Thoughts on the Film: "The Music Box"

When this film was mentioned in my genocide class, I didn't really get a real idea of what the film was about. That was a very difficult piece of cinema to watch. I consoled myself a few times with the idea that it was fictional, but that wouldn't stay in my head very long as I heard the stories and thought about listening to Dr. Steve Rogers from the OSI and the testimonies that I heard, watched and read. Before I watched this film, I felt pretty secure in the idea that there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on war crimes- I totally agreed with Dr. Steve Rogers. After watching this film, I still feel the same way, but I see what damage can be caused in the present far removed from the crimes themselves. It's clear that these crimes and those who perpetrate them have created the potential for harm throughout their lives and the lives of others. It's really a challenging situation because I also feel that if they are hiding their past, they haven't repented or recovered from it. The metaphor of the music box was really apt- the music cannot go on forever and truth does sometimes come out.... and underneath the beauty and simplicity that can be seen can hide some pretty awful stuff.

“It's never going to be OK again” - Michael Laszlo

The story is focused on a man called Michael J. Laszlo, an immigrant to the United States from Hungary. He is a single father who lives in the same town as his daughter Ann Talbot with her son Michael. Ann Talbot is an attorney and when her father is charged by the Office of Special Investigations for lying on his US citizenship application and has the potential to be extradited to Hungary to be charged for perpetrating war crimes, she agrees to be his attorney. She reads the paperwork and evidence and finds herself slowly questioning her father's past and defending him until his case is dismissed. However, she struggles mentally and emotionally as she discovers her father is the man that is described in the documents and she has set him free. Discovering his past and confronting him with it, realizing that he still cannot admit it and is willing to cut her off for it, recognizing he is only interested in the pictures and where they are.... The film ends with her mailing the photographs along with a letter to the prosecutor in the OSI and the photos being released to the media. She then has the hard task of explaining to her son that her father and his grandfather is guilty of the crimes he was charged with. As Mr. Laszlo says, things will never be OK for him again. When secrets are discovered, the world appears to change for everyone.... even though nothing has changed but perspective.

“The Holocaust is the world's sacred cow. Holocaust survivors are secular saints. You'd be better off pissing on the tomb of the unknown soldier than cross examining them” – Harry (her father-in-law)

This quote was pretty revealing to me and it suggested two things to me. It suggested that individuals who have survived the Holocaust are singled out and get special help and that this character doesn't agree with that. I looked at my own feelings and feel like I see and understand part of this statement in my own life and perspective. I think that I do treat known Holocaust victims differently. I think that I would be more likely to give them special treatment and if I could find a politically correct way to do it, I would want to hear and document their stories. I also recognize that I feel like their experiences were so horrible that if I can make their current life a little easier, I want to do it. I can't make up for what happened and I wasn't even alive, but I still feel a debt. I feel like my country didn't do enough soon enough and they were human beings that were significantly persecuted. Heck, I am a Mormon and my religion has a history of persecution against its members as well... not nearly as much as those of the Jewish faith I must stress. However, I see that as a debt I owe and I feel no anger towards the victims themselves nor do I feel that if people feel the same way I do it is inappropriate. I listened to that statement and realized that character feels annoyance that these victims may get special treatment. He even described them as 'sacred cows' – animals who are treated better than some people... Funnily enough, I agree in one way as I feel like we should be treating all people better and only see a problem with treating the cows well and people poorly.... can't we treat people and animals well? Is that possible for us as a race? I do wonder and doubt sometimes....

“I'm not a beast, I'm a father. It's not me... It's not me” - Michael Laszlo

“None of the men I knew were monsters. They were salt of the earth men like your old man.” - Harry (father in law)

These statements are an amazing commentary on perspective and values and the ability to excuse behavior in those we like. All of us have done things we are ashamed of in our lives.... mistakes, poor choices, etc... I believe that is part of being human and so we feel pressed to attempt to learn and to understand our experience better. This helps us to understand other people and their experiences and how the world and our communities and we as human beings really work. I look at my friends and see only good and wonderful people. I look at my church community and I see many people that I may not know well or even may not like, but people that I think are generally good and kind and nice people. I found myself really identifying with Ann Talbot as she looks at the people around her and is confused as to why they say some of the things that they say and discovers new aspects of those she cares for. It is sometimes very easy to see what we want to see in other people and in ourselves.

“He's not a monster. I'm his daughter. I know him better than anyone.”

When I heard this line, I thought about the character standing in front of a mirror that then cracked and became several views that she was trying to put together but the pieces didn't seem to fit. They didn't fit because she was trying to keep the image and perspective that she had of her father intact... It was a challenge to recognize that was the problem with the image. (It's a challenge for any of us.) This was a powerful moment because I thought back on my life and my parents and realized that I do not know much about their pasts as well. I have some ideas and have been told things, but that's it. Except for a quirk of fate, my parents can't surprise me in the same way that Ann Talbot was. These people that we call monsters can be the man next door who is someone we like, we respect. And we just didn't know.

“I care about remembering. It's too late to change what happened but its never too late to remember what happened.... Our country has always tried to be a haven for those who have been persecuted and after the war we let in thousands of its victims, but unfortunately we also let in some of the executioners.” - Prosecutor Burke

I feel the same way. I cannot change anything and watching this film was so immensely painful. It is not too late to remember, to recognize and to try and understand. I believe that when in doubt, our country needs to let someone in. I would rather save a few executioners to save victims just like I would rather a few guilty men to not go to jail if it makes it sure that no innocent person will go. I had never heard of the OSI before this class and one thing I feel sure of is that this department is not a waste of governmental resources. I feel its importance more strongly as I watched this prosecutor having to explain that he isn't being vindictive, that this isn't a personal vendetta, that his job is needful and has meaning. Dr Steve Rogers seemed to have some of the same experiences and I wonder how much of a struggle that has been for him. When I listened to him I found myself wondering how much of his experience was more of a view of his perspective and not entirely the way 'it might be'. I watched Ann Talbot tear that prosecutor apart and I saw his frustration that years of research was simply being disregarded and I thought of Dr. Rogers and felt I understood his history a little better. I hope we do continue to fund the Office of Special Investigations.

“How could you do those things papa? How could you do those things to us... to Mikey?... Why can't you try to say the truth.?” - Ann Talbot

Michael Laszlo was unable to even verbalize or admit his part. It is always someone else persecuting him. Whether it's communists or other enemies, he feels like he shouldn't have to pay for his past and that its not important. What he wants is what matters. In that moment, we can see the young man he was and so can Ann. She can see the angry, violent man that she didn't know was in there. He sees the past as the past and lying as nothing... it isn't important. Throughout the film we get hints that he really hasn't changed his mind on things. He doesn't have any Jewish friends or relationships and his comments on the Holocaust suggest that by denying it, he can deny his past and potential complications in his own life. He lied on his application – which suggests he knows that his behavior was questionable if not wrong. The fact that he can't even admit it to his daughter after she helped him and seems only interested in the proof suggests to me his concern with his safety and what he wants and that no acknowledgment of sorrow, remorse has entered his head. I did like Michael Laszlo and I commend how he changed his life. But he didn't change what was important.... all he did was do what he could to stay out of trouble. He treated those he loved and respected well- like he did when he was younger. He avoided anyone who was Jewish – I didn't feel like we were able to be sure whether he was avoiding those populations out of fear of being recognized or from dislike (I suspect it was both) just as he did when he was younger. He hasn't made it possible to reconcile his acts to himself, his family or anyone else. In fact, by denying them I feel like he makes the whole situation worse. He resurrects the 'monster' within himself and we can see more clearly the emotions and behaviors that he allowed to get out of control.

Thank you for the opportunity to discover this film. I appreciate a better perspective on the Office of Special Investigations and on Dr Roger's life experiences. I appreciated seeing a fictionalized, but realistic understanding of the trauma and difficulty that these cases bring to families and communities. I questioned some of my own history and thoughts on defending war criminals and whether good behavior really changes anything. We all act 'good' in most circumstances but that doesn't mean our thoughts or ideas have changed... especially if they are not challenged. I appreciate the opportunity to think more and to recognize the challenges on all sides. I feel like I understand people who deny genocides more and while I do not like it, I understand. I wonder how many deniers do so to rehabilitate loved ones instead of just racism and prejudice. I wonder if the OSI has problems recruiting....? I also found myself wondering if laws restricting speech when it comes to genocide denial are a good idea... yet I really believe in free speech. I leave this film with many more thoughts than I walked in with and more questions. That is the sign of a good piece of art.

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Box_%28film%29, http://www.snipview.com/q/Music%20Box%20%28film%29, http://www.filmmisery.com/women-in-film-jessica-lange/, http://nuovocinemalocatelli.com/2013/06/28/film-stasera-sulle-tv-gratuite-music-box-di-costa-gavras-con-jessica-lange-venerdi-28-giugno-2013/, http://forum.tntvillage.scambioetico.org/?showtopic=232866,

“The Pianist”... and the Horror of Human Bigotry and Intolerance

I am so careful what I put in my mind- the images and words and the horror. I had heard of this film... and knowing the topic I have never watched it, I have never considered it at all. A small part of that was the director- what little I have heard about the private life of Roman Polanski hasn't been very good at all. I will see these images for months, for years and they hurt, because I do not feel like I can do anything. The past is over … and yet I feel like these same sentiments echo through our current world and even our hearts. So many of us say that we are better than the Nazi's and that Hitler was pure evil, but in all of these images I see shades of all of us, even me. These classes are so challenging because sometimes I feel like I learn too much, like I feel too much and I feel sometimes like I could die from the feeling of it. So I hope that you can understand what I can't really explain. On a less serious note, I left the subtitles on so I could have help with my spelling... and thank goodness I did or this paper would be a mess of guesses!

Summary

This film tells the story of a young Jewish man named Wladyslaw (Wladek) Szpilman who lived with his family in Warsaw, Poland during the very beginnings of World War two. He lived with his father, mother, one brother and two sisters and the film starts at the with the German bombing of Poland. Szpilman is playing piano in the local radio station on air when the street outside is bombed and he stops playing when he becomes injured and the building collapses around him. He returns home and for a few moments his family feels much joy over a BBC broadcast that informs them that Britain has declared war on Germany and that “Poland is no longer alone.” The joy soon turns to anger, terror and fear with the new governments decrees towards anyone of Jewish decent: they cannot go to school, go into many shops, use the public parks or benches, may not walk on the pavement and must wear visible emblems of the Star of David on their arms. Soon his family is forced to live in the Jewish Ghetto as also decreed in the new laws. They struggle to work and live there until the Germans divide them up sending most of his family on a train- he is able to not get on the train with the help of a Jewish police officer who knows him. Wladyslaw later learns that all of his family were most likely sent to Treblinka where they would most likely have died.

Szpilman soon finds himself in a work party/ slave labor group ruled over by some of the German military. He manages to escape with the help of a friend in the slave group who is working to start an uprising and some non Jewish friends outside the ghetto. He is living alone in a small apartment provided by these friends when the Jews in the slave camp commence to try and win their freedom in an act known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Szpilman watches it fail and the few survivors executed by the German troops. Later, when his friends are captured and his apartment is no longer safe he escapes to the emergency address he was given by his last rescuers. There he finds another old friend and she and her husband hide him again. In this apartment, he is again safe for a while. The stress has come with some cost however and he ends up with a severe case of jaundice. While recovering and without the help of his friends who have now left for a safer area, he finds his apartment building in the middle of a battle between the Polish resistance and the Germans and once again is forced to flee, at one point hiding by lying down in the road near other bodies and pretending to be a corpse himself. With no more friends that he knows of or is aware of how to contact, he finds himself searching the bombed out and abandoned buildings for food. He does manage to find a can of food but at the very moment of his discovery of food and what appears to be a peaceful and safe opportunity to open the can, he is discovered by an German officer named Wilm Hosenfield.

The officer questions him, and upon learning that Wladyslaw is a pianist, he asks him to play on a nearby piano in the semi ruined building. In the cold- so cold that you can see his breath, he begins to play and as his hands and his heart warms he plays more quickly and with more feeling- his soul and so much feeling are released through the strokes of his fingers on the ivory keys. The officer doesn't actually appear to have much emotion at all after the recital and asks him more questions. He then leaves him in the place he is hiding and the stress and all of it have been too much and Szpilman begins to sob. Within a few days however, we realize that the officer did feel something powerful from his encounter and as he moves his troops and office personal into the building, he quietly sneaks food up to Wladyslaw in his attic hiding place. The officer also lets him know that the Russians are just across the river and that they will probably cross over within a few weeks. The Germans pack up to leave and Officer Hosenfield gives him more food and his coat. They part amicably with the officer saying he will try to listen to him on the radio. When the Russians come into the town after the Germans leave, they almost shoot Szpilman because he is wearing a German officers coat. When they discover he is Polish, he is set free.

As the war ends, Wladyslaw is able to go back to playing the piano on the radio and to live and try to begin life anew. He also discovers that the German officer that helped him needs help but not knowing his name or where the Russians have taken him, Szpilman can do nothing to help -he continues to earn money playing the piano and we learn he died at eighty-eight years of age. The officer whose name he couldn't remember died in a Soviet prisoner of war camp a few years after the end of the war.

Historical Matrix - The order runs as follows: each number has two sections. The first section shows the part of the film picked for analysis and a brief description of the scene. The second contains the analysis. :)

1. German invasion of Poland / invasion of Warsaw (Oct 1939) - Wladyslaw Szpilman is working at his job at a radio station in Warsaw when the street in front and the nearby buildings are bombed. Slightly injured, he returned to the family home to listen to the radio announcement that both Britain and France had declared war on Germany who had just invaded Poland.

The German invasion of Poland finally began on September 1, 1939 after negotiations and talks between the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union and Poland. It is estimated that ten percent of the population at the beginning of the war was Jewish- the city of Warsaw was estimated at being 30% Jewish. This resulted in Poland being divided between both the Third Reich and the Soviet Union with the slightly larger share occupied by Germany.

2. New Anti-Jewish laws / decrees (Dec 1939) - The family discusses the new laws and how they affect them and their community. One of his sisters says that the occupiers “are trying to be more Nazi than the Nazi's”

These laws included provisions such as wearing a 'Star of David' on the arm if you were Jewish, carrying special papers with your race on them and even signs in shops stating the race of the owner. Jews were no longer allowed to own real estate or valuable items- they must all be handed over to the Germans. Jews were only allowed to have 2000 zloty in cash and the rest had to be deposited into a closed account. There were also curfews and decrees against driving and also limited times that Jews could enter and leave the Ghetto for work. Jewish schools were closed and all organizations that were Jewish were disbanded by law. Some businesses did not serve Jews as well.

3. Warsaw Ghetto Development- start 1940 (1942) - The whole Szpilman family is forced to 'move' to the ghetto - their home was already in the land set aside for the ghetto so they were lucky.

The Jewish council or 'quarter' was established in October 1940 and was run by Adam Czerniakow, a Jewish engineer who was put in charge of moving people in and following the German commands for the place. It was completely walled in from the rest of the town (the walls were ten feet high with barbed wire on the top ) and was very cramped with the large population moved into an area slightly larger than three miles.

4. Trains to Treblinka (Aug 1942) - The Szpilman family is forced onto the train to 'somewhere' thought to be a labor camp, Wladyslaw is helped to escape... he discovers later that the train took his family to the concentration camp Treblinka

Treblinka was one of the larger camps built by the Germans during World War II as both a forced labor camp and extermination facility – mostly the latter. Some numbers suggest that 800,000 + individuals died in the camp during its operation between July 1942-July 1944. It was located 50 miles northeast of Warsaw. Most individuals massacred in this camp were killed by a mixture of suffocation and carbon monoxide poisoning. None of his family survived the war and he never saw them again.

5. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wladyslaw Szpilman is looking out of his window in his secret apartment when the end of the uprising is suppressed by the Germans and the last of the resisters that were caught are executed.

The first armed uprising in the Ghetto happened in January 1943. As the Jews that remained in the ghetto realized that the people being forcibly put onto trains to go to labor camps were not actually going to camps but were being exterminated, those left determined to fight as they were going to die anyway. The German Army, unable to quickly quell the revolt, began to burn the buildings in the ghetto in sections to give the rebels fewer safe places to fight from and eventually forcing the insurgents into the sewers and underground. By June 1943, the Germans had successfully put down the uprising with very few survivors. It is thought that 13,000 died either fighting, dying in the fires, or by being sent after capture to concentration camps.

6. Russian Occupation of Warsaw (January 17, 1945) - Szpilman is told by his 'friend' Wilm Hosenfield that the Germans are retreating and the Soviet Army will probably succeed in taking Warsaw in a few weeks- this did happen and after almost being shot by the Russian army, he is finally safe!

The Soviet Army was able to take control over Warsaw in January 1945 and pushed the German occupation out. However, the Russian army waited for over two months to help allowing the Germans to overcome the Polish resistance and giving Poland and its control pretty much to the Soviet Union. It is suggested by many historians that this delay was purposeful so that Russia and Stalin could have control over more of Eastern Europe after the war.

7. Starvation - You can see the bodies of the Jews that died of starvation in the film and the slenderness of the actor himself through the film as he gets thinner and thinner over time.

This is a typical tactic that occupiers and governments have taken in the past to crush and decrease an unwanted or hostile population. Inside the Warsaw ghetto, food allotted for going in was not nearly enough for the population and so people of all ages became weak and died from lack of calories and nutrients. Another example of starvation in history around this time was the Holodomor in the Ukraine caused by Joseph Stalin and his collectivization policies.

8. Genocide – the 'Final Solution'

Originally determined by German government officials and Nazi party officials to deal with the 'Jewish' problem, this plan was nicknamed Operation Reinhard and how it would be implemented. This decision was not made at the conference as the 'Final Solution' had already been made higher up in government- only the implementation and details were ironed out during this conference. No one at this meeting objected to this operation and it was discussed that around 11,000,000 Jewish people would need to be 'affected' by this policy. There was even discussion on when to enforce the policy on 'secondary' participants such as non- Jews who had married Jews and how to convince other states to turn over their Jewish populations to the Nazis.

9. Eugenics - While the film concentrated mostly on anti-semitism, eugenics was the background to removal of the Jews and also led to ward the sterilization and extermination of other undesirables that affected the pure 'Aryan' race- Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, people of Slavic decent, and dissidents...

The first eugenics society started in Germany was called the 'German Society of Racial Hygiene' by Alfred Ploetz in 1905. It didn't gain popularity until after WWI. Laws were passed that prevented non-Jews from marrying Jews and to also prevent those individuals considered 'defective' from reproducing by compulsory sterilization... and laws and other services that promoted the reproduction of the 'right' people. These societies or ideas can be found in other nations around this time, including the United States.

10. Socialism - Some of the people who were killed in the film and also who protected Szpilman were Socialist.

Socialism is a movement which was attempting to make society more just towards workers and all people in general. Many Jewish individuals and groups were attracted to the tenets of socialism to help themselves leave poverty behind and even get rid of the baggage that their heritage might give them. Both democratic and communist governments saw the socialist movement as a threat to their forms of government. Some of the people executed as enemies of the state in Germany were members of the Social Democratic party.

11. Racism / Anti-Semitism - Several examples in the film

Some examples can be seen simply by the behavior of the Germans themselves. The Warsaw Ghetto was rationalized by the Germans as a solution to the 'diseases' such as typhoid that all Jews carried. In fact, the term 'ghetto' was not allowed because that would have suggested bias- the area was to be called the Jewish quarter where they (the Jews) could have total freedom and safety while not infecting the general 'Aryan' population. The Nuremberg Laws are also examples as well as the behavior of the Germans towards Jewish individuals.


So after all that, what are your thoughts?

The Consequences of Holocaust Trauma on Individuals and Future Generations

When I sat down to this week's readings, I felt like the last several weeks had given me a pretty basic background and preparation for this task. In addition to all the information talked about in this class I also had the benefit (I'm not sure that is the right word) of growing up hearing about the persecution and attempted extermination of the early adherents to my religion so I felt like that gave me an additional potential viewpoint. Yet even with all this preparation and my own past difficulties and trials- as well as a decent understand of how challenging the Holocaust was for those who were victims of the Final Solution (by far mostly Jews, but I believe homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses and other groups were also targeted), I found myself shocked the depth and length of the trauma's effects even by those who had not experienced the worst horrors of the system... even those who experiences almost none of it, but lived with and loved those who had.

A few weeks ago, I made a comment in one of my discussion posts about a young child who I felt was potentially picking up PTSD from helping and living with her afflicted parent. I wrote it because I have been thinking it for a very long time, but I also have kept that thought to myself for the most part because I do not feel I have the qualifications to back up my belief... but I will admit my fear of the parent's reactions is pretty severe. I also wondered if that was generally possible- to get the symptoms and difficulties of a disorder simply by being around someone who has the problem... after all, you can't get AIDS or Alzheimer's with very few exceptions just by spending time with someone. Our readings definitely suggested to me that it is possible and while I may not be right, maybe there are some things that I can look into to maybe not only help, but also to have a greater understanding and sympathy for the suffering of this family.

In general it appears that the effects of surviving Holocaust trauma may be varied due to differences in people, trauma endured, and other life components, it is easily stated that this is a long lasting, multi generational problem that affects a survivor's social, cultural, medical and daily lives... as well as those individuals that live with, love, and entwine their lives with those that have survived. As mentioned in a paper written by Natan Kellermann, until the traumatic events are properly acknowledged and then the steps of the healing process properly followed, the trauma will continue to affect and distort the daily life of the victim and the secondary sufferers. Some symptoms that were mentioned from either direct sources or the family members of those primarily effected by the trauma are as follows: mourning and other emotions such as guilt, anger, anxiety, grief, etc. Also sleep problems including insomnia, nightmares, and other sleep problems and mental challenges dealing with depression, repression of difficult memories or feelings, overactive defense mechanisms causing problems with excessive fear, anxiety, lack of emotive or 'numb' response, etc... (Most of the symptoms of PTSD are present in this population.) Also, behavior that is defensive and not appropriate to the current situation is often found exhibited by victims. Some of these cognitive and behavioral challenges may affect the victim by holding them back from many social activities / events either emotionally or making special events that usually provoke joy to also cause sorrow and anger. These behaviors may vary per person and how the trauma has affected them, but it causes many parts of their daily life and activities to be challenged in a way that other unaffected individuals do not have to deal with. Other long term problems that sufferers may find are easier susceptibility to numerous other mental difficulties as well as stress related medical disorders.

A difficult and challenging problem to deal with... especially as we have had a few massacres performed on other groups since. I was listening to a commentary on a new music CD that was released by a group called 'Split Enz' (I think) a little bit ago and some of the songs on this album as well as past albums discuss the pain of the lead writer who is dealing with genocide of past relatives and his life of having to move and sometimes live a confusing existence as a refugee. One song was a poem by his mother who at the age of five lost many family members to genocide and he mixes his and her thoughts and feelings together in one song. As I was reading this week I thought about that interview and the struggles of people generations after the event as I hadn't really thought that much about it before.

A very difficult topic to be sure... what are your thoughts on this issue? Do you have any personal experience that you are willing to share? What do you think that we can do as a society to not only help victims of all crimes, but also try to help the families, caregivers and friends of those who have these challenges? Please share....

Brief Views on the First Crusade... and the Major 'Players'

Almost anyone these days with even a small background in history or religion has heard of the Crusades... and it goes without saying that many people hold strong views on the subject. But very few people really know more than a few basic facts: that the Catholic church started Crusades to remove heretics and 'Christianize' the Muslims, etc... What is clear is that without the idea and experiences that we now call the First Crusade, there would not have been any more of this particular brand of religious battle. The First Crusade is really a blend of religious fanaticism, political shrewdness and expediency, greed, desperation and human frailty.... and not simply a religious war. This post will cover some of the basics of the First Crusade and the people in power who created this difficult and deadly conflict. From the idea that Jesus himself led the Christian armies into battle and the reality that the majority of the deaths were actually caused by Christians against fellow Christians... this war is not a simple two dimensional vision.

The beginnings of this war actually started about twenty years before in the Eastern Roman empire. Over this period of time, groups of Turks moved into a part of the territory ruled by Byzantine Emperor Alexis. He eventually decided that he wanted to kick out the Islamic Turks, but Emperor Alexis didn't feel he had enough resources or soldiers to be successful in his attempt. It was also economically prudent for him to remove the Turks as the lands that had been taken over were rich in resources and potential military members. So Alexis decided that he would write the Pope/Bishop in Rome to try and get some help. His desire was based on an inappropriate assumption that the Pope or Bishop of Rome was a high ranking Byzantine official and so the emperor expected that what would happen was that this official would work to help raise some funds and hire some soldiers for him. Unfortunately for the world itself, this assumption was truly incorrect.

The true nature of the Roman Catholic Pope and his church was not really as simple as the idea of the Pope being a 'Byzantine official'. In reality, the Pope was truly an ambitious politician who was hopeful of building himself and his lands into a superpower. The last few 'Bishops' of Rome had worked to create huge and radical reforms for the position of 'Pope' giving themselves more political power. It was hoped by these churchmen to make one 'greater church' that would control and supervise all churches and other churchmen and all Christian souls on earth- a very ambitious goal indeed. Popes had begun to demand that Bishops should be free from pressure from secular leaders, but under the firm authority of the Pope... that men in armor were ultimately ruled by God... and therefore the Pope as God's representative on earth... and other very extreme demands. All of these demands were for the ultimate goal of making the Pope the true head of a state – the state of Christendom- and truly changed the nature of the papacy itself. This would also allow the Pope to have authority over all other secular leaders on earth who were Christian... which was quite a large swath of people. :)

The Pope at this time was Pope Urban II. When he got the letter that had been written by Emperor Alexis, Urban II used this letter as an excuse to create and raise his own army to conquer the 'heathen' East. What he meant by liberation wasn't 'liberation' in the sense that we think of that word. What the Pope meant was that the lands and people in the Holy Lands should be brought under the political, physical and spiritual control of the papacy.... which certainly isn't the same as 'liberation', is it. ;-) Pope Urban gave a speech on November 27, 1095 complaining about the Turks and their 'perceived' ill treatment of fellow Christians in the Holy Land- he might have stretched the truth quite a bit. But in the end, his speech could be summed up in one sentence- “God wills it!”

To be a Christian knight (then and now) was to live in a difficult quandary of the mind. A knight is a hired warrior- a man who is hired to kill other people and to do so at the whim of his sovereign, the man who pays his salary, etc... Sometimes they were admonished to kill every member of the enemy's family as well. As a job it was physically dangerous and emotionally and psychologically exhausting. However, being a believing Christian adds a whole other level of difficulty to this job. Jesus Christ, the savior and the first leader of the Catholic church, was very specific about killing... it was wrong, period. You were to turn your cheek to your enemies, love your enemies, be meek to enter the kingdom of God, not practice unrighteous dominion... to name a few of the savior's sayings. How a person was able to deal with this dichotomy was and still is a personal endeavor. Pope Urban solved that dilemma by stating that Jesus Christ only meant that you followed those creeds with other Christians... and that war against non Christians was not only OK, but it was holy, and necessary. The Pope's speech pretty much equated war with penance such as prayer and devotion … the sacraments that would save your soul. In essence, it was good to 'kill for God'. In fact, it was almost a 'get out of hell free' card. If you went out on this fight, then you were absolved of all your sins in this life and the next. No worries about purgatory for you. :)

The Crusade would never have been able to happen without the cooperation and volunteering of ordinary people and the 'warrior' aristocracy. One reason that people were so willing to do this was that the church had a power over people that they did not truly understand. People believed in an actual heaven and hell... and that these places were very close and simply a breath away. They believed that the Pope was God's mouthpiece on earth and so that when the Pope spoke, he was speaking God's commands... that the judgment day was coming, that hell was at hand.... and hey, lots of treasure to be gained from the infidels as well. Many hoped to gain positive eternal life in heaven, many wished for earthly treasures and wealth, as well as earthly status and fulfill earthly needs. The majority of the volunteers were peasants who didn't really have any stability or way to fulfill their basic daily needs so the idea of a Crusade gave them hope. The inspiration to do what 'God wills' was not a small motivation at all and the gift of a direct ticket to heaven must have been a very strong inducement. The pope didn't just raise the army that he had hoped for- he sparked a mass migration! (I need to state that there isn't a problem with the belief in heaven and hell and its literal existence... I believe in it myself actually.)

As people headed toward the Holy Land and Jerusalem, people looks for inspired leaders to follow. One leader of small note was the divinely inspired goose that led a group of people for a short period of time towards the goal. :) Another important leader was an eccentric tramp known as Peter the Tramp or 'Peter the Hermit'. Peter gathered almost 15,000 people to follow him to the Holy Land... some historians suggest that he may have given speeches which might have also caused the first crusade to happen. These groups traveled over four months towards Constantinople with no planning and preparation for the trip at all. The pilgrims would become thieves in their quest for food and needed supplies such as shoes and clothing; in fact, many were willing to fight the local people in the places they were traveling by for the goods the pilgrims felt they needed. These needs of the pilgrims could backfire... sometimes causing large amounts of casualties and riots... certainly not 'civilized' behavior. By the time Peter the Hermit showed up to the city of Constantinople, he arrived with around 60,000 people. The Emperor Alexis found this mass of people a 'headache' and he advised Peter the Tramp to not march on to Jerusalem until the Pope's real army arrived, but Peter insisted on continuing. When his group arrived on the shore towards their goal, the crusaders couldn't get in the city fortress and so a large group tortured and murdered and plundered the goods of the people of Nicea. Unfortunately for the goals of the crusaders, all the victims were Christian. Others in the group went on to try and conquer other cities with various levels of effectiveness until most of the members of these groups were massacres or sold as slaves by the conquering Turks. Peter the Hermit did a good job at unifying and inspiring people, but he did not have good planning and contributed to the failure and death of most of his followers. His group is also called by the name of the 'Peasant's Crusade.'

It should come as no surprise that the Pope's words condemning pagans could be construed as to condemning Jews as well and contributing to the entrenched anti-semitism in Europe. After all, it is true that the Jews were not part of the group that was currently accused of 'torturing' Christians... but they (the Jews) were the group that killed Jesus Christ. How could the pagans be any worse than the group that martyred the Savior? And to add to this unfortunate rationale, it must be noted that the Turks and the Holy Land was three thousand miles away... while Jews tended to be in all the villages in Europe so you didn't have to go very far to find them. All you had to do was wear a cross... So people who were unscrupulous and looking for easier targets closer to home began to slaughter local Jews and taking the 'spoils' from these heathens. This attitude caused massacres of whole Jewish communities- and the first pogrom during the First Crusade is sometimes called the first 'holocaust'. And it was in this way that anti-semitism was made almost a permanent institution in Europe. And any time a Crusade was called for in the future, pogroms would happen in Jewish communities. We can see that this 'disease' hasn't yet been eradicated as the massacres of Jews in the 1940's during WWII in the state of Germany and beyond their borders can testify to.

The Peasant's Crusade was an abysmal failure... not really sure there is another way to describe it. It was a great crowd led by Peter the Hermit and a few others. As mentioned above, almost no planning had been put into this project and was really very much almost an emotional movement. Most of the members of this 'movement' were peasants- they had no goods, hadn't been well fed at any recent time in their lives and almost all had never fought in any kind of battle before. Many of the members were women and children- certainly children were probably not the best soldiers. Thousands of people- as many as 60,000- traveled the thousands of miles to first reach Constantinople. Without supplies, they were forced to steal or beg the required provisions from towns and villages along the way... and this did not always happen peacefully or without difficulty. Upon finally getting to Constantinople, Emperor Alexis was fairly dismayed- at least not pleased- to see this army and after warning them about the Turks, he quickly helped the 'pilgrims' across the waterway and on their way toward Jerusalem. (It is known that he did warn Peter the Hermit that the 'group' should wait until the Pope's main fighting forces arrived to engage the enemy.) After crossing the waterway, some groups divided off ethnically from the larger total group and attacked nearby towns causing great death and devastation to the inhabitants of the towns (who appear to have been all Christians) or causing their own death and devastation by the Turks who offered them death.... or the opportunity to convert to Islam and live as a slave. (That was a bit of an irony.) Peter the Hermit no longer had much control as the groups divided and so they were easily divided and conquered. By the end of all of this, including a successful trick and ambush by the Turks, the peasant's crusade was over with very little loss of life on the part of the Muslims and near total annihilation of the Christian Crusade participants.... only a couple of thousand people lived to be able to share their story of the Peasant's Crusade.... one of whom was Peter the Hermit. I imagine Alexis breathed a sigh of relief in some ways.

It was the Pope's original intention to have Adehmar, bishop of Le Puy lead his 'army' in the crusades. The Pope's official forces were led by a few different individuals who were meant to combine their troops and work together. Hugh of France was the first to arrive at Constantinople with his army. Raymond, Count of Toulouse led almost 15,000 troops. Duke Godfrey of Lorraine came to Constantinople with around 20,000 foo soldiers and with most of his property sold and mortgaged to the church to pay for his 'ticket' to ride. Bohemond of Taranto led an Italian and Norman army with his nephew Tancred. Emperor Alexis was fairly pleased to see these armies, but also was intelligent enough to recognize that they came at a risk to his rule and also might not give him the land they conquered... if they managed to actually conquer it! So emperor Alexis would quickly move the arriving army across the waterway so that the armies wouldn't all be sitting in his city at one time- certainly a prudent move after some of the behavior from the earlier peasant groups. :) Alexis also had each of these leaders swear an oath to him that any land that the crusaders were able to conquer was his (Alexis) as well as an oath of allegiance. It must be said that the emperor still didn't trust them because after the crusaders had fought off all the defenders of the city of Nicaea, and were going to attack the next morning, Emperor Alexis came into the city through the nearby waterway and convinced the city's inhabitants to surrender to him. For these concessions, he would protect the city from the Crusaders- the city took the deal and the Crusaders themselves were angry and not pleased at this turn of events... (suggesting Alexis was right not to trust them.)

If nothing else is looked at about the Crusades but sheer numbers, it is clear to see that the power that the Catholic Church had over the inhabitants of most of Europe was HUGE! Look at the massive numbers of people who simply left and headed to the Holy Land in the Peasant's Crusade alone (60,000)... to the numbers that came with the 'official' army from the pope (60,000+). The First Crusade also opened up more information about the East to Europe and helped reopen some trade and knowledge that had been lost over time from the collapse of the Roman empire. Even with all the death and savagery of the crusaders with little gain, this 'war' was considered a success in Europe... setting the stage for more calls in the future for Crusades by future Popes.

Brief Views on the History of the Black Death

The start of the spread of the Black Death actually has a rather ignoble beginning. A group of Christian Italian merchants who had been expelled from their native city of Tarna had come to stay in the Muslim trading posts of Caffa. These two groups had a bit of religious difficulty with each other and soon a small skirmish turned into a full-on war. It was one year into the siege in which the Muslims (with help from the local Mongol army) were attempting to out-root the Christians from Caffa that the plague arrived- it killed so many in the Mongol army that they were forced to stop fighting. However, the Mongol prince came up with a successful plan... and it was at this time that the remaining troops loaded their catapults with the dead bodies of his soldiers that had died of the plague and were then thrown into the city walls. The rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water causing death in the city. A few of the still able individuals with resources were able to gather in their boats and attempt to sail away to safety... taking local rats accidentally on board with them. These rats carried fleas infested with the plague and soon the sailors were dying as they traveled. No port would allow the boat to dock when it was seen the boats were filled with the dead and dying... and when they reached in Mecina in Sicily, they barely stopped long enough before they were sent out again. It was in this brief respite however that there was time for several rats to get ashore. This very brief encounter is what was thought to have brought the Black Death from the East to Europe. We now know that the Bobak marmot is the creature that has always brought the plague to people.... by coughing on fleas... which spread it to rats... which spread it to us. All the great human plagues can be traced back to this animal in Mongolia who are particularly susceptible to this illness.


Europe was in a rather bad position for a contagious disease to arrive on its shores. By the time that the plague arrived in Europe, overpopulation was the norm. The long wars that had weakened the people and their lands were not completely ended in 1348, famines and harvest failures had left people hungry and undernourished, and it goes without saying that the instability probably caused great amounts of stress and fear that lingered on in the people even in times of peace. Overpopulation, especially in cities, made it easier for the plague to spread as people interacted with each other and then more people, as the filth and sewage of the cities that was not properly treated and left everywhere which left the people at more risk... as the poor used the clothing and possessions of the dead and the dying. As people became more fearful and terrified, the rich would gather possessions if they could and would flee away from the towns with the plague... but of course they would travel with it in their possession continuing the movement and the spread... accidentally bringing more and more people and communities into the path of the plague. One of the other quick ways that the plague travels to new victims was by ships and usually within days of a ship docking the plague was found everywhere nearby. One a sad note as well, the Catholic church had labeled cats as animals who belonged only to witches or where familiars of Satan... so the cat population, which could have helped control the rat population, was extremely low in Europe at his time.


There are actually two types of plague and they are spread through the human population in slightly different ways. The two types of plague are respiratory/pneumonic and bubonic plague... neither of which were very enviable. Bubonic plague was characterized by boils and blisters as well as fever that would appear which would weaken the person and the blisters/boils would grow larger and more painful until by around the fourth day, the person usually died. Very few that came down with the plague would live to tell about it later so we have very few firsthand autobiographies- the few we do are hard and difficult to read. Pneumonic plague is characterized by high, consistent fevers and respiratory difficulty, bleeding and breakdown. Pneumonic plague is much deadlier than its sister bubonic plague.... as well as much easier to transmit to other victims. The disease was spread by the infected fleas which would then bite a human host. Pneumonic plague could also be spread through the expelled air of an infected person.


It would be remiss at this point to suggest that the only terror of this time was the plague. The group that became known as the flagellants certainly can be accused of making things worse for the majority of the people. The flagellants were a group of religious extremists who believed that by causing harm and self abuse to their bodies, they could stop the plague by this form of 'penance' and would purge the society around them of sin. The Pope at first encouraged these 'sects', but these groups soon condemned the Pope for the failure of the plague to cease... and the Pope realized that this group was a risk to public order and his position. The Pope would then write to all the leaders in Europe to ask them to deal with the flagellant sects. Fairly quickly, most of the flagellants would be suppressed and wiped out in the several kingdoms which did effectively wipe out the majority of the sect members across Europe. At one point, the flagellants accused the Jewish populations of poisoning the wells and causing the plague causing several pogroms and massacres of these minority populations. So these sects didn't tend to cause anything but harm.... the fear and terror, as well as social unrest and massacres that they caused in many ways could have helped spread the plague as people ran from the unrest to other areas or brought the sick more closely together to protect themselves from the more immediate threat.


One impact that the Black Death had on the medieval societies was how people reacted to the church and to how God was seen. The Black Plague had a huge impact on the Catholic church. The difficulties caused by the flagellants was a black mark on the church that was difficult for the organization to shake... especially as the flagellants started to use the Church as a scapegoat for the death and the plague. Far more difficult to shake however, was the new attitude that the survivors tended to keep- that the established church was not necessarily absolute in power. People still strongly believed in God and their beliefs had even been strengthened due to the suffering causes by the plague. But all hierarchy- whether church based or politically based- was seen with a look of skepticism that had never been fostered before in the minds of the common man. People started to question the church as well as the general order of the world and tradition. It changed the relationship between the surviving poor and the surviving rich as the shortage of labor would give peasants more bargaining power. Europe was no longer overpopulated.... and it would take well over one hundred years for Europe to truly recover from the devastation of the Black Death.

Napoleon and His Effects on Revolutionary Ideals

At first blush, Napoleon appears to have left the ideals of the 'Revolution' in the dust behind him as he moved forward towards his goals and desires. However, it would be remiss to make this statement without actually discussing what some of the ideals of the revolution were... and it appears that in some ways, we are still discovering some of the smaller pieces of knowledge that gives us new ways of looking at the actions, ideals, and desires of the major and minor players in the revolutionary process. Without a long discussion, most of the ideals that were hoped for with the French revolution and its 'creators' can be seen in its motto of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The idea that people were and should be treated equally, that people had inherent rights to be protected from their government and have representation in that government, and that class and rights to only a few in a stratified society should be abolished. Other reasons for the revolution were problems with severe poverty, lack of safety or protection for the majority, and the inability for most of the individuals living in France to have any real way to take care of themselves or to be self sufficient... let alone able to advance themselves or their children.

Many of Napoleon’s ways of expanding his power, controlled territory and, of course, his ambition can be seen to be directly scaling back the benefits and rights that the Revolution had been 'fought' to win. Women had been granted through the revolutionary government equal rights to divorce and to help control or make decisions on their children and family property. With Napoleon, many of these protections were scaled back... and women found themselves once more with restrictions on their desires for divorce and their rights to make any decisions in equality with their husband on children of property. Males were once again legally and socially over women in even these private family matters. Women could even lose their French citizenship if they married a male that didn't have French citizenship.(This is a bit remarkable to me. As Americans, we require other people to give up their citizenship to become an American, but many other countries allow you to hold citizenship of more than one country. A friend of mine was born in Australia and has citizenship for both England and Australia. She married an American and so her children have access to citizenship to all three countries, but only if she continues to keep a green card and never becomes a American citizen. This experience was one I thought about when I read about this restriction and thought about how it limits her choices if she wants to expand her offspring's choices in this world.... and I wondered how much more it was limiting for women in the time frame of the early 1800's...? The revolutionary law that required equal distribution of property to children upon parental death was abolished, allowing male parents to distribute property to their children as they wished which was very likely to cause the traditional problems of disinheritance of daughters and even younger sons. (I am certain that kind of tradition dispersment also limits woman’s choices and makes the majority far more likely to live in poverty.) A true irony is that truth, wisdom and many virtues in French society are portrayed as women.

Other minorities also found their rights and new-found protections were curtailed of removed as well. The few rights that some group of Jews were given were pretty much removed. Napoleon, like many in his society... and even today if I think about it, really mistrusted people who formed Jewish groups- no matter what “Jewish” group they participated in. In one stance, Napoleon passed a law giving amnesty to peasants who owed members of the Jewish population money.... but he stood by and did nothing for peasants who owed other populations or people money -clear discrimination. While law had abolished slavery, blacks now had the misfortune to no longer have that protection... and Napoleon even went out of his way in some attempts in re-enslave black populations in colonies and have free blacks in France register with the police – again, clear discrimination.

Other freedoms that had been extended to all and not just to minority groups were curtailed or removed all together. Censorship became the norm not only for newspapers and other forms of entertainment like the theater, but also in relation to free speech. A secret police force was developed and funded to hunt of dissidents and the vocally 'disgruntled' and its existence must have made people much more wary about expressing themselves to others. Plays and other entertainment eventually had to be approved through the police/ government before any attempt at public performance could be had. There is documentation that Napoleon would 'edit' even specific lines in stories, articles, plays etc... to be sure that things read or were seen the way he wanted them to be. He also moved religious freedom back a little bit and while he allowed the worship of other religions in many ways, he put the Catholic religion at the top of governmental support and, as before, all clergy and other religious leaders were paid by the state to assure their loyalty to the state... and not to the Pope.

Lastly, one clear ideal of the revolution was representative government. Napoleon clearly had no wish to have any kind of representative government... unless it represented his view only. :) Bureaucracy was set and controlled in such as way that over time, Napoleon become the only leader and even other 'leaders' must get his approval for everything... and anything! In many ways, he was to return France to the form of government it had been following for hundreds of years – a hereditary absolute monarchy. His relatives and children were given territory and ruling positions over much of the conquered territory of Europe and it appears that his relatives in many ways answered to him as well. This was clearly not the ideal situation that most of the revolutionaries had fought for.

When we look at France through these ideas, it seems clear that Napoleon is a man that could be classified along with other 'enlightened' despots in history. Many of the changes that had been won through the costs of fear and blood were carefully and strictly removed. That said, he didn't disagree with or change all of the hard won changes of the revolution. The achievements of personal and private property were kept so that people could be assured that the government couldn't just swoop in and take their land... there had to be a good and lawful reason (which he only ignored in some instances). Religious freedom was still kept... OK, freedom of 'Christian' religions were kept... but that was certainly an improvement. :) Feudal rights continued to be abolished and were not reinstated... except for a few situations which again Napoleon conveniently ignored for his gain. A constitutional monarchy- even if in name only- was still a small step forward towards democracy. And certainly, one consequence of the revolution and its other great leader was control and terror. This standard and form of rule Napoleon would continue. With censorship and a virtual police state, Napoleon may not have used the guillotine to achieve his ends in the same way that Robespierre did, but he too used his intelligence, his oratory and persuasive abilities, ambition, and the addition of his military prowess to create a country in his image... and to take that image and use his armies to paint it across the entire European continent. Thankfully, life had in many ways improved for his constituents and they were able to have a chance at a more satisfactory life.