- This topic has 8 voices and 10 replies.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
Although Genghis Khan and the 13th-century Mongols are far outside my usual interests, I have been enjoying and highly recommend “The Wrath of the Khans,” a 5-part podcast in Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History series.
Carlin’s strength is combining vivid, concrete examples and quotations with discussion of larger issues. For this series, he keeps returning to the idea of “creative destruction,” a modern term frequently used to justify a conqueror wiping out thousands or millions of lives. Carlin is also very good at integrating Genghis’s actions with those of more familiar figures such as Alexander the Great and Adolf Hitler.
For the past few years, my writing has predominantly been scriptwriting: composing the narratives for episodes of Guides Who Know apps (Monuments of Manhattan and the forthcoming Central Park). Probably because communicating via the spoken rather than written word has become such an important part of my work, I’m blown away by Carlin’s ability to tell history so it feels like a story. I have always preferred to read history rather than listen to it, because so few historians manage to sustain a narrative flow while keeping the chronological and geographical setting clear – especially when visuals aren’t part of the presentation. In Carlin’s podcasts, the context is always crystal clear, yet I never feel like he’s being overly repetitive re dates and places. If more history were presented in this engaging and informative way, our schools would be turning out fewer short-sighted historical ignoramuses.
Carlin seems to have a sincere respect for human life. (Genghis is not one of his heroes.) According to the Wikipedia article on him, he’s a mixed bag politically, but I haven’t had a hint of that in the Wrath of the Khans podcasts. I do wish I could remember who recommended the series to me, so I could deliver the Big Salad thank you.
-
I laughed when you said Ghengis Khan and his mongels are far outside your usual interest (far outside mine too), and again with the title, The Wrath of the Khans, an obvious nod to all Trekkers.
-
Dianne,
Interesting, but, “the idea of ‘creative destruction,’ a modern term frequently used to justify a conqueror wiping out thousands or millions of lives,” seems to have a meaning opposite to the term I have always known,
In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian economist wrote:
The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. (p. 83)
I believe that Schumpeter actually coined the term. By “destroying the old,” he was referring to obsolescence and that is a good thing, i.e., progress, capitalism.
Best,
Ed
-
Ed Thompson identified Schumpeter as coining the term “creative desctruction” (1942) and many conservatives today use that term to defend and praise capitalism.
I wonder if Carlin by associating that term with brutal, murderous dictators is attempting to set the stage for smearing capitalism later in his hostorical accounts as merely the modern variant of brute force.
-
Carlin’s ideas about history are unconventional but very interesting. I think what he means by “creative destruction” in this instance is that a lot of sclerotic states were wipe away by the Mongol tide, to be replaced by more energetic states (like, in the Muslim world, the Turks). From a historical perspective, civilizational self-confidence and assertiveness (“energetic states”) tend to be survival characteristics of a civilization, whereas static civilizations and/or ones that lack confidence in their own greatness tend to die, other factors being equal. One may disagree with Carlin’s point that such destruction is good, while still understanding that when a people decide that their civilization is no longer worth fighting for, it will come to an end in short order.
Politically, Carlin is a liberal, as can be seen in his political podcasts “Common Sense”, which I listen to. He is very good on the 4th Amendment and legal protections against the surveillance state and over-militarized police; however, he is very bad on the 1st Amendment, favoring “campaign finance reform” to prevent politicians from being bought by corporations. He favors gun rights and nationalized health care. He opposes intervention overseas, but says that for any such intervention to be effective, as history teaches, we would have to be utterly ruthless to our enemies. (He says the American public would never stand for the ruthlessness required any more — see civilizational confidence above).
His opinions, while often wrong, are not stupid, in that he’s done a lot of thinking about them, and fact gathering. What he lacks is a proper philosophic understanding of the role of principles in human life. He would, like that businessman in the famous story told by Dr. Peikoff when Ayn Rand explained why government intervention in the steel industry would be bad, then ask in all honesty, “okay, but what about the coal industry?”
Yet his ideas do provide some value, unlike most people on the left, which is why I listen to him. The American media, for example, tend to portray the fight against ISIS as freedom versus brutality or America versus Islamic fundamentalists. This is true, of course. Yet the combatants themselves would never say that. To them, it’s a religious civil war between Shia and Sunni, and a political war between the Iran/Iraqi Government/Syria/Hezbollah fundamentalist Shia faction versus the Saudi/Gulf State/IS fundamentalist Sunni faction. Essentially, a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, with the Kurds caught in the middle, and the US bumbling around like a heavily armed idiot. Carlin gets this. No other news organization does.
-
“One may disagree with Carlin’s point that such destruction is good, while still understanding that when a people decide that their civilization is no longer worth fighting for, it will come to an end in short order.”
This is emphatically NOT Carlin’s view re: the Khans. He observes that this modern, bizarre historical perspective on them may very well be said of Hitler and the Nazis 800 years from now–and it would still be wrong!
-
Ed – I’m not familiar with the economic sense, although in the sense you cite, it would be proper and moral. The term must have been adopted by historians before Carlin, given the contemporary historians he quotes – I don’t think Carlin himself has sinister plans.
Among historians, “creative destruction” implies that wiping out a civilization by brute force isn’t bad if it was a no-good civilization (either always, or by that time). Carlin’s point is that “wiping out a civilization” directly translates to “killing thousands or millions of people.”
I wish, of course, that he went further and pointed out that the only legitimate way to change a civilization is with ideas. But there are relatively few historians (half of them probably belong to HBL) who make that connection. I’m willing to deal with Carlin’s deficit in this respect for the sake of the fascinating info he delivers in “Wrath of the Khans.”
And yes, the Star Trek reference amuses me very much.
I’m planning to tackle his series on the fall of the Roman Republic next – it’ll make interesting background to the Robert Harris series on Cicero, which is excellent historical fiction.
-
Sal — his Fall of the Republic is masterful, but you’ll need a text to go with it. I just read, and highly recommend, Tom Holland’s “Rubicon”.
For historical fiction, I love Harris, but Steven Saylor also has a series of historical mysteries set around the Fall of the Republic. Also highly recommended.
Finally, I also recommend the granddaddy of all historical podcasts, Mike Duncan’s “The History of Rome,” which covers the entire period from 750ish BC to 476 AD. It takes a few episodes for Mike to hit his stride, but after that his analysis, clear presentation, and occasional humor make it a fine way to experience Roman history.
-
The comment attributed to me, beginning, “Ed – I’m not familiar with the economic sense, although in the sense you cite, it would be proper and moral. The term must have been adopted by historians before Carlin, given the contemporary historians he quotes – I don’t think Carlin himself has sinister plans. . . “
was Dianne’s comment.
We’ll have to figure out how to keep Dianne and me separate.Jean?
-
Thank you for the recommendation Dianne. I thoroughly enjoyed Carlin’s analysis, and learned quite a bit. He really does know how to tell a story and does not refrain from moral condemnation of a man who had millions killed, way before ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were available.
-
I’ll check out the podcast. Thanks, Dianne. By the way, I read an interesting narrative a few weeks ago about the diet of the Khans. Members who follow a “paleo” diet might want to compare, shudder, or try some brick tea:
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.