Review - "River of Doubt," Candice Millard

 

 

Sydney M. Williams

 

Burrowing into Books

River of the Gods, Candice Millard

August 7, 2022

 

“Animal attack was always possible during an expedition, but far

more deadly were the multitude of diseases that lurked in their water,

their food, and the insects that swarmed in the air around them.”

                                                                                                                                River of Gods, 2022

                                                                                                                                Candice Millard

 

Upon Richard Burton’s return to England, after an almost two-year, two-thousand-mile expedition to Lake Tanganyika and Lake Nyanza, his fiancée, Isabel Arundell, described him: “He had had twenty-one attacks of fever – had been partially paralyzed and partially blind. He was a mere skeleton, with brown-yellow skin hanging in bags…”

 

Since Biblical times the source of the Nile had beckoned and challenged man. By the middle of the 19^th Century the interior of Africa had still not been mapped, so there was no knowing whether the Nile’s source was to be found in mountains or an interior lake. An 1856 expedition funded by the Royal Geographic Society, with Richard Burton in command, was sent to discover the Nile’s source. Burton, then in his-mid thirties, was an explorer and linguist who could speak over thirty languages. His second in command, John (Jack) Hanning Speke, was ten years younger and an expert hunter. Their mission: claim the prize of discovery for England.

 

Ms. Millard’s subtitle is Genius, Courage and Betrayal in the Search for the Nile. ‘Genius’ and ‘courage’ we can assume; it is ‘betrayal’ that adds drama to the story. Back from Africa, Speke returned to England first, leaving the ailing Burton to recover in Zanzibar. He wrongly discredited Burton, and “…wasted no time in laying claim to the discovery of the source of the White Nile.”  Nevertheless, there was an element of truth in his words. Because of illness, it was only Speke and Sidi Mubarak Bombay who made a one-month side trip to Lake Nyanza (Later Lake Victoria) on their return from Tanganyika. A few years later, in a separate expedition led by Speke, he and Bombay proved Lake Nyanza to be the true source of the Nile. Ms. Millard writes of that trip: “As they watched, Africa’s largest lake gave birth to the world’s longest river[1], lifeblood to millions of people over thousands of miles.”

 

As readers, we learn in vivid detail the trials, especially diseases, 19^th Century African explorers experienced. As well, Ms. Millard provides an endearing portrait of Bombay, a man deserving of his own biography. Born of the Bantu tribe on the border of what are now Tanzania and Mozambique, he was taken as a child by Arab slave traders, sold into slavery in India where he remained for over twenty years. Finally, he escaped and made his way back to his home village where he became an explorer and guide.

 

While Ms. Millard’s portrait of Burton is of a difficult, though charismatic, man, Speke comes across as jealous and insecure. Burton had his faults, as Isabel’s family were aware, but he was popular and an “electrifying speaker.” Ms. Millard quotes Bram Stoker, author of Dracula, on Burton: “As he talked, fancy seemed to run riot in its alluring power; and the whole world of thought seemed to flame with gorgeous colour.”

 

This is a well written, informative read, which convinced me that accompanying Ms. Millard in the 21st Century is preferable to traveling with Burton and Speke in the 19^th.

"Needed - A Smarter & More Focused Military"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Needed – A Smarter & More Focused Military”

August 2, 2022

 

“…a détente…is the only path between two unacceptable alternatives:

A confrontation with Russia and/or China that we might lose, and which 

might escalate into nuclear war, or descent into national mediocrity.” 

                                                                                                                                David P. Goldman

                                                                                                                                Liberty Fund, July 18, 2022

 

Victory in the Cold War provided the U.S. a peace dividend that lasted ten years, until the attack on 9/11. U.S. defense spending, as a percent of GDP, declined from 5.6% in 1990 to 3.1% in 2000. It peaked in 2010 at 4.9% but fell to 3.7% in 2020. (In comparison, during the Vietnam war defense spending exceeded 9%.) But history did not end with end of the Cold War, evil did not vanish, and people did not become kinder and gentler. While the United States and the West gloated in victory and let their defense systems erode, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, expanded their defense budgets.

 

But it is not just spending that is the problem. A smarter and more focused military means commitment on the part of the people and their representatives in Congress. While the U.S. developed technical leadership in social media platforms and video games, it fell behind China and Russia in military technologies. The U.S. graduates about 70,000 engineers each year, which compares to Russia and China, together, graduating ten times that number. The fate of Bell Labs, once known as “the idea factory,” is indicative of our technological decline. As a division of AT&T, and partnering with the U.S. government, it was responsible for world-changing technologies, from the transistor to the laser. Now it is owned by Nokia, a Finnish company. DARPA’s (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) annual budget remained flat in constant dollars over the past twenty-five years, despite significant advances in technology.

 

Today’s military has embraced wokeism. Soldiers, sailors and airmen are taught to be gender sensitive, to be sure to use the right pronouns. They are instructed in Critical Race Theory and told our nation is systemically racist. In appealing to activists, the military is alienating those most likely to serve. The consequences include recruiting drives – even with signing bonuses of up to $50,000 – that are failing to meet enlistment quotas. Historically, recruits have largely come from conservative sections of the south, but disaffection is on the increase. Writing in a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal, Yale Law School student Jimmy Byrn quoted from a 2021 Reagan Institute National Defense Survey that showed that those with “a great deal” of confidence in the military fell from 70% in 2019 to 45% in 2021. (Not pertinent to this essay, but I support a return to the draft: One, it would aid our nation’s defense; two, it would help unify us and restore pride in our nation; three, and most important, it is good for the individual’s sense of place within our country. Race, heritage, education, or class made absolutely no difference to the platoon sergeant responsible for my basic training.)

 

Education (or its lack) explains another problem of our military. Thirty percent of high school graduates taking the Armed Forces Qualifying test – not the most difficult exam – fail. Not only are students not getting a good education, a focus on diversity, equity and inclusion has caused changes in the competitive admissions criteria to select public high schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx High School of Science in New York City. Instead of the most talented, these school are expected to have student bodies that reflect the demographics of the City. Such policies ignore innate differences that cannot be wished away. Equal outcomes have been prioritized over the pursuit of excellence. The City of New York, along with other cities around the country, should build more selective schools, to provide a superior education to more of the talented and aspirant. That people are not equal in abilities or ambitions are facts we must acknowledge. Those with aptitude and the urge to do well should be encouraged and offered opportunities. 

 

These are self-inflicted wounds. We are a nation that has grown wealthy beyond the imaginations of past generations. The U.S. is the most successful and fairest nation the world has ever known, despite our well-publicized faults. Today, wealth allows a focus on environmental and social issues. But we cannot lose sight of what made today’s lives possible – individual freedom; a government of laws, composed of, by and for the people; equal rights; free market capitalism; values and morals embedded in tradition and taught by families, schools and religious organizations; a public education system that emphasizes the basics of learning, and, of course, a strong, civilian-controlled military to defend our rights as citizens. 

 

The world is a dangerous place. According to the Arms Control Association, nine countries (China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the UK and the U.S.) have 13,000 nuclear weapons, more than a third of them in Russia. And far more than would be needed to destroy life on Earth. China has a standing army of 2.8 million, versus our one million. Writing in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, Michel Gurfinkiel, French journalist and fellow at the Middle East Forum wrote: “China and Russia are both major military powers, nuclear and conventional. Both are authoritarian, hypernationalist, revisionist imperial states, bent on destroying the Western-centered world order. Both suppress domestic ethnic, religious and political dissent. Both are planning and training for regional confrontations with neighboring countries and ultimately a global confrontation with the West.”

 

Whether Mr. Gurfinkiel is right or wrong, I have no idea, but I do know that our military needs to be skeptical, prepared, smart and focused. The term “peaceful coexistence” may apply to feuding in-laws, but it is an oxymoron when applied to nations. There is no nirvana that will mark the end of all wars. It is not conquest that should be our aim, but a balance of power. A détente is possible, but only when we can back up our beliefs with arms. Our military must reflect the realities of our times. It must be technologically superior to that of other nations. We cannot allow it to fall through the trapdoor of political correctness, or the wormhole of wokeism. We must be sensitive to the needs and wants of all our citizens, but perspective (and preparedness) is needed.