History Lessons

 
Understanding History

Americans have been criticized for being woefully ignorant of world affairs; the truth is they are not exactly U.S. history buffs either. To appreciate why things are the way they are, you should be mindful of the past. Knowledge is power.

Royal Stage Names

As soon as we saw that picture of Britain’s Prince Harry in a Nazi uniform at a costume party in January 2005, we knew we just found our next item for this Web page. Is this a case of schadenfreude? No, it’s history time! Most Americans—and more Brits than you’d expect—are probably not aware that Prince Harry is part German. In fact, the royal family’s real surname was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. But during World War I, when Britain and Germany were on opposite sides, King George V (1865-1936) decided to downplay the family’s German roots (nationalism really became fashionable in the 20th century). So in 1916, he adopted the name Windsor—after the castle. Prince Phillip’s side changed the family name from Battenburg to Mountbatten.

Changing your royal name may seem a bit drastic, but there’s nothing unusual about the British royal family’s ancestry. Historically, the European monarchies are all related to one another. Indeed, the British crown has relatives in Russia and Greece, just to name two states. You might say the House of Windsor is less British than its subjects. So now you appreciate fully the irony in Prince Harry’s stunt.

Sins of the Fathers

When Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case against Iraq at the United Nations in February 2003, he made references to a British report on Iraq, which the British government admitted days later was in part copied from magazines and journals. Then in March, U.N. inspectors concluded a British report on Iraq’s nuclear program was based on forged documents. (Despite all this, the U.S. Congress practically swooned when British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Capitol Hill in July.) It’s not the first time the U.S. received unreliable intelligence from Britain.

Fifty years ago in the midst of McCarthyism, Britain exploited the fear of communism to convince the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian government. In his book “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” (John Wiley & Sons, 2003), Stephen Kinzer makes the case that by restoring the Shah, the U.S. unwittingly laid the groundwork for the fundamentalist revolution in Iran, which inspired the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, which gave rise to Al Qaeda, which led to September 11.

We submit it’s no coincidence that Britain was the last colonial power to rule trouble spots like Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan. And let’s not forget Northern Ireland. They used to say the sun never set on the British Empire—that was no exaggeration. You don’t rule a quarter of the world’s landmass by playing nice. There’s a Pulitzer Prize waiting for someone to objectively and meticulously analyze all the sins of the British Empire and their legacies.

What Would Henry Luce Think?

If you need proof for how much Taiwanese President Chiang Kai-shek’s (1887-1975) star has faded since Taiwan lost its seat in the U.N. to China in 1971, look at how very little press the death of his widow in New York in October 2003 garnered. The former leader of China’s Nationalist Party and his wife were quite the international power couple.

PBS’ “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer” mentioned her passing briefly in the news summary. When German director and photographer Leni Riefenstahl (1902-2003), arguably Adolf Hitler’s favorite filmmaker, passed away a few weeks earlier, “The NewsHour” devoted a segment to talk about her life and work. So why does history indicate that Madam Chiang (1898-2003) might get as much ink and airtime?

Newsweek didn’t report it at all; Time magazine’s travel writer, critic, and author Pico Iyer did write a one-page obituary of Madam Chiang, nee Soong Mei-ling. That’s significant because Time magazine founder and media magnate Henry Luce (1898-1967) was one of the Chiangs’ biggest fans. Like Madam Chiang, Luce was born in China to missionary parents. Time magazine featured them on the cover about a dozen times, including as Man and Wife of the Year in 1938 (and you thought The New York Times had an obsession with the Augusta National Golf Club in 2002 when it ran 30-plus articles in three months on its sexist policy).

It’s no wonder the Wellesley-educated Madam Chiang was given the opportunity to address the U.S. Congress in 1943. How many foreigners get to address Congress today? How many women were invited to address Congress 60 years ago? Because of Luce and the “China lobby,” the U.S. government didn’t engage China again until Richard Nixon’s historic trip to China in 1972. As Frank Gibney observes in his book “The Pacific Century: America and Asia in a Changing World” (Macmillan Publishing/Charles Scribner’s Sons/Robert Stewart, 1992), Luce set back Sino-American relations at least 20 years.

Some historians liken the Soong family to the Kennedys; some compare Madam Chiang to Eva Peron (1919-1952). Indeed, her life reads like a soap opera as portrayed in “The Soong Dynasty” (HarperCollins Publishers/HarperPerennial, 1985) by Sterling Seagrave.

Copyright © 2003-2018 Shirtydame.blogspot.com. All rights reserved.

Labels: current events, essays, history, lessons, opinion

posted by Blog Lanistas at Permalink