. A second French ship, which was carrying a small amount of troops, weapons, and money was intercepted by an English vessel and forced to turn back. As the weeks and months passed instead of a solid strategic plan coming together, his generals and advisers couldn't get along.

It wasn't all stupidity and epic defeat, somehow the rebellious Scots were successful enough to launch and overland invasion of England coming within a hundred miles or so from London. Instead of pressing the advantage though, they got nervous and retreated back into Scotland with a well trained and excellently lead English army in hot pursuit.

On the eve of what became known as the Battle of Culloden, the rebellious Scots, called Jacobites by the way, located the encamped English forces and decided to launch a nighttime assault on their position. Such attacks require highly trained troops and precise coordination among leaders, something the Scots were severely lacking to say the least. While it's not my intention to offend anyone, all things being equal the Scots really didn't have a coherent army. They were into the idea that motivated individuals could take on a disciplined army and win just because God or some ill-conceived abstract principle was on their side. Hey, such attitudes can work until the stronger, more disciplined, and better equipped force gets its act together.

The planned night attack on the English encampment began to fall apart almost immediately when one of the leading Scottish generals realized the operation was going sideways causing him to turn his troops around. The big mistake here was that he didn't tell the other group of Scottish forces causing both segments to bump around all night. By morning Scottish forces were exhausted and hungry but there was no place to sleep but the ground and food was nonexistent except what could be begged or stolen from nearby farms and villages.

Spoiled doofus, I mean Bonnie Prince Charles wanted to proceed with the operation as a daytime attack. Something anyone with a couple of extra brains cells in his group said was a really bad idea. Well, Charlie got his way and except for a brief few minutes when the first line of the English forces were breached, strictly by chance not planning, the Scots got their asses handed to them. With this defeat the idea of an independent Scotland was killed until a couple of years ago. Even then the peaceful referendum was defeated and Scotland and England remain a more or less an unhappy couple resigned to a loveless marriage.

Sidestepping back into the Outlander series and the final disposition of Jamie and Claire for those who might be interested. With the coming Battle of Culloden a certified clusterfrak in the making, Jamie forces Claire to return to the twentieth century by again stepping through the magical rock that first brought her. This is where I get off my military history train and slightly ridiculous television show explanations and get back on point about time travel.

As far as I can tell by reading and watching educational documentaries all the big theoretical physicists agree time travel on anything but a submicroscopic scale is impossible. What I don't understand though, and what keeps hopes of time travel alive for those interested in maybe asking Cleopatra for a date is that the equations for time that Einstein developed for his theory of General Relativity say it could easily flow both backwards or forward. Seemingly suggesting a mechanism could be engineered that would allow, say a talking dog and a young kid, to build a Wayback machine. So for shits and giggles lets speculate that some future Einstein, super genius talking dog, advanced artificial intelligence software, or space alien figures out a way. This now brings up the contentious and nightmarish possibility of screwing with the timeline.

Serious nerd side note here, but that's really the only reason I decided to watch Outlander with my wife. Well there is the fact that the lady playing Claire is smoking hot and did I mention the near soft porn aspect of the show?

 

Like Marty McFly made everyone understand in the Back to the Future movies, change the course of events and people in the future could literally vanish from existence. On that same vein, change the course of events and you alter the outcome of wars and other types of historical occurrences. The one thing from both Star Trek and Stargate that makes sense in a metaphysical sort of way is that no one should be able to play God with existence. In Star Trek the guys and gals from Starfleet wisely understand you simply don't go that route...most of the time. As for Stargate, well there are more than enough episodes where the bumbling Air Force fools did play with the timeline and got screwed in the process.

Here is where I put on my layman's history hat and suggest there might be another factor that prevents any hypothetical time traveler from altering history. Pulling from both the actual history of the Jacobite Rebellion/Bonnie Prince Charlie escapades and the scenario offered by the Outlander television series, anyone wanting to change history would have to fight some pretty strong preconceived notions and societal norms. Both Jamie and Claire worked hard to alter the chain of events leading to the Culloden disaster but failed miserably.

While I am in no way a military history expert it does seem to me that the strongest armies, in this case being the English forces fighting the rebellious Scots, almost always win. Yes, Vietnam is the exception that immediately comes to mind but geopolitical factors prevented the United States from exerting its full strength in that conflict. Terrain was also a factor and it was overwhelmingly on the side of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. Looking at the American Civil War while the South scored some early and impressive wins, once the Union forces got fully organized the Confederacy was thankfully defeated and ground down to dust.

Could the Jacobite Rebellion and the Confederacy pulled an upset by an early win? The Scots had their chance when they were only a hundred miles or so from London. And Robert E. Lee certainly had his chance for a quick victory at Antietam and later at Gettysburg but was repulsed both times. It would seem that they could have but I simply don't know enough to be sure. This goes back to the real winners of battles, logistics and knowledge of how to use the available terrain to your advantage. I have some nebulous idea that something would have happened or developed that would have prevented either of them from achieving their goals.

From what I have read, the one event that does seem to have been decided purely by chance was the Battle of Midway. Without digressing into another bout of military history the way I understand it U.S. Navy planes caught the Japanese fleet off guard as their aircraft were on the carriers being fueled and loaded with bombs. From that point on, Japan was never able to mount a major offensive operation. From what I've read the Battle of Midway has been war gamed many times over the decades with the real life outcome not the usual result. But this brings us back to my original idea, it might have taken several years but the industrial strength of the United States would have eventually defeated the resource poor Japan. Yes, I'm including the eventually development of the atomic bomb and its use in that assessment.

What this all boils down to is the eternal debate about determinism and free will. Do we as individuals have any real choice in our actions or are we just puppets playing out a story set in stone? That debate has gone on for thousands of years and runs the full scope from purely philosophical to involving physics. I frankly lean towards the side of determinism, with maybe room for real choice on the strictly personal level. That being whether or not I order pizza for lunch today or go get a nice tuna sub.

What would be totally cool though, is if some intrepid time traveler somehow reads this rambling rant and decides to drop by and tell me what they believe from his or her own era. I promise I won't screw with the timeline by telling anyone else. Come by early enough and I'll buy lunch for us both.

New Year's Abyss

The last time I got old fashioned shitfaced drunk is so far back in my past I actually considered it more akin to an ancient legend than actual fact. Without going into the gory, barely remembered details the story involves several of my army buddies, multiple bottles of Mad Dog 20/20, and waking up underneath a highway overpass. The kicker in this short version of a long story revolves around the fact that my buddies and I left a friend's apartment to make a short walk to a convenience/liquor store to buy food for a party. After that, things go fuzzy really quick and when we woke up one of the guys in the group, Sam Moran, didn't have his shoes. Being that this event took place in Colorado Springs, Colorado during a cold winter night Sam's missing shoes were a not so minor mystery.

With tonight marking the end of that cluster frak called 2016 I plan on frying a similar amount of brain cells, but at least I will remain safely inside my comfortable home. While life offers no guarantees or refunds, 2016 was an utter disaster on so many fronts going from the mundane to the bizarre and different levels ranging between extremely annoying to apocalyptic, not seeing it finally die would be a crime. The real concern sane people should immediately realize though is that while 2016 was a ill-tempered bully, there is a high probability 2017 will turn out to be a narcissistic psychopath.

Yes, that last part is a jab at the person who will soon be occupying Oval Office for the next four years. I will never refer to that piece of gold-plated filth as president. If American society ever returns to some semblance of rational behavior, I am sure academic careers will be made on scientific papers being published which try to explain how a man so detached from reality was given the chance to wield so much power. This is of course assuming Trump doesn't lead the United States over a cliff.

Personally, I've read enough history to understand democracies do some very stupid things once emotions overpower rational thought. At the beginning of the fifth-century BC, the ancient Athenians were on a path that would see them climb to the pinnacle to wealth and power during that period of classical Greek history. However, by 404 BC they were defeated by Sparta and stood a couple of hairs away from enslavement and disappearing from history. The reason being that they were such huge a-holes to everyone that their actions ignited the Peloponnesian War. While Sparta was the chief city they were at war with, it goes without saying Athens was its own worst enemy often treating their allies worse than the cities they were fighting. The only thing that ultimately saved them was by the end of the war the Spartans had exceeded them in the category of being massive a-holes. As the proverbial dust settled, the other Greek cities that fought against Athens saw Sparta strutting around ready to dominate and essentially prevented the enemy city from being razed and its population enslaved.

The Peloponnesian War is a long drawn out and tragic affair, so to make things slightly easier to digest, I would highly recommend reading about Pericles, the guy who lead Athens into the war but whose lack of a real plan to win and caused his own death and thousands of others after a plague ravaged the city. And then there is Alcibiades, a narcissistic punk whose idea to invade Sicily lead to one of the worst military defeats in recorded history. To make matters more surreal, before the Sicilian Expedition went sideways, Alcibiades defects to Sparta and readily helps them in the war against his home city. After that things enter a political Twilight Zone with the traitor later fleeing to the Persians for refuge and finally back to the side of the Athenians.

I guess the half-assed moral lesson Americans should learn from this is that hubris, or in our case, the desire for greatness and blindly following charismatic douchebags will probably lead to disaster. Case in point is how Trump is adamant that the entire American intelligence community is wrong about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Okay, I know I'm bias, but Trump's love tweets about Putin are just creepy and give me a sick feeling in my stomach. Saddling in close to a tyrant while talking shit about your own people while at the same time doing everything in your power to alienate allies just might make the epically bad decisions the ancient Athenian made pale in comparison.

This begs the question how did Trump get elected? Without becoming nauseatingly asinine that is another question best left to academics from some future era. One reason offered up is that he appealed to the down and out white working class who have been left behind by economic globalization and free trade treaties that have strictly benefited multinational corporations. Okay, I'll buy the latter portion of that statement but the former is a bit of a bad joke to me.

Why I find that funny is because despite all the pouting and gnashing of teeth it was the white middle and working class folks that helped create this situation. Way back during the days Trump likes to say when America was great while the average worker had more purchasing power you didn't just run out to Walmart and buy a new television when the old one had a meltdown and was beyond repair. That was a major purchase not far removed from buying a house or car, which required people to shop around and maybe even wait until a few other more important bills were paid off. Hell, the simple fact that numerous people made their living going to houses to repair stuff like televisions is a testament that you didn't easily replace that item. Yes, for the person who might bring up television repair is still a job these days, but it is nowhere near the levels of those bygone years when RCA and Zenith were common names in American living rooms.

While there was never a single nefarious corporate suit who sat in his office planning the economic neutering of the American worker, having overseas workers build products them ship them to the United States was a huge win on several different levels. First, it promoted international stability since a happy foreign workers was less likely to look to the commies for a chance for a better life. Remember the Cold War where the United States was engaged with the Soviet Union over the hearts and minds of the people of the world. Secondly, cheap products flowing into the United States meant Joe Sixpack could have an easier life. The last thing on Mr. Sixpack's barely literate mind was that this convenience would slowly eat away at the very foundation that made his lifestyle possible. Sort of like letting a kid have unrestricted access to a candy store whenever the little brat wanted. Pretty soon that access begins to be viewed as an entitlement even though the lazy brat is badly overweight, suffering from severe health concerns, and has no teeth left in his or her head. The American consumer loves cheap electronic toys and food and it surprises me how few Trump supporters have thought through his delusional promise to bring back those good paying jobs.

Let's say Trump waves a magic wand, which given economic realities that is what it would take, and brings back those good paying factory jobs. These workers would at least have to make a decent wage around fifteen to sixteen bucks an hour because of the cost of living here in the States. A large part of the reasons the toys and food are cheap is because the workers involved aren't paid shit. American workers getting at least fifteen bucks and hour will naturally cause the price of televisions, washing machines, computers, and any other product you can name to raise accordingly thus returning us to a more sedate 1950's to 1970's way of buying big stuff. This will naturally shrink the economy to those same levels pretty much negating any benefit. For the sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring the new and rapidly advancing automation technologies that have many economists and politicians scared to death because it seriously look like it could eliminate a huge chunk of the jobs in existence today.

Another thing that really worries economists is that forty-million Americans make their living producing stuff that is exported overseas. Have Trump simply put tariffs on the incoming toys, which will force other countries the respond in kind and pretty soon those folks are out of work sinking the economy. Then again, one of the most self-destructive statements I ever heard came from a organized labor hating redneck who back during the time the American automotive companies were about to go out of business wanted those union workers to suffer because he thought they were coddled to much. He was the prime example of someone wanting to cut off their nose to spite the face.

All things considered, this love of cheap toys is one of the reasons those poor working class folks pretty much screwed themselves. That and the fact that off all the people I know personally in that category none of them have even a microgram of curiosity or ability to look beyond their stunted existence. The information they base their decisions on comes from sources that reinforces their already narrow view of a world growing increasingly complex. As long as they are told they are victims and that some minority boogeyman is out to take their stuff and force them to eat tacos or buy prayer rugs they feel justified to sit inside that candy store and suck down more sugar. That is assuming they ever look away from the entertainment offal flooding those big screen televisions bought at the local Walmart.

Such conditions do not lead to rational adults who can make intelligent decisions about the future of their country. Call me an a-hole, but all I see are a people turning into proles from Orwell's book, 1984. With 2016 a massive pile of stinky, watery poop I have no optimistic illusions about how 2017 will unfold. My chief concern is whether or not Trump gets us into some type of war with Russia and China. While the gold-plated filth openly admires Putin, the Russian president's main goal is to reestablish Russia on the world stage as a major power. I hold to the view that he will not feel that is accomplished until he totally embarrasses the United States by destroying NATO or even direct military conflict. I admit, I consider President Obama to be an exceptional man and leader but he has allowed Putin far too much leeway in world affairs.

Calling Trump just a fool would be a backhanded complement, I have such a low opinion of him I see Putin playing that chump along to the point that even Congressional Republicans will be forced to act to save political face. And if on the off chance Trump wakes up to how badly Putin played him as a bitch, that thin-skinned narcissist will lose his mind. I've already stated how things could go with China, which could lead to military conflict by itself. If that should happen, expect Putin to jump in to assist China since that would accomplish his own goal.

About the only way I can see Trump coming out ahead in the years to come is if he goes totally counter to his usual behavior. If Trump keeps to the White House and occasionally announces some bogus deal with an individual company about keeping jobs here or bringing a few back to the United States he might be able to keep is suckers happy. They are already heavily brainwashed to believe anything broadcast from Fox News and other fake news sources. The only question I have is whether or not the Democrats will get organized and come up with a plan that will hurt Trump in the 2018 midterms and kick him out of the White House in 2020.

So, given my concerns and fears you should be able to understand why I plan on getting shitfaced tonight. With that I say good luck to everyone and I look forward to seeing what the human comedy will offer up in 2017.