Tradition vs Modernization: An amazingly long look at the two.

                 Enemy at the Gate compares two sides. East and west, Christendom and Islam, and a style of fighting based on tradition and one based on technology. The Ottomans are a very traditional culture, with lavish events and customs. They fight with the same troops and the same tactics that they did centuries before the siege of Vienna; Cavalry wearing down the enemy, then a rush of Janissaries to break them. The Hungarians however use a much more modern style of fighting, cutting edge even. Leaning heavily on musketeers and pike men with a smattering of ranged dragoons, the Hungarian army is a mechanized steely being, with no culture directing their actions, but with a great tactical advantage.

                Spoiler alert: The Ottomans are soundly defeated. Their traditional army is no match for the modern force. For obvious reasons, having a not-with-the-times military is disastrous. Your enemy has better weapons, better strategies and is more adapted to the fighting climate.  A 16^th century army has no place in the late 1600s. It is easy for the reader, with the benefit of hindsight, to see that an old fashioned culture can be easily overwhelmed by a culture that is with the times, and adapts.

                While it simple to pass judgment on old style military operations, it is much more difficult for other aspects of life. The Kindle is a relatively cheap, light, and easy to use replacement for the book. One can hold hundreds of hard covers in one object, and switch easily from book to book. Indeed some people hail the Kindle as ‘the book of the future.’ Yet readers still cling to the old fashioned paperback. While the Kindle is more efficient and easier to read, many still resent it, I among them. A chalk board can be replaced with a smart board. Letters can be replaced with E-mail.  . But people still read books, use chalkboards and send letters. The U.S.A is falling behind more newly advanced countries  like China and India.

                Traditional methods can be blamed for this falling behind.  Two nights ago President Obama talked about it in his state of the union address. “They're right. The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.

                Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.”

                Change has left a traditional America in the dust. But sentimentality is one of the main things that sets us apart from other animals. If an animal had to leave a home or abandon a tradition, they wouldn’t feel any sadness. We would. Another example is religion. It is important to many of us, and the whole theme of religion is that it never changes; it revolves around a series of set traditions and actions.

                If the Ottomans had just tweaked their army a bit, they could have won. They could have modernized some troops and strategies but kept their soul and culture. And that’s what we must do. We have to adapt for somethings, like more efficient and available energy, and smarter more technical savvy students. But we can also keep things like letters and religion and books. We must compromise between the super modernized Hungarians and the ultra traditional Ottomans. 

            

Enemy At The Gate

                Enemy At The Gate is not an easy read.  From its factual language to its complicated message.  It is about the kingdom of Ottomans besieging Vienna in the late 1600s. The Ottomans have the might, the ambition and the loyalty, while the Hapsburgs have technology and well defended strong holds.  But the thing that really makes them different from each other is their religion.  Four hundred years ago religion was everything.  If you were a different religion from someone you were practically a different species, at least in their eyes.

                Contemporary authors would describe the pitched battles as “The soldiers of the One God launched their assault on the infidels” Or “For the love of their false religion they attacked in seven directions.”  While their closely situated may have had an effect on their many wars, Religion was the biggest component.  Each side could claim that “Heaven had brought their victory.”  Turkish janissaries would throw themselves into battle, believing that if they died, they would die a martyr.

                If I were to right now say that religion is unnecessary and causes war, I would bet that several people would point to Islam as the only religion that causes strife. Yet Christianity has an extremely bloody pass, from the crusades to the Spanish inquisition, to the holocaust Christianity has had its fair share of violence. In fact most religions have.

                To me killing people over different religions is the most pointless and sencless act of violence one can commit. To prove my point, you could say the religious wars are “An invisible man in the sky telling two different people to kill each other in his name.” When phrased this way, those wars sound pretty stupid. And not only that I never understood how people in religious wars could justify their killing people when their holy books say that murder is not allowed.   

                The problem is, these fanatics seem to be beyond logical reason. One could say “What evidence is there that god wants you to kill people?” Or “You and that human you are about to kill, are literally almost the same” but they could still find a way to justify the bloodshed.  For this reason Religious violence is hard to deal with.  It is scary to see  what humans do when they think they are right. 

Outliers- A look at the theme.

Outliers, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, is centered on one statement which, while an opinion, is stated as fact. That no star can truly go from "Rags to riches" By themselves. No one can make it just with raw talent. That is all relies on there surroundings, where they came from, and their cultural background.  Gladwell has chapters on each of these things.

At some level I agree with this. A musician needs to be able to afford a teacher and an instrument. Young adults need time to develop their skills, and a supporting family. One can't start with literally nothing and make it big. . Gladwell presents an interesting argument with lot's of supporting facts and interesting details. He has an "10,000" hour practice theory that is quite fascinating.

Yet I don't believe some of it. In Social Studies we're learning about Carnegie and Rockefeller, people who Gladwell would claim, made their fortunes because of the year they were born. But in these two, I see self made men. People who define the "Rags to Riches" motto. Sure they had things going for them, but that doesn't mean that they didn't play a large part in shaping their own destiny.

While Gladwell makes some good points, he should stop presenting his opinion as fact. Maybe he should consider that people cling to the Rags to Riches saying because it inspires. His book almost seems like a dream crusher to me.