such small hands

The Pirate Coast

"The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805" by Richard Zacks

In the 18th and early 19th centuries, pirates along the Barbary Coast (the countries of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli --- modern-day Algeria, Tunisia and Libya) terrorized ships and coastal towns of the Mediterranean. The pirates would loot the towns and ships of every valuable --- the most precious being the humans, who were sold as slaves. Unless they were ransomed, slaves were doomed to lives of hard labor or sexual slavery, and an early death. Zacks writes, "From 1785 to 1815, more than six hundred American citizens would be captured and enslaved. This nuisance would prove to be no mere foreign trade issue but rather a near-constant hostage crisis."

Richard Zacks brings this period of history to life with the story of the United States' first overseas covert operation, led by William Eaton, one of the most hardheaded, hot-tempered, frustrating patriots ever to fire up a dull history book.

 Eaton served as a U.S. Army captain before becoming consul to Tunis, where he became embroiled in the Barbary situation by ransoming a young Sardinian girl. But when nearly 300 U.S. sailors and officers were taken as slaves by the pasha of Tripoli, Eaton's New England passions flared up. He despised the idea of the U.S. paying ransom to lawless pirates, and was even more dead-set against paying tribute (like the European countries).

Eaton proposed a daring idea to President Jefferson --- assemble a small force of U.S. sailors, Marines and ships to find the pasha's older brother, Hamet. With the help of Hamet's followers, Eaton planned to topple the regime and put Hamet in power. Just the first of many attempts at foreign regime change that the U.S. would covertly support to this day.

The story of Eaton's secret mission, involving a 500-mile trek across the Libyan desert, makes as compelling a read as any fictional spy novel. The mission's successes and failures reveal much about Arab-Christian relations, Jefferson's weaknesses as president, and Eaton's own deeply flawed character.

Eaton's mission suffered constantly from underfunding from the U.S. government. It was almost as if Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison disavowed knowledge of the operation as soon as Eaton left U.S. soil. In an Arab culture where bribery greased the wheels of any venture, this was a huge obstacle.

Distrust between the Muslim and Christian soldiers in Eaton's small force almost doomed the mission on several occasions. In his notebook, Eaton wrote, "We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen." Although eventually these uneasy allies took over the city of Derne, ultimately an ignoble peace treaty with Tripoli left Hamet and Eaton's Muslim allies abandoned and betrayed.

Eaton never got over his anger over the peace treaty, which defied every principle that his mission intended to preserve. Under the terms of this treaty, the U.S. not only paid ransom for the enslaved sailors, but also paid tribute (secretly) and betrayed the trust of Hamet and his followers. Eaton died a ruined man.

Not until after the War of 1812, when Stephen Decatur Jr. confronted the Barbary nations with superior naval force, did the U.S. free itself from the predations of the pirates.

Zacks' book takes this little-known incident from American history and brings it to vivid life, leaving readers to ponder how deeply Arab-American relations are influenced today by events 200 years ago.

Related articles

Kindle Daily Deal! The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805 by Richard Zacks for $1.99!

"Anna Karenina"

From the trailers for the recent movie starring Keira Knightley and Jude Law, one would think "Anna Karenina" is nothing more than an epic love story about a woman who dares to defy the stifling moral conventions of her day. Perhaps the trailers are misleading, as they often are.

But the love story only figures in about half of the book's action and, like all truly great novels, "Karenina" deals with life's Big Questions. Tolstoy sets in contrast the stories of Anna and the rural landowner Levin (whom Tolstoy based on himself).

Both are seeking for meaning in their lives. The love-starved Anna turns to a mad, impetuous affair with Count Vronsky. She abandons husband, son, and respectability for Vronsky's love ... but she isn't satisfied. Her own romantic illusions, dissolving into controlling fits of jealousy and depression, destroy their love --- and ultimately herself.

Even though "Karenina" inhabits 19th century Russia, Tolstoy draws his characters as if they could be living and breathing in the 21st century, with irony and humor, nobility and corruption, soul-searching honesty and immense capacity for self-deception. He writes of Anna: "She felt herself clad in an impenetrable armor of falsehood." And later: "She had unconsciously the whole evening done her utmost to arouse in Levin a feeling of love --- as of late she had fallen into doing with all young men ..."

I love this description of Stepan Arkadyevitch, a man we might call a player, a cheater, and some other unprintable names: "In spite of Stepan Arkadyevitch's efforts to be an attentive father and husband, he never could keep in his mind that he had a wife and children."

Or this insight into Vronsky: "It showed him [Vronsky] the mistake men make in picturing to themselves happiness as the realization of their desires."

In contrast to Anna the drama queen, we have the rural nobleman/landowner Levin. As a modern reader, I have to confess that Levin was often dull --- long discourses about the Russian peasantry, agriculture and politics that seemed to do nothing but give Tolstoy a mouthpiece. But in these lush scenes of rural life, especially an extended description of a day spent mowing hay, Tolstoy gives us an insight into Levin's inner life. On one hand, he is a "man of science," but ... "Believe he could not, and at the same time he had no firm conviction that it was all wrong."

Levin goes from bachelor farmer to husband and father, sometimes humorously veering from this intellectual pursuit to that new agricultural project, but always asking the Big Questions: Who or what am I? What is the purpose of my life? After seeking answers in science, philosophy, and church theologians, he discovers his answer in the words of a simple peasant man, describing another peasant:

"Oh, well, of course, folks are different. One man lives for his own wants and nothing else, like Mituh, he only thinks of filling his belly, but Fokanitch is a righteous man. He lives for his soul. He does not forget God."

"How thinks of God? How does he live for his soul?" Levin almost shouted.

"Why, to be sure, in truth, in God's way ..."

 Whereas Anna dies in despair of ever finding her answers, Levin accepts them simply, almost against his will, and returns to the Christianity of his youth.

 

Smitten by Kindle

We are now a three-Kindle family. At Christmas, I gave Amy a Kindle Fire and Ken gave me a Kindle Paperwhite. Seeing how much I love mine and use it constantly, Ken ordered one for himself; it arrived yesterday.

I'm not one of those early adopters of technology, obviously. Reluctant to give up paper books, I found myself reading less and less just because of the expense to buy new books and the "hassle" of going to my public library. But now I am completely won over. 

Oh, Kindle, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways:

• Our house is on the small side. We have three bookcases --- and no room to add more. I could keep giving away books to make room for new, but that's difficult, almost like parting with an old friend. Kindle lets me buy dozens of books and store them in a device that's only 6.7 inches x 4.6 inches x 0.36 inches.
• I can download books from my library.
• Kindle books are often less expensive than paper; books in the public domain are free, like "Anna Karenina," which I am reading now.
• Because of the small size and weight (7.5 ounces), it's great for travel, something that Ken is going to appreciate on his business trips. Even for me, it's much easier to take to a doctor's waiting room than the 600+ page tome I would be toting around.
• It lets you read in the dark without disturbing your spouse or requiring an extra reading light.
• I love the built-in dictionary and translation feature. It's been especially helpful with all of the French phrases in "Anna." Because the dictionary is so easy to use, I'm much more likely to look up an unfamiliar word, instead of guessing its meaning from the context.
• If I'm on vacation and finish my book, I can buy and download another one, as long as I have a wi-fi connection. (Yes, I'm lazy and I don't much like to shop.)
• Much to my surprise, the experience of reading is the same as with paper books. The words on the electronic page come alive and engage the imagination in the same way. The characters live and breathe, and I am carried away to another world ... just as I am with a paper book.
• As a result, I'm reading more. "Anna Karenina" is my fourth book since Christmas.

Thoughts on "The Age of Innocence"

I had started reading this long before Martin Scorsese was honored with a Golden Globe; I'd seen his film version of Edith Wharton's book long ago, when it was in theaters. So my reading was colored by the images of Daniel Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder as the main characters.

Reading this through modern eyes, one might sympathize completely with Newland Archer and Ellen Olenska, the book's lovers. The restrictive society of upper-class old New York of the 1870s keeps them from realizing their love for one another. But reading it as a conservative, one might take the view that their self-control and self-denial preserves virtues not always held in such high esteem today: loyalty, fidelity, personal integrity, commitment.

Actually, May Welland Archer, Newland's wife, is probably the most underestimated character in the book. The reader even underestimates her, like her husband, until the final pages. More than 20 years after the main action of the book, Newland finds himself in Paris with his son; Paris ---, where his lost love Ellen has been living all these years. Newland's son reveals what May knew for so many years:

"Yes: the day before she died. It was when she sent for me alone --- you remember? She said she knew we were safe with you, and always would be, because once, when she asked you to, you'd given up the thing you most wanted."

The disclosure touches something deep in Newland. "It seemed to take an iron band from his heart to know that, after all, some one had guessed and pitied ... And that it should have been his wife moved him indescribably."

A very moving story of romantic love sacrificed for a different kind of love and devotion to family, things that don't seem to be valued much in the society of early 21st century America.

Thoughts on "The Gulag Archipelago"

I'm finished with the first two volumes (Parts I-IV) of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's epic history of the Soviet prison system during the Stalin era. I have been surprised by how readable the work is, how compellingly he tells the stories, how heart-wrenching it all is. Some of the passages I want to share here were/are especially memorable for me.

In the chapter "The Interrogation," A.S. goes into some detail about the methods of torture used by Soviet interrogators. He begins with this: "Indeed, the actual boundaries of human equilibrium are very narrow, and it is not really necessary to use a rack or hot coals to drive the average human being out of his mind."

From the chapter "The Bluecaps:" "To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good, or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions. ... Ideology --- that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification adn gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes ..."

From the chapter "That Spring:" "At no time have governments been moralists. They never imprisoned people and executed them for having done something. They imprisoned and executed them to keep them from doing something. The imprisoned all those POW's, of course, not for treason to the Motherland, because it was absolutely clear even to a fool that only the Vlasov men could be accused of treason. They imprisoned all of them to keep them from telling their fellow villagers about Europe. What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve for." Of all the Allied POW's, the Soviets were the most neglected by their own country, forced to subsist only on what their German captors gave them, denied even Red Cross supplies. Then when they were freed, their homeland greeted them with arrest and a sentence to the forced-labor camps.

From the chapter "The Slave Caravans:" In a footnote, after relating how some prison transport ships burned and some prisoners died because the Soviets refused help from the Japanese (this was 1938). "Decades have passed since then, but how many Soviet citizens have met with misfortune on the world's oceans --- and in circumstances where it seems that zeks were not being transported --- yet because of that same secretiveness disguised as national pride they have refused help! Let the sharks devour us, so long as we don't have to accept your helping hand! Secretiveness --- that is our cancer." This passage reminded me of the Kursk, the Russian submarine that sank in 2000 and because the Russians delayed so long in asking for help from outside, 118 crewmen died. See how that secretiveness lingered even after the collapse of the USSR! It seems that attitude changed however, because a similar incident in 2005 resulted in earlier requests for help and the rescue of the submarine crew.

The Gospel of Judas

So the media are all going gaga over this “new” gospel recently translated that makes Judas the hero because he betrayed Christ at his own request, to free him from his body.

Pardon me while I yawn.

Come on, people, why do we have to keep going over this? The Gospel of Judas has all the hallmarks of the other Gnostic gospels that came out of the 2nd-3rd centuries. Secret knowledge required for salvation? Check. Spirit = good, body = bad? Check. It’s cast from the same mold as the Gnostic gospels we all know thanks to Dan Brown’s little best-seller, the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary Magdalene.

It’s an old, old heresy. You’d think it would have been enough for the church fathers to slap it down in the 3rd 2nd century (Irenaeus in "Against All Heresies" about 180 A.D.). But I guess not. We’re so illiterate about the Bible and church history, we’ll fall for just about anything.

Even some of our ancient foe’s oldest lies.