Book Review: Behold the Dawn

I finished this book a few weeks ago, and I have to say, it's one of my favorite books that I've read over the last year.   I thought I'd share my thoughts about it in a sort of bullet-point style...

General Info...

Title: Behold the Dawn
Author: K. M. Weiland
Genre: Novel, historical fiction
Setting: Europe / Holy Land during the King's Crusade

Thoughts...

* It has a gripping beginning; one that doesn't just capture you in the first sentence, but continues to draw you in during the remaining paragraph (and the paragraphs that follow it).  As soon as I read the beginning, I was hooked.  Here's the first paragraph so you can see for yourself: 

"Marcus Annan had killed before.  He had killed so many times he could no longer remember them all... so many times he had become inured to the ache of sorrow as he stared into the faces of the dead."

* The book "brings history to life", as the common saying goes.  For me, reading it felt almost like living in that time period. 

* The characters' responses to pain, injury, killing, death, and war in general felt very realistic, especially in consistency with the time period it was set in.  It was refreshing to read this, as I have read many other books (especially fantasy books that had Medieval-like warfare) where this was not the case.  In these books, there will often be kids who have never had any experience in war, and when they are suddenly thrust into some epic, brutal, fantasy warfare, and are wounded to some degree in battle, will then say: "Oh, it's just a scratch."  Real people don't act like that!!  *grips book and bangs it against the wall*  Maybe if they had been an experienced war veteran of twenty plus years they would act like that, but that's different.  HOWEVER, in Behold the Dawn, I found to my relief that the characters' treatment of war seemed believable.  (At least, according to my limited knowledge of war!)

* I could tell the book was very researched.  The author clearly understood her topic before she wrote about it.

* The book had substance; I felt like I was reading something that had been written a long time ago, even though the style was still quite consistent with modern-day trends.  It seemed to me like the kind of book that people will still read and appreciate in one hundred years, (or longer); unlike some books that may perfectly fit the modern day style, may become ultra best-sellers, but then are totally forgotten in ten or twenty years.  This novel, while still feeling completely modern, has the substance that will allow it to survive the passing of time, I believe, even when the trends of literature change.

* It has a good use of suspense, in the form of a secretive, mysterious past belonging to the protagonist.  His past gets slowly revealed to us in bits and pieces as the story moves along, prompting us to keep reading to learn more.

* I like how the author expresses emotions in the novel.  She uses physical actions of the characters to capture their emotions -- e.g. a jaw tightening, a spine straightening, a look in someone's eyes or the tone in their voice -- all expressed in a descriptive manner.  (Something I realized I needed to use more in my own writing!)

* The characters feel very real; they behave in believable ways, and they're easy to relate to because they seem to act like real people.

* It had a satisfying ending.  I didn't close the book feeling like there should have been more, like there should have been more story, such as a sequel or a series that followed it.  I was content... everything was resolved, everything was concluded in a strong and agreeable way.  (Although, it certainly did NOT end the way I expected it to!  Let that just be a warning to future readers...)  Anyway, in my opinion, it was a very well-done ending.

* And of course, an important point for Christians!  The book has a powerful message of redemption that makes it worth reading, in of itself!

All that said, I have a word of caution:  This book is not for young readers; there are some themes that are mature, although they are in no way inappropriate for older readers. 

If you want to learn more about Behold the Dawn, check it out on K. M. Weiland's website: 

http://www.kmweiland.com/books_BTD.php 

Also, if you're a writer, you should check out K. M. Weiland's blog: 

http://www.wordplay-kmweiland.blogspot.com/.  It is, honestly, the most helpful blog related to writing tips, techniques, and encouragement that I have come across!

"Oh, Those Barbaric Europeans!" -- How Slavery Is Treated In Robinson Crusoe

Note: This is not a negative assessment of the entire book of Robinson Crusoe. I actually enjoyed the book very much. This is just a literary examination into on small topic addressed in the book: slavery.

It was the age of imperialism; the era of adventure, of exploring unknown worlds, and of building vast overseas empires that demonstrated the dominant power of Europe over the rest of the world.  It was during this time period – the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries – that Robinson Crusoe, the classic novel by Daniel Defoe, was written, and consequently, when it was set.  Here in this novel we see a queer attitude from the main character, Robinson Crusoe, that may have been reflective of the European culture at the time: the attitude toward slavery.  Throughout the book, Crusoe seems to find it totally normal and natural to enslave men that are “beneath” him – in other words, the non-European “savages” of Africa and the Americas – but not to be enslaved by them. 

 

The first indication that Crusoe has this attitude is toward the beginning of the novel, when he is taken captive by African pirates and made a slave for two years.  It is clear that Crusoe does not enjoy his experience of being a slave, for he calls it “miserable” (page 17).  This word obviously expresses his discomfort and displeasure of the situation, even though his master is not cruel to him. 

He also says, “Here [while looking after my master's ship] I meditated nothing but my escape and what method I might take to effect it” (page 17).  This quote shows that he was anxious and desperate to get out of this situation, as soon as possible.  Certainly, one would assume that someone who was “miserable” (page 17) in slavery and constantly meditating of a way to escape it, would not – once freed from his captivity – ever support such inhumane practice again in his life.  However, as it becomes apparent further on in the book, this is not the case.

 Imperialism of Africa

Source: https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/Topic+3+Africa+Block+B

The second hint of Crusoe's feelings about slavery appears after he escapes from the Africans, with the help of a local boy named Xury.  When his small boat is noticed and picked up by a Portuguese ship, the captain offers to buy Xury as a slave:  “He [the captain] offered me also sixty pieces of eight more for my boy Xury, which I was loath to take; not that I was unwilling to let the captain have him, but I was very reluctant to sell the poor boy's liberty, who has assisted me so faithfully in procuring my own” (page 30). 

At first glance of this quote, one might think that Crusoe hated to sell Xury into slavery because he had recently been a slave, and could not bear to put anyone else through that awful experience.  However, upon looking at Crusoe's words more closely, one can see that he was not “unwilling to let the captain have him” (page 30).  Or in other words, he was not opposed to the idea of selling Xury in general, but because Xury had “assisted [him] so faithfully” (page 30) in securing his own freedom, he did not want to remove that freedom from Xury.  He his not opposed to slavery; Xury is just an exception.  Crusoe's views about slavery have not been changed by his own time spent in slavery. 

The fact that his views are the same is confirmed when, after he actually decides to sell Xury, he then owns a black slave in Brazil; and a few years later boards a ship bound to Africa to bring back more “negroe” slaves to South America!  While he clearly dislikes being under the yoke of slavery, he seems to have no problem with administering the yoke of slavery over someone else. 

 17th Century European ship

Source: http://www.branchvillesoho.com/images/houlihan/houlihan.htm.  By artist Ray Houlihan.

Many years later, the issue of slavery arises in the book again.  Toward the end of Crusoe's twenty-plus-year exile on an uninhabited island, he finally comes in contact with other humans again.  However, these humans are not the company he was hoping for; they are cannibals who occasionally visit the island to cook and eat their enemies.  Crusoe eventually decides to rescue one of these cannibals' victims and make him his slave, so he will have both the company and someone to help him escape the island.  Although his relationship with the native ends up becoming more like a servant-and-master rather than slave-and-master, it is the word “slave” that he uses beforehand in his plans.

As he considers carrying out his plan to acquire the slave, he says: “... I fancied myself able to manage one, nay, two or three savages, if I had them, so as to make them entirely slaves to me, to do whatever I should direct them, and to prevent their being able at any time to do me any harm” (page 188). This quote shows that he is completely unhesitant, and in fact eager, to make one – or even two or three – of the “savages” his slaves.  This is partially in order to protect himself, but even if he did not need the protection, it is doubtful that he would have been any more hesitant to enslave the Carib natives. 

 Tropical island

Source: http://www.aboututila.com/AccomInfo/Sandy-Cay/

Crusoe's attitude in the book, which is probably just reflective of the common, European way of thinking in that day, seems to consist of treating less developed peoples like they are somehow inferior, and thus deserving of being made into slaves.  It is almost as if he is saying, “Oh, those barbarians, those savages that are beneath us; let us make them into our slaves.”  It is surprising that he does not realize how this ideology contradicts itself. 

Owning, selling, and buying other human beings is just as barbaric as eating other human beings.  Many Europeans did not realize it, but because they practiced slavery, they were no different than so-called savages in Africa and America; they just wore more clothes and were a little more advanced scientifically.  In reality, they were no more advanced morally.

In the novel Robinson Crusoe, slavery is treated by the main character as a common, acceptable thing for non-European “savages” to be subjected to, but an undesirable and unnatural thing for Europeans.  This opinion is revealed by Crusoe's desperation to escape slavery in Africa, which shows that he does not enjoy being under the yoke of slavery himself; followed by his failure to even think twice about putting other people into slavery afterwards.  This possibly mirrors the culture of Europe in that day, of which Crusoe – and the author of the book, Daniel Defoe – were only products of.  

Although Europeans thought of themselves as somewhat superior to, and exalted over, much of the rest of the world, their own pride during the age of imperialism was what truly brought them down to the level of the “lowest” civilizations in the world. 

Note: All page numbers are from the Focus on the Family edition of Robinson Crusoe; Focus on the Family Publishing, Colorado Springs, CO, 1997.

If you enjoyed this blog post, you might also enjoy:

* America's Crash: The Prediction of the Great Gatsby

* What Is Courage? -- According to the Red Badge of Courage, Parts One & Two

* How Puritans Are Portrayed in the Scarlet Letter: And Why It's Important Today

The Art and History of WRITING In 10 Minutes

 Tick, Tick, Tick!

Writing is an important part of our world. From its earliest beginnings in Africa and the Middle East, to its influence on the thoughts, feelings, and actions of countless individuals throughout history and today, it has played a vital part in shaping and defining the world we know. Among the vast varieties of styles, techniques, and genres of writing, exists an art that many love and are proud to call their vocation.

HISTORY

The first writing originated in Egypt and Sumer, although it cannot be stated for sure which place is credited with truly being first. The oldest Sumerian and Egyptian scripts have both been dated around 3200 B.C. Sumerian writing was called cuneiform, from the Latin word "cuneus" (wedge), because it was made up of wedge-shaped marks, formed by a sharply cut reed that was pressed in wet clay. The other early form of writing was Egyptian picture writing, known as hieroglyphs. This was eventually written on papyrus, an early kind of paper. The last of early civilizations to develop writing was China, circa 1600 B.C.

 Cuneiform

Hieroglyphs

The next most significant advancement in writing, after it was invented, was the move to a phonetic system. This began with the Phoenicians in the 15th century B.C. It was further developed and expanded by the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, and many others for their respective languages. The Roman alphabet became what we use today in English.

 Phoenician alphabet

In early Medieval Europe, books were expensive and written by hand by a trained scribe; usually a monk. At first, all books were written in Latin, but then people began writing in common tongues. In the 1400s, a German named Johann Gutenberg first invented the printing press. His invention changed the world; especially the world of writing. People who could never afford books suddenly could. Ideas traveled faster and more cheaply.

 A printing press

In the early 1600s, the book Don Quixote was written by Miguel de Cervantes in Spain. Although not all scholars agree, many identify it as the first modern novel. Don Quixote inspired writers to write adventure novels, paving the way for authors like Flaubert, Dostoevsky, Twain, and innumerable others. 

 Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes

 

ART

Modern writing techniques differ according to the type of writing. In a short story, for an example, there should be a small handful of characters that are developed rapidly, a simple subject that lets the story take place in a brief amount of time, and a strong, satisfactory ending. By contrast, a novel typically has a more complex plot and a wide variety of characters. Good, well-developed characters are vital to the success of any story, but especially to a novel. According to The Everything Creative Writing Book by Carol Whitely, "Three-dimensional, intriguing, standout characters can make or break a novel."¹

Poetry has its own set of rules when it comes to writing; in fact, the main rule of poetry is that it has no rules. Rather, it is written and defined however a poet wants to write or define it. Typically, however, poetry is written in lines, and falls under one of three major types: descriptive or dramatic, which describes a scene, sound, person, or feeling; narrative, which tells a story; and lyric, which expresses personal feelings and thoughts. Some techniques used in poetry include alliteration, allusion, metaphor, onomatopoeia, personification, and simile. 

Nonfictional writing can be just as creative as fictional writing, although it has some of its own rules. For an example, research is one of the most important aspects of nonfiction, especially functional nonfiction like letters to the editor, reviews, opinion pieces, and advertisement or marketing materials. At the same time, nonfiction can be made stronger with many of the same techniques as fiction, such as personification, similes and metaphors, dialog and description. Nonfiction can also by strengthened by making it relevant to the reader, adding intrigue, writing with passion and emotion, and including interesting, unusual information.

Writing is a vast subject and cannot be adequately covered in a short amount of space. However, it only takes a brief glance at its art and history to see its importance in our world.

Note to fellow writers --> Recommended reading: The Everything Creative Writing Book by Carol Whitely!

Footnote:

1 Whiteley, Carol. The Everything Creative Writing Book. Avon, MA: Adams Media, 2002, page 32

Other sources consulted:

* Burch, Joann Johansen. Fine Print: A Story About Johann Gutenberg. Minneapolis, MN: Carolrhoda Books, Inc., 1991

* Carr, Karen, Dr. "Medieval Literature." 21 October 2010. http://www.histo

ryforkids.org/learn/medieval/literature/

* "History of Writing." http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistori

es.asp?historyid=ab33
* "Who Was the First Person to Write a Modern Novel?"

com/history-fact-finder/culture-recreation/who-was-first-person-write

-modern-novel> (accessed 13 November 2010)

The Fall of Rome and America Today: Are We Headed Down the Same Path? (Part 2)

How does the Roman empire before its fall compare to America today? While our economy has been the strongest in the world for a long time, we have recently experienced economical decline. Just as the Roman empire had an increase in unemployment, and as a result, more government handouts to the needy, our country has experienced a recent rise in unemployment. According to the latest release from the United States Department of Labor, unemployment is now at 9.9 percent (www.bls.gov). Meanwhile, our government has also been steadily increasing its financial handouts to the unemployed, entitlement programs for the poor, and its bailouts for big businesses. 

 

In the same way that the value of Roman coins dropped, the value of the American dollar has been under attack for many years. To help correct America's economic woes, the Obama administration announced in March of last year that it would print $1 trillion (ww.rt.com). However, history has shown again and again that printing money, without backing it up with gold or other sources of value, harms an economy instead of helping it. A prime example of this was when Septimus Severus, also seeking to boost his economy, decreased the silver content in Roman coins. It appears that the United States government is repeating some of the mistakes of history instead of learning from them. While the effects of the Obama printing spree are not expected to take toll on our economy for a little while, many economists fear it will create nasty inflation much worse than what we already have.

According the Armed Forces Journal, our country has become the world's largest debtor over the last thirty years (Thompson www.armedforcesjournal.com). Thomas Fingar, the top analyst in the U.S. intelligence community, has predicted that by 2025, China will move towards taking America's place as the world's largest power and stablest economy (Ibid). Over the last decade, our economic growth has lagged behind the rest of the world, our share of global output has dropped from about one third down to one fourth, and we have had more than one recession. Yet during all this, China has had a relatively stable growth rate, averaging about eight percent higher than ours during the Bush administration (Ibid).

In addition to America's economical troubles, we face difficulties with the military and with foreign threats. Since 9/11, we have been at war with enemies in the Middle East who have publicly pledged to destroy us. These terrorists have every intention of carrying out that pledge, and would love to see the downfall of our nation. Lately, however, our response to the threat of terrorism has been what we think of as diplomatic, but what our enemies think as weak. 

 

Many people in our government are advocating the idea of eliminating our nuclear weapons and discontinuing their production in the future. President Obama said in December 2009, “I've made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and to pursue the goal of a world without them because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them” (Gaffney www.newsmax.com). In April, Obama announced that he would begin a new arms strategy that would significantly reduce the United States' usage of nuclear weapons (Sanger www.nytimes.com). Meanwhile, as the United States strives to remove nuclear weapons from the world scene, our enemies continue to make them behind closed doors. Iran, for example, has created a nuclear program. The government promises the program is peaceful, but a number of nations – including the United States and Israel – are convinced it is a precursor to weapons (Ibid). While foreign threats mount overseas, overall discontent grows at home for the military and the wars; just as the Romans lost support for their own military (Yingling www.armedforcesjournal.com). 

 

Having said all this, how Rome and America share many economical and militaristic similarities, one might wonder if these similarities really matter? Does America's economic and military resemblance to the Roman empire mean we are truly doomed for the same fate, or is this resemblance an irrelevant coincidence? The answer can be found by digging deeper into the cause of Rome's fall. The empire not only collapsed because of economical and militaristic issues. Both of these issues stemmed from a larger problem, which Americans should pay attention to, because it mirrors our own situation even more than the economical and militaristic ones do.

Romans forgot who they were. Their national pride and patriotism diminished into a relaxed, false sense of security; a feeling that they would never fall, that their empire would last forever, that they were superior to the world, and invincible. Not long before the city of Rome was sacked by Visigoth barbarians, a poet named Claudian wrote, “There will never be an end to the power of Rome” (Murphy 31). Romans no longer had the morals and virtues they once believed in and fought for, such as the importance of family and hard work. They were no longer as passionate about protecting their homeland and, perhaps, protected it mainly out of fear, instead of patriotism.

In comparing Rome during the Punic Wars to its latter days in the fifth century, historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote, “The difference over six centuries, the dissimilarity that led to the end, was a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but something happening within that was not unlike we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared” (Murphy 9). 

 

Just like the Romans, many Americans have definitely forgotten who we are. We have certainly lost much of the patriotism of our ancestors, and we feel the same false sense of security that the Romans felt: a feeling that Americans are the best, that things will always be the way they are now, and America will certainly never fall, because “it's America!” However, just as “being Rome” did not stop Rome from falling, “being America” will not stop us from falling. Our solution is to go back to the morals and values of our founding fathers, and most importantly, the morals and values of the Bible. We must get on our knees and turn our hearts back to God. He is the only true, long-lasting antidote to corruption, moral decline, and every other problem in society that can lead to a civilization's fall.

Bibliography

“Employment Situation Summary.” 7 May 2010. Accessed 13 May 2010.

Gaffney, Frank. “Obama's Nuclear Weapon Stance Creates Risk for U.S.” 25 January 2010. Accessed 11 March 2010.

Gill, N. S. “Fall of Rome – The End of the Roman Empire.” Accessed 6 May 2010. 

Murphy, Cullen. Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America. 2007, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York City, NY

“Obama's Administration Turns on Money Printing Machine.” 20 March 2009. Accessed 11 March 2010.

Ruddy, Christopher. “The Dollar Is Under Attack.” 19 November 2007. Accessed 11 March 2010.

Sanger, David E. and Peter Baker. “Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms.” 5 April 2010. Accessed 7 April 2010.

Thompson, Loren. “America's Economic Decline.” March 2009. Accessed 26 February 2010.

Yingling, Lt. Col. Paul L. “The Founders' Wisdom.” February 2010. Accessed 26 February 2010.

The Fall of Rome and America Today: Are We Headed Down the Same Path? (Part 1)

On September 4, A.D. 476, a barbarian named Odoacer was placed on the Roman throne, ending the long line of Roman rulers that had lasted for centuries. Today, many historians mark this date as the fall of the Roman empire. The subject of Rome's fall has raised many controversies, and many fears. Why did Rome fall? How could such a powerful civilization, lasting nearly a millennium, crumble apart? If Rome fell, what does it mean for America? While many factors led to Rome's fall, the largest were economic and military troubles; which this paper will focus on. Our current economy, and military and foreign relation conditions in some ways resemble the Roman empire just before things began to get bad. 

 

The Roman empire's economic failure played a great role in its fall. Some people theorize that a major cause of Rome's economic troubles was a decrease in farming and trade. From about 450 to 250 B.C., the Mediterranean area had a good climate for farming; and then a steady decrease in rainfall brought a steady decrease in agriculture. People flocked to towns, which in time became cities. The capital, where many people went, grew to a population of over one million by the first century A.D. (Nardo, The Fall of the Roman Empire, 61). Poverty became so bad that many people received free bread from the government. The price of land dropped, and rich farmers bought up huge estates, paving the way for the medieval feudal system. 

 

When this happened, small independent farmers decreased in number, and large estates owned by rich people or the government increased in number. Don Nardo explains it well in his book The Fall of the Roman Empire: “Many of the peasants whose ancestors had owned and worked their own lands became the coloni; dependent tenant workers on the big estates; and over time the government passed laws binding these workers and their descendants both to their jobs and their respective geographic locations” (Nardo 65). People thus lost overall motivation and productivity declined. 

 

Another huge factor in Rome's economic crisis was a decline in coinage value. It started when cheap metal alloys were used in coins instead of silver. When the value of coins dropped, the emperor Septimius Severus (197-211) tried to fix the problem by creating coins with even less silver content. However, this only made the economy worse. As barbarian tribes became a threat in the north, Severus needed more money to pay for his military, and issued higher taxes. This created a greater stress on the economy. His successor, Caracalla (211-217) followed many of the same policies as his father; excellently defending the empire's borders while allowing the internal issues, such as the economy, to grow worse and worse. 

 

With each emperor that followed, Rome became more and more unstable. Trade continued to decline. Poverty and crime skyrocketed. Coinage became nearly worthless. Because soldiers' pay was so low, they started looting villages and farms of enemies and Romans. One emperor, Diocletian (284-305), finally broke the pattern of incapable rulers and tried to bring stability. While some of his changes may have helped, his attempts at reforming the economy failed. He thought he could fix the economy by regulating prices, but people did not like the government telling them how much they could make on goods, and often ignored or avoided the rules. Thus, the economy remained out of control. According to Peter Heather's book The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians: “By the early 470s... the Roman state's main problem was lack of money” (Heather 428). 

 

The decline in Rome's military also contributed to its fall. Because of the economy, the government could not afford to hire more troops, and the army became smaller. Soldiers were not as well-trained and less disciplined. There was also a major loss in morale and national pride, and people did not want to join the army. Young men did whatever they could to avoid military service, including amputating their own thumbs. At first, the government burned these people, but eventually the need for recruits became so great that they forced them to serve in the military anyway (Nardo, The Fall of the Roman Empire, 74). The economy also caused the quality of weapons and armor to decrease.

Because of its weakened militaristic state, the Roman empire may seem like it was a prime target for invaders. Many historians blame the devastating wave of barbarian attacks for Rome's fall. As the French historian André Piganiol put it, “Roman civilization did not die a natural death. It was murdered” (Nardo, The Fall of the Roman Empire, 75). Yet despite the increase in barbarian attacks and the decrease in military strength that the Roman empire experienced, the empire was still strong enough that it should have held the barbarians off. The barbarians had inferior armor, training, and numbers to the Romans. In adding up all the barbarians that opposed Rome, it is estimated that 110-120,000 helped bring down the empire; while the estimated size of the Roman army was at least 300,000 in AD 375 (Heather 446). In fact, some people say it was double that size. How, then, could the barbarians have conquered the Roman empire? 

 

There were a few factors that helped the barbarians become victorious. First, the Roman empire had enemies on two fronts: the barbarians in the north, and the Persians in the east. This made it hard for the Romans to concentrate their troops in either of the two areas. Persia grew into a superpower status in the third century, and became a massive threat to the Eastern Roman Empire; causing the attention of Rome to shift east. Thus, they were possibly more open to attack from the north, since those 300,000 men were not necessarily in full concentration where the barbarians attacked. 

 

Second, the waves of barbarian attacks were increasing greatly. To give an idea of how frequent these waves were, here is a list of various barbarian invasions: In the 230s, Germanic tribes invaded the area around the Danube River. Just eight years later, and again in 251, Goths from north of the Black Sea raided Rome. They defeated and killed the emperor, Decius. In 260, the Alamanni people attacked northern Italy. Around that time, the Roman regions of Gaul and Spain were invaded by more barbarian tribes. Meanwhile, Sassanian Persians captured Antioch in 253. The emperor Valerian held them back for some time, then was captured and died as a prisoner (Nardo, The Fall of the Roman Empire, 81-82). The attacks from both the north and the east were becoming more than Rome could handle. 

 

Thirdly, and most importantly, the empire was rotting from the core. The barbarians alone were not responsible for Rome's fall; they were only able to overcome it because it was already weak and deteriorating from internal issues. These issues included the economy, a loss in morale and patriotism, a corrupt government, weak leadership, a false sense of security and invincibility, awful poverty, increasing crime and disorder, a rise in immorality, escalation of divorce and destructions of families, and more. In a sense, the Romans were in a vicious and destructive cycle: as the internal issues got worse, the empire became weaker and more susceptible to attack; as the empire grew weaker, the barbarian invasions increased and became more devastating; as barbarian attacks became greater, the Romans were too preoccupied with fighting them to focus on internal issues, letting the internal issues grow worse; and thus the cycle continued. Each time the cycle completed its circle, the empire was crippled even further. 

How does the Roman empire before its fall compare to America today? Find out in part 2... to be continued...

Bibliography

Fisher, David A., PhD. World History. Third Edition, 2009, Bob Jones University Press, Greenville, SC. Page 119. 

 

Gill, N. S. “Fall of Rome – The End of the Roman Empire.” Accessed 6 May 2010. 

 

Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. 2006, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York City, NY

Murphy, Cullen. Are We Rome?: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America. 2007, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York City, NY

Nardo, Don. The Fall of the Roman Empire. 1998, Greenhaven Press, Inc., San Diego, CA

Nardo, Don. From Founding to Fall: A History of Rome. 2003, Lucent Books, Farmington Hills, MI

America's Crash: The Prediction of the Great Gatsby

Warning: For those who have not read The Great Gatsby, this post contains nasty spoilers!!

During the 1920s, the United States was experiencing a high of thrills, prosperity, and immorality. With the “war to end all wars” behind them, and wealth and material pleasures plenty for the taking, Americans lived in an artificial bubble of happiness and comfort. Wasteful spending, illegal alcoholism, and partying became the common pastimes of many people. In the middle of these “Roaring Twenties”, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a novel, The Great Gatsby, which created an accurate portrayal of the lifestyles prevalent in his day. He also revealed that behind all the fun, Americans were experiencing inward loneliness and emptiness; and he warned the country what could happen if their wasteful lifestyles continued. His prediction bore an eerie similarity to what actually happened four years later. 

 

The first time loneliness is revealed is in the namesake of the book, Jay Gatsby; a character well-known in his community of West Egg, New York for hosting huge routine parties. Yet despite the frequent presence of guests at his house, rarely do any of the guests come to see him personally. Many are not even invited, and most of them come just as a thing to do, a place to go; not because of any real connection to Gatsby. When the teller of the story, Nick, is at one of Gatsby's parties, he notices Gatsby “standing alone on the marble steps and looking from one group to another with approving eyes” (Fitzgerald 56). Fitzgerald's usage of the word “alone” emphasizes Gatsby's reserved nature. The fact that he stands all by himself, merely observing his party instead of participating in it, indicates how much he is apart from the crowd. 

As Nick leaves the party, and after most of the guests are gone, he looks back at Gatsby. “A sudden emptiness seemed to flow now from the windows and the great doors, endowing with complete isolation the figure of the host, who stood on the porch, his hand up in a formal gesture of farewell” (Fitzgerald 62). By applying the words “emptiness” and “isolation”, Fitzgerald reminds us yet again that Gatsby is distant from his own parties. Although Gatsby is wealthy and continually having company, it appears that he feels isolated, lonely, and empty. 

Gatsby's loneliness is pronounced the most after his death, at the end of chapter nine. The man who hosted parties with countless guests has a funeral with less than ten people. Even some of his alleged closest friends seem to abandon him. None of them show up except for Nick. 

Nick himself experiences loneliness as he walks through the busy, fast-paced streets of New York City: “At the enchanted metropolitan twilight I felt a haunting loneliness sometimes, and felt it in others” (Fitzgerald 63). The comparison Fitzgerald uses here is interesting: the people of New York City are surrounded by other people, yet they experience “a haunting loneliness” (Fitzgerald 63). The reason they feel this way is because everyone around them, for the most part, are strangers. When Nick hears “laughter from unheard jokes” (Fitzgerald 64) from other people on the street, he “[feels] a sinking in [his] heart” (Fitzgerald 63) because he knows he cannot join in with the joy being shared by these strangers. These quotes show how even people in a big, crowded city can feel lonely: because the presence of so many strangers is intimidating, and only strengthens any preexisting feelings of isolation. 

In addition to uncovering society's loneliness and emptiness, Fitzgerald gives a grave warning of what could be ahead. It is foreshadowed in chapter three when at the end of Gatsby's party, a drunk driver trying to leave crashes in a ditch. Just as this crash followed the indiscriminate wealth and immorality of Gatsby's party, a series of successive crashes follow the excessive and immoral lifestyles of each major character. Some crashes are literal, and other are figurative; but each leave the characters changed. 

The first crash comes for Tom, the husband of Nick's cousin Daisy, who is having an affair with another married woman. At the same time, Gatsby is pursuing a romantic relationship with Daisy, who he had once fallen in love with. Despite the fact that Daisy is married, Gatsby still desires her. In fact, the entire purpose of his huge parties is to get her attention. When the immoral ambitions of these two men bump heads, it causes heated conflict between Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby. There is a temporary crash of Tom and Daisy's relationship.

The second crash is a literal one: while Daisy and Gatsby are in a car together, a woman runs out into the street, and is hit and killed by their car. Later, they discover it had been the woman Tom was having an affair with. She had thought it was Tom in the car and was coming to tell him something. The woman's husband, informed by an angry Tom that Gatsby was responsible for the death, sneaks to Gatsby's house and murders him. He then commits suicide. Gatsby's terrible decisions literally led to the death of three people, including himself. 

Nick also has a minor crash of his own. After getting caught in the middle of the messy situation with Tom, Daisy and Gatsby, and actually aiding Tom and Gatsby's sins instead of trying to stop them, he looses some of his reputation. Jordan, a woman he is half in love with, ends her relationship with him because she is convinced that he is no longer honest or trustworthy.

Four years after The Great Gatsby was published, the Stock Market crashed. America's decade of excessive spending and wastefulness brought the exact consequences that Fitzgerald had predicted. The “Jazz Age” had ended; the Great Depression began. The American people would have benefited from heeding Fitzgerald's warning, but they would have benefited even more if they heeded the Bible's warning: “Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death” (Proverbs 11:4). If more people in America had turned their lives to God, they would have found true contentment and happiness, and they would never feel alone again: “For He Himself has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you' ” (Hebrews 13:5). 

In The Great Gatsby, lifestyles of materialism, extravagance, and immorality were coupled with loneliness and emptiness, and eventually led to a variety of devastating crashes. Just as in this novel, the way Americans lived in the 1920s was unsustainable, and it caused a literal economic crash that would leave them shaken until World War II. Today, there are lessons that can be learned from the events after the Roaring Twenties: indiscriminate wealth will never lead to prosperity; no peace is eternal unless it comes from God; and only when people turn their lives to God will they find real meaning and fulfillment that lasts forever.

Did Dragons Really Exist? Part 3

In the last two posts, we covered the historical evidence that dragons lived beside humans, and the historical and archeological evidence that dinosaurs did as well. Now, three main questions remain: is there archeological evidence for dragons? What do dinosaurs have to do with dragons? And, most importantly, what does it all mean for Christians... and for Evolutionists? Well, I propose a theory, which is accepted by many leading Creationists, that answers all of these questions: Dinosaurs and dragons were one the same. Here is the evidence that supports it. The word “dinosaur” (“terrible lizard”) didn't even exist until a couple centuries ago. It was coined in 1841 by a famous British scientist – and Creationist – named Dr. Richard Owen, around the time dinosaur fossils were first being dug up and recognized as a completely new group of reptiles (Ham www.answersingenesis.org). Before then, all throughout history, any creature relatively similar to a dinosaur was called a “dragon”. In fact, if the word “dragon” in many ancient documents and stories was replaced with “dinosaur”, it would work quite nicely.

(Cartoon from www.answersingenesis.org)

For an example, returning to the essay by John of Damascus, he described dragons as having a goat-like beard and a horn at the back of their head. Some fossils of dinosaurs have horns on the head and spikes on the back and/or tail, just like many depictions of dragons. We cannot know for sure if dinosaurs had a “beard” (similar to the bearded dragon lizard) because soft tissue generally isn't fossilized; however, some dinosaurs may have had such a “beard” (Alferov www.answersingenesis.org). There are numerous dinosaur fossils that resemble dragons. The fossil dracorex hogwartsia, uncovered in North America, surprised scientists because of how similar its features were to the dragons of ancient China and Medieval Europe. It had a long muzzle and spiky horns, just like a dragon (Thomas www.icr.org).

Skull of the dracorex hogwartsia

(Picture from www.icr.org)

There is another type of dinosaur called the baryonyx walkeri (“heavy claw”), which also looks a lot like a dragon. It was discovered in 1983 in Sussex, England by William Walker, and can be found today at the Natural History Museum in London (Ham 35). It has an interesting skull shaped a lot like a modern crocodile. It is easy to see how this dinosaur could have inspired the English dragon stories such as Saint George and the Dragon, as over the years the dinosaur's features were exaggerated and fancified until it became the classic dragon.

Artist's conception of the baryonyx walkeri

Another artist's conception from National Geographic

Skeleton in the Natural History Museum, London

John Calvin wrote a commentary on Genesis, and in the original translation of his commentary from Latin to English, some of the artwork included animals from creation: birds, pigs... and two dragons. Although the artwork was finished in 1578, about three centuries before the word “dinosaur” existed, these dragons had remarkable resemblance to dinosaurs. This confirms yet again that dragons and dinosaurs were the same, and that they lived at the same time as humans; maybe as recent as a few centuries ago (Hodge www.answersingenesis.org). Throughout dragon “mythology”, there are generally three types of dragons: land dragons, flying dragons, and sea dragons. Even the Bible gives reference to all of these types (see Jeremiah 14:6, Isaiah 30:6, and Psalm 74:13). This is easily explained with the fossil record. There were many types of land-dwelling dinosaurs that could have inspired dragon myths (e.g. dracorex hogwartsia, baryonyx walkeri, and even tyrannosaurus rex). Also, the flying dragon myths could have based off of the Pterodactyl, a type of flying dinosaur. As for sea dragons, there were many types of huge, sea-dwelling reptiles that could have easily inspired such myths; all of which are extinct now, but exist in the fossil record. A few include the terrible Kronosaurus, which grew up to thirty-three feet long and weighed eight to ten tons; the huge Styxosaurus, with a neck as long as twenty feet; and the fierce Mosasaurus, which could be fifty feet long (Wieland 14, 34, 6).

The Kronosaurus

The Styxosaurus

The Mosasaurus

The Kronosaurus and Styxosaurus are both very likely candidates of the Leviathan from Job 41. In fact, it may have been a sea monster in the Styxosaurus's family that was responsible for the Loch Ness monster sightings (Wieland 35). If the Loch Ness sightings are grounded in truth, than they could be evidence of a still-living “dragon” that did not become extinct after all. Only one thing remains: fire breathing. Most dragons were known to have breathed fire. Well, it is possible that some dinosaurs had this ability as well. There have been dinosaur fossils that were excavated with a strange bump on the top of the head, containing an internal cavity. No one knows for sure what the cavity is for; but it could have been used to mix gases that would ignite when breathed into the oxygen-filled air (www.bibleinsong.com). From all these facts, it is clear that dragons and dinosaurs were the same, and that they lived alongside humans. Stories of dragons are recorded throughout the world in myths, legends, and historical records; and there is evidence that dinosaurs lived beside people in ancient art, stories, and even archeology. By comparing the depictions of dragons with dinosaur fossils, one can see that the similarities are striking. Now, why is this important to Christians, you may wonder? According to many leading evolutionists, if it was proven that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, than the whole theory of Evolution would fall apart. Richard Dawkins spoke about “alleged” human bones found in the Carboniferous coal deposits, that if they were to “authenticated as human, these bones would blow the theory of evolution out of the water” (www.bible.ca). Another leading evolutionist, Louis Jacobs said, “Such an association [co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs] would dispel an Earth with vast antiquity. The entire history of creation, including the first day of rest, could be accommodated in the seven biblical days of the Genesis myth. Evolution would be vanquished” (ibid). On a NOVA TV Special, “Darwin and the Dinosaurs”, it was said that “finding them [dinosaur footprints, side by side with humans] would counter evidence that humans evolved long after the dinosaurs became extinct and back up... [the] claim that all species, including man, were created at one time” (ibid).  If it can be proven that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, than by the very words spoken by evolutionists, the theory of evolution will be completely overturned. And if Evolution is wrong, than Creationism is right; and there is a Creator that deserves our worship.

Bibliography

“Evolutionary Theory Obliterated!” The Interactive Bible. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino- human-coexistence-implications.htm (accessed 6 March 2010)

“Dragons; Evidence of Recent Dinosaurs.” Northwest Creation Network. http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html (accessed 2 February 2010)

Ham, Ken. “The Bible Explains Dinosaurs: The Real History of Dinosaurs.” Answers in Genesis. Lynchburg, VA. 2002.

Ham, Ken. “Dinosaurs and the Bible.” Answers in Genesis. 5 November 1999. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible (accessed 2 February 2010)

Ham, Ken. The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved! Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1998

Hodge, Bodie. “Calvin's Dragons!” Answers in Genesis. 1 July 2008. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/07/01/calvins-dragons (accessed 30 Jan. 2010)

The Holy Bible, NKJV

“Job 41: Was Leviathan a crocodile, whale or dinosaur?” Bible in Song. 2006. http://www.bibleinsong.com/Song_Pages/Job/Job41/Job41.htm (accessed 11 February 2010)

Thomas, Brian, M.S. “Is There Some Truth to Dragon Myths?” Institute For Creation Research. 2 July 2009. http://www.icr.org/article/there-some-truth-dragon-myths/ (accessed 2 February 2010)

Weiland, Carl. Dragons of the Deep. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 2005