I try not to tilt. (But sometimes you need to tilt!)

Sometimes I feel like a nitpicking asshole.

I mean, I try to look at the big picture of things (and ask the broader questions) but every time I do that, it seems the smaller, more mundane details just creep up on me and get in my way, hit me in the face. Or even spill all over the place. They can range from the definitions of words to hotly debated pieces of history such as the Crusades, and when words can't be agreed on, when basic facts can't be agreed on, how on earth can I hope to look at the big picture, and focus on philosophical questions? In a previous essay, I conceded CAIR's point about the Crusades as something that tended make Christianity look bad. I did this not because I am out to avenge the victims of the Crusades or have any dog in that particular race, but because I wanted to look at the mechanics of the argument. Yet by conceding that, I ran afoul of the argument that the Crusades were a good thing. The merits of the Crusades were not what I wanted to debate, for that would take at least an essay-length post. And that would be superficial, as books -- many books -- have been written on the subject.

So, OK, people are sensitive about the Crusades. They think they were justified, or at least should be seen in the context of the times, and the larger Islamic threat or something.

I don't like to devote too much time to avoiding giving offense to anyone's sensitivities, but then I don't like these endless distractions either. I just wanted an example of something most people would not consider to be a stellar example of Christian conduct. So, I thought, should I have maybe used the Inquisition as an example? Would that have "worked"?

No, it would not have worked. Because last month, I was out to dinner with some friends, and when the issue of the Inquisition came up, I was immediately scolded by a friend whose father is a Jesuit scholar, and who maintains that the Inquisition was largely a "myth" made up by Protestants at war with Catholicism. That its methods were humane, that only a maximum of twenty five people were killed, etc.

Sure enough, there are plenty of web sites like this arguing that the Inquisition was a myth, and Inquisition denial seems to be a thriving cottage industry. The BBC had a special called "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," and of course there's the usual (disputed) Wiki entry. And the books . . .

Let me therefore stop right here and say something: this post is not about the Inquisition! I only thought I might use it in the sense of assume-for-the-sake-of-argument (wish I could just say "AFTSOA") example, but I realize that I can't. Because to do so, I'd have to devote an entire essay to the Inquisition.

Siht, (sic) what's my point here?

I'm getting buried with nits I'm complaining about not wanting to pick!

If you use something as an example in the context of larger discussion, the central argument can easily be lost if someone takes issue with the underlying merits of the example -- even if the merits of the example really belong elsewhere, in a debate about that subject.

In the post in which I "gave away" the Crusades, I also thought I could point to Aztec sacrifices and cannibalism as things we could all agreed upon as morally egregious, but I discovered that no, there isn't agreement even on that. What that means is that in order to generalize about things, or discuss the logical premises in arguments, I need to constantly endeavor to be more careful, or at least preface everything with "assume this," "assume that," or "if this is correct," and of course, "for the sake of argument." I can do it, but it seems like a lot of busywork, and sometimes I wish I could just say what the hell I think and run the risk of being "offensive."

I could, and I can. But being offensive is just not my style. If I vent and let loose with a string of ill-thought-out generalizations, profanities, and ad hominem attacks, I'd lose the whole point of what blogging means to me, which is an attempt to use logic, reason, and analysis to find out what I really think.

Venting is a bit like having a temper tantrum. It has its place (and I have done it in posts) but like any fit of temper, it's only of limited value, and it tends to be self-indulgent. If I stub my toe, or if I try to pour a cup of coffee and it dribbles all over the counter, I'll lose my temper and probably let loose with the usual profanities.

But would I write them down and sign them?

No, because such things are silly distractions, although the underlying experience might ultimately generate a blog post (or, as is happening right now, a few paragraphs in a blog post).

I might point out that finally at the tender age of 51 I discovered the precise mechanism that made my coffee pot dribble, and now that I have learned to work around it, I need no longer wail and scream about the stupid coffee pot which "always" leaves a black pool on the countertop as well as streaks along the face of the cabinet underneath.

I did this by trial and error, by filling the carafe with water and pouring it repeatedly into the sink. To my utter amazement, I discovered that whoever had engineered it had made the assumption of a zero-degree, straight, line line-of-sight pour (the way you would pour if you held the pot straight in front of you and lined up the indentation like a gun sight). The carafe, I discovered, did not dribble unless it was tilted in an off-line manner!

Obviously, this meant that the engineers who designed the thing were thinking in a linear manner. They assumed that a human arm would pour in the same straight, line-of-sight manner as would a robot arm. I'm no engineer, but I don't think they took into account the nature of the human arm, or the human wrist. Because, if you take a carafe (especially a full one) and aim its neck towards a coffee cup, unless you are "correcting" yourself your aim will be far from centered on line-of-sight. Because of the nature of my wrists, when I tilt the full carafe my natural tendency is not to tilt it in a straight line, but to tilt it to the left while pouring, so that instead of flowing in the direction it seems it should, the coffee is actually pouring towards the left. And thus the dribbling.

The solution, of course, was simple. I learned that all I have to do is correct the angle, by deliberately rotating my wrist and tilting the carafe towards the right, and thus making it line up straight. (It's counterintuitive, of course, as it doesn't "feel" right. It feels as if you're tilting the thing to the right, which you are not.)

I'm sure most housewives (and most engineers) already know this, and I'm ashamed it took me nearly a lifetime to figure it out on my own.

But it beats having a tantrum.

Not to change the subject, but while I'm nitpicking, am I crazy for wanting to know just wanting to know what precisely is the name of the city which suffered the al Qaeda attack?

Earlier this week, it was Mumbai in many of the reports.

But yesterday it was "Bombay":

BOMBAY, India - It took just minutes.

One by one along the railway line, the bombs went off, ripping apart the trains, tearing through flesh, and paralyzing what is arguably India's most vibrant city.

And today, it's still Bombay:

BOMBAY, India - The soggy, crumpled photograph shows a young man grinning at the camera.

An inconsolable Vasanti Chavan is afraid it is the last happy photograph she will ever have of her 24-year-old son, Chetan.

Well. Bombay or Mumbai? Inquirer writer Will Bunch had the same problem that I did:
Q. OK, my first question isn't really about the attacks. Why do some people call the city Mumbai and some call it Bombay?

A. A good question. Bombay was the name that the imperial English bestowed on the city, a corruption of the name first given by Portuguese traders in the 16th Century.

The local state government changed the official name back to Mumbai, always the city's name in the native Marathi tongue, in 1995. News agencies seem divided over which to use.

News agencies are "divided"?

How about the blogosphere? According to Technorati, as of right now,
Bombay at 91,669 is losing to Mumbai at 127,379.

And no. I refuse to engage in an ideological analysis to see which "side" I am supposed to "choose."

The bombing is a horrific event, and I wanted to write about it. But I feel this same creepy feeling of digust that if I say "Bombay," someone might correct me. But then, if I say "Mumbai" someone might correct me. Not that I am in any way obligated to reply. But is this a political litmus test of some sort?

Might deliberate deference to the unnecessary renaming of a city be one of those things Arnold Kling called a "trust cue"?

Which way am I supposed to tilt without spilling my mental contents all over this nice clean blog?

Sigh.

All this nit-picking makes me feel like engaging in risk taking behavior and engaging in preemptive nit-picking, by deliberately planting nits to be picked.

How could I do that?

Well, how about pointing out that the Inquisition actually came to Bombay! And on the heels of the fall of the Sultans of Gujerat:

The rule of the Sultans of Gujarat over the archipelago of Bombay came to an end with the arrival of the Portuguese. In 1508 the first Portuguese ship, captained by Francis Almeida sailed into Bombay harbour. The Portuguese were already at war all along the coast of India. In 1534, with just 21 ships, they managed to defeat the kingdom of Gujarat, and extracted, among many concessions, rights to the islands of Bombay.

India was not a priority for the Portuguese. Francis Almeida had been sent to the east to secure the spice trade for his country. The most lucrative part of this trade lay further east. Bombay and the Arabian sea was important only as a staging post to Malacca. Almeida's successor, Albuquerque, consolidated their position by taking control of Goa in 1510, Malacca in 1511 and Hormuz in 1515.

The northern parts of the Portuguese holdings in India, mainly on the coast of Gujarat, were defended out of their fort in Bassein, present day Vasai, on the mainland north of the islands, and stronghouses were built in Bandra, Mahim, and the harbour of Versova. Control over Bombay was exerted indirectly, through vazadors who rented the islands.

The vazador of Bombay was a certain Garcia da Orta. He built a manor house on the island in 1554. On his death in Goa, in 1570, the island was passed on to his sons. During this time Bombay's main trade was in coconuts and coir. The island of Salsette also exported rice.

The Portuguese encouraged intermarriage with the local population, and strongly supported the Catholic church; going to the extent of starting the Inquisition in India in the year 1560. The result was a growing mixed population which supported the Portuguese in times of strife. However, their intolerance of other religions, seen in the forcible conversion to Christianity of the local Koli population in Bombay, Mahim, Worli and Bassein, had the effect of alienating the local population.

Imagine. First the Muslims (yes, the Sultanate of Gujarat was Muslim) then the Inquisition.

I guess I can hope that the people who blow things up are not misinterpreting history or engaging in historical nit-picking. God forbid that I should be asked to choose between the lovable Spanish Inquisition and warm and fuzzy Sultans of Peace.

(Could irony be called a "distrust cue"?)

posted by Eric on 07.13.06 at 07:35 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3837






Comments

Dude, just write what you want to write, and deal with the nitpickers only if their statements impact your central thesis. If certain people aren't interested in discussing the central thesis of a post, that's not exactly your fault.

Incidentally, I read "The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition," and while it makes some good points, it looks overall like the Church is trying to rescue its rep and deny any connection between its doctrine and the possible consequences thereof...

...And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

This is quite plausible, given that the body-count for the Burning Times was inflated to nine million, but a reputable -- and very Pagan-friendly -- professor of history at Bristol U. puts the highest reliable figure at half a million.

The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

Sounds a bit biased in tone there. What is the sound of one Catholic saying "Nyaah Nyaah! Sore losers!"

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history. Also documented are the "Acts of Faith," public sentencings of heretics in town squares. But the grand myth of thought control by sinister fiends has been debunked by the archival evidence.

Imagine my relief! So in other words, something bad did happen, and only the most outlandish and poorly-worded allegations are really debunked: of course there wan't "thought control" -- what does that phrase even mean, and how could anyone literally control thoughts in that era? And who would expect "archival evidence" to label someone a "sinister fiend" doing "thought control?"

The approach is purely historical, and therefore does not delve into ecclesial issues surrounding religious freedom...

Thus avoiding the central issue of why the Inquisition is considered so evil in the first place.

...Because the crime was heresy, the Church is implicated, but the facts show it was a secular event.

Say what? "Heresy" is, by definition, a religious offense; so how can a trial for "heresy" be a "secular event?" Partly secular, sure, if the state cooperated in any way, but that wouldn't happen without a dominant Church to define "heresy." Are these guys trying to say the Church had nothing to say about who was a heretic?

The special may be disturbing to young children. There are scenes of poor souls burning at the stake, and close-ups of the alleged torture devices. Scenes depicting witches consorting with pot-bellied devils are especially grotesque. For kids, this is the stuff of nightmares.

Well gosh-darn, whose fault izzat? The people who made the torture-tools, roasted the heretics on sticks, and drew all that pervy disgusting witch-porn, maybe? But here I agree: we can't let the kiddies see what their Church really did, it would only cause them to question the Church's moral authority -- oops, I mean, give 'em nightmares. (Besides, they've probably already seen this stuff elsewhere anyway...)

Our 20th century crisis of man playing God - usurping power over conception, life, and death - leaves us with no alternative but to qualify our demythologization of the Inquisition with a reminder: 3,000 to 5,000 victims are 3,000 to 5,000 too many.

That's an odd little non-sequitur. I think what the author is trying to say, is that the Church has to rescue its rep from its history so it can more credibly lecture us on how to live our lives.

Oh dear, did I just nitpick all over your post? Sorry, I'll get a mop...

Raging Bee   ·  July 13, 2006 11:07 AM

Yeah, you just made me "rack" my brains and spill my Crusader-Roasted colonial coffee!

:)

Eric Scheie   ·  July 13, 2006 11:26 AM

I hope that coffee wasn't too hot -- you might get sued for damages.

"Godly to the last drop?"

Raging Bee   ·  July 13, 2006 11:37 AM

Wow, I'm looking at another Inquisition site you cite (?), and found this bit:

The Turks in 1480 attacked the south Italian city of Otranto. 12,000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two. So Queen Isabel sent a fleet to Italy. In September of 1480, when it was clear the Turks might do the same to any coastal city, King Ferdinand V and Queen Isabella established the Inquisition. It dealt with the special problem of those who pretended to become Christians, but were not really converted, and might open the gates of the city to the Turks.

So the Turks kill thousands of people, enslave I-don't-know-how-many, and exterminate Christian clerics...and Ferdy and Izzy respond by turning their attention to the "special problem" of...wait for it...Jews in Spain who act Christian?!!

Now THAT'S a misdirected response! How inbred was that royal family?

Raging Bee   ·  July 13, 2006 11:54 AM

I usually just ignore irrelevant comments. Life is too short.

Adam   ·  July 13, 2006 12:02 PM

I made a couple of comments about the Crusades in the post referenced in this one, and honestly, I didn't mean to nitpick. Nor was I offended by anything you said, nor did I intend to seem offended. So please don't get exasperated with me.

It seemed to me that you characterized terrorism, Sharia, and Crusaders' crimes as misinterpretations of religion. But the Crusaders' crimes must be seen in the context of the Crusades themselves, while Sharia is a central principle in Islamic jurisprudence. Sharia and terrorism are arguably justified by the Koran itself. The argument is much harder to make in the case of the Crusades, let alone individual criminal acts of Crusaders. In short, the things you used for examples are not in the same class and not comparable.

While there are always exceptions to generalizations, it is irresponsible to assume that because this is true, all generalizations about groups are invalid. It is also irresponsible to let CAIR use this assumption to invalidate criticism of Islam, or to wait for Muslims to tell us what is or isn't a misinterpretation of Islam.

Jonathan Neill   ·  July 13, 2006 04:38 PM

"the things you used for examples are not in the same class and not comparable."

You miss my point. I'm only trying to illustrate how ridiculous CAIR's position is, by offering to treat Islam the same way they claim Christianity should be treated. CAIR raised the Crusades.

it is wrong for Americans to rush to conclusions based on these groups that have distorted or misinterpreted Qur’anic text. He compared it to making judgments on Christians based on the Crusades.
If it is unfair to say that the Crusades represent Christianity, then fine. Condemn the Crusades. And I'll also condemn the things I listed. I hope that they are distortions and misinterpretations of the Koran, but I'll condemn them either way.

Either the cutting off of hands and the stoning of women are part of Islam or they are not. You say they're Sharia, which you say is a "central principle" of Islam. But I am regularly told that these things are not Islamic -- not part of "mainstream moderate Islam." I'd like to believe that, but I'd like to know. If these things are an integral part of Islam, then Islam should be condemned outright as a bigoted and backward religion. If they are not part of Islam, then great. (But the practices should be condemned anyway.)

Can't have it both ways.

I conceded their point in order to illustrate the bogus nature of their argument.

And no, CAIR is not in charge of these things.

(I think the problem is that CAIR is being deliberately disingenuous because they are not part of moderate Islam, yet are trying to pretend they are. As I said, it's as if the misinterpreters are in charge of the misinterpretation.)

Eric Scheie   ·  July 13, 2006 09:46 PM

Great read!

It can be hard to figure out if you're talking to a nihilist or a nitpicker. Obviously its a waste of time to argue with a nihilist, but a nitpicker is acting in good faith and may be worth the time.

But nihilists often nitpick in order to annhile any argument they don't like, (which is any argument that argues anything except that arguing isn't worth anything).

So it is easy to associate nice nitpickers for nihilists because the nihilist tactic is to use the nitpickers reason d'etre dishonestly. And it WORKS, because a non-nihilist, especially a nitpicer, sincerely CARES about reality whereas a nihilist does not.

Personally, I solved the carafe problem by using one of those coffee pod gizmos.

Harkonnendog   ·  July 13, 2006 10:38 PM

"nihilists often nitpick." How true! (But they're not to be confused with opportunistic trolls. . .)

And then there are the nattering nabobs of nihilistic negativism!

Eric Scheie   ·  July 13, 2006 10:58 PM

I hate it when people do that. Hopefully they're just doing it out of good-natured wanting to spread knowledge of some kind.

But this is the sort of thing that made denbeste quit blogging.

silvermine   ·  July 14, 2006 12:43 AM

There are some who have an inordinate fascination with inconsequential detail. They simply can't focus. You're talking about people who never learned to concentrate, and thus are easily distracted by whatever sparkly pops up. They have all the emotional development of pre-teens, along with the intellectual depth.

It's called "discipline", people. I realize that for some of you actually sticking to the topic requires a mental toughness that is sadly atrophied. But if you are to prosper in this world it is a trait you need to cultivate.

Let us start by answering a simple question in one word. What is the topic of the original post? You can't (or won't) answer correctly, and in one word, you lose.

Alan Kellogg   ·  July 14, 2006 01:08 AM

Sharia and terrorism are arguably justified by the Koran itself.

I've never read the Koran, so I don't know whether this is true or not. (I've heard the stuff about treatment of women is in the "soft Hadiths," not the Koran.) I do know, however, that there are a lot of Bible passages that can, and have been, used to justify acts of violence that make the Crusades look tame. And yet most Christians have advanced beyond such savagery, and no longer consider those passages central to their beliefs or practices. It's time for the Muslim world to do the same -- and, in fact, many Muslims are trying to do just that. Which is why the regressives resort to terrorism to prevent such advancement -- they know their people don't want what they're peddling.

Raging Bee   ·  July 14, 2006 09:01 AM

"nattering nabobs of nihilistic negativism"

I have a cousin like that. I hate that guy.

Harkonnendog   ·  July 14, 2006 03:54 PM
accessory cigar humidor   ·  July 17, 2006 01:17 PM


August 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits