Evan Seys and the Black Boy Charles.

Posted on November 22, 2023 by jsh54

On This Day in History: 22 November. Edward Teach/”Black Beard,” a pirate was killed by Royal Navy sailors in what is now North Carolina. Piracy posed a grave danger to mariners in the 17th and early 18th Centuries. It also provided opportunities for Anglo-American settlers to get quality merchandise at a discount. I’m publishing this here because I fear piracy by someone with whom I shared early information about this research project.

London, 20 September 1687. The Royal African Company to Captain John Low.

“You are desired to have the carrying of the Black boy Charles to his Freinds upon your ship the “St. George” we consent to it (god sending you wel to return) we expect that you take account or give us some other good proofe of his delivery. He being, as we are Informed sonne to the Messuca of Cabenda who is brother to the King of that Country and is in greatest authority under him whereby hee is able to do us much prejudice or Furtherance in our Trade for which reason is our Desire to please him. He trusted his sonne to Capt. Seys, but what Instruction he had about more than to deliver him to us we know not, Capt. Seys having Been ill ever since he Came over but we understand by other Masters [NB: ship captains] that have since been on that [West African slave] coast that his father expects him back we have therefore Clothed and sett him out in such Maner as we are advised may be acceptable to his friends w’ch we recommend to your Managem’t soe as may not only be advantageous to your Selfe but allsoe to our futer trade in that place soe wishing you a good voyage.”

The British Royal African Company ship “Oxford,” Evan Seys commanding, departed London for the African coast on 16 August 1685. Seys had made two previous slave-trading voyages for the company, commanding the “Swallow” in 1678-1679 and in 1680-1681. Before this he could have been an officer serving on a slaver, then was promoted to be captain. I don’t know.

The “Oxford” loaded 426 slaves at Cabinda, then sailed for Jamaica. The voyage between Africa and the Caribbean might take six to eight weeks, or much longer if winds and current did not favor the ship. The composition of the slaves was: 49.6 percent men, 33.2 percent women, 10.8 percent boys, and 6.4 percent girls.

The “Oxford” arrived at Jamaica on 31 July 1686. It disembarked 369 surviving slaves. It had been 349 days since it left London.

NB: So, Charles was in Jamaica during August and September 1686. What did he see?

The “Oxford” sailed from Jamaica for London on 6 October 1686. A normal voyage between Jamaica and London might take twelve or thirteen weeks.

[NB: so, the “Oxford” could have reached London in December 1686 or January 1687. What did Charles do between January and September 1687?]

By what route did the boy Charles arrive in London, then return to Cabinda?
Why was he sent on the “Oxford” by his father? How well did that long voyage fulfill this mission?
Based on what the boy Charles had seen on his journey, how much information might have been available to one African ruler about the nature of the “Middle Passage” between Africa and the Caribbean and about the nature of plantation slavery in Jamaica?
Why were the directors of the Royal African Company so concerned about one young African in England? How concerned are they that he arrive safely home and with a good opinion of the country? What does this suggest to you about how the slave trade operated on the African coast?
Evan Seys, the captain of the “Oxford,” belonged to an influential and prosperous Welsh family. He had relatives who were graduates of Oxford University, lawyers, landowners, members of parliament, and sheriffs of their county. Charles was the nephew of a king and—one might expect—slated for high office in his own country. Did these two men have more in common than set them apart, or were there differences greater than their social roles?

My Weekly Reader 21 November 2023.

Posted on November 21, 2023 by jsh54

What did the “Roman Peace” mean in the Ancient world? It meant two things. Within the empire, it meant the determined effort to provide good government, reconcile different peoples with one another, suppress rebellions by ambitious men and malcontent groups, foster trade, and prevent invasions by barbarians. At the outer edges of the empire and beyond, it meant frequent and destructive wars.[1] Romans saw no contradiction here. The two were inextricably linked. Only in more recent times have people claimed to see hypocrisy.

The dangers of internal disorder appeared in 69 AD, the “Year of the Four Emperors.” Julius Caesar’s nephew, Augustus, had ended the Roman Civil War, established the Empire, and founded the Julio-Claudian dynasty that ruled Rome until 68 AD.[2] In that year, Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudians, died. Nero had no heir and his misrule already had inspired rebellion in the provinces and multiple conspiracies among officials in Rome itself.

Notable among the rebels was Galba (3 BC-69 AD), governor of Hispania. Although born to a wealthy and noble family, Galba had spent decades building a reputation for greed, abuse of those under his power, and social climbing. Galba was old by Roman standards. Nevertheless, he was proclaimed emperor by his legion. He soon won the support of several other provincial governors, notably of Otho, the governor of Lusitania. Then Nero died and Galba became emperor. Quick as a snake, Galba turned on those who had helped him to power. One was killed, but the more dangerous Otho (32-69 AD) merely suffered public humiliation.

Otho didn’t take the snub very well. Although only 37, he had already suffered enough public humiliation to choke a hog. His wife, Poppaea, had only married him to get close to Nero. Otho soon found himself divorced and exiled to a minor post in the provinces, while Poppaea married Nero. Otho had Galba murdered to clear his own way to power. “That’ll show her.”

Otho immediately confronted a rebellion led by the commanders of the legions in Germany,[3] who took their nominal commander–Vitellius (15-69 AD)—in tow. Invading Italy, the army of Vitellius defeated the army of Otho, who then committed suicide. Vitellius became emperor. Like Otho, he faced a grave challenge from another general.

This challenge came from Vespasian (9-79 AD), a man as ambitious as Galba, Otho, or Vitellius, but markedly more formidable as both a soldier and an administrator. Vespasian left of repressing s Jewish rebellion, sent troops to Italy, while he took control of the Egyptian bread-basket of Rome. Vitellius paid with his life in the war, while Vespasian ruled the empire for ten years and established the Flavian dynasty (69-96 AD).

Vespasian shrewdly built his power upon competent administration, propaganda, increased tax revenues, rewards for his supporters, and non-lethal purges of his opponents. In doing so, he re-established the “Roman Peace” as Romans understood the term.[4]

[1] Famously, the Roman historian Tacitus quoted a barbarian chief as saying that the Romans “create a devastation and call it peace.” Well, yes, if you were an enemy of the Romans, that’s what they did. They would do it to rebels inside the Empire as quickly as they did it to enemies outside the Empire.

[2] If you don’t want to plow through Tacitus, then two historical novels by Robert Graves, I, Claudius (1934) and Claudius the God (1935) are a hoot. If you find that daunting, then try the BBC’s televised version (1976: “I, Claudius” 1976 P1 Siân Phillips, BrianBlessed, MargaretTyzack, JohnHurt, JohnCastle, DerekJacobi – YouTube

[3] Aulus Caecina Alienus – Wikipedia and Fabius Valens – Wikipedia

[4] All this is told with great skill in the first half of Tom Holland, Pax: War and Peace in Rome’s Golden Age (2023).

Catastrophists.

Posted on November 13, 2023 by jsh54

In economics there is the idea of the “neutral [interest] rate.” This is the rate that “keeps inflation and unemployment stable over time.”[1] There are at least three things to bear in mind about the “neutral rate.”

First, an unemployment rate of 4 percent is commonly taken as “natural,” while the Federal Reserve Board has a long-term inflation goal of 2 percent.

Second, “neutral” is the real interest rate that achieves its goals plus the inflation rate. So, IF 2.0-2.5 percent is the desired real interest rate and inflation is running at 2.0 percent, THEN the “neutral” rate would be 4.0-4.5 percent.

Third, over the long haul, it is the product of “very slow moving forces: demographics, the global demand for capital; the level of government debt and investors’ assessment of inflation and growth risks.”

Fourth, it is nebulous. Essentially, if the current interest rate is not achieving its aim (such as reducing demand or slowing inflation to the target rate), then it isn’t high enough to be “neutral.” Monetary policy isn’t actually “tight,” regardless of what previous historical rates would suggest or what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board says.

Before the financial crisis of 2007-2009, the Federal Reserve Board had a real “neutral” rate of 2.0-2.5 percent, with an annual inflation rate of 2.0 percent added on for a rate of 4.0-4.5 percent. After the financial crisis, many parts of the economy de-leveraged. That is they paid off existing debt and limited borrowing. The Federal Reserve Board kept interest rates very low for a long time without seeing even their target inflation rate of 2.0 percent. The shrunken demand for capital facilitated this policy. Then the government began expanding the deficit during the Covid emergency and afterward.[2] Demand began to recover, so this began to exert pressure on “real” interest rates held near zero. Much could change, but “the evidence suggests the public should get used to higher rates as far as the eye can see.”

In the 1970s, “poorly conceived regulatory and tax systems” contributed to the substantial inflation. Government debt amounted to 34 percent of GDP. The recent (and current) inflation is due to “the government’s gross over-reliance on debt financing to give voters stuff without taxes to pay for it.” Government debt now amounts to 122 percent of GDP. In addition, Social Security and Medicare have unfunded obligations of $78 trillion. The interest rate on the debt has almost doubled, to 2.97 percent.” Interest payments have “more than doubled, to $985 billion.” This is larger than the defense budget.”[3]

It is easy to argue that this is unsustainable. The chickens will come home to roost—at some point. They will arrive in the form of higher taxes on upper income groups and degraded services for lower income groups. They may hamstring defense spending in a dangerous time. American politics could get even uglier than they are today. Hardly seems possible, but….

[1] Greg Ip, “Higher Rates Not Just for Longer—Maybe Forever,” WSJ, 22 September 2023.

[2] In early 2020, Federal debt held by the public amounted to 80 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today it stands at 95 percent of GDP. GDP in 2020 amounted to $20.93 trillion. Advance estimates of GDP for the third quarter of 2023 project a total of $27.62 trillion. See: Gross Domestic Product, Third Quarter 2023 (Advance Estimate) | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Eighty percent of 20.93 = $16.75 trillion; Ninety-five percent of 27.62 = $26.24 trillion. That’s about $9.5 trillion in four years. A bigger share of a bigger pie.

[3] Holman Jenkins, Jr., “The U.S. Needs a Defense Buildup,” WSJ, 11 October 2023.

War Movies The 317th Platoon.

Posted on November 6, 2023 by jsh54

Having been defeated in a crushing fashion by Germany in 1940 and having been rescued in a humiliating fashion by the Anglo-Americans in 1944, France didn’t want to turn loose of its empire after 1945.[1] Hence, France fought bloody wars against nationalism in Indochina (1946-1954) and Algeria.

As part of the French war effort in Indochina, its intelligence service, SDECE (pr. “Ess-deck”) engaged in paramilitary operations.[2] The SDECE created the “Groupement de commandos mixtes aeroportes” or “GCMA.” These “airborne commando groups” took their inspiration from “Operation Jedburgh” during the Second World War.[3] The “Jeds” were three-man teams parachuted into France primarily, before the invasion of Normandy. They were sent to contact, train, and lead groups of anti-German “partisans.”[4] As applied to French Indochina, this meant 2-3 French soldiers (a junior officer or senior non-com and a couple of other non-coms) dispatched to the back country to recruit, train, and lead groups of “partisans” in a guerrilla war against the Viet Minh.[5] This went on for years without defeating the Viet Minh.

In December 1953, the French abandoned the GCMA area of operations in northwestern Vietnam. The commando groups were ordered to march toward the newly-established fortress at Dien Bien Phu. The small groups found themselves on the run through jungle that the Viet Minh were flooding with troops marching toward the same destination. Few of them survived.[6]

Pierre Schoendoerffer (1928-2012)[7] wrote a novel about one of these groups in 1963, although he set it in Cambodia. Then made a movie from his novel in 1965.[8] In “The 317^th Platoon” (1965), a GCMA group receives orders to withdraw to safety. The group is led by young lieutenant Torrens, but—in a situation familiar to many old sweats—Sergeant Wilsdorff provides important ballast. Willsdorff fascinates Torrens. The sergeant is an Alsatian who was drafted into the Wehrmacht during the Second World; he has many stories about the Russian Front as a result. Moreover, he is on his third tour of duty in Indochina. The “partisans” trust Willsdorff, believing that his experience and caution will get them to safety. It’s not to be. Although avoiding contact with the enemy is the key to survival, Torrens seizes the opportunity to ambush a Viet Minh column while it is crossing a river. Thereafter, the little group is hunted into extinction, although Willsdorff may survive.

Anthony Beevor, a historian both “popular” and highly-regarded, calls “The 317 Platoon” the greatest war movie ever made. You can watch it—without English subtitles—at Bing Videos

The second best? Beevor says “The Battle of Algiers.” I’m inclined to agree.

[1] Proof that France remained a “great power”? This is odd, because in other areas, France boldly pursued new paths. See: Monnet Plan; Schumann Plan, and the ENA.

[2] See: Service de documentation extérieure et de contre-espionnage – Wikipedia It isn’t highly reliable, being derived from one secondary source.

[3] See: Operation Jedburgh – Wikipedia For more detail and a better interpretation, see: U.S. Army Special Operations in World War II

[4] On Roger Trinquier, one of the most interesting of GMAC’s leaders, see: Roger Trinquier – Wikipedia

[5] Vietnam has a lot more ethnic diversity than round-eyes might expect. In the simplest, most universal case, hill people didn’t like low-landers, and vice versa. Watch “Rob Roy” (dir. Michael Caton-Jones, 1995).

[6] Bernard Fall, Hell in a Very Small Place (1967), pp. 64 ff., tells what is known of their fate.

[7] On Schoendoerffer, see: The 317th Platoon and The Anderson Platoon. | waroftheworldblog

[8] One of the production assistants was Brigitte Friang (1924-2011). A remarkable person.

Of Two Minds on the Hamas Israel War.

Posted on November 2, 2023 by jsh54

On the One Hand: Bunch of stuff in the papers and–for all I know–on television news as well about the “rising tide of anti-Semitism” in Europe, America, Russia, and even China. Some Jews in the US buying guns, just in case. No more Tree of Life stuff: “I see an anti-Semite with a gun, I shoot the bastard; that’s my policy.”[1]

This is an age-old story. Kishinev[2]; the Dreyfus Case[3]; the “Jewish census” by the German Army in WWI[4]; various “numerical limits” on everything from the number of Jewish dentists in Hungary to Jewish blacksmiths in Rumania to Jewish undergraduates in the Ivy League[5]; various kinds of “genteel” anti-Semitism[6]; Kielce[7]; the rue Copernic[8]; the Buenos Aires community center.[9]

It’s too bad that the Jews don’t have a country of their own. One that has the will and the means to defend itself against attack by enemies either close at hand or operating at arms-length. Like the US after 9/11: invade Afghanistan, invade Iraq, send the Special Forces scalp-hunting in Somalia, and no American cares if the League of Nations tries dragging on our coat-tails.

Maybe the US can operate as a normal nation-state because memory in international opinion has a short half-life. I see that another Iranian girl has died under murky circumstances after contact with the morals police. I see that Saudi Arabia gets the World Cup for 2034 or so. I don’t see much on Uighurs, so maybe that one got sorted out to everyone’s satisfaction.

So perhaps if the Jews had a country of their own, the anti-Semitism would stop?

On the Other Hand: We all want the bombing of Gaza to stop. It isn’t just Israel that is involved in this war. Hamas has responsibilities and choices too. Like Japan in 1941, it started a war that it cannot win.

Here’s a simple solution. Hamas surrenders. Lays down all its arms. Turns over all its war criminals—all of them–to the International Criminal Court,[10] rather than to Israel. They get taken to the Netherlands and are held while their cases are investigated[11] and tried.

The League of Nations could propose this and Hamas could accept out of their deep humanitarian concern for the people of Gaza. Israel would stop bombing. What the UN and the European Union and US media all refer to as “innocent civilians” would no longer suffer loss of life and limb, house and home, livelihood and sanity. These people are, after all, the families, friends, and neighbors of the Hamas soldiers. Hamas isn’t like ISIS. It didn’t recruit from all over the Muslim world. So it could demonstrate the depths of its humanity by ending the war.

[1] Stole that one, obviously. Intent to Commit Rape — My Policy — Shoot the Bastard – Clint Eastwood – YouTube

[2] Kishinev pogrom – Wikipedia

[3] I gotta give you a reference to the Dreyfus case? Shame on you.

[4] Judenzählung – Wikipedia

[5] Jewish quota – Wikipedia

[6] See: An Education #8 Movie CLIP – Hard and Boring (2009) HD – YouTube and Gentleman’s Agreement (1947) – Hotel registration [HD] – YouTube

[7] Kielce pogrom – Wikipedia Like Kishinev, not so genteel.

[8] 1980 Paris synagogue bombing – Wikipedia

[9] AMIA bombing – Wikipedia

[10] ICC doesn’t assign the death penalty, just some term of imprisonment in a reasonably comfy European prison.

[11] Lots of video evidence of who did what.

The World Will Not Just Go Away.

Posted on November 1, 2023 by jsh54

Under Xi Jinping, China’s rise as an economic and military power sent shock-waves around the world. President Obama called for a “pivot to Asia,” although he failed to un-moor the United States from European and Middle Eastern entanglements. President Trump actually did begin a pivot to Asia, both by confronting Chinese economic practices and by beginning to walk away from European and Middle Eastern entanglements. However sensible his policies, Trump could not overcome domestic the reaction to his own multiple divergences from our behavioral norms. Now President Biden finds himself facing far greater difficulties in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Asia than did either predecessor. The three crises are linked.

The first crisis is the Chinese attempt to assert its hegemony over the Far East and to extend its influence well beyond that region. The second crisis is the Ukraine-Russia War. The third crisis is the Israel-Hamas War, or—more exactly—the wars fueled by Iran’s regional aggressiveness. All are what might be labelled “revisionist” powers.[1]

Xi Jinping’s pressure on the system is by far the most important. China’s economic and military build-up became eye-catching, and recently its assertion of control over the South China Sea alarming. China is indifferent to or irritated by calls to conform to the “rules-based order” created under American leadership since 1945.

It has been foreseen that China could try to push the United States down into being the second power in East Asia, or exclude it entirely. As a first step, China may try to take Taiwan. It may do so by direct assault or by blockade. Either way, the United States would be drawn into an air and naval war in East Asia.

Why? Because Taiwan, and South Korea, and Japan—major industrial nations and American trading partners—depend on open sea ways for prosperity and survival. All import food, energy, and raw materials in order to export manufactured goods. The costs of such a war would hit the whole world. Supply chains would be disrupted, as would international payments. Public and private financial systems would be badly stressed. The risks to China also are enormous. The war would be fought on China’s door-step, even if it could be limited to a conventional war. Chinese trade, and especially energy imports, would be badly disrupted. So China profits from the distracting conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Until recently, the “world order” seemed solid, rational, and productive. Decades of good times seemed to prove it. Now, as in Ukraine and Israel, war “might come with dangerous and surprising suddenness.”[2]

A conservative interpretation of the issues focuses too narrowly on the Biden administration. “The most important international development on President Biden’s watch has been the erosion of America’s deterrence.”[3] That erosion or decay has complex origins. In truth, some of the biggest cracks have appeared during the Biden administration. But it has been a long time developing. It will take a long time to repair. Start now. We all have a role to play.

[1] Between the two World Wars, countries that wanted to re-write (revise) the post-WWI peace settlements included Germany (under both the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich) , the Soviet Union, the Japanese Empire, Fascist Italy, Hungary, and Rumania.

[2] US Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew to the State Department before Pearl Harbor.

[3] Walter Russell Mead, “How China Could Turn Crisis to Catastrophe,” WSJ, 24 October 2023.

War Movies The Planter’s Wife 1952.

Posted on October 30, 2023 by jsh54

A number of forces converged to create the “Malayan Emergency” (1948-1953). For one thing, Western European economic reconstruction required a lot of raw materials. Tin and rubber were enormously valuable raw materials. Malaya produced both in abundance. For another thing, as a result of the Second World War and its aftermath, Britain owed heaps of money to other countries (the US and British Commonwealth countries). A steady supply of tin and rubber would help both European reconstruction and the British balance of payments.[1] For yet another thing, Malaya had a large minority population of ethnic Chinese.[2] They were at odds with the Malay majority. The Malaysian Chinese could not but be engaged with the civil war between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communists. Unrest rooted in the Chinese population fit within the context of the developing Cold War. So, the British fought.

The Malaysian Communist Party (MCP, overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese) had little difficulty standing-up a competent insurgent force. The British had trained and armed Malayan Communists for guerrilla war against the Japanese from 1942 to 1945. The insurgent strategy lay in launching terrorist actions from the safe-haven of the jungle against British economic interests, institutions, and individuals. In June 1948, ethnic Chinese Communists killed the British managers of three plantations. In 1950, after a year or so of fiddling about, the British carried out a huge campaign of relocating the rural Chinese to “new villages.” This cut off the guerrillas in the jungle from their base of support.[3] Combined with military operations, these measures largely crushed the insurgency by early 1953.

By the early 1950s, the Rank Organization—Britain’s Hollywood—was looking for topical movies that could make a solid profit. For Britain, the loss of the Empire was about as topical as you could get. A first effort came in “The Planter’s Wife” (dir. Ken Annakin, 1952).

The story takes place in a compressed period of time. Understandably wrought-up by Communist insurgents’ murder of his neighbors, resolute British planter Jim Frazer (Jack Hawkins) busily fortifies his house and roots out suspicious employees. His American wife Liz (Claudette Colbert) feels neglected, but also afraid of the rising tide of violence. She wants Jim to sell out and take them and their son, Mike, home to Britain. Jim won’t agree, so—she confides to a friend, the local British police chief—Liz plans to scarper with the boy and never come back.[4] The rebels short-circuit her plans with a series of attacks on the house. Forced to choose, Liz fights hard for their safety. At the last moment, patrolling British troops fall on the rebels clustered around the house. Afterwards, Liz decides that she will stay in Malaya with Jim. Still, just to be safe, Mike gets shipped off to Britain.[5]

“The Planter’s Wife” is a simple, formulaic story. However, it captures one thread in the British debate on empire. Does a war-weary country pre-occupied with domestic reform stand and fight against savages? Or do fears that Britain isn’t strong enough, or revulsion at harsh measures, or disgust with Empire counsel retreat? See: The Planter’s Wife (1952) – YouTube

[1] See Corelli Barnet’s essay. BBC – History – British History in depth: The Wasting of Britain’s Marshall Aid

[2] See: Malaysian Chinese – Wikipedia

[3] See: The Briggs Plan. Briggs Plan – Wikipedia

[4] Probably, Jim represents Britain, Liz represents the United States, and Mike represents the colonies.

[5] Probably to Gordonstoun School. See: Gordonstoun – Wikipedia

War Movies Something of Value 1957.

Posted on October 26, 2023 by jsh54

Robert Ruark, Jr. (1915-1965) grew up as the product of an unhappy marriage and in straightened circumstances in Wilmington, NC. Worse still, he was super-smart, so he had few school friends.[1] Maybe this is what made him irascible all the rest of his life. Something did. He did have a beloved grandfather who took him hunting and fishing. He tried office work, then went to sea on a merchant ship, then worked his way up the greasy pole of newspaper work, then went back to sea as a Navy officer during the Second World War, and then came back to Washington, DC, as a very readable newspaper and magazine[2] columnist. In 1950, having shot examples of most of what the United States had to offer, he went to East Africa to go big-game hunting. He stayed for a while, then came back later.

Ruark’s visit coincided with the “Mau Mau Emergency” (1952-1956) in British-ruled Kenya. In brief compass, in Kenya the usual grievances of the subject people were compounded by the presence of a white settler community in a part of the colony.[3] The nationalist movement came to be centered in the Kikuyu tribe. The rebels came to be called the “Mau Mau.”

Out of Ruark’s African trips came his novel Something of Value (1955). It is long, covers a long span of time, and is filled with all sorts of subordinate stories. Still, there’s an “axial principle”[4] running through the book. People from different cultures can co-exist so long as there is mutual respect between them. Most of the British could not extend respect to the Africans or their culture. There was a color-bar; there was racialized justice; most of all, there was a complete disdain for African values and social organization. All the British did, in Ruark’s view, was to undermine traditional authority and beliefs. This left young people, especially young men, adrift. They caught onto all sorts of harmful ideas. After that, hatred elicited hatred in a worsening spiral.

The rebellion was as much a civil war among the Kikuyu as it was an independence struggle. The British deployed the then-new techniques of counter-insurgency war: sweeps and mass detainments of suspects; enhanced interrogation, and small unit operations against the enemy; and concentration in new villages. The British also made political concessions.

The rebellion was very bloody, so it caught a lot of international attention. The novel became a best seller. MGM bought the rights to make a “ripped from the headlines” movie.

Richard Brooks both wrote the screen-play and directed. Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier played the childhood-friends who become opponents; Dana Winter plays Hudson’s wife; and a bunch of black actors got work.

The portrayal of the fight against Mau Mau doesn’t center on British military operations (open and covert) against the rebels. Instead, it follows the struggle waged by the white settlers. Brooks, like Ruark, said what he thought should be said. The movie doesn’t hide all the violence perpetrated in the movie by white settlers (called “the white Mau Mau” by one British officer), as well as by blacks. The book and movie profit from being based on Ruark’s experience and views—however partial.

[1] Always was that way; always will be that way. Just try not to end up in a bell tower with a rifle.

[2] Especially for Field and Stream.

[3] This made it a bit like French Algeria, albeit on a much smaller scale. Same psychology was at work.

[4] Like a laundry line on which one hangs all sorts of stuff.

War Movies Guns at Batasi 1964.

Posted on October 23, 2023 by jsh54

“Guns at Batasi” (dir. John Guillermin, 1964) is set in an un-named African country just after it has gained independence from Britain. A British military mission continues to train the army of the newly independent country. It’s easy duty for the British officers and non-coms: peacetime soldiering in an exotic place in which their respective quarters provide the essential comforts of home along with inexpensive servants.

The officers invite the white nurses from a local hospital to a formal dinner. They palm off Miss Barker-Wise–a visiting old “battle-axe” Labour Member of Parliament with very progressive opinions—on the sergeants. Soon, they are joined by Karen Eriksson, a UN secretary in transit, and Private Wilkes, a young soldier only too happy to be headed home at the end of his National Service.[1]

Yet all is not well. It’s no easy job to make a “nation” where tribal identities remain powerful, and where the minority which struggled for independence fight over the prizes.[2] A group of officers launches a coup against the government. As part of this action, rebels at Batasi seize the base, attack the officers loyal to the government, and confine the British soldiers to their quarters.

From the moment of the coup onward, the film is driven by Regimental Sergeant Major Lauderdale, the senior non-com.[3] Lauderdale is introduced as a hawk-eyed martinet, obsessed with hierarchy, tradition, and the perfection of form to be achieved by endless repetition of mindless tasks. Behind his back, he is a figure of fun to the other non-coms.

Crisis reveals a much different and more complicated R.S.M. Lauderdale. When the wounded and overthrown African commander of the base, Captain Abraham, stumbles into the Sergeants’ Mess, Lauderdale orders him to be hidden and cared for. He then leads a raid on the armory to acquire a large number of weapons with which to defend the Mess. Then the new commander and local coup-leader, Lieutenant Boniface arrives to demand the surrender of the weapons and to inquire if Captain Abraham has appeared. Lauderdale backs him down with a combination of determination, citations from the rule book, and an insistence upon military formalities, all of it spiced with a rage that he can turn on and off at will.

Meanwhile, things bubble inside the Mess. Lauderdale contends with Miss Barker-Wise, who knows Boniface from London and esteems him highly as a “civilized and cultivated man.” Private Wilkes and Miss Ericsson fall for each other, but try to keep that a secret from the others. Outside of Lauderdale’s hearing, the sergeants discuss what to do about Captain Abraham. Each has his reason for liking Abraham or disliking Boniface. Is it worth dying for?

For Lauderdale, the motivations are different. Abraham represents legitimate authority, Boniface represents mutiny. Abraham is alone and wounded, Boniface and his men are a pack of wolves. Lauderdale is the senior figure present so he feels responsible for safeguarding his charges. And virtually all of the action takes place in the large front room of the Sergeants’ Mess of his regiment, which is filled with photographs of soldiers, trophies from peacetime athletics, and momentoes of wars. Every aspect of his adult life commands his decisions.

Then, suddenly, the conflict is resolved by higher authority in a way that illustrates Bismark’s dictum on sausage-making. The news arrives too late to prevent Lauderdale—and Wilkes—from showing what they’re really made of.

“Guns at Batasi” illustrates some of the difficulties in developing Western institutions in non-Western countries. It also teaches its audience that effective soldiering depends less on technology than it does on things like hard training, experience, and a sense of “esprit de corps.”

You can watch the movie at Guns at Batasi (1964) HD 1080p with English & Portuguese subtitles – YouTube

[1] Barker-Wise is played by Flora Robson, Karen Ericsson by Mia Farrow, and Private Wilkes by John Leyton.

[2] For another take on this problem, see Eric Ambler, State of Siege (1956). While not directly related, Nicholas Freeling, Tsing-Boum (1969) centers on the loyalties and betrayals among veterans of France’s war in Indo-China.

[3] Played by Richard Attenborough.

Just my opinion and I come in peace.

Posted on October 19, 2023 by jsh54

The creation of the state of Israel probably was a mistake.

Between the two World Wars, emigration from rabidly anti-Semitic Eastern European countries[1] had a great (though not universal appeal) among Eastern European Jews. Zionism[2] had NOT had a great appeal among the same groups.[3] During the First World War, a desperate Britain did announce that it favored a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, so long as it didn’t harm the Arab peoples already living there. Once Britain got Palestine away from the Ottoman Empire (1918), Jewish immigration became possible. Not many people went. The arrival in power of Adolf Hitler in the midst of a global economic disaster turned many non-Zionists into Zionists because getting to Palestine looked like the only chance to survive.

The state of Israel came into being in the aftermath of the Holocaust. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of anti-Semitic Nazi barbarism had no desire to remain in Europe. Many, perhaps most, of these survivors still had no particular desire to go to Palestine.

Given their ‘druthers, they would have followed a long-standing pattern and gone to the United States. After the Second World War, the United States did not want to admit up to a million East European Jews. The United States clung then, as it does today, to a legally regulated and limited immigration. To admit many Jews would require rejecting an equivalent number of Italians, Irish, and Poles. These were important established political constituencies. So, it served American domestic political interests to have the Jews go somewhere else. America’s loss became Israel’s gain. Zionists organized the movement of large numbers of Holocaust survivors to British-ruled Palestine.

Nationalism came late to the Arabs, but it did begin to take hold during the inter-war years. Arabs had not liked being ruled by the Turks and they didn’t like being ruled by the British and French any better. Egypt, in particular, had been under the British thumb since the 1880s. A nationalist movement there wanted the British out of the country and out of the Suez Canal Zone. The League of Nation’s “Mandates” granted to Britain and France became the basis for the countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The British were content to hold Iraq and Jordan under indirect rule, but the French ruled with a heavier hand. Nobody consulted the Arabs about Zionist settlement. Arab nationalists seethed.

In this context, any plan to settle European immigrants in Arab lands had to look like ONE of the things that it was: European settler colonialism.[4] The exclusion of so many Palestinian Arabs as a result of the war of 1948, like the ongoing “settlements,” amounts to a huge land grab.

It was a mistake made 75 years ago. Egypt and Jordan could have created a Palestinian state when they ruled Gaza and the West Bank. They preferred to cling to a grievance. Bad mistake. Israel isn’t going away. Nor should the Palestinians. Time to think anew and act anew.

[1] The Soviet Union, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, and Rumania.

[2] Nationalism is the belief that people who share a history and culture, oftentimes expressed in speaking a single language, should be grouped together in an independent, self-governing state. Zionism is the application of this idea to Jews. Moreover, Zionism came to focus its aspirations on a specific physical place centered on the city of Jerusalem. Until 1918, this territory lay under the control of the decrepit Ottoman Empire.

[3] “You want me to leave my job as a violinist in Berlin to become a melon-farmer in the middle of nowhere?”

[4] Another thing it was: an idealistic attempt to create a democratic safe-haven for a much oppressed people.