Ironies of History

[Raphael]

Is anyone interested in talking about things in history that might be described as ironic?

My favorite one is this: during the Cold War, in Western countries, many narrow-minded old men, often in the political leadership, but also in other walks of life, saw the new music styles and youth cultures of the time as a Communist plot to undermine and destroy their societies. At the same time, over in actual Communist-ruled countries, narrow-minded old men in the political leadership and other positions of power saw the same music styles and youth cultures as a decadent bourgeois capitalist assault on their societies.

My second favorite one is that long before modernity, long before it had gotten its modern reputation, and long before modern forms of pornography had been invented, the City of Amsterdam got itself a coat of arms featuring three X-es.

[Moose-tache]

From 1921 to 1923 Ireland fought a war about peace.

[masako]

From 1921 to 1923 Ireland fought a war about peace.

Better is "The war to end war" aka WWI, actually set-up a century of conflict and weapon innovation that continues to pose an existential threat to humanity.

[Ares Land]

The Americans supporting the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Remember Jean-Marie Le Pen, the far right leader? Well he's old enough to have started his political career when Algeria was a French colony. Le Pen was, at the time, opposed to independance, and indeed said, in effect 'we need Algerian muslims in France, and nothing will prevent their complete integration".
(For those not familiar with French politics: the exact opposite of what he'd say during the rest of his career.)
Not exactly history, but still awfully ironic: the awful number of ideas far right leaders and the islamists they oppose have in common. (Just about the same as with Soviet and Western leaders back in the day)

Demaratus, Alcibiades (and others) defecting to Persia. (Remember 300? Well, there was another Spartan king advising Xerxes.)

The death of Crassus. (richest man in Rome, died by having molten gold poured down his throat)

Following masako's lead: that common saying after WWI, 'Never again'.

Frederick William I of Prussia finding his son too soft. (His son was Frederick II)

Oh, Sparta again. The greatest Spartan military leader was Lysander (probably a helot, the supposedly good-for-nothing slave underclass).
And of course, how Sparta ended: as a tourist attraction for idle Romans.

[rotting bones]

The Americans supporting the mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Why is that surprising? The British Raj drew support from many Hindu fundamentalists. America still supports Islamists and there is no plan to change that. Jews and Muslims should be themselves by doing the horrible things they all want to do without any exceptions, just not in America.

It's funny that before WWI, the English used to see Hohenzollern Prussia as an existential threat to the Free World*, much like the Muslim world is seen today. SF novels were written about how the entire world had been civilized with the exception of secret underground Hohenzollern holdouts. These days, nationalists look back on Prussia as the lost bastion of Western Civilization itself! It's like if the turn of the century Riyadh government were seen as the nerve center of the Civilized World by resurgent monarchists in 2100!

Personally, this is why I don't believe that Civilization with a capital C exists. I know you feel differently. I just think your feelings are lying to you.

*By Free World, they seemed to be thinking of England, France, the Netherlands and some tiny polities like Hanover. Spain was a righteously defeated Papist power. The Irish were Africans, Swedes were swarthy peoples, Italians were not only swarthy but superstitious madmen too, Russian churches were mosques, etc.

[Raphael]

From 1921 to 1923 Ireland fought a war about peace.

Better is "The war to end war" aka WWI, actually set-up a century of conflict and weapon innovation that continues to pose an existential threat to humanity.

Not sure - is there any evidence that the phrase in question was actually used all that much during that war?

[masako]

Seems so.

[Moose-tache]

Like Alanis, we (and I include myself) seem to have a pretty loose definition of irony. People have been pointing out for years that it's weird for conservatives to back jihadists, or that pro-life policies cause more abortions, or that everybody says they're fighting for peace, etc. Kids' stuff. I will try to up the ironometer:

The director of Birth of a Nation had his next big hit the following year with a film condemning the persecution of minorities called Intolerance.

[Ares Land]

Why is that surprising? The British Raj drew support from many Hindu fundamentalists. America still supports Islamists and there is no plan to change that. Jews and Muslims should be themselves by doing the horrible things they all want to do without any exceptions, just not in America.

Well, it's not surprising. But given how it turned out, it is ironic.

These days, nationalists look back on Prussia as the lost bastion of Western Civilization itself!

Do they? It's hardly surprising, your average nationalist's grasp on reality is often tenuous.

To be fair, I think Prussia's reputation is undeserved.
In reality, it wasn't that different from its rivals. Contemporary France idolized Napoleon and was obsessed with bloody revenge. (A distant relative of mine was jailed for mocking soldiers and spreading pacifist propaganda.)

Historical irony: in the early 20th century, France was ruled by bloody-minded militarists, and plunged Europe into disaster. Post-WWI France learned the lesson, and was mostly ruled by pacifists, who plunged Europe into disaster.

Personally, this is why I don't believe that Civilization with a capital C exists. I know you feel differently. I just think your feelings are lying to you.

I actually have a pretty dim view of modern civilization. I think our disagreements mostly center around Marxism.

Other ironies: national stereotypes in the 18th century.
18th Century Germans were viewed as irremediably quarrelsome and indisciplined.
Meanwhile, the 18th Century English were viewed as too emotional.

[Ares Land]

Like Alanis, we (and I include myself) seem to have a pretty loose definition of irony. People have been pointing out for years that it's weird for conservatives to back jihadists, or that pro-life policies cause more abortions, or that everybody says they're fighting for peace, etc. Kids' stuff. I will try to up the ironometer:

The director of Birth of a Nation had his next big hit the following year with a film condemning the persecution of minorities called Intolerance.

Oh, a good one!

A similar one: Voltaire, known as a champion of religious tolerance was also a raging anti-semite.

[Raphael]

Some interesting stuff, everyone!

To be fair, I think Prussia's reputation is undeserved.
In reality, it wasn't that different from its rivals. Contemporary France idolized Napoleon and was obsessed with bloody revenge.

Isn't there still some glorification of Napoleon in France? Wasn't there a made-for-TV movie a few years ago that presented him as a gloomy, gentle, suffering soul?

Historical irony: in the early 20th century, France was ruled by bloody-minded militarists, and plunged Europe into disaster. Post-WWII France learned the lesson, and was mostly ruled by pacifists, who plunged Europe into disaster.

Not sure about the second part - could you elaborate? The Algerian and Indochina wars don't look like the work of pacifists to me.

Other ironies: national stereotypes in the 18th century.
18th Century Germans were viewed as irremediably quarrelsome and indisciplined.
Meanwhile, the 18th Century English were viewed as too emotional.

Oooh, neat!

[Raphael]

Seems so.

Thank you!

[Ares Land]

Isn't there still some glorification of Napoleon in France? Wasn't there a made-for-TV movie a few years ago that presented him as a gloomy, gentle, suffering soul?

I haven't seen that movie (I don't buy Christian Clavier in a serious role) but yes. I mean, we're not at 19th-century levels of glorification, but he's still viewed very positively as fucking awesome. I'm used to it now, but it felt weird when Napoleon was mentioned as a tyrant in foreign books.
It helps a bit that, leaving the 'conquering Europe' parts aside, he really was a competent ruler. We've kept a great deal of the institutions he set up. Those have faults, but they're not necessarily of his doing. (The excessive centralization, for instance, and stamping out of local variation he inherited from the Revolution).

In general, we're not very critical of our own history in France. Plenty of people will maintain that the Revolution was just great (*) and that colonialism brought civilization to the primitives.

Off-topic, but I'd like to know how Germans feel about Prussia, Bismark and Wilhelm I.

(*) Unpopular opinion: About the one good thing that could be said about it is that it helped spread democratic ideas. Other than that, it took a century before we got a stable democracy, and pretty much everything that actually got done during the Revolution was a step backwards.

Not sure about the second part - could you elaborate? The Algerian and Indochina wars don't look like the work of pacifists to me.

*Hits forehead* I mean post-WWI.
We weren't alone in enabling Hitler, but we certainly contributed actively to his subsequent career for fear of a war we got anyway. (Hint for political leaders: when a guy explicitly writes in his best-selling political pamphlet that he totally hates your guts and will destroy your country, trying to make friends probably won't work) And there's of course the later collaboration...

[Creyeditor]

Off-topic, but I'd like to know how Germans feel about Prussia, Bismark and Wilhelm I.

As far as Bismarck is concerned, very positively. At school you learn that he had a brilliant foreign policy and that everyone else (on the "German" side) did not, because they just wanted to make war with everyone/befriend the wrong people. His social policies are seen somewhat critically, but are treated as a comprise of sorts. As for Prussia, I would say half and half. There is still some talk of Prussian virtues and in history classes (at least in Northern Germany) Prussia is treated as essentially being a precursor of Germany or the driving force behind the unification of Germany. Prussian virtues have been degraded to being secondary virtues after the Protests of 1968 though and generally Germans are puzzled by the glorification of Prussia in some Japanese media. Wilhelm I is generally viewed negatively. He is seen as passive and insignificant in his political behaviour. There are statues of him, but there is no associated honorification and lately there has been some discussion if these statues should be kept.

My favorite "irony": Munich and Bavaria were some of the first places in Germany to establish a Soviet system after WW1. Nowadays, (and for most of the time after WW1) Bavaria is known as the most conservative place in Germany (though Munich is pretty progressive itself politically).

[Raphael]

On a trivial note, there's also a somewhat popular mineral water named after Bismarck in today's Germany. (Oh, and there's a champagne (or, too be pedantic, sparkling wine) label named after Metternich. I guess that nicely illustrates the respective historical perceptions of the Habsburg and Prussian courts.)

In general, we're not very critical of our own history in France. Plenty of people will maintain that the Revolution was just great (*) and that colonialism brought civilization to the primitives.

[...]

(*) Unpopular opinion: About the one good thing that could be said about it is that it helped spread democratic ideas. Other than that, it took a century before we got a stable democracy, and pretty much everything that actually got done during the Revolution was a step backwards.

In Germany, views of the French Revolution probably depend on your politics. If you're more or less on the Left, you'll probably see it as an event started with great ideals in mind, that unfortunately turned bad later. If you're on the far Left, you might approve of the Jacobins as well. If you're conservative, you'll have a more negative view. Contrast this with, for instance, the view in the English-speaking world, where apparently everyone except the far Left sees it as entirely about chopping a lot of people's heads off (and the far Left seems to see it as that, too, except that they approve of it).

This brings me to another possibly interesting matter of historical perception: that the French are widely seen as notorious king-killers and the English aren't, although the number of formerly ruling kings executed by anti-monarchist revolutionaries in English history is the same as the number of formerly ruling kings executed by anti-monarchist revolutionaries in French history (one, if I didn't overlook someone).

[rotting bones]

I thought this would be too off-topic. I'm posting it anyway because of reduced activity.

Well, it's not surprising. But given how it turned out, it is ironic.

By irony, do you mean, "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result"? If so, irony would seem to rely on the unexpected. On the other hand, even if an event is not unexpected given the facts, the contrary effect could be generated by the form of language: A helped B. B hit A. I would argue that this is a purely linguistic construct since the people who support extremists are not opposed to those same extremists frightening their base. It's part of their strategy to shore up support for themselves by identifying native rebels with foreign invaders and impressing their base with violent putdowns of both groups.

Do they? It's hardly surprising, your average nationalist's grasp on reality is often tenuous.

People get mad whenever I link to stuff like this. Eg. Search: unqualified reservations athens sparta

To be fair, I think Prussia's reputation is undeserved.

Didn't Junkers basically keep their prerogatives until WWII? That could be a worse record than Russia's, depending on whether you count citizens of a Communist country as better off than workers on a Junker estate. Either way, I'm pretty sure the English hated Prussia because it was their industrial rival.

Previously, I was talking about parallels in matters of perception. There is a separate economic parallel too. At a time when most of the Muslim world considered fundamentalists to be heretics, the West installed the Saudi regime in Arabia. Now all we hear is endless indignation at the barbarism of their puppets. It seems to me the simplest explanation is that the West hates Arabs because they want cheap oil.

I actually have a pretty dim view of modern civilization. I think our disagreements mostly center around Marxism.

I would go further. Too many things that people think are about values are really about resource acquisition. The US doesn't support Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen because of American values. They support it because Yemen controls a choke point for Middle Eastern oil, etc. In a world like this, a Clash of Civilizations is impossible because no Civilization meriting that description has ever existed.

18th Century Germans were viewed as irremediably quarrelsome and indisciplined.

IIRC Eucken said that until relatively recently, even transporting goods within Germany was a Herculean task.

I'm surprised no one asked for an anti-Prussian SF novel: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9862 Given that this one was published at the end of WWI, "until the end of WWI" might have been more accurate phrasing than "before WWI".

[Raphael]

At a time when most of the Muslim world considered fundamentalists to be heretics, the West installed the Saudi regime in Arabia.

Wut? Saudi Arabia got its first serious contacts with the West at the end of World War 2 - a time when the regime had already been solidly in place for decades. "The West" did a lot of messed-up things in the Middle East, including helping the House of Saud stay in power, but making them take power in the first place was not one of them.

[Travis B.]

At a time when most of the Muslim world considered fundamentalists to be heretics, the West installed the Saudi regime in Arabia.

Wut? Saudi Arabia got its first serious contacts with the West at the end of World War 2 - a time when the regime had already been solidly in place for decades. "The West" did a lot of messed-up things in the Middle East, including helping the House of Saud stay in power, but making them take power in the first place was not one of them.

The House of Saud was founded in 1720, just for the record, and their becoming the predominant power on the Arabian peninsula was largely their own doing.

[rotting bones]

They had a tiny state in the desert. The West helped them gain control of the Hejaz. That is what gave them power.

I suppose you could say that the West didn't create the Saudis, hence they didn't install them in Arabia. Would you also say that Mir Jafar already had quite a lot of power in Bengal before the British East India Company made him Nawab, so he wasn't installed by them? Or are these two cases not comparable?

[Travis B.]

Do they? It's hardly surprising, your average nationalist's grasp on reality is often tenuous.

People get mad whenever I link to stuff like this. Eg. Search: unqualified reservations athens sparta

Curtis Yarvin could have benefited from applying a good deal of editing to quoted text rather than just quoting long sections of text verbatim. In the end that turned out to be TL;DR for me.