True tragedy has always fascinated me. It makes for lousy novels, unless you like eating grey fog with a spoon, but can be an effective background for a novel, within which pre-doomed background the character can carve out difficult wins.
What I mean by true tragedy is the type of pre=determined plot in which two people/nations/forces run at each other, each with vital and urgent needs from their own point of view and they can’t see the other pov at all, no matter how they try.
Most of the most fascinating tragedies of this type happen when two cultures collide, because cultures — and those embedded in them — truly are at a very essential level blind to each other.
When I was researching the simultaneous Boer and Zulu invasion of South Africa (no, the Zulus were not even vaguely “native” and assuming they were simply because it was the same continent and they’re black is not just racist but arrant ignorance. They were no more native to South Africa than Frenchmen to Portugal during the Napoleonic wars. The fact outsiders can’t tell you apart from the natives does NOT make you native.) I realized I was reading about that type of tragedy. And that the same type of tragedy (rather than overpowered, oh, so strong colonizers against helpless “natives” who worship nature) is what happened in America with the Amerindians. To an extent it’s what is unrolling before our very eyes in the Israel/Palestine conflict, which has only NOT resulted in complete elimination of “Palestinians” because the Israelis have the patience of Job and perhaps an insufficiently developed sense of self-preservation. (I recommend on read The Washing of the Spears by Donald R. Morris, for a glimpse at the big picture.)
What happened in all of those cases (and is happening in Palestine, in slow mo, with one important difference) is that a civilized culture came into the sphere of a barbaric one.
I’m not going to apologize for these terms, btw. Words mean things. A civilized culture, in general, in western terms, means one with adequate means of communication, a sense of belonging and human worth beyond the most basic and pathetic tribal affiliation, and some kind of shared moral/philosophical ethos. (For most of the west, that is Judaic/Christianity. Other cultural disagreements happen, of course, but it’s on the framework of that background.) Barbarians, OTOH are the default background from of humanity. There is no link, no belief in overarching humanity beyond the most basic blood ties. Tribes can be long lasting and widespread, but at the bottom there’s an assumption of shared blood and more importantly — since the shared blood is (no matter how provably wrong) often at the very heart of modern nationalities too — the denial of humanity or value to anyone else. The basic philosophy of the barbarian is “survival for me and mine/at the expense/despite/never mind anyone else.” (All humans can get pushed to this place in moments of dire need. But for the barbarian it is the only mode. And this is also present in our current issue.)
The problem of barbarism/paleolithic mode of interaction with other cultures is that it developed a very simple, very effective way of dealing with invasion/incursions of other tribes into their area. Remember, they don’t give a hang about the people coming in, not even women and children. Their way of retaining their land and getting rid of the invaders is simple, basic and …. showy. Showy and ruthless are needed.
So, if you notice a settlement from another tribe on your lands, you go over and commit the most ruthless, shocking atrocities you can think of. You kill men, women and children (unless you take those as slaves) in the most horrifying way. Slice, dice and often eat. And leave the corpses as a warning.
For two barbaric tribes, this works. If the outpost was a part of a tribe, the first tiptoe over the line, you just showed them they don’t want to come here. You’ll do worse than just killing to them. From what I understand in most neolithic clashes, this would either make the other tribe retreat and find an easier place to colonize/raid/attack, or at least pause hostilities while you prepare for bigger fights.
When the enemy you’ve spotted is a civilization, though, you’ve just bought yourself hell. Civilized people tend to view neolithic barbarism as putting yourself beyond the pale of humanity. You become a feral beast who must be eliminated.
There were serious debates in the clashes between civilizations on whether the Zulus had souls, whether Amerindians had souls. Dismissing these as racist misses the point. A lot of us who are visually indistinguishable from the Palestinians (basically Mediterranean sub-race) have had more than a few moments of feeling that way about Palestinians after 10/7. There is a type of behavior so barbaric that civilized human beings immediately, instinctively class it as “not human.” This is intentional as a war tactic of barbarians, of course. It’s the whole “Don’t mess with those guys, they’re not even human” but it misfires badly with a civilized enemy, who then decides to exterminate the “non-human.” The other part of this is that barbarians always underestimate the size of the group they’re dealing with. Because they don’t understand group allegiance beyond the tribe.
The end of these clashes is ALWAYS that the barbarians are exterminated with prejudice. Sure, sometimes the barbarians survive physically. But the culture is obliterated root and branch and civilization imposed on them. (It can take a very long time.)
A note on the Palestinian7e and the general culture have been part of the “civilized” world since Rome, but their culture itself has progressively become more barbarian-like and yeah we can say a lot about supremacist religions, and illusions of relevance fed by a corrupt media and world powers, but the fact remains that 10/7 was pure Neolithic war tactic, and that they were convinced this would somehow, oddly, win the war. That is PURE barbarian thinking, and shouldn’t be possible for someone in the 21st century. But here we are.
Anyway this type of clash is a true tragedy because there’s no finding middle ground.
To an extent, though what we watched with Zelenski and Trump in the oval office is even more tragic. There is cultural misunderstanding but there was no need for it. Both cultures are civilized and there are bridging advisors. It’s not always obvious, but there was no reason for the conflagration, either.
SURE there are cultural assumptions on either side, but when it comes to tragedy, this is not the pure tragedy above, but in my opinion, more of an Othelo type tragedy in which a third party sets it up, for its own purposes.
Francis Turner wrote his view of it here, and he sees it more like a tragic culture clash, but I beg to differ.
My view is more of an Othello. For how I watched the meeting (without sound) look at this: Full Body Language analysis.
It is my opinion that Zelinsky — having agreed to sign the treaty and demanded to do it in the oval office — then walked into the room already determined not to sign. More importantly, he walked in determined to humiliate Trump and make him plead with him.
Now there is some tragic misunderstanding there, mostly of who Trump is and of the cultural moment in the US. Europeans tend to view all of the US as the same, and they really believe in a “uniparty” and they’ve doubtless been listening to the press talk about how old and impotent Trump is. This is tragic indeed.
But more importantly we know now for absolute fact that before Zelinsky went into the oval office, he talked to the same broad group of democrats that had been “supporting” him and they advised him to “resist” Trump, to demand more, to refuse cease fire, etc. etc. etc. They wound him up and convinced him he could get whatever he wanted and adulation besides.
To them this was win-win. They were going to put Trump on the spot in the oval office, and if he rolled over paint him as weak, if he didn’t go back to painting him as Putin’s stooge, which they still think is a winning play, judging by their media.
And so it played out. Major loss for Zelinsky. An upset for Trump, but come on, not even the right squishes were siding with Zelinsky. Not even those who all out support Ukraine.
Where the cultural blindness and inability to understand what is happening comes in it’s at Zelinsky’s level and more broadly European level.
They really, really, really don’t understand our current Democrats. They have their own despicable elites in Western Europe at least, but most of them haven’t seen through them. They are as we were say in 2016. The masks haven’t even half fallen. So to their minds, and certainly to Zelensky’s minds it is unbelievable that they’d instigate further war and deaths and risk Ukraine being obliterated and the other states in Europe threatened TO MAKE TRUMP LOOK BAD; to score points in their captive press. (They keep missing that no one is watching/believing that, not in the US. The election should have been a clue, but apparently not.)
And so even anyone that Zelinsky might have consulted would have been unable to advise him better. They and him probably would assume that the democrats had the best interests of Ukraine at heart, if not Trump’s. And in Zelinsky’s case, it is even less likely he realized they were willing to underbuss him to score points, since these are the same people who were helping him till a month and change ago.
So he did what they advised. he had no clue. They’re probably still telling him to “Stand strong” or some derivative thereof. They’ll do this until they realize this isn’t causing most Americans to turn against Trump — a poll in a day or three — and then they’ll ignore Zelinsky* and discard him, like they discarded everyone they used in the past from what’s her face Sheehan to Greta Thunberg. Everyone is a rock star to the left when being used against their true enemy: their domestic opposition. And everyone stops mattering when the attack fails.
But in this case their puppet has substantially wounded his nation’s chance of survival and perhaps the safety of Eastern Europe.
Look, in that position, at that time, Trump did what he had to do. The only thing he COULD do.
How does this end? I don’t know. Right now Trump might be more than willing to throw Ukraine under the bus, but I can tell you he will not willingly endanger Poland.
Can he pull a rabbit from the hat, and make it so that we can still get a ceasefire and use the minerals deal as a trip wire to protect Ukraine? I don’t know. If anyone can, it is this administration (Not because Trump is a super-genius. He might be, but that’s not the point. But because he’s not a politician and his out-of-the-box thinking can allow him to come up with unconventional solutions.) Will he?
I don’t know. Having had my own arguments with Europeans recently, I can tell you the temptation to bitch slap them is almost irresistible. And yet saving them is probably ultimately in our interest. Even if I — and I’m sure Trump — am not willing to sacrifice American lives to that cause. (Not anymore.)
At this point all we can hope for is that Trump pulls a hat out of a rabbit.
And remember that no matter how much we hate the left we can’t hate them enough.
*I realize I spelled Zelinsky many different ways in this. The truth is, I tried to look it up, but nothing clear came up, and I’m typing this while tied to the roof rack in the back of a speeding car. I don’t feel up to go back and change it all to be only one, much less figuring out which is correct.
So, instead, those of you who come up with a count of the number of ways I spelled Zelinski’s name, send me the number and your snail mail to my bookpimping email, and I’ll send you a signed book by return mail. :) Make my issues with spelling work for you. Go.