Posts
Happy late Fourth of July. I fully realize the irony of writing a military blog while not posting about the holiday. I was hesitant to do so because I could not conceive of a gripping topic and I did not want to just throw a random post out there. After reading the comments on this thread, I now have something worth talking about. The original post was fairly innocuous, and its message matched what we have been discussing with the troops of a father and son. But at about comment 52 a writer attacks the thought that military service is patriotic. Plus he inserts a quote from Spencer W. Kimball which equates military service and military might as "Satan's Counterfeit to true patriotism". I don't want to quote out of context so please read the comment for yourself.
This comment bothered me due to several reasons. I will present them from least bothering to greatest. First, it reminded me of the old political argument that dissent is truest form of patriotism. This is an old liberal trope that seeks to excuse dissenters from their draft dodging King Men like arguments. I understand that there needs to be legitimate debate concerning foreign policy, but this debate often gives way to shrill, vicious, and petty partisan sniping that endangers our troops. That behavior is little better than the King Men being pleased with the trials of their countrymen (Alma 61:3). But I try to keep the scriptures out of partisan debates because everybody can find their own rationale for their position.
Secondly, the commentator attacked Moroni [1] and many other military figures in the BoM. I always examine figures with as little bias as possible but an in depth study of a persons life usually makes you hate them or love them. For instance, my study of George C. Marshall's confirmation as Secretary of Defense left me with an incredibly deep dislike for isolationist Republicans of the 1950s. In a similar vein my study of Moroni [1] has firmly established him as a figure worthy of mine and everybody's respect.
In regards to patriotism we read in Alma 61 that Moroni and Pahoran believed that :
10...now, behold, we will resist wickedness even unto bloodshed. We would not shed the blood of the Lamanites if they would stay in their own land.
11 We would not shed the blood of our brethren if they would not rise up in rebellion and take the sword against us.
12 We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do.
13 But behold he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies, but that we should put our trust in him, and he will deliver us.
14 Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.
This is the titular verse of the thread. Moroni did not seek war, he did not want to fight, and he would have surrendered if God commanded. But instead Moroni put his trust in God and resisted evil with his sword. This concept of the reluctant warrior stands in stark contrast to the commentator's assertion (using Kimball out of context) that military service is a "counterfeit patriotism". A complete reliance upon your own strength is wrong and could be called counterfeit patriotism. But the kind of service given by Moroni does not qualify, and its shameful of Derek to prop his political position with out of context quotes and by denigrating an individual in Holy Writ. Moroni's military service was born out of patriotism, a deep love and respect for God and Country.
Thirdly, he has disrespected the many military men and women who did sign up out of a sense of patriotism to their country. I have served seven years in the military. I volunteered before 9/11 and re-enlisted twice afterwards. I did not enlist due to my war like desire and trust of man's power but because I thought my country deserved my service in return for what it did for me.
In 2007 I was reaching the conclusion of my original term of service. I had been married less than 6 months, the Democrats had just won control of congress, the surge had not yet truly started, the Iraq war had reached its nadir, and my unit was scheduled to deploy in less than a year. Of course I was not going to re enlist. But then I received an email from the Commandant of the Marine Corps asking me to reconsider my decision. This was the day after I listened to a lecture from Ronald C. Carter concerning Valley Forge and the War for Independence. I did not want to re enlist, but I had been asked to serve my country a little while longer. So I answered the call to service and enlisted for another two years. Thankfully my unit's deployment was cancelled a few months later. Thus I served my country, not because I wanted to, but because I felt it was the sacred duty I owed my country. Furthermore, my military service drew me closer to God. Just like Moroni, I did not want to fight, and I wish nobody had to, but sometimes we are called to serve due to circumstances beyond ones control. "But trusting my all to his tender care" I did what I felt called to do. (LDS Hymns, "I'll go where you want me to go")
Not only did I sacrifice in a way similar to Moroni (albeit with far less personal cost to me), but some people choose to disparage our service. They choose to prop up their political views by using a prophet's words as a club. This club then knocks down our service and the sincere Christ like motivations behind them.
The reluctant warrior, as displayed by Moroni [1] is an ideal model for why a person should give turn to the sword, and describes the connection between military service and patriotism. I hope that we can keep the true spirit of the 4th of July with us throughout the year. I also hope that we can avoid petty sniping as many true patriots are currently marching through the Afghan desert.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
To Grasp the Sword and Die
In preparation for my classes this fall I have been doing a great deal of reading. In The Precepts of Kato Kiyomasa I found this intriguing line:
Having been born into the house of a warrior, one's intention should be to grasp the long and short swords and die.
But a contemporary general of Kato named Kuroda Nagamasa wrote in Notes on Regulations that:
The arts of peace and the arts of war are like the two wheels of a cart which, lacking one, will have difficulty in standing.
Both generals fought in the Sino-Japanese Korean War (1592-1598). And both saw extensive combat during their lifetimes in both unification and expansion wars. So they had similar combat experience but came to different conclusions concerning the necessity of cultured skills.
These quotes got me thinking about warfare in the Book of Mormon. Which "art" is valued more, peace or war? Does modern society value one or the other? Do military leaders in the Book of Mormon favor one or the other? The last question is difficult to answer because the text is devoted to Christ and spiritual aspects to draw us closer to Him. And because Mormon provides little background for the characters he introduces and he does not go into long asides concerning Nephite culture.
We can notice a few things concerning the "arts of peace" practiced by military leaders in the Book of Mormon. Both Moronis can read and write letters, meaning they are educated. Both lead their armies at a rather young age, which means they are skilled in the arts of war. Mormon acts as a historian for much of his life in compiling the Nephite records now contained in the Book of Mormon. The numerous primary texts included in the book reveal that Moroni had the power to read and understand their context within Nephite history, sometimes a difficult task for even modern college students to do.
The Book of Mormon says that in times of righteousness the Nephite leaders were also prophets, thus they should have had a love for the "arts of peace". Moroni [1] knew ancient prophecy (concerning the remnant of Joseph) and could perform rituals in creating the Title of Liberty. Helaman was a prophet that could also lead troops. In his letter to Moroni he summarizes what I can "The Moroni Doctrine". Thus Helaman was skilled in both the arts of war and peace, and Moroni was intelligent and organized enough to train his subordinates to a common standard.
However we can also read the words of Mormon in the fifth chapter of Mormon:
2. But behold, I was without hope, for I knew the judgments of the Lord which should come upon them; for they repented not of their iniquities, but did struggle for their lives without calling upon that Being who created them.
So even though there are many indicators of "the arts of peace" there are also some that suggest they thought the warriors place was to grasp the sword and die.
Thus I can tentatively conclude that the most discussed military leaders in the Book of Mormon were more balanced the Kato in favoring both arts of war and peace. What do you think?
Extending this to modern times. Do you think that one is more important than the other? In academic circles the study of warfare is the red headed step child of the field. But in popular circles people love the study of warfare. In Church circles it seems that scripture study almost completely ignores the military aspects of the book. I think they do that for the same reason that academics disdain the study, they think that studying war means you like or encourage war. We also have a modern humanist notion that wars are illegal and should be eliminated. However, ancient war was often an instrument of God in punishing his people's wickedness. During times of righteousness they succeeded in war, thus conflict became a Divine Diagnostic of Nephite society.
After hearing my opinion and musings on the subject, does this provide any lessons for modern Latter Day Saints? Does this impact your opinion concerning the place warfare in your scripture studies?
Having been born into the house of a warrior, one's intention should be to grasp the long and short swords and die.
But a contemporary general of Kato named Kuroda Nagamasa wrote in Notes on Regulations that:
The arts of peace and the arts of war are like the two wheels of a cart which, lacking one, will have difficulty in standing.
Both generals fought in the Sino-Japanese Korean War (1592-1598). And both saw extensive combat during their lifetimes in both unification and expansion wars. So they had similar combat experience but came to different conclusions concerning the necessity of cultured skills.
These quotes got me thinking about warfare in the Book of Mormon. Which "art" is valued more, peace or war? Does modern society value one or the other? Do military leaders in the Book of Mormon favor one or the other? The last question is difficult to answer because the text is devoted to Christ and spiritual aspects to draw us closer to Him. And because Mormon provides little background for the characters he introduces and he does not go into long asides concerning Nephite culture.
We can notice a few things concerning the "arts of peace" practiced by military leaders in the Book of Mormon. Both Moronis can read and write letters, meaning they are educated. Both lead their armies at a rather young age, which means they are skilled in the arts of war. Mormon acts as a historian for much of his life in compiling the Nephite records now contained in the Book of Mormon. The numerous primary texts included in the book reveal that Moroni had the power to read and understand their context within Nephite history, sometimes a difficult task for even modern college students to do.
The Book of Mormon says that in times of righteousness the Nephite leaders were also prophets, thus they should have had a love for the "arts of peace". Moroni [1] knew ancient prophecy (concerning the remnant of Joseph) and could perform rituals in creating the Title of Liberty. Helaman was a prophet that could also lead troops. In his letter to Moroni he summarizes what I can "The Moroni Doctrine". Thus Helaman was skilled in both the arts of war and peace, and Moroni was intelligent and organized enough to train his subordinates to a common standard.
However we can also read the words of Mormon in the fifth chapter of Mormon:
2. But behold, I was without hope, for I knew the judgments of the Lord which should come upon them; for they repented not of their iniquities, but did struggle for their lives without calling upon that Being who created them.
So even though there are many indicators of "the arts of peace" there are also some that suggest they thought the warriors place was to grasp the sword and die.
Thus I can tentatively conclude that the most discussed military leaders in the Book of Mormon were more balanced the Kato in favoring both arts of war and peace. What do you think?
Extending this to modern times. Do you think that one is more important than the other? In academic circles the study of warfare is the red headed step child of the field. But in popular circles people love the study of warfare. In Church circles it seems that scripture study almost completely ignores the military aspects of the book. I think they do that for the same reason that academics disdain the study, they think that studying war means you like or encourage war. We also have a modern humanist notion that wars are illegal and should be eliminated. However, ancient war was often an instrument of God in punishing his people's wickedness. During times of righteousness they succeeded in war, thus conflict became a Divine Diagnostic of Nephite society.
After hearing my opinion and musings on the subject, does this provide any lessons for modern Latter Day Saints? Does this impact your opinion concerning the place warfare in your scripture studies?
Friday, July 3, 2009
Call for Papers: The Family and Human Relationships in History
Since I have been writing some rather family centric posts I thought I should point out that the Mormon Scholars in the Humanities is having a conference next May on that subject. Here is the official release:
Call for Papers
The Family and Human Relationships in History, Literature, Art, and Philosophy
May 21-22, 2010, Claremont, CA
A conference sponsored by Mormon Scholars in the Humanities
Every story, it is said, is a family story. Yet in stressing the freedom and self-sufficiency of the individual, modern culture de-emphasizes the degree to which people are born in dependency, of specific parents, and develop in and through relationships with others, most closely in the family. By considering the family, family history, and human relationships, we invite inquiry into changes in the culture of the family over time, inquiries into family memory, depictions of the family and the individual in art and literature, and philosophical investigations of the role of family, friends, and mentors in personal development. Some questions to consider:
* How do models and philosophies of the family and relationships illuminate depictions of the family in history, literature, and the arts, and vice versa?
* How has the notion of genealogy shaped different forms of representation in the arts and in sacred literature, as well as philosophies of history, morality, and ethics?
* To what degree is our identity a gift of others, and to what degree is it an individual accomplishment and responsibility? Do degrees of autonomy and dependence differ from era to era, culture to culture, and even from individual to individual?
* In what sense is the family the basic unit of society? What do the humanities teach us about the family as a social institution or about the roles and responsibilities within a family? About successes and failures of the family?
* If one goal of personal development is a certain kind of maturity in the intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and moral realms, what are the processes by which individuals achieve it? Do these types of development have necessary social dimensions? In light of possible family and social aspects of self-development and freedom, in what ways are individuals also responsible for others, and for themselves?
* How do LDS history, values, and doctrine pertaining to the family and to the notion of genealogy influence the work of the Mormon scholar in the humanities? How do they challenge or support the fundamental assumptions of humanities scholarship today?
Creative submissions relevant to the conference theme in story, verse, drama, or visual form are also invited.
We encourage LDS scholars in all fields of the humanities, arts, and history to propose papers or complete panels in response to the topic. Panel proposals should include a general title, presenters’ names and contact information, and paper abstracts.
To accomplish its mission of supporting LDS scholars, MSH will, in conjunction with the conference, offer individual mentoring on scholarly research and writing for publication.
Please send 200-word abstracts and brief CV to David Paxman at davidpaxman999@gmail.com (without the 9’s), by January 15, 2010.
I would love to develop the recent themes we have been discussing into a paper, but next year's Society for Military History Conference is the same weekend, its being hosted 5 minutes away from me, and I have one paper submitted already with another in development. Even it those don't pan out I will need to do some networking with other professionals in my primary field. Plus, depending on how my applications go I will meet my dissertation advisor there. However, if anybody wishes to participate in a collaborative effort in preparing a paper that they can present in Claremont I am game. For instance, I can provide the historical context from ancient societies while somebody else can discuss modern social data concerning the Saint's civic activity.
Call for Papers
The Family and Human Relationships in History, Literature, Art, and Philosophy
May 21-22, 2010, Claremont, CA
A conference sponsored by Mormon Scholars in the Humanities
Every story, it is said, is a family story. Yet in stressing the freedom and self-sufficiency of the individual, modern culture de-emphasizes the degree to which people are born in dependency, of specific parents, and develop in and through relationships with others, most closely in the family. By considering the family, family history, and human relationships, we invite inquiry into changes in the culture of the family over time, inquiries into family memory, depictions of the family and the individual in art and literature, and philosophical investigations of the role of family, friends, and mentors in personal development. Some questions to consider:
* How do models and philosophies of the family and relationships illuminate depictions of the family in history, literature, and the arts, and vice versa?
* How has the notion of genealogy shaped different forms of representation in the arts and in sacred literature, as well as philosophies of history, morality, and ethics?
* To what degree is our identity a gift of others, and to what degree is it an individual accomplishment and responsibility? Do degrees of autonomy and dependence differ from era to era, culture to culture, and even from individual to individual?
* In what sense is the family the basic unit of society? What do the humanities teach us about the family as a social institution or about the roles and responsibilities within a family? About successes and failures of the family?
* If one goal of personal development is a certain kind of maturity in the intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and moral realms, what are the processes by which individuals achieve it? Do these types of development have necessary social dimensions? In light of possible family and social aspects of self-development and freedom, in what ways are individuals also responsible for others, and for themselves?
* How do LDS history, values, and doctrine pertaining to the family and to the notion of genealogy influence the work of the Mormon scholar in the humanities? How do they challenge or support the fundamental assumptions of humanities scholarship today?
Creative submissions relevant to the conference theme in story, verse, drama, or visual form are also invited.
We encourage LDS scholars in all fields of the humanities, arts, and history to propose papers or complete panels in response to the topic. Panel proposals should include a general title, presenters’ names and contact information, and paper abstracts.
To accomplish its mission of supporting LDS scholars, MSH will, in conjunction with the conference, offer individual mentoring on scholarly research and writing for publication.
Please send 200-word abstracts and brief CV to David Paxman at davidpaxman999@gmail.com (without the 9’s), by January 15, 2010.
I would love to develop the recent themes we have been discussing into a paper, but next year's Society for Military History Conference is the same weekend, its being hosted 5 minutes away from me, and I have one paper submitted already with another in development. Even it those don't pan out I will need to do some networking with other professionals in my primary field. Plus, depending on how my applications go I will meet my dissertation advisor there. However, if anybody wishes to participate in a collaborative effort in preparing a paper that they can present in Claremont I am game. For instance, I can provide the historical context from ancient societies while somebody else can discuss modern social data concerning the Saint's civic activity.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Troops of a Father and Son: Impact and Implications
I received a great amount of feedback to my last post in addition to some questions. In general every blogger has to accept a trade off: shorter posts are nice to read but you have to be incredibly judicious in what you post, while longer posts allow you to include a great amount of detail but you may loose a greater number of readers. Those of you that know me from grad school know that I prefer the short school. I generally do short posts and leave a few assumptions unspoken. Since I seemed to garner some interest I will now flesh out a few of those unspoken assumptions and add a few that commentators brought to my attention.
Nature of the text: This was the work of a Chinese military leader during the Warring States Period, roughly 400-300 BC. A common problem during the period was the increasing size of armies. The Spring and Autumn periods featured armies of roughly 30-50 thousand. A few hundred years later these armies had swollen to the hundreds of thousands. And these large armies could wipe out the existence of a nation in one campaign. That is why the number of states dwindled during the Warring States period from 30 to 1. Thus the command and control of large numbers of conscripts became a significant concern for leaders. Since Chinese culture already valued the respect of a child for a parent this was applied by military theoreticians. The works of Sun-Tzu, Wu-Tzu, and Wei Liao-Tzu contain admonitions that a general must be a father and the soldiers the son. This implies trust, respect and obedience in both parties that should increase the performance of armies as I described in my previous post. In fact, many of the spiritual principles found in Chinese Theory result from pragmatic concerns. The stress on these emotions were a powerful and effective way to teach leadership and soldier skills. If you examine my posts "Full Time Soldiers" and "Military Causes for the Problems in Helaman" you would see where I detected and described an increase in the army size and length of service basically similar to what Chinese Society faced in the Warring States period. So the Chinese text can help us illuminate the problems that Nephite society faced and what Mormon thought was the answer to it: stronger families as shown by the Sons of Helaman.
And perhaps a final question is in order: since Mormons today have such good families does that explain their stellar record of service to their country? Service in the country can mean work in government agencies, the military, and even service industries such as Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and the fulfillment of civic duties. Do the traits that make one a "good son" have a causal effect on the number of people that give service and the quality of that service?
Mother and Son: A commentator mentioned the difference in texts between the father and son of Wu-Tzu and the mother and son mentioned by the Sons of Helaman (hereafter cited as SoH). But many readers of Alma 56:47 look at the last half of the verse but miss out on the first half: Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives
The SoH had a cultural fortification similar to the ancient Chinese and they stated it to their father general. I don't feel the statement about their mothers is a major aberration from the text of Wu-Tzu. The Chinese text is a prescriptive military tract. While the BoM contains a description of events. In the transfer from prescriptive theory to descriptive narrative we should expect minor differences and be flexible in our application of the former to the latter.
The Beauty of the Lilies...ummm er...military theory: Its one of the fun ironies of being a military historian that sometimes the most beautiful things I read are poetry. Those that have read Charge of the Light Brigade should already appreciate that fact, but this is military theory written in terse Eastern prose. I will re post it here in a way that accentuates its form:
When they advance they cannot be withstood;
when they withdraw they cannot be pursued.
Their advancing and withdrawing are measured;
the left and right flanks respond to the signal flags.
Even if broken off from the main order they preserve their formations;
even it scattered they will reform lines.
They will hold together in peace;
they will hold together in danger.
Their number can be assembled together,
but cannot be forced apart.
They can be employed,
but they cannot be exhausted.
No matter where you can dispatch them,
no one under Heaven will be able to withstand them.
They are called 'the troops of a father and son.'
I can't force anybody to appreciate poetry, but I hope you can notice its form and message. [I'm not a poetry teacher I'm a historian, I hope I have given you enough context and examples to appreciate its beauty]
A Model for life: I asked a question earlier that applies to this section. Does the filial duty that modern LDS are known for reflect itself in superior quality of LDS servicemen? I plan on posting in the future about the paradoxical nature contained in a military text ostensibly devoted to being a more proficient killer that actually points out many of the proper moral behaviors we should have in our daily life.
Ritual Warfare: I've mentioned the similarity of this point across ancient civilizations in several places on my blog. Please check out "But Ricky", "Prearranged Battle", and "Homeric Warfare".
As always I invite comments.
Nature of the text: This was the work of a Chinese military leader during the Warring States Period, roughly 400-300 BC. A common problem during the period was the increasing size of armies. The Spring and Autumn periods featured armies of roughly 30-50 thousand. A few hundred years later these armies had swollen to the hundreds of thousands. And these large armies could wipe out the existence of a nation in one campaign. That is why the number of states dwindled during the Warring States period from 30 to 1. Thus the command and control of large numbers of conscripts became a significant concern for leaders. Since Chinese culture already valued the respect of a child for a parent this was applied by military theoreticians. The works of Sun-Tzu, Wu-Tzu, and Wei Liao-Tzu contain admonitions that a general must be a father and the soldiers the son. This implies trust, respect and obedience in both parties that should increase the performance of armies as I described in my previous post. In fact, many of the spiritual principles found in Chinese Theory result from pragmatic concerns. The stress on these emotions were a powerful and effective way to teach leadership and soldier skills. If you examine my posts "Full Time Soldiers" and "Military Causes for the Problems in Helaman" you would see where I detected and described an increase in the army size and length of service basically similar to what Chinese Society faced in the Warring States period. So the Chinese text can help us illuminate the problems that Nephite society faced and what Mormon thought was the answer to it: stronger families as shown by the Sons of Helaman.
And perhaps a final question is in order: since Mormons today have such good families does that explain their stellar record of service to their country? Service in the country can mean work in government agencies, the military, and even service industries such as Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and the fulfillment of civic duties. Do the traits that make one a "good son" have a causal effect on the number of people that give service and the quality of that service?
Mother and Son: A commentator mentioned the difference in texts between the father and son of Wu-Tzu and the mother and son mentioned by the Sons of Helaman (hereafter cited as SoH). But many readers of Alma 56:47 look at the last half of the verse but miss out on the first half: Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives
The SoH had a cultural fortification similar to the ancient Chinese and they stated it to their father general. I don't feel the statement about their mothers is a major aberration from the text of Wu-Tzu. The Chinese text is a prescriptive military tract. While the BoM contains a description of events. In the transfer from prescriptive theory to descriptive narrative we should expect minor differences and be flexible in our application of the former to the latter.
The Beauty of the Lilies...ummm er...military theory: Its one of the fun ironies of being a military historian that sometimes the most beautiful things I read are poetry. Those that have read Charge of the Light Brigade should already appreciate that fact, but this is military theory written in terse Eastern prose. I will re post it here in a way that accentuates its form:
When they advance they cannot be withstood;
when they withdraw they cannot be pursued.
Their advancing and withdrawing are measured;
the left and right flanks respond to the signal flags.
Even if broken off from the main order they preserve their formations;
even it scattered they will reform lines.
They will hold together in peace;
they will hold together in danger.
Their number can be assembled together,
but cannot be forced apart.
They can be employed,
but they cannot be exhausted.
No matter where you can dispatch them,
no one under Heaven will be able to withstand them.
They are called 'the troops of a father and son.'
I can't force anybody to appreciate poetry, but I hope you can notice its form and message. [I'm not a poetry teacher I'm a historian, I hope I have given you enough context and examples to appreciate its beauty]
A Model for life: I asked a question earlier that applies to this section. Does the filial duty that modern LDS are known for reflect itself in superior quality of LDS servicemen? I plan on posting in the future about the paradoxical nature contained in a military text ostensibly devoted to being a more proficient killer that actually points out many of the proper moral behaviors we should have in our daily life.
Ritual Warfare: I've mentioned the similarity of this point across ancient civilizations in several places on my blog. Please check out "But Ricky", "Prearranged Battle", and "Homeric Warfare".
As always I invite comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)