apologists for the aztecs

The conversion of the heathen was a predominant motive with Cortes in his expedition. It was not a vain boast. He would have sacrificed his life for it at any time; and more than once, by his indiscreet zeal, he actually did place his life and the success of his enterprise in jeopardy.
-William H Prescott

In modern culture, Hernando Cortez has a bad reputation. From cartoons such as The Road to El Dorado to modern history documentaries on the subject, he is made out to be a gold-thirsty tyrant. Cruelties of the Aztecs are quickly followed by leveling the same accusations at Cortez. For example, in the A&E’s Ancient Mysteries: Human Sacrifice, the Conquistadors are said to have stopped the practice of human sacrifice by “ironically” slaughtering thousands of Aztec men, women, and children. Earlier the program states that the Aztecs were “equally appalled” because the Spaniards did not kill to protect harvests, they killed “indiscriminately” for conquest. The program never fails to call the Aztecs “advanced” when it can.

In addition to its slander of the Spaniards, this is a sickening apology for one of the most bloodthirsty civilizations in all of history. From its inception, the Aztecs were an appallingly brutal and murderous nation. They oppressed surrounding tribes, had feasts dedicated to wearing skin of sacrificial victims, and cannibalized the tens of thousands that they sacrificed yearly. The expedition of Cortez, an amazing chronicle of luck, human fortitude, and divine intervention, is perhaps one of the most just wars in history.

It is very telling that the final battle between Cortez and the Aztecs at their capital of Tenochtitlan, Cortez’ army consisted of less than 1% Spaniards. Two hundred thousand natives from oppressed tribes willingly came to destroy their oppressors. Cortez was a liberator; he was their liberator.

The founding of Tenochtitlan is indicative of the entire Aztec culture. The Aztecs founded their capital after they skinned a princess of a tribe (the Culhuacan) who had invited the Aztecs to stay in their land. From Father Joseph De Acosta’s The Natural and Moral History of the Indies:

Whereupon they resolved to send to the King of Culhuacan, to demand his daughter to be Queen of the Mexicans, and mother to their god, who received this Ambassage willingly, sending his daughter presently gorgeously attired and well accompanied. The same night she arrived, by order of the murderer whom they worshipped, they killed her cruelly, and having filleted her artificially as they could do, they did clothe a young man with her skin, and thereupon her apparel, placing him near their idol, dedicating him for a goddess and the mother of their god, and ever after did worship it, making an idol which they called Tocci, which is to say our grand-mother. Not content with this cruelty, they did maliciously invite the King of Culhuacan, the father of the young maid, to come and worship his daughter, who was now consecrated a goddess, who coming with great presents, and well accompanied with his people, he was led into a very dark chapel where their idol was, that he might offer sacrifice to his daughter that was in that place. But it chanced that the incense that was upon the hearth, according to their custom, kindled in such sort, as he might discern his daughter’s hair, and having by this means discovered the cruelty and deceit, he went forth crying aloud, and with all his men he fell upon the Mexicans, forcing them to retire to the lake, so as they were almost drowned. [spelling modernized by me]

After founding their capital city, their bloodlust insured rapid growth and conquest. By the time of Cortez they were sacrificing thousands per festival. Historian William H Prescott estimates as high as 50 thousand sacrifices per year:

Human sacrifices have been practised by many nations, not excepting the most polished nations of antiquity; but never by any, on a scale to be compared with those in Anahuac. The amount of victims immolated on its accursed altars would stagger the faith of the least scrupulous believer. Scarcely any author pretends to estimate the yearly sacrifices throughout the empire at less than twenty thousand, and some carry the number as high as fifty!

Others put the estimate as high as 250,000 per year. In 1487, Ahuizotl (leader of the Aztecs) claimed to have sacrificed 80,400 people in 4 days. To put this event in perspective, 1519 was the start of Cortez’ campaign (30 years later). The liar Bartolomé de las Casas estimates a mere 100 sacrifices per year (because he thought if the higher numbers were true the land would not be so densely populated!) and then he defended human sacrifice. Las Casas had more hatred of the Spanish government then he did love for the oppressed people of Mexico. The Aztecs were wickedly cruel and grotesque. One eyewitness account describes their cannibalization of prisoners:

After having torn their hearts from them and poured the blood into a gourd vessel, which the master of the slain man himself received, they started the body rolling down the pyramid steps. It came to rest upon a small square below. There some old men, whom they called Quaquacuiltin, laid hold of it and carried it to their tribal temple, where they dismembered it and divided it up in order to eat it (Bernardino De Sahagún)

William H Prescott expounds on this:

The most loathsome part of the story, the manner in which the body of the sacrificed captive was disposed of, remains yet to be told. It was delivered to the warrior who had taken him in battle, and by him, after being dressed, was served up in an entertainment to his friends. This was not the coarse repast of famished cannibals, but a banquet teeming with delicious beverages and delicate viands, prepared with art, and attended by both sexes, who, as we shall see hereafter, conducted themselves with all the decorum of civilized life. Surely, never were refinement and the extreme of barbarism brought so closely in contact with each other!

One fact may be considered certain. It was customary to preserve the skulls of the sacrificed, in buildings appropriated to the purpose. The companions of Cortes counted one hundred and thirty-six thousand in one of these edifices! Without attempting a precise calculation, therefore, it is safe to conclude that thousands were yearly offered up, in the different cities of Anahuac, on the bloody altars of the Mexican divinities.

So this was the land Cortez came upon: human sacrifice (including men, women, and children), cannibalization, wearing of skin of the murdered (a yearly Aztec festival), and a bitter oppression of neighboring nations. The best book that describes these events is William H Prescott’s classic A History of the Conquest of Mexico. This is a book that praises Cortez for his primary mission to convert the natives. To illustrate Prescott’s objectivity, in his A History of the Conquest of Peru, William H Prescott rightly vilifies Pizarro. Cortez was more noble in his objectives then Pizarro ever was:

Before setting out on the expedition, Cortes published a code of ordinances, as he terms them, or regulations for the army, too remarkable to be passed over in silence. The preamble sets forth that in all institutions, whether divine or human,-if the latter have any worth,-order is the great law… The instrument then reminds the army that the conversion of the heathen is the work most acceptable in the eye of the Almighty, and one that will be sure to receive his support. It calls on every soldier to regard this as the prime object of the expedition, without which the war would be manifestly unjust, and every acquisition made by it a robbery.

Then Prescott writes about an event illustrating Cortes’ devotion to conversion even above his own safety:

The next object of Cortes was to reclaim the natives from their gross idolatry, and to substitute a purer form of worship. In accomplishing this he was prepared to use force, if milder measures should be ineffectual. There was nothing which the Spanish government had more earnestly at heart, than the conversion of the Indians. It forms the constant burden of their instructions, and gave to the military expeditions in this Western Hemisphere somewhat of the air of a crusade. The cavalier who embarked in them entered fully into these chivalrous and devotional feelings… Not to care for the soul of his benighted enemy was to put his own in jeopardy. The conversion of a single soul might cover a multitude of sins. It was not for morals that he was concerned, but for the faith…

No one partook more fully of the feelings above described than Hernan Cortes. He was, in truth, the very mirror of the times in which he lived, reflecting its motley characteristics, its speculative devotion, and practical licence,-but with an intensity all his own. He was greatly scandalized at the exhibition of the idolatrous practices of the people of Cozumel, though untainted, as it would seem, with human sacrifices…

These two missionaries vainly laboured to persuade the people of Cozumel to renounce their abominations, and to allow the Indian idols, in which the Christians recognized the true lineaments of Satan, to be thrown down and demolished. The simple natives, filled with horror at the proposed profanation, exclaimed that these were the gods who sent them the sunshine and the storm, and, should any violence be offered, they would be sure to avenge it by sending their lightnings on the heads of its perpetrators.

Cortes was probably not much of a polemic. At all events, he preferred on the present occasion action to argument; and thought that the best way to convince the Indians of their error was to prove the falsehood of the prediction. He accordingly, without further ceremony, caused the venerated images to be rolled down the stairs of the great temple, amidst the groans and lamentations of the natives. An altar was hastily constructed, an image of the Virgin and Child placed over it, and mass was performed by Father Olmedo and his reverend companion for the first time within the walls of a temple in New Spain. The patient ministers tried once more to pour the light of the gospel into the benighted understandings of the islanders, and to expound the mysteries of the Catholic faith. The Indian interpreter must have afforded rather a dubious channel for the transmission of such abstruse doctrines. But they at length found favour with their auditors, who, whether overawed by the bold bearing of the invaders, or convinced of the impotence of deities that could not shield their own shrines from violation, now consented to embrace Christianity.

About those supposed massacres perpetrated by the Spaniards, Prescott tells the real story. There was one massacre by one of Cortez’ men, Alvarado, of 600 Aztec noblemen and women (maybe some children?). Alvarado claimed these people were conspiring to destroy the Spanish, with no verified evidence. After the massacre, the city rose up to destroy the Spaniards, leading to intense urban warfare. An isolated, unsanctioned incident is hardly cause to condemn the whole of Cortez’ mission. This would be like rogue American soldiers during WW2 killing prisoners. An event like this does not condemn the entire war.

A previous massacre was conducted by Cortez at Cholula, which subverted an actual betrayal. The natives of Cholula had planned to massacre the Spanish with the help of the Aztecs. This is hardly an indefensible action on the part of Cortez.

So, one rogue incident of killing 600 Aztecs, gives historians, commentators, and movie directors license to compare the Spanish (who liberated millions of oppressed people) to the bloody Aztec who sacrificed, cannibalized, and skinned upwards of 250 thousand per year. It is very telling ideology justifies the worst of human activities.

Posted in History, Human Nature | 4 Comments

homosexuality is not genetic

Don Boudreaux’ latest post on CafeHayek is a well written post that is surprisingly not condescending towards a hostile writer (one that doesn’t understand statistics). This instantly reminded me of my time on Huffington Post trying to explain statistics to those who claim that homosexuality is genetic. I had to explain to a legion of hostile commenters the most basic statistical terms that they could have merely googled. If one twin is a homosexual, there is a 20% chance that their identical twin is also homosexual (defined as having at least one same-sex partner). The results seem to be even less favorable to the thesis that “homosexuality is genetic” if one wants to compare the number of same sex partners between twins.

I was first pointed to the most comprehensive twin study to date on the issue via Bryan Caplan’s “Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids” (which can be currently found on Scribd). He does not go into details about twin study results on homosexuality (possibly for ideological reasons):

…identical twins are more alike in their sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Yet genes are far from the whole story—if you’re gay, your identical twin is usually still straight.

But what are the statistics? Those who want to claim over 50% point to studies which suffer from extreme self-selection bias. But Caplan uses, for his main source of many of his claims, a Swedish Study which uses the entire twin registry of Sweden. This study is the largest, most recent, and most comprehensive twin study to date. The results are astounding:

For Male, Monozygotic twins (identical twins with same DNA), probandwise concordance was .18 for “any lifetime same-sex partner”. This would mean if one twin is homosexual, there is about a 20% chance their identical twin is as well. The study calculated the genetic effect at .39 (.00–.59), the environmental effect at .00 (.00–.46) and Unique Environment at .61 (.41–.85).

The results were quite different for females.

For Female, Monozygotic twins (identical twins with same DNA), probandwise concordance was .22 for “any lifetime same-sex partner”. This would mean if one twin is homosexual, there is about a 20% chance their identical twin is as well. The study calculated the genetic effect at .19 (.00–.49), the environmental effect at .17 (.00–.42) and Unique Environment at .64 (.51–.78).

Why is the Female probandwise concordance higher than male yet the genetic effect less? Remember, they are using Dizygotic (fraternal twins) as a control variable. Women had a higher rate than men for probandwise concordance in fraternal twins.

What this tells us is that no, homosexuality is not genetic. People with the exact same DNA only 20% of the time have the same “sexual orientation”. There may be a genetic component, but it seems to affect men more than women.

A leftist might counter that these numbers include individuals who only dabbled in same sex relations who are not actually homosexual, but then they have to merely look downwards on the chart and see the “number of same sex partners” statistics. The probandwise concordance seems to be much less still. The only two excuses remaining for the leftist is to either claim that non-responding twins represent disproportionately homosexual twins, or that Swedish twins are not representative of all twins.

For now, the statistics do not look favorably on those who claim homosexuality is genetic. The evidence says no.

It is also interesting to note that if one runs the numbers, the percent of people who are homosexual (those having at least one same-sex partner) equals about 5% according to this study. This is in liberal Sweden and is including people who do not necessarily self-identify as homosexual but just engaged in experimentation. This result is closer to the conservative claim of 3% of the population identifying as homosexual, as opposed to the leftist claim that a full 10% of the population identifies as such (a statistic derived from a study using a disproportionate amount of people from prisons).

Posted in Human Nature, Science | Leave a comment

life expectancy higher in US

It is amazingly important to note that when cross comparing different countries different cultures, social norms, and demographics are at play. When people say Europeans have a better health care system and then point to overall life expectancy, it is worthwhile to put them on the defensive and tell them if you control for deaths that have little to do with Health Care, then the US comes out on top. From a letter to the editor published on CafeHayek:

In their book “The Business of Health,” Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider explain that the U.S. homicide rate of 7.3 per 100,000 population is eight times the rate in France. The U.S. death rate from transportation accidents is also higher than in other countries. When life expectancy data are adjusted for differences in homicide and transportation death rates, U.S. life expectancy is slightly higher than for all other countries.

Of course, critics will try to claim that better health care might lower those deaths somewhat; the point is that those disparities exist and vastly distort the data. Also of note, the US has a less heterogeneous population, lower population density, and a large immigrant population. All of these result in the statistics showing the US as more impoverished, crime riddled, and lower educated than really is the case.

Posted in Economics, Standard of Living | Leave a comment

dont mess with armed 12 year olds

Good news. A 12 year old, home alone, shot an intruder:

She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.

During that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair’s daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12 year old had to make a life-saving decision.

Posted in News | Leave a comment

was Jesus married?

Very recently a scrap from a manuscript has come to light that indicates Jesus was married. The text is as follows:

1) “not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe] … ”
2) The disciples said to Jesus, “
3) deny. Mary is worthy of it
4) ” Jesus said to them, “My wife
5) she will be able to be my disciple
6) Let wicked people swell up
7) As for me, I dwell with her in order to
8) an image

Despite the initial reaction of conservative Christians, no one is claiming that this is document represents the historical Jesus. It is surmised that this belief that Jesus had a wife, however, is indicative for some sects of Christianity around 300-400AD. It is also surmised that documents like this, indicating Jesus had a wife, have been suppressed by the church. Both of these claims are probable, after all, we know of Christian sects who believe Jesus had a twin brother and also those who believe he killed other children when he was young. We also know of a vast collection of gnostic texts that had been destroyed by the church, and entire collection, hidden from the church, has been found as is now known as the Nag Hammadi library. Another possibility is that this was written as fiction that was never intended to be taken as history or non-Christian parody of Christianity such as the Toledot Yeshu.

But this all is beside the point. Was Jesus married?

The Bible indicates no. Although the Bible’s does not forthright identify who was married (Peter and the other apostles are exposed through tangential means (e.g. Mat 8:14 1and Cor 9:5)), there is some suggestion that Jesus was not married. Paul should have known having persecuted the first Christians, the very same who talked to and lived with Jesus. Paul writes:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Paul, here, is explaining how husbands and wives should treat each other. If Christ had his own wife, there would be no need to draw the parallel between Christ and the church. He would draw the parallel between Christ and Christ’s wife. Even if he was making some grander theological statement, wouldn’t Christ’s wife be worth mentioning in a passage using Christ to illustrate marriage?

The historical Christ was not married. But if he was, how would that affect theological notions of his divinity? Was he destined to never be married, due to his nature, or could he freely have entered into a love relationship if he so chose?

Posted in Bible, History, Jesus | 1 Comment

democratic science platform

The Democrats like letting everyone know, every chance they get, how scientifically scientific they are. Their latest scientific objection to overpopulation: Guam may capsize.

Posted in Leftists, Science | Leave a comment

cannibalism as necessity

After gorging myself on food for the last week and a half while I am on a business trip, I am reminded how amazing the modern world actually is. Throughout most of man’s history the biggest issue was finding enough food to survive. In history sometimes cannibalism was the regular practice, so much so that “human flesh was sold, with some pretense of concealment, in the markets”. Per “View of the state of Europe during the middle ages” by Henry Hallam:

11 The poor early felt the necessity of selling themselves for subsistence in times of famine… This long continued to be the practice; and probably the remarkable number of famines which are recorded, especially in the ninth and eleventh centuries, swelled the sad list of those unhappy poor who were reduced to barter liberty for bread. Mr. Wright, in the ” Archaeologia,” vol. xxx., p. 223, has extracted an entry from an Anglo-Saxon manuscript, where a lady, about the time of the Conquest, manumits some slaves, ” whose heads,” as it is simply and forcibly expressed, “she had taken for their meat in the evil days.” Evil, indeed, were those days in France, when out of seventy-three years, the reigns of Hugh Capet and his two successors, forty-eight were years of famine. Evil were the days for five years from 1015, in the whole Western World, when not a country could be named that was not destitute of bread. These were famines, as Rodulfus Glaber and other contemporary writers tell us, in which mothers ate their children, and children their parents, and human flesh was sold, with some pretense of concealment, in the markets. It is probable that England suffered less than France, but so long and frequent a scarcity of necessary food must have affected, in the latter country, the whole organic frame of society.

And per Ralph Glaber:

Moreover, about the same time, a most mighty famine raged for five years throughout the Roman world, so that no region could be beard of which was not hunger stricken for lack of bread, and many of the people were starved to death. In those days also, in many regions, the terrible famine compelled men to make their food not only of unclean beasts and creeping things, but even of men’s, women’s, and children’s flesh, without regard even of kindred; for so fierce waxed this hunger that grown-up sons devoured their mothers, and mothers, forgetting their maternal love ate their babes.

Eating one’s own children is a theme also mentioned in Josephus. The takeaway is both that we live in an amazing time, and that human beings are capabile of extreme evil when pushed by necessity. As Mises.org puts it:

In the midst of our present civilization, with all its abundance, the idea of enslaving and cannibalizing other people (including children and babies) is horrific and revolting, but it is a reality of human nature that this can come about under dire circumstances. What protects us from this result is the accumulated capital of the past, and our capacity to protect that capital by formulating an appropriate moral order to guide our actions. If we are reckless about the connection between our moral order and the accumulation of capital, then we are asking for disaster.

Posted in History, Morality, Standard of Living | 2 Comments

dating the biblical book of mark

Dating the books of the Bible is not an exact science. Even Biblical critics point to wide ranges of possible dates. The method de jour of dating the various books is to line them up with perceived theological or cultural developments. Of course, biases force interpretations on these evidences. For example, although Matthew is heavily Jewish and the earliest missions were exclusively to the Jews, Mark is dated by liberals as before Matthew because it is shorter.

The evidence, however, points to Matthew as the earliest gospel. Both tradition and the fact that the issues dealt with in Matthew are thoroughly Jewish points to an early date for Matthew.

Mark is more abridged. It does retain the Hebrew concerns about Genealogy, but it specifically cuts other Hebrew concerns from the text. This is what would be expected if tradition is correct. Tradition places Mark as written based on the teachings of Peter while Peter was in Rome. Notice that Rome had a thoroughly metropolitan Jewish population, even gaining converts from the Gentiles. This fact is even noted by Cassius Dio (c. 150 – 235AD):

the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.

The vast Jewish population in Rome, along with their Gentile converts, and traditions as to the mission of Peter and Mark makes a very compelling case for why Mark was written in the manner it was. It would fit very nicely into the timeframe before the Jews were expelled from Rome (49AD). Interestingly, they were expelled for “rioting at the instigation of Chrestus.”

So when was the church of Rome founded and by whom? Some, such as John AT Robinson, point to Act 12 as a possible date at which Peter would travel to Rome and found the church. He states a probable date for this is 42AD because “There is ground therefore for thinking that Edmundson may be right in dating the death of James and the imprisonment of Peter in the spring of 42 as part of Herod’s attempt to ingratiate himself with the Jews (cf. Josephus, Ant. 19.2931.)”

As seen in the passage, Peter is imprisoned, escapes, and flees (presumably outside the authority of Herod):

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

Act 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison…

He escapes and goes to stay with Mark:

Act 12:11 And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent his angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews.
Act 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Act 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.

This “another place” might be Rome. A thorough search was performed for Peter within Herod’s purview, but Peter was not found. This does re-enforce the case that Peter left for Rome, probably bringing with him Mark, and there founded the church. Herod’s search is detailed in the proceeding verses:

Act 12:18 Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter.
Act 12:19 And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judaea to Caesarea, and there abode.

The “he” is talking of Herod, giving up and retiring to Caesarea (the seat of the Roman procurators). Peter was long gone and does not show up again until the Jerusalem council occurred (circa 47AD). Rome is a highly probable place to where he waited. We know it was an early established church established by someone other than Paul (alluded to in Rom 15:20) so must have been established well before Romans was written (circa 60AD). Peter is the prime suspect, which places him in Rome between 42 and 47 AD (at least though 44AD when Herod dies).

Traditions claim Mark was written after Peter left Rome, as recorded by Eusebius:

And thus when the divine word had made its home among them [the Christians in Rome]… And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER’S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK… Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.

With all these in mind, Mark can conceivably be dated to 45AD. In the words of John AT Robinson:

One must therefore, I believe, be prepared to take seriously the tradition that Mark, at whose home in Jerusalem Peter sought refuge before making his hurried escape (Acts 12.12-17) and whom later in Rome he was to refer to with affection as his ‘son’ (I Peter 5.13), accompanied Peter to Rome in 42 as his interpreter and catechist, and that after Peter’s departure from the capital he acceded to the reiterated request for a record of the apostle’s preaching, perhaps about 45. Mark himself was certainly back in Jerusalem by the end of the famine visit, in 46 or 47 (Acts 12.25). We have no record of his being in Rome again till the mid-6os (to anticipate the date and place of I Peter).

Posted in Bible, History, Textual Criticism, Theology | 2 Comments

Econ 101 incentives matter

One of the most fundamental truths in economics is that incentives matter. When an activity is rewarded that activity will happen more than it would have otherwise. When an activity is punished that activity will happen less than it would have otherwise.

The recent (and historical) events concerning extremist Islamic rioting is just case and point. As Eugene Volokh notes, the more we apologize the more we open ourselves up to further attack:

What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.

Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

Maybe A View from the Porch is right, deterrence is the answer.

This is the part where we’re supposed to park HMS Thunderer off the coast and start shelling their straw huts before we land a party of Royal Marines with some Gatling guns to shoot up the wog village and teach the heathens some manners.

Wait, I forgot, this is where we apologize to them for offending their peaceful religion.

I was born a hundred years too late.

Posted in Econ 101, Economics | Leave a comment

history channel likes to rewrite history

Not that any real historian would take the History Channel as a reliable source, but they are populizers of history to the masses. One very egregious instance of them rewriting history is in their miniseries Hatfields & McCoys.

In this mini-series, they depict a child-like mentally handicap child (“Cotton Top”) who engages in murder of a little girl. The girl’s father screams out, after the mentally handicap boy gets the death penalty, that he was the only one who did not deserve it. The handicap boy is turned into a martyr character, innocent yet sacrificed for the greater good.

Predicably, “Cotton Top” in real life was actually criminally insane, murderous, and much older than the miniseries portrays. Everyone wanted him hanged, not to keep the peace, but because he was “crazy as hell“:

I got lots and lots of questions about Cottontop Mounts as well. The miniseries portrays Cotton as mentally retarded and very childlike, and that was a major part of the storyline. In reality, though, he was neither. Cotton was, however, what we call in these parts crazy as hell, meaning that he was mentally ill in a dangerous way…

…What I found most disturbing about the miniseries is that Devil Anse was portrayed as someone monstrous enough to sacrifice his own mentally retarded and childlike nephew. That could not be further from the truth. In reality, he allowed Cotton to hang without even trying to intervene because he believed Cotton killed the McCoy child in cold blood, and Anse believed in blood for blood. Remember, Cotton was neither mentally retarded nor childlike, but he was crazy. Cotton had actually been in on the planning of that bloody raid with Johnse, so there was no reason for anyone in their right mind to believe he shot that poor child by accident.

Of course, portraying a cold blooded killer being executed for killing a little girl goes against the “death penalty is immoral” meme, so one would never expect them to add an interesting “psychopath” angle to a story about a bloody feud.

Posted in History | Tagged | 2 Comments