Month: February 2022

There was a brief instance when I thought that I might like to teach history. Within that moment of insanity, I imagined beginning a history class by putting on the board two competing quotes. George Santayana’s “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” (often misquoted as “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”), and Sting’s “History will teach us nothing”.  

The realization that I would undoubtedly, as I turned around after writing this, receive blank stares rather than engaged discussion, led me to quickly abandon this fantasy. Still, within my own mind I continue to ponder these differing views of days gone by. This has only intensified as I have followed the debate over the Ukrainian crisis, and the inevitable cry of “Remember Munich” that it has elicited from pundits. It is a cry we hear again and again anytime there is an international crisis.  

To briefly, and probably unnecessarily, recap, in 1938 Adolph Hitler, as the leader of Germany, threatened to invade Czechoslovakia so as to annex an area called the Sudetenland, which had a majority of ethnic Germans. In response, a meeting of state leaders was convened in Munich in an attempt to defuse the crisis. In the end, the French and British leaders forced the President of Czechoslovakia to accept a “compromise” that ceded the Sudetenland to Germany. The Czech army withdrew from the territory shortly thereafter, and the Germans marched in. While Hitler had proclaimed that this was the extent of his territorial ambitions in the area, he invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia less than a year later. 

Ever since WWII began, the Munich Accord has been held up as emblematic of the dangers of appeasement. Even now, it is cited as a reason that we must confront Putin as he begins his attempted annexation of the Ukraine. It is also a prime example of why both Santayana and Sting may be correct. Munich is a warning about the dangers of caving to dictators, but it was also a unique situation that is not being replicated in the Ukraine, despite the fact that Putin seems to be borrowing from the Hitler playbook. 

In 1938 there were serious questions as to whether Hitler could have taken back the Sudetenland had there been a unified resistance. The Czech army was formidable and well positioned. The German army was not yet the weapon it became within the next year and a half. Germany might well have prevailed against the Czechs alone, but not without significant losses. It is much more questionable whether they would have prevailed had the Brits and the French supported Czechoslovakia.  

The current situation is different. The army of the Russian Federation is fully developed and prepared. The Ukraine will put up stiff resistance, but it is likely to be swiftly overrun. More importantly, that is unlikely to change even if we provide military support.  

Plus, the stakes have changed. The weaponry today is totally different than it was in 1938. The potential for mass destruction is very real. Yes, Hitler could bomb cities, but he could not obliterate them. And that potential is not limited to the Ukraine, but includes virtually anywhere in the world. While I find it unlikely that Putin would go that far, I also did not think that he would brazenly claim the Ukraine. 

So, Sting is correct. History teaches nothing. Well, maybe, maybe not. The Czech situation does provide insight into dictators with delusions of grandeur, like Putin (and Hitler). When dictators make claims for territory it is often gradual. First the Sudetenland. Then the rest of Czechoslovakia. Then on to Poland. First the Crimea. Then on to the separatist provinces. Then the rest of the Ukraine. From there, who knows (the Baltic states?). 

The world’s reaction to Putin’s seizure of the Crimea in 2014 was tepid and short-lived. There were sanctions, but they were ineffective. Plus, Putin was soon welcomed back into the club of the world’s leaders as if nothing had happened. Is it any wonder that he assumed future annexations would meet a similarly purposeless response? 

We are not in a position to intervene militarily to stop the invasion of the Ukraine. That is not because of a lack of preparedness, or a lack of will. It is just the reality that such an escalation would have such profound effects that it cannot be countenanced. Unfortunately, from a military perspective, the Ukraine must stand or, more likely, fall on its own. 

Still the response must be swift, unified and unequivocal. This is where the importance of alliances becomes crucial. The United States and the rest of the world must speak with one voice in condemning this invasion, and ensuring that it has very real, long-lasting, economic consequences. Putin, and Russia, must become a pariah. 

The fly in that ointment is China. It was not coincidental that a major Russia/China summit was held weeks before Russia attacked the Ukraine. Putin knows that he cannot avoid European condemnation, so he wanted to make sure that response did not include China. Considering Chinese territorial ambitions, Putin probably had little trouble in convincing Xi Jinping to remain neutral, if not supportive.  

The Russian/Chinese pre-invasion détente sounds eerily similar to the Nazi/Soviet pact of 1939 that preceded the invasion of Poland (history repeating itself). The difference is that Chinese interests are not in the territory Putin seeks, as were Stalin’s with Hitler, but in a free hand, and reciprocal support from Russia, should China move aggressively against Taiwan or in the South China Sea (history teaches nothing). 

Regardless of whether you want to view this conflict through the eyes of Santayana or Sting, one other truism stands firm. Violence will breed violence. There will be repercussions and they will not be pretty, nor will they be predictable. It will be a major miracle if this is confined to the Ukraine. Press on the balloon in the middle, and it will likely bulge out elsewhere.       

*I understand that this may be outdated by the time I publish it, but that’s the way history crumbles. 

I despise going to the dentist. It is one of the few trials in life that gets my palms sweaty and heart beating uncontrollably. I know. I know. This is no big revelation. However, my current dentist has subjected me to mental torturers’ I cannot abide, and I feel that I must get it off my chest.

My abhorrence of the dental chair has led me to some bad choices. I have allowed long gaps between appointments, and that has only resulted in additional anguish. All of these gaps occurred when, for one reason or another, I didn’t have a regular dentist, and was loathe to sign up again to open wide. 

My first gap occurred when I moved to Philadelphia. It took me a number of years before I sucked it up and got back in the big chair. The dentist I found was also a professor at Penn Dental School. He took one look at me and said, son, you need the Cavitron. 

For those of you who have never been introduced to the Cavitron, consider yourself lucky. It is a primitive implement of torment designed to blast plaque away. Was the name Cavitron meant to be ironic, or maybe kid us into thinking that this will be fun? Either way, I curse the mad scientist who invented the Cavitron and the 6^th grader who named it.   

After multiple sessions with the Cavitron, the prof dentist pronounced himself satisfied. He then told me that he regretted not taking me to his students before the whole ordeal started, so they could get a clear before and after picture. You know, like the people in the diet commercials. Thanks a lot, doc!! 

This dentist stopped practicing to go into teaching full time, and I was once again set adrift. Years passed before I got up the courage and subjected myself to that sickening smell of formaldehyde and old socks that permeate every dentist’s office. The sentence for my neglect was, once again, the Cavitron. Let’s just say that it was not a touching reunion.  

I went to that dentist for many years until they made the fatal mistake of letting me walk out of their office without scheduling my next appointment. Seems like a little thing, but another multi-year gap ensued. Eventually, I bowed to the inevitable and, about six months ago, gave in to my destiny (kind of like Luke Skywalker). It meant, you guessed it, the Cavitron. 

I must have voiced my dismay at being subjected to the Cavitron, because at my next appointment, after multiple Cavitron sessions, the dental assistant started by saying, “I see by your chart that you don’t like the Cavitron”. I laughed so hard at the thought that this was now part of my permanent record, she must have considered calling security. Once I got control, I told her that what they really need to document is anyone who says they like the Cavitron. Those were the ones to look out for. I don’t think she was amused. 

Still, the Cavitron is not the sole torture I endured. As you all are aware, the décor in a dentist’s office is generally as sterile as the piped in muzak. My last dentist had a cartoonish picture with Philadelphia landmarks all crammed in, as if the city was only a square mile wide, but at least it was something to look at. (There’s the Acadamy of Music. What’s it doing next to Veterans Stadium?). 

My current dentist, however, has decided that the most appropriate item for patients to gaze upon while she does her dirty work is a motivational poster (pictured below). There must have been a sale on this eyesore because it adorns a number of the cells in her office. Maybe buy one, get two free, is the only way they could get rid of this visual carbuncle. 

There is, of course, nothing wrong with these cliched words of advice, but it strikes me that the dentist’s office is the last place where they should be imparted. “Believe in Magic”? If I believed in magic, I would be trying to conjure clean teeth and healthy gums rather than be sitting in the chair with cotton balls stuffed in my cheeks. “Do What you Love”? Well, that leaves this out. “Don’t Count the Minutes Count the Laughs”? No. When I am there, I am counting the minutes until I am done, hence my constant whine, “Aren’t you done drilling yet?”.  

But the worst bon mot of all is the last, “Make Every Moment Count”. Putting aside the impossibility of this questionable afflatus, a dentist is the last person who should be pushing this as a way of life. I know how important dental health is, but if I am going to make every moment count, the last place I am going to start is at the dentist’s office. In fact, seeing this makes me want to get up and start making a moment count far away from there, hardly the reaction she was hoping for, I’m sure. 

Anyway, thank you for indulging me in the somewhat Seinfeldian rant. It’s just that what I want out of my dentist is efficiency, and a certain concern for my low threshold of pain. I know that it is childish and immature, but I can’t help it. After all, I’m just following my dentist’s advice to “Be True to Who you Are”.    

By the time you read this another European war may have started. On the one hand, I cannot believe I just wrote that. On the other hand, there is an inevitability about this turn of events that is sobering. What is not, or should not, be surprising, is that this is happening in the Ukraine.

The Ukraine has long been known as the breadbasket of Europe. One estimate had the Ukraine producing up to 25% of the wheat for the Soviet Union. This has made the Ukraine a target for domination. It was an integral part of the pre-WWI Russian empire, a Soviet state between the wars, a key goal of Hitler when he invaded the USSR, one of the first countries to break from Soviet control, and, apparently, a prominent thorn in the side of the new Tsars of the Russian Federation. 

This impending war is just another depressing chapter in Ukrainian history. That area has been a warzone for hundreds of years. It may well have been the bloodiest place on earth in the 20^th Century, not exactly an honor you covet.  

In WWI the Ukraine was central to the fighting between Russia, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire. Many major battles were fought on this land, with significant losses on all sides, and, of course, among the local population. It was designated a self-determining area, presumably under German hegemony, under the 1918 treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended the war between the German Empire and the newly formed Bolshevik government but that didn’t last long.  

After the defeat of Germany, the incorporation of the Ukraine into the USSR was not a given. Soviet jurisdiction was violently contested by many Ukrainians and Poles. The Soviets eventually controlled the area, incorporating the Ukraine into the USSR, though the resistance was never forgotten. 

The period between the wars brought a different kind of nightmare. Stalin, intent to collectivize the farms of the USSR, imposed mass starvation and dislocation on the Ukraine in and around 1932. It is estimated that 3.9 million people died in what the Ukraine people call the Holodomor. In addition, hundreds of thousands were forcibly removed from the area and sent to other parts of the USSR. 

WWII was a hell on many fronts. The German invasion of the USSR went right through the Ukraine. Many Ukrainians, presumably out of hatred for the Soviets, sided with the Nazis. Others fought for the USSR and undertook guerilla warfare. Many fighters and civilians died as part of, or in response to, guerilla activity. More died when the Soviets drove the Nazi’s back through the Ukraine. After the USSR reestablished control, some of the guerilla units switched to fighting the Soviets, and were, again, ruthlessly suppressed. 

Even more horrific, the Ukraine was a major killing field in the Holocaust. It is estimated that as many as 1.6 million Jews were murdered in the Ukraine during WWII. Many of the worst Nazi death camps were on Ukrainian soil. Some Ukrainians were willing participants in this slaughter, acting as concentration camp guards, joining police units and providing other support.  

Now this blood-soaked ground is being threatened again. It is hard to attribute any cause to this war other than pure, unadulterated avarice. The Ukraine poses no military threat to Russia. There is no credible scenario where it becomes a staging ground for a western invasion. Ukrainians are Slavic, like Russians, so there is no is no ethnic predicate, flimsy as that would be. This is nothing but a naked, “I want it, so I am going to take it”, land grab. 

It is extremely disheartening that we are seeing this kind of raw bellicosity as we approach the 70^th anniversary of the end of WWII. Putin is even borrowing from the Hitler playbook, blaming others for goading him into war. His justifications are just as pathetic. It is hard to believe that he can voice them with a straight face, though that seems to be a skill most dictators possess. 

It is unclear what Putin plans to do with the Ukraine once he conquers it. Does he really think that this country can be folded back into the Russian Federation? Is he already designing a massive crackdown that will eliminate potential dissidents? Is he yearning for his old KGB days, and thinking that he will reimpose Soviet style controls?   

Three things are for sure. First, whatever Putin is thinking, it will not go as planned. There will be resistance he did not anticipate. There will be destruction he hopes to avoid. There will be consequences that he cannot account for. 

Secondly, no matter how the initial surge proceeds, violence will breed violence. It may take the form of guerilla warfare. It may be terrorism aimed at military and non-military targets. It may be initially confined to the Ukraine, but it will spill over into other parts of Russia and the surrounding countries. It’s like a half-inflated balloon. Push on it in one spot, and it will bulge out in another.  

Finally, we will all be forced witnesses to this horror. Maybe the US can impose sanctions, but we cannot stop the bloodshed, just like we could not stop it in Syria or Afghanistan. We will be confronted with our impotence to effectively respond to this kind of abomination, and with the seeming never ending ability of mankind to inflict savagery. It is so dispiriting and yet so predictable.  

*First line of Ukranian National Anthem, according to Lyricsondemand 

After dissing The Little Mermaid for subverting the legal system, Malcolm Gladwell moves on to weightier, and more substantial, issues in his three-part Revisionist History podcast. He is not the first to point out the lost potential of this movie. While Disney relied on the Hans Christian Anderson story for its inspiration, it did not seem to understand the story’s relevance in today’s world. 

The phenomenon of girls “losing their voice” has been well-documented. Researchers have noted that even the most audacious girls often become more cautious about speaking out and less likely to assert themselves as they grow older. Many reasons for this tendency have been noted, such as societal pressure to conform. I would like to think that we, as a society, recognizing this inclination, have started to address it, but I’m not sure. 

Ariel is the epitome of this problem. She goes from being a curious, independent and bold girl, to a muted supplicant for the attention of Prince Eric. Even worse, she is reduced to an observer’s role in fighting through this condition. It is ultimately her animal friends and Eric who rescue her from Ursula, and give her back her voice.                 

While Gladwell addresses these issues, he does so in an odd way. He interviews Angus Fletcher, a professor of “Story Science” at Ohio State. Fletcher says that there are two kinds of fairy tales. Those where good luck happens to those that are fools, usually resulting in a twist ending, and those where good things happen to good people and bad people are ultimately punished.  

Fletcher claims that he measured the emotional reactions of children to fairy tales through a secret methodology (I kid you not), and, lo and behold, children prefer those tales where life can go from good to bad, or vice versa, on a whim, and ultimate results are unrelated to the worth of the protagonist. He concludes that children struggle with poetic justice, because they realize that is not the way life works. 

Gladwell buys this hook, line and sinker. He ignores the underlying cynicism of Fletcher’s conclusions, and, without asking any further questions about the top-secret experiments, concludes that kids prefer fairy tales with random luck to those that offer poetic justice. This is one of Gladwell’s weaknesses. He tends to find experts who agree with his views, and then embraces them without much critical analysis. Then again, don’t we all.   

Contrary to Fletcher’s conclusions, I think that Disney films are so successful because they give kids what they want. I am just a parent and not a researcher with a top-secret formula, but it seems to me that children want a hero they can root for. They want that hero to battle long odds. And they want that hero to overcome those odds, and vanquish evil. They want poetic justice. 

We lose a lot if we don’t cater to kids’ desire for poetic justice. The world will come at them quickly enough. They will realize that good does not always triumph and that evil sometimes prevails. But a grounding in the notion that good can win is essential for both children and adults. Reality is harsh, but acceptance of a fatalism as the only reality leads to cynicism and indifference, and we have enough of that as it is. 

Gladwell then moves on to rewrite the ending to The Little Mermaid. He engages Brit Marling, a screenwriter, to reimagine how Ariel could be given more purchase in her fate. Not surprisingly, despite giving lip service to Fletcher’s theory, Gladwell is smart enough to know that you don’t mess with success, and so he and Marling retain Ariel’s essential goodness. Where they go from there is questionable.  

As is to be expected, in Marling’s reworking of the movie’s ending it is Ariel herself who stops the wedding of Eric and Ursula. However, she does not do so by biting Ursula in the bottom, or ramming her with a ship, but by embracing her and refusing to let go. Basically, she acknowledges Ursula’s pain, standing with her as Triton threatens to attack, until Triton stands down and Ursula is transformed into a paragon of virtuousness.   

In a postscript ending, Ursula marries Triton, who, it turns out, was ultimately responsible for her badness in the first place. Eric, who has become a superfluous surfer dude, marries another man, and introduces vegetarianism into his kingdom. Ariel, no longer interested in settling down, goes back to her wandering, curious ways. And all live happily ever after.  

While all this is very nice, it has much more to do with what these particular adults would like than what kids want. I think it is telling that Gladwell recruits 58-year-old Jodi Foster, someone his own age, to voice Ariel. It reflects his seeming belief that the film should be geared to him, and his contemporaries, rather than the children who are the true target audience.  

The final battle with Ursula in the Disney movie is both scary and exciting. It packed quite a wallop on the big screen. Kids crave that rush of adrenaline as the heroine confronts her nemesis, as well as the release when she prevails. While stripping the movie of that collision may be satisfying to some adults, most children will feel robbed. 

It is difficult for us adults to get into the minds of children. However, if we are going to talk about kids’ entertainment we need to at least try. Molding movies and books to our own desires without a thought as to whether the kids will find it compelling is a fool’s errand and does not solve issues that might exist in what kids consume. They would just turn away. 

There is no doubt that Ariel should have been more proactive in her own redemption. Disney recognized this as well, and its female protagonists in later movies have become more self-reliant. But we should not strip the films of their essential conflicts in reaching that goal. Kids just won’t have it.