Speaker 1: Hello, ladies and gentlemen, brothers, sisters, comrades, friends. As always,
Speaker 1: I am glad to have you guys listening to me.
Speaker 1: We have a special treat for you guys today that
Speaker 1: I don't think I even really alluded to. I might
Speaker 1: have mentioned it in maybe the pop Quiz episodes we
Speaker 1: did recently. But before we get to that, I want
Speaker 1: to give a quick shout out, as always to my
Speaker 1: incredibly kind and generous supporters over on Patreon and substack,
Speaker 1: specifically those supporting at the executive producer level and above
Speaker 1: my longtime supporters Mike Meyleman and John Andre Saither. I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how much I appreciate you guys sticking
Speaker 1: with me this long, and everybody else as well who
Speaker 1: supports the show on Patreon and substack. Please feel free
Speaker 1: to subscribe to either if you haven't already. There is
Speaker 1: free stuff for the A lot of people jokingly call
Speaker 1: them free loaders out there. I don't like saying that
Speaker 1: because I always feel a little bit guilty, but it's
Speaker 1: still fun. But no free content and a lot of
Speaker 1: exclusive content, and more than anything else that I can
Speaker 1: hopefully use to persuade people to join up is these
Speaker 1: are ad free episodes on Patreon and substack, whereas you
Speaker 1: get you know, a pepperine of ads on the regular
Speaker 1: feed on Spotify or Apple podcasts. But regardless, if you
Speaker 1: haven't subscribed to History Impossible on substack or on Patreon,
Speaker 1: please do so. Become a member and you know, show
Speaker 1: your love if you can, with a couple bucks every month,
Speaker 1: but even if you can't, that's totally fine. Please just
Speaker 1: see this as a chance to, I don't know, spread
Speaker 1: the word, you know, just let people know that History
Speaker 1: Impossible is a thing and it's something they might like
Speaker 1: if you think they might like it considering all the
Speaker 1: stuff we get into here with this particular episode, like
Speaker 1: I said, it's a bit of a treat. It was
Speaker 1: a conversation that I had with longtime friend and mentor
Speaker 1: Danielle Ballli, host of History on Fire, writer of many books,
Speaker 1: pretty much a jack of all trades.
Speaker 2: He actually has two.
Speaker 1: Podcasts, in case you guys didn't know. His other first podcast,
Speaker 1: Drunken Dawis, is actually one I've been on a couple times.
Speaker 1: So if you miss those episodes, go check them out there,
Speaker 1: but also just subscribe to that and History on Fire
Speaker 1: if you somehow have not already. But Danielle has been
Speaker 1: at this for actually over ten years now, this being
Speaker 1: History podcasting, and he's been doing a lot of cool stuff.
Speaker 1: He has some new projects, specifically one project I have
Speaker 1: in mind that he has announced on The Drunken Taoist.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's rolled it out yet, but he
Speaker 1: is going to be covering the history of Rome in
Speaker 1: a separate series from History on Fire. But I will
Speaker 1: let him talk about that one day. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to give you guys a sort of heads up on
Speaker 1: what's going on with him too. But yes, this conversation
Speaker 1: we had was all about what was about two things really,
Speaker 1: well three things we were catching up for a fair
Speaker 1: bit of it. We spent about fifteen minutes talking about
Speaker 1: what he's been up to for the last couple of
Speaker 1: years with his show and just in general. But we
Speaker 1: also talked about one of our shared favorite stories, which
Speaker 1: is the story of the Taiping Rebellion, and then from
Speaker 1: there we use that as a sort of excuse to
Speaker 1: talk about the revolutionary nature of Protestantism basically in global
Speaker 1: history at this point, and the Typing Rebellion is probably
Speaker 1: the best example of that. Potential. So it's a very
Speaker 1: free wheeling conversation, much less structured than my usual interviews.
Speaker 1: But that's just because Danielle and I have known each
Speaker 1: other for a while and it was a lot of fun,
Speaker 1: and we'll probably be doing something similar again in the
Speaker 1: relatively near future. We always have stuff that we like
Speaker 1: talking about, at least on the phone, and sometimes we're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this should probably be a podcast. So we're hopefully going
Speaker 1: to get back to that sooner rather than later. But
Speaker 1: in the meantime, sit back and please enjoy this conversation
Speaker 1: about some impossible history.
Speaker 3: I'll let me to tell you what you would have
Speaker 3: seen and heard if we're not being pleasant listening, if
Speaker 3: you were at lunch, or if you have no.
Speaker 2: App But I know it's a good time to switch
Speaker 2: off the radio. An ancestor of mine maintained, if you
Speaker 2: eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, Eva Russen Banji
Speaker 2: out of it. You know, general one who knows that
Speaker 2: I desire thou. I wish I could say tonight that
Speaker 2: a lasting peace is inside. I don't feel an the
Speaker 2: laughing dream.
Speaker 3: I feel a laughing night wore. If we hearship to
Speaker 3: guilt if.
Speaker 1: We hear assure to guil.
Speaker 3: Some say the world will end empire, Some stay Anie.
Speaker 3: From what I've tasted of desire, I hold of those
Speaker 3: of favor fire, But if it had to perish twice,
Speaker 3: I think I know enough of hate to say that
Speaker 3: for destruction, ice is also great and would suffice.
Speaker 2: This is History Impossible.
Speaker 1: Well, like I said, guys, I'm here with longtime friend
Speaker 1: of the show, something of a mentor to me, Danielle Bolelli,
Speaker 1: host of History on Fire, writer of many awesome books.
Speaker 1: I'm sure ninety nine percent of you know who he is,
Speaker 1: know his work. But I'll just start by saying welcome
Speaker 1: and thank you for coming on History Impossible again.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having met. We are planning
Speaker 2: on doing an outdoor recording, but the Ween today decided
Speaker 2: that's not going to happen. So here we are.
Speaker 1: Indoors, indeed, and we have power through outdoor recordings before,
Speaker 1: at least on your show. I've been on it, and
Speaker 1: it's been a while since we did a history collaboration.
Speaker 1: Though I think we are planning on doing a little
Speaker 1: bit of a something. I don't want to say much
Speaker 1: that we did a little bit before I got another
Speaker 1: rerun about like.
Speaker 2: Not saying match we're said we used to. We did
Speaker 2: an episode about video games in the past.
Speaker 1: I don't want to ruin it.
Speaker 2: It's fine, yeah, it's yeah. We way back when we
Speaker 2: did an episode on historian video games for History on Fire,
Speaker 2: but that was behind the paywall. I'm thinking of releasing
Speaker 2: it again early next year, in twenty twenty six. However,
Speaker 2: in the meantime, we've both played five thousand more video games,
Speaker 2: so we should probably just re record it and do
Speaker 2: an updated version.
Speaker 1: That's right, because there I don't even know how many
Speaker 1: history based video games have come out since then. I
Speaker 1: mean it's been a lot.
Speaker 2: It's been a lot, and good ones and better better
Speaker 2: than before.
Speaker 1: And who knows, maybe by the time we can get
Speaker 1: this next one out, a new Ghosts of Yota.
Speaker 2: Game will be out, or exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, Danielle is playing Assassin's Creed Shadows right now,
Speaker 1: which I have yet to try so pricisely what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but we also have another thing that we
Speaker 1: worked on together coming soon to your feed, which I
Speaker 1: don't know if you want to spoil that one.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, sure, So that's the one episode that we
Speaker 2: recorded in the past was actually that one. I think
Speaker 2: you did the research for it. Yeah, and it's about
Speaker 2: the Mafia during World War Two working with the Allies
Speaker 2: supposedly maybe kind of. Yeah, and there's a whole story
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 1: I think. My favorite thing that I was able to
Speaker 1: get you to do was to read the phonetic quotes
Speaker 1: from Lucky Luciano. Oh yeah, of course, so is Danielle's
Speaker 1: best imitation of an Italian American mobs?
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, Well, basically a real life story to my own.
Speaker 2: It's an autobiography.
Speaker 1: Lucciano is a great character, I should say. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I understand why you wouldn't, but I am still
Speaker 1: I'm really wanting you to do some kind of proper
Speaker 1: biographical story about your favorite mob in the mind now.
Speaker 2: I think I did for Patreon. I did just a
Speaker 2: Patroon episode was shorter and it was a quicker episode.
Speaker 2: But one that I had a blast doing was an
Speaker 2: episode about the history of the Calton Club in New York.
Speaker 2: That was like one of those clubs that central to
Speaker 2: the jazz scene and it was a major mafia hangout.
Speaker 2: There was a Francis for a couple of movie and
Speaker 2: it was very good and I like it. Okay, I'm interested.
Speaker 1: I'll check it out for myself because I haven't seen it.
Speaker 1: I just heard that. I think it just did badly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it wasn't super popular, but it's actually a really
Speaker 2: good movie, okay. I mean part of it is that
Speaker 2: you're not following one character, You're fulling a bunch of
Speaker 2: characters all revolving around this club. But the music is amazing.
Speaker 2: Some of the stories are great. There's a couple of
Speaker 2: lucky cameos that in there that are great. It's a
Speaker 2: fun story.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we got some of that stuff. And I don't
Speaker 1: know how much you watched a bit, but that amazing
Speaker 1: show scores. It was behind called Boardwalk Empire. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: lu in there. I mean the big guy who the
Speaker 1: big mobster I should say, who sort of at the
Speaker 1: center of that story besides Nuki by Seucemi is Arnold
Speaker 1: roth Sey. It was like a whole other amazing story,
Speaker 1: especially because it evolves baseball, you know.
Speaker 2: I mean some of those guys are the Dutch Shultz
Speaker 2: only mad then some of those guys were pretty wild
Speaker 2: buggy seagull. Yeah, a lot of those. But I had
Speaker 2: a blast because I mean, while I was talking about
Speaker 2: that part, for sure, I was also just enjoyed doing
Speaker 2: an episode about music, you know, really talking and because
Speaker 2: it was behind the paywall, I could take because I'm
Speaker 2: always sketchy about something that's it is on the main
Speaker 2: feed regarding what legal and what's not. I think it's
Speaker 2: legal to take small clips from songs that you're throwing
Speaker 2: their own podcast. But still I like doing it as things.
Speaker 2: So I could take you know, little cleep from you know,
Speaker 2: Cab Callowe Orton.
Speaker 1: Or some of the great You could play a lot
Speaker 1: of that music. As long as you're talking about it,
Speaker 1: you know, then you're good. But yeah, no, I I
Speaker 1: there's so many great stories of I mean great and
Speaker 1: tragic stories of musicians from that era that you could
Speaker 1: also do, you know, stories about I don't think it
Speaker 1: would end on such a downer, but if I remember right,
Speaker 1: it's Sam Cook is the story I know about. But
Speaker 1: that one just ends with the horrible tragical Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: crazy musician stories.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, no, it's planting there's And I enjoyed
Speaker 2: those because there are such great story in the history
Speaker 2: of music and the lives of musician and all of
Speaker 2: that but.
Speaker 1: At the same time, I'm like so not into music biopics,
Speaker 1: Like I didn't see a complete Unknown. I've heard it's good.
Speaker 1: I was never a giant I'm not a giant Dylan fan,
Speaker 1: but I heard it's good. But I just don't really
Speaker 1: care all that much about that, and I'll check it
Speaker 1: out one day. But honestly, it just kind of peaked
Speaker 1: with Walk the Line, which was probably the best one
Speaker 1: because sort of the legit singing that was happening in
Speaker 1: it by Walking Phoenix and Rees with her spooning. That
Speaker 1: was pretty cool. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the music biopic almost always has the exact same plot
Speaker 1: arc sure, it's the musician doing better, better, better, better
Speaker 1: than he has a big fall off, usually because of
Speaker 1: drugs or a woman, and then he builds himself back
Speaker 1: up again, usually from the inspiration of another woman or
Speaker 1: the woman that he burned, and that's just, you know,
Speaker 1: the way it always goes. That's why the John c
Speaker 1: Riley movie Walk Hard Story is so good.
Speaker 2: No, that's why I think sometimes maybe the movies are
Speaker 2: not the best medium for it. Uh huh. I think, well,
Speaker 2: it depends. Some are like one that I deeply enjoyed,
Speaker 2: and then I swear we're going to get to a
Speaker 2: point of this episode about like one that I we'll
Speaker 2: just catching up. He enjoyed is a movie called The
Speaker 2: Cadillac Records.
Speaker 1: Oh that was a great one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fantastic movie about the early blues. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 2: Muddy Water, so Howling Wold Facta James, all of that.
Speaker 1: It was the movie that proved to me that Beyonce
Speaker 1: I could act.
Speaker 2: And can sing. Because the thing is, when I listened
Speaker 2: to Beyond Beyonce, I'm not exactly the target for like
Speaker 2: her music. It's fine for what it does, it's not
Speaker 2: my thing. But besides that, it's like, it doesn't really
Speaker 2: make her voice shine. But when she's imitating her, when
Speaker 2: she's doing Ata James, she's amazing. You're like, how the
Speaker 2: hell have I not ever heard her voice sound like this?
Speaker 2: Because it's beyond amazing. But when I listened to the
Speaker 2: music she makes, I'm like, cool, it doesn't valorize her
Speaker 2: voice at all.
Speaker 1: What makes me laugh really hard about that too, is
Speaker 1: that Eda James, always the perpetually grouchy lady, hated Beyond
Speaker 1: this performance because of course she did. Yeah, but there's
Speaker 1: a scene in that movie, which was like sort of
Speaker 1: the last big film I remember Adrian Brody being up
Speaker 1: until just last year, I guess, which I haven't seen
Speaker 1: The Brutalist yet, but I planned to at some point.
Speaker 1: But yeah, he played the head of talent the records,
Speaker 1: and he and Da James apparently had a thing. And
Speaker 1: there's a scene where she's singing I'd Rather Go Blind,
Speaker 1: and it's like a very moving scene with them saying
Speaker 1: goodbye to each other without saying it, and it's just
Speaker 1: such a great scene. And yeah, maybe that actually is
Speaker 1: a really good example of a counter example what I
Speaker 1: was just saying.
Speaker 2: That music, but it's not about one chiroc.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's about it's about a movement. It's about Motown.
Speaker 1: It's a birth of Motown, which is incredible. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: I think something like that is really interesting. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could do a anyone could do a history podcast
Speaker 1: about the grunge scene or the punk scene, and they've
Speaker 1: done it. I mean I've seen, I've I've heard some
Speaker 1: good podcasts out there that do music history.
Speaker 2: Especially one that I badly want to do is about
Speaker 2: the but the Holy and Richie Valence, who died on
Speaker 2: the same plane crash right on the same day, and
Speaker 2: so they were like two of the early rock and
Speaker 2: roll icons, and yet they were like, you know, on paper,
Speaker 2: they should have never gone anywhere because but they only
Speaker 2: looked like the biggest nerd on the planet. Richie Valence
Speaker 2: was a guy who was you know, his biggest hit
Speaker 2: was in Spanish in the nineteen fifties. That's not a
Speaker 2: very welcome thing. So neither one should have made it.
Speaker 2: They both made it huge. They were both really young,
Speaker 2: incredibly talented, and both died on the same day, and
Speaker 2: so it was like, yeah, so that would be a
Speaker 2: story that interested me about the birth of rock and roll.
Speaker 2: They unlikely rise to fame. I think at some point
Speaker 2: I would love to do that one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you could get conspiratorial, though, and do a whole
Speaker 1: thing about how not only do rock stars altend to
Speaker 1: die at the age of twenty seven, but that there
Speaker 1: seems to be a lot of really bad luck with
Speaker 1: musicians and planes happened to Alia back whenever. That was
Speaker 1: early two thousands, And I don't mean to make light
Speaker 1: of it. I'm just saying it's very weird that that
Speaker 1: just happens, seems to happen so often. Yeah, So I
Speaker 1: mean that that was sort of I just I'm fine
Speaker 1: with just doing a tangent like that. I just kind
Speaker 1: of wanted this to be a little bit loose but
Speaker 1: before we get into more structured stuff. But I guess, yeah,
Speaker 1: because so people somehow who don't know what have you
Speaker 1: been up to? Because I mean you kind of for
Speaker 1: people who didn't join the Luminary band wagon, you kind
Speaker 1: of dropped off for a little bit.
Speaker 2: What happened? So I yeah, you know, I did Easter
Speaker 2: on Fire for about four some years, initially between twenty
Speaker 2: fifteen twenty nineteen. Then I got the ungodly good contract
Speaker 2: from LUMINARII to put me behind the paywall. Mostly I
Speaker 2: was still doing I had my Dank carling close, so
Speaker 2: I was doing like two episodes per a year, three
Speaker 2: so that people still know that I existed, but a
Speaker 2: whole bunch who are behind the paywall. Then in I
Speaker 2: think must have been twenty twenty one or twenty two
Speaker 2: something like that, I came out of the contract and
Speaker 2: just releasing episode again. And then I'm in addition to
Speaker 2: releasing new episodes, I'm regaining the rights to those episodes
Speaker 2: and releasing those as well. So these days, the history
Speaker 2: on fire feed is a mix of rerands, which realistically
Speaker 2: only a tiny portion of my audience I've heard, so
Speaker 2: for them it might as well be the first time
Speaker 2: they hear it, and then new content, and so that's
Speaker 2: kind of what I've been doing with eastery on fire.
Speaker 1: Well. I really like the one that you, I think
Speaker 1: just put out the first part of a rerun of
Speaker 1: a story that it's just a great story of itself
Speaker 1: about the free state of Fume under Gabrielle de Nuncio,
Speaker 1: the ultimate warrior poet who apparently because I actually had
Speaker 1: to read about him for my class in grad school,
Speaker 1: and Danielle can tell you that I was basically live
Speaker 1: texting him as I was reading it, being like, who
Speaker 1: does this author? They think she is calling him a
Speaker 1: proto fashions? It's not that, but to her credit, I'm
Speaker 1: like it on her name, but that's okay.
Speaker 2: She was not saying that.
Speaker 1: She was actually saying it's too simplistic to say that
Speaker 1: the Nunzio was this early version of fascism, but we
Speaker 1: can't pretend that he didn't have an influence absolutely. Benita
Speaker 1: Mussolini did a sort of cheap cover band version.
Speaker 2: Of pretty much a rock star. So Maussolini was like,
Speaker 2: I want to look cool like him, and so Pulpy.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah, so you have part two of that coming
Speaker 1: out soon, I believe. But and actually what we're going
Speaker 1: to mostly focus on today is another rerun that you did,
Speaker 1: but you've also been doing the new episodes. Like keeve
Speaker 1: been saying, I particularly enjoyed the Genpay War that you
Speaker 1: did WITS in a way. It's kind of a prequel
Speaker 1: to Ghost of Sushima. Funny enough timeline wise at least.
Speaker 1: But yeah, there there's a lot of other good ones
Speaker 1: out there that you did. I really recommend people who
Speaker 1: if they haven't listened to it, check out the insanely
Speaker 1: brutal two parter you did about the death squads down
Speaker 1: in Salvador.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's pretty rough, Yes, but you do hear about a
Speaker 1: very saintly figure in the first episode, which is pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: I don't want to spoil too much of it, but
Speaker 1: Oscar Romero. Yeah, and it's it's a very good story
Speaker 1: because it reveals that the effects of I guess we
Speaker 1: could just broadly say American imperialism doesn't really matter who's empowered. No,
Speaker 1: not at all because the essentibly nicest ex president that
Speaker 1: we've ever had, at least in our lifetimes. Yeah, Jimmy
Speaker 1: Carter h just as complicit as Ron Reagan in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's always said there's a difference between evil and
Speaker 2: evil to the tenth power, you know, noise like Carter
Speaker 2: was bad in that regard, and Regan of course was
Speaker 2: one hundred times wars. Yeah, you know, so it's kind
Speaker 2: of like it's not that there are yeah, that there's
Speaker 2: a good US foreign policy there, they're just a bad
Speaker 2: US foreign policy. You're a horrible uant.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: For a bit, I had this thought, and I think
Speaker 1: we might have talked about this at one point where
Speaker 1: I was thinking like, okay, so the fact that Carter
Speaker 1: was more of a hypocrite is what rubs me the
Speaker 1: wrong way about it. But then it makes me think
Speaker 1: of the very classic moment Norm MacDonald had where he
Speaker 1: was in the car with Jerry Seinfeld doing that show
Speaker 1: and he was saying, well, you know, I'm not heard
Speaker 1: Patton Oswald say that the worst thing about the revelations
Speaker 1: about Bill Cosby was the hypocrisy. I thought it was
Speaker 1: the rape eat exactly. Yeah, So yeah, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, I think it just matters what's bad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: So yeah that as brutal as that story is, I
Speaker 1: think it's a very good story for people to learn about,
Speaker 1: to learn about in only a tiny corner of I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just a tiny example of like the horrible things
Speaker 1: that have happened in Latin America essentially on our watch
Speaker 1: or due to our support, Yeah, which has been going
Speaker 1: on for over one hundred years, as people will have
Speaker 1: problemrobably no doubt read or heard on my own podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be doing the thing about the Banana
Speaker 1: Wars suit and Smedley Butler, who was affected by those but.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I'm pretty too sure. I'm going to do
Speaker 2: both him as a character and also Guatemala, which is
Speaker 2: at the center off That's.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, he was, he was everywhere. That's the thing
Speaker 1: about Butler.
Speaker 2: He was in fact, that's about him specifically, and one
Speaker 2: about the Queen Guatemala in Yet fifty three, Yes, because
Speaker 2: that was the Yeah, well that is also connected to
Speaker 2: the rise of globalization with with the United Fruit.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a whole other, very interesting.
Speaker 2: Rabbit hole to go down.
Speaker 1: Actually, I found. I am gonna pat myself on the back.
Speaker 1: I'm really good at transitions, because here's a transition. Smedley
Speaker 1: Butler was not only stationed all over Central America, he
Speaker 1: was stationed in China during the Boxer Rebellion, which is
Speaker 1: not we're gonna be talking about, but we're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about what led up to the Boxer Rebellion, which
Speaker 1: is something that you talked about in an epic three
Speaker 1: part series. You did that, like I said, recently got
Speaker 1: the rerun treatment that I really recommend people go listen to.
Speaker 1: And it actually something that I've talked about before too. Coincidentally,
Speaker 1: around the same time you were doing this series, I
Speaker 1: talked about the Mercenary Frederick Townsend Ward. We fought in
Speaker 1: this event known as a Taiping Rebellion, which I think
Speaker 1: the best way to just like give the short version
Speaker 1: for it is just to say, most destructive war in
Speaker 1: human history besides World War Two. Yeah, possibly more, depending
Speaker 1: on how you're measuring things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at least twenty million.
Speaker 1: The very least.
Speaker 2: And again yeah, part of the elevator pitch would be
Speaker 2: what if Jim Jones of Jonestown fame, you know, don
Speaker 2: drink Lakoule that Jim Jones. What if Jim Jones was
Speaker 2: at the head of an army of a million people. Yeah,
Speaker 2: that's more or less. What happens with the Typing Rebellion
Speaker 2: where our lead character we starts the rebellion is just
Speaker 2: shit crazy. He suffers from a nervous breakdown after failing
Speaker 2: the Imperial Examination three different times, which was his way
Speaker 2: to get out of poverty. And you know, there's an
Speaker 2: incredibly high failure rate. It's a high stress situation.
Speaker 1: Passage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know he has this old village resources
Speaker 2: in him to study to try to make it. They
Speaker 2: they do all that, and he fails, and then he
Speaker 2: does it another year and he fails, and he does
Speaker 2: it a thirty year and he fails. And that's when
Speaker 2: he really loses it. And at that point when he
Speaker 2: loses it is where is where sings go really to
Speaker 2: hell because you know he as he goes through this
Speaker 2: major crisis, he spent a month in body alien and
Speaker 2: screaming about fighting demons and things. When by the time
Speaker 2: he comes back and he said, no, no, no, you guys,
Speaker 2: the understand I wasn't crazy at all. It's just that
Speaker 2: I met with my father God who told me that
Speaker 2: I'm Jesus Chinese younger brother and that it's my duty
Speaker 2: to read the China of all the demons, which incidental
Speaker 2: involves starting a coup against the government. Yeah, which you know,
Speaker 2: it's the premise is crazy guy screaming on the sidewalk,
Speaker 2: except that through a series of random circumstances, I was
Speaker 2: about to use the word of luck. It's probably not
Speaker 2: exactly lucky for the twenty million people guy as a
Speaker 2: result of this, but like, as a result of all that,
Speaker 2: he does go from being the crazy guy screaming in
Speaker 2: the corner to be instead being the head of this
Speaker 2: huge movement that you know, he went pretty damn close
Speaker 2: to be able to unseat the ruling dynasty and becoming emperor.
Speaker 2: That's how crazy the story is.
Speaker 1: The impression I got from both your work but also
Speaker 1: just from reading about it myself was that it you
Speaker 1: really were at the height of the heavenly kingdom as
Speaker 1: was down. And also this man we're talking about, his
Speaker 1: name was Hongsho Chuen, very hard name to pronounce. I think, Danielle,
Speaker 1: you did a very good job, all things considered, pronouncing
Speaker 1: those names, and you did thank my partner Molly for
Speaker 1: the pronunciation guide, which I still have the MP three
Speaker 1: of by the way, of course, But yes, it's uh.
Speaker 1: Those names are notoriously difficult, obviously, but Hongsho Twin and
Speaker 1: the Heavenly Kingdom they pretty much rivaled. They were like
Speaker 1: a rival empire within an empire. It was I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe not an empire, but a kingdom for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I know an empire because they spread, they
Speaker 1: conquered territory, and they, as you said, they very easily
Speaker 1: could have caused problems. I didn't make the case and
Speaker 1: I still won't that the only reason the Qing dynasty,
Speaker 1: who were running the show in in Beijing, they the
Speaker 1: only I'm not gonna say the only reason they were
Speaker 1: able to push them back was because of the help
Speaker 1: of mercenaries like Ward. But Ward did help modernize their military,
Speaker 1: so it played a major art. Sure, But yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a I mean putting the focus on the Heavenly Kingdom. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and the typing rebellion for that matter, is very important
Speaker 1: to what I've been thinking about lately, because it, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, is something that I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people don't appreciate. Those few who do
Speaker 1: know about the Typing rebellion is that that was the
Speaker 1: birth of another Protestant sect of Christianity. That's because it's
Speaker 1: that's how it started.
Speaker 2: And yeah, exactly, I should have specified my quick summary.
Speaker 1: Well, no, the quick summary was. I was going to
Speaker 1: actually ask you about that as my first question, but
Speaker 1: you gave a great elevator pitch as you said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think part of what happens is that as
Speaker 2: he is on his way to take the exam for
Speaker 2: the third time, he rans into some Protestant missionaries in China.
Speaker 2: Handy my booklet about this is the Truth about the
Speaker 2: Gospels and stuff. He puts it in his pocket, doesn't
Speaker 2: really care take the exam, fails, flip out, But in
Speaker 2: the reading of the booklet is where he starts pinning
Speaker 2: the whole. That's why he believes he is Jesus younger brother.
Speaker 2: He takes what these guys were trying to convert him
Speaker 2: to and mixes it with his own insanity and reviews
Speaker 2: religious beliefs in coming up with these Uh, you know,
Speaker 2: the typing were hardcore religious fanatics. Oh yes, and and
Speaker 2: they were based on I mean, it's funny because many
Speaker 2: early Christians at the time they were cheering for the typing.
Speaker 2: So you're like, these guys are Christians like us, Well,
Speaker 2: not quite like us. They believe some weird shit, but
Speaker 2: close enough.
Speaker 1: If you look at if you look at how people
Speaker 1: in the United States, like people within these church communities
Speaker 1: like responding to the news. As far as they were concerned,
Speaker 1: this is just this is what they.
Speaker 2: Were always hoping for.
Speaker 1: Of course, the Heathens in China and the orient are
Speaker 1: becoming like us, exact Christian Well about.
Speaker 2: That, yeah, they work out that great? But yeah, yeah, well,
Speaker 2: I mean.
Speaker 1: I kin'd want to get the sort of core of
Speaker 1: the context. I guess that surrounded a lot of these things,
Speaker 1: And a theme that I think came up a lot
Speaker 1: when you first started discussing the context was the theme
Speaker 1: of to bring it back again to this word imperialism,
Speaker 1: because at that time, the people who resonated most with
Speaker 1: Hongshu Twin's preaching and its following followers, they were essentially
Speaker 1: oppressed from multiple directions. We could say, the more obvious
Speaker 1: one I think would be Queen Victoria and the British
Speaker 1: Empire and what ultimately came to be known as the
Speaker 1: Opium War. Yes, do you want to give a quick
Speaker 1: sort of rundown of all that and Queen Victoria's habits
Speaker 1: if you remember them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's nuts, because yeah, in many ways,
Speaker 2: part of what weakens the Chinese dynasty to the point
Speaker 2: that it makes it easier for something like the Typing
Speaker 2: Rebellion to take place ed being the process of the
Speaker 2: opium Wars, and you know that's kind of infecting the
Speaker 2: first first episode. I did a trilogy on this topic,
Speaker 2: and the first episode is really all background in a way,
Speaker 2: and the huge comparty is the opium War, because I mean,
Speaker 2: the opm War is one of the stories that's so
Speaker 2: insane that it's only slightly less insane because we put
Speaker 2: it right next to Taiping, which is even worse. But otherwise,
Speaker 2: the idea that you have a private company, the East
Speaker 2: India Company, that is essentially running a state in India.
Speaker 2: It's it's own private state, and they start going to
Speaker 2: China selling a bunch of opium. When China is like, hey,
Speaker 2: this is a public health crisis for us, We're going
Speaker 2: to ban opium trade. The Indian companies say, no, you don't.
Speaker 2: You don't mess with our trade, and they use the
Speaker 2: muscle of the British Empire to essentially force China after
Speaker 2: a war to buy a bunch of opium and just
Speaker 2: be flooded with opium. I mean, think about it today,
Speaker 2: like if a nation wants to have certain drug laws
Speaker 2: and they think, you know, it's not good for us
Speaker 2: to have a ton of whatever drug may be in
Speaker 2: the country, so we outlaw it, and some other countries
Speaker 2: shows up, goes to war with them, beat their ass,
Speaker 2: and then goes like, you're gonna buy our drugs or else.
Speaker 1: I mean, one could make that parallel, or that one
Speaker 1: could make a fear mongering parallel and say China's kind
Speaker 1: of getting its revenge rights ex exactly. And if if
Speaker 1: we would never do this because there's too much value
Speaker 1: in painkillers here. But let's just say that the United
Speaker 1: States banned opiate based painkillers. Again, I can't imagine that
Speaker 1: were happening, but let's just say we did. And then
Speaker 1: China comes in and says you're not doing that.
Speaker 2: It goes to war with the US, and.
Speaker 1: Then and then at the end they own Catalina Island
Speaker 1: and Los Angeles. It's sort of because the British Empire
Speaker 1: got Hong Kong absolute and uh, you know, so, yeah,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the British Empire soundly
Speaker 1: beat China and just completely humiliate that at that point.
Speaker 1: But the thing is the other angle of imperialism that
Speaker 1: I'm kind of like I can't not let go of
Speaker 1: in a way, is one much more systemic at the time,
Speaker 1: because technically, for people who don't know, China is something
Speaker 1: like ninety five percent. Han is the ethnic group that's
Speaker 1: not even a say a majority. Is like it feels
Speaker 1: like an understatement of Chinese people are the Han. And
Speaker 1: at this time the Qing dynasty, they were not Han.
Speaker 1: They were in Manchu. They're from Manchuria. The Manchu were
Speaker 1: basically as they were, sort of like a northern step people,
Speaker 1: very similar to the Mongols in a way. They were
Speaker 1: essentially a foreign occupying force that were kind of able
Speaker 1: to run roughshod over the majority Chinese population for about
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty years or so. They took over
Speaker 1: in sixteen forty four of memory serves, and then they
Speaker 1: were the ones who forced all Chinese men at least
Speaker 1: to wear the q hairstyle, which is the hair on
Speaker 1: the back of the head very long ponytail shaved everywhere else.
Speaker 1: It's what was sort of American's first impression of Chinese men,
Speaker 1: especially in uh, you know, California. They all look like
Speaker 1: that because of the ching dinosaurs. So you have this
Speaker 1: sort of like internal imperialism already going on, coupled with
Speaker 1: this weakening of that imperialistic state by another empire.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because that's the problem, right, just like these guys.
Speaker 2: You don't like them because they are the foreign occupiers
Speaker 2: if you are Han Chinese, but you put up with
Speaker 2: them because at least they can defend you and they
Speaker 2: can't exactly. So it's like, wait, why are you empire again?
Speaker 1: So you're humiliating us, You're telling us what to do,
Speaker 1: and if we step out of line, then you know
Speaker 1: we're going to face consequences of any kind of any sort.
Speaker 1: And now we're watching you get taken down a pat
Speaker 1: or three, and yeah, that's going to cause some problems.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned earlier the imperial exams that in my mind,
Speaker 1: and I want to know what you think about this,
Speaker 1: that was the best method of social control created by
Speaker 1: an occupying force every and I should actually let me
Speaker 1: phrase it differently, because they weren't created by the chain
Speaker 1: they I believe they started in the previous dynasty, the
Speaker 1: Ming dynasty. I might be wrong on that, but the
Speaker 1: Ching made use of the examination systems, which, like we
Speaker 1: were saying, one percent acceptance rate as a form of
Speaker 1: social control, because you could never advance past like a
Speaker 1: local level without passing these exams. And it just seems
Speaker 1: to me that whether or I don't even really necessarily
Speaker 1: think that these exams necessarily mattered all that much. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, it's kind of win win because
Speaker 1: if you are so good at them that you've memorized
Speaker 1: all this stuff that you were basically bought into the
Speaker 1: system that they have maintained with these exams, so you're
Speaker 1: already going to be a loyal servant. But if you
Speaker 1: don't pass them, then you remain, you know, crushed under
Speaker 1: the boots. You're not going to get any anywhere, and
Speaker 1: therefore they maintain their power. Does that seem like a
Speaker 1: reasonable explanation for how they were running things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And of course that puts tremendous pressure because
Speaker 2: that was your way out of poverty. And again, one
Speaker 2: percent success rates so not exactly a way of of
Speaker 2: poverty that was available to most people. So yeah, talk
Speaker 2: about but yeah, I think I consider the Typing rebellion
Speaker 2: the most uh, the deadliest f yeh the history of education,
Speaker 2: because it's like talk about an F that you know,
Speaker 2: somebody got an F. They are said, whatever, this guy
Speaker 2: gets an F and twenty million people die pretty much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it's sort of the meme about
Speaker 1: Hitler and art school.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, yeah, exactly, Yeah.
Speaker 1: It's funny. Yeah, I mean, I one has to wonder
Speaker 1: if that would have been enough for him. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean that that kind of does get into something though,
Speaker 1: because I did want and you mentioned poverty, because hang
Speaker 1: he also should know he was not Han either. He
Speaker 1: was a Hakka, which is another ethnic minority in China,
Speaker 1: which there's so there's over fifty, I believe, and that's
Speaker 1: where a.
Speaker 2: Law of his power came from. Was from a bunch
Speaker 2: of Hakka were heavily discriminated against, and so this guy
Speaker 2: was providing at least as insane as he was, as
Speaker 2: a more cohesive message of and also a unity of
Speaker 2: protection for other Hakka people. Exactly, a ton of Hakka
Speaker 2: flattered to him because they were because it offers some
Speaker 2: chance to defend themselves.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So that's that's one of the factors from which you
Speaker 2: go from crazy guy on the street corner to an
Speaker 2: actually serious threat to the empire was because of an
Speaker 2: ethnic component in this story.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. Yeah, because like I think that when
Speaker 1: you have and this gets into sort of the theme
Speaker 1: of populism mixed with the theme of Christianity, especially Protestant Christianity,
Speaker 1: so we can finally get into this a little bit.
Speaker 1: Because I think his poverty that he could say, I
Speaker 1: understand to these people, even though he was speaking much
Speaker 1: more high and mighty about God and the heavens and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. He was able to relate to these
Speaker 1: people because he spoke their language.
Speaker 2: Literally, he was one of them.
Speaker 1: He was one of them exactly. And I think at
Speaker 1: the same time his poverty was significant for him as
Speaker 1: a personal motivator because clearly he really wanted to get
Speaker 1: out of where he of course circumstances. Four times he
Speaker 1: took that quiz that no, he took it a fourth time,
Speaker 1: I think he did, if I remember right. It was
Speaker 1: really strange because he took it three times failed every
Speaker 1: single time, had his nervous breakdown and time, and then
Speaker 1: after his breakdown and visions. He still tried again.
Speaker 2: It's interesting.
Speaker 1: So it says to me that he wasn't fully like
Speaker 1: in on things yet, but he clearly had come out
Speaker 1: of that a change.
Speaker 2: I'm supposed to defeat the demons rule in China. However,
Speaker 2: if I do pass Nick Sam, maybe not.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I think it was at that moment there was
Speaker 1: something conflicting with him, and we're never going to necessarily
Speaker 1: know what that was. But it's very interesting to think
Speaker 1: about how. Let me put it this way. I don't
Speaker 1: think it was a grift, right, and somebody I wanted
Speaker 1: to get into a little bit, because it seems like
Speaker 1: he really did truly believe what he was saying or
Speaker 1: what he was thinking, or perhaps he saw the taking
Speaker 1: the test one more time as like a final test,
Speaker 1: like let me see if this vision I had actually
Speaker 1: was anything, and if I fail, it was and if
Speaker 1: I don't, then it was.
Speaker 2: Just a And that's Alrey gots tricky about the grief
Speaker 2: versus true believers part because like, for example, at one point,
Speaker 2: Hunk makes a gigantic mistake where he gets some other
Speaker 2: guy who joins the movement. He proclaims it has the
Speaker 2: voice of God. Right, So that he's inferior to him
Speaker 2: when he's just the regular this guy. But when he's
Speaker 2: channeling God, of course, now you are above because you
Speaker 2: are God's son versus this guy is God. So he
Speaker 2: you know, he's shooting himself in the foot because he's
Speaker 2: creating an obvious competitor for who's the top dog. And
Speaker 2: after saying that this guy, wheny channel City's truly God's
Speaker 2: voice speaking, he eventually because of obvious competition, and that's
Speaker 2: placing a heat on this guy, and that hing whacked
Speaker 2: in where we have literally we have Jesus younger brother
Speaker 2: are putting a heat on the voice of God, which
Speaker 2: is a great story right there. So it's like then
Speaker 2: you don't really believe it, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: But then you kind of do. So it's like it's
Speaker 2: a selective I believe it. I'm a true believer versus no,
Speaker 2: just a straight up grief.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the thing that I think is interesting
Speaker 1: about it is because I think that he was aware
Speaker 1: at some level of like of like what he was channeling,
Speaker 1: Like he was aware of the appeal, he was aware
Speaker 1: of the earthly appeal, he was aware of the social
Speaker 1: norm that you spoke about where where. He essentially tried
Speaker 1: to make it a like a discovered knowledge kind of aspect,
Speaker 1: which I want to look back to in a minute.
Speaker 1: But I just I just I find it really interesting
Speaker 1: though about his sincerity of his visions, because I guess
Speaker 1: I have made the mistake of thinking that figures like
Speaker 1: hung can only be crazy or only be grifters. Yea,
Speaker 1: And I don't think it's like I actually don't think it's.
Speaker 2: No exactly, it's a mix.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, what's not even a mix it to something else.
Speaker 2: Well, it's going to come off.
Speaker 1: As crazy or grift based on the behavior, but within
Speaker 1: their mind it's I think they don't see a distinction.
Speaker 2: It's kind of like Jim Jones, you know, where he
Speaker 2: did clearly he knew where, he set up a fake
Speaker 2: assassination against him, He made up all this shit that
Speaker 2: he must have known that what he was doing, and
Speaker 2: yet he also probably believed in some of his own
Speaker 2: weird bullshits. So it's like it's a weird mix of uh,
Speaker 2: you know, tapping into your own supply while at the
Speaker 2: same time you are scenically manipulating it, right, And.
Speaker 1: There there's not that many people who are only one.
Speaker 1: I think like I would from what I understand, I
Speaker 1: would place l Ron Hubbard, the head of Scientology, firmly
Speaker 1: in the grifter can't.
Speaker 2: If you believe the damn what he said, right, it's
Speaker 2: pretty I don't know, I have no idea about but
Speaker 2: I haven't studied.
Speaker 1: Sure, but yeah, like I mean, I was just thinking
Speaker 1: about it as like as like an example of like,
Speaker 1: you know, you have a man who's like suddenly flush
Speaker 1: with success, and then he's like he's and the success
Speaker 1: comes from saying things that resonate with an audience and
Speaker 1: is able to live a life that reflects that success.
Speaker 1: That's usually when people start to say that it's a grift,
Speaker 1: because well, how could he possibly be successful if he
Speaker 1: or how could he possibly be sincere if he's so
Speaker 1: successful as it seems to be the contradiction, And.
Speaker 2: I think it's like the funny thing is that he
Speaker 2: most when you look at like most horrible people, whether
Speaker 2: straight up grifters or whatever, they are almost unfailingly they
Speaker 2: are the good guys in their own story. Right. It's
Speaker 2: like they somehow can spin it in a way where
Speaker 2: there's a reason why I'm doing this. It's for the
Speaker 2: greater good. It's still there's way to spin it to
Speaker 2: where somehow you don't have to face the consequence that no,
Speaker 2: you really are just an ass.
Speaker 1: So right, well, and there's a temptation that I mean,
Speaker 1: I think I've had. And I don't know if I
Speaker 1: said it in my episode. I didn't go back and
Speaker 1: listen to that. So if I did, I guess I'm
Speaker 1: refusing it. If I didn't, then whatever. But I think
Speaker 1: that there is a temptation, especially for someone who has
Speaker 1: a more secular bent in their mind, to think that, oh, really,
Speaker 1: this was just him at the very least subconsciously rejecting
Speaker 1: the people who rejected him, like you don't fire me,
Speaker 1: I quit that kind of mentality. But I've come around
Speaker 1: to this idea that he could well have actually believed
Speaker 1: he was Christ's younger brother. Yeah, even if he was
Speaker 1: also bitter about his failures in the confusion system, Like
Speaker 1: a big amount of his energy was spent. As you
Speaker 1: talked about in the second episode especially, it was it
Speaker 1: wasn't just theology that he was getting into. He wasn't
Speaker 1: just trying to create this justification of his visions. He
Speaker 1: was going out of his way to discredit Confucianism, which
Speaker 1: at that point still about twenty three hundred years old
Speaker 1: as far as a social system goes. It's not something
Speaker 1: you just get rid of. But he is doing something
Speaker 1: so radical where he is saying the very basis of
Speaker 1: all of this, even whether you're whether you're the Mongol
Speaker 1: Yuan dynasty, the Manchu Ching dynasty, or the Han or
Speaker 1: the Han dynasty, it is like, it doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: all of this is bullshit. This is the real deal,
Speaker 1: and I just so happen to know what the real
Speaker 1: deal is. That's the part where I think people get
Speaker 1: a little tripped up that they think that because he
Speaker 1: puts himself in the main character role, that he has
Speaker 1: to be either crazy or a grifter. And I would
Speaker 1: say no, I mean, yeah, you could say he's crazy, sure,
Speaker 1: but it's more that I think he really does see
Speaker 1: himself in the way that he presents him they think.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think that's where the insanity helps, sure,
Speaker 2: because it's kind of like even when he dies, when
Speaker 2: they are starving and they are like, dude, we need
Speaker 2: to do something, and he's like, don't worry of anybody. Man,
Speaker 2: that's gonna fall from the sky and everybody's looking at
Speaker 2: him like what is it talking about now, And it's
Speaker 2: like these is man and he started eating like random
Speaker 2: weeds outside the walls, and they think I might have
Speaker 2: poisoned him, and lately it's poisoned them ny, And so
Speaker 2: he's like, Okay, well, there's there's an element there where
Speaker 2: he believed this own stuff.
Speaker 1: The cynical bias that I think I maybe used to
Speaker 1: have a little bit is that my assumption would have
Speaker 1: just been when I hear that part of the story, Oh,
Speaker 1: he has a big stockpile of like meat and cheese
Speaker 1: that he's hoarding right in his concubines. No, No, he
Speaker 1: really did eat a bunch of weeds on the ground
Speaker 1: and probably died from poisoning.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I I'm really fascinated by that idea that he sincerely
Speaker 1: believed it too, because I think that's a big part
Speaker 1: of why people followed him too.
Speaker 2: Of course, it wasn't just, it wasn't just.
Speaker 1: I mean, the charisma comes from sincere belief.
Speaker 2: Through believers tend to be charismatic. They but yeah, it's
Speaker 2: also through that grief. There can be charismatic when they
Speaker 2: are purely scenica, Like if they are good at the grief.
Speaker 2: But I guess yeah, in some way you can thank
Speaker 2: decades of communism. If you want to go back, you
Speaker 2: can go back to these and to the Oppiu Mare,
Speaker 2: because the Opu Mare weakening the existing dynasty in creating
Speaker 2: these desire for revenge against the humiliation at the hands
Speaker 2: of foreign powers, the wreck that it's created by the
Speaker 2: Typing creates this power vacuum and desire for revenge that's
Speaker 2: really not gonna be satisfied until Communism come into place.
Speaker 1: That's a good way of putting it. And it is
Speaker 1: worth noting an interesting little fact that the Communists. It's
Speaker 1: so weird because they have a very spotty track record
Speaker 1: with how they treat well all religious people, but Christians
Speaker 1: in particular. They still don't have a really good track
Speaker 1: record on that. And what's funny though, is that in
Speaker 1: the early years at least, they venerated hongshuch and the
Speaker 1: Typing Heavenly Kingdom, but only because they were the only
Speaker 1: people that came even close to toppling the dynasty, of course,
Speaker 1: and a lot of the rhetoric, not all of it, obviously,
Speaker 1: but a lot of the rhetoric involving the abolishment of
Speaker 1: private property and so forth. Of course very much mirrored Maoism,
Speaker 1: very much mirrored the rhetoric and the communist So it's
Speaker 1: very interesting. Like how adaptable that is. That's another thing
Speaker 1: I want to jump back to in a bit. But
Speaker 1: you kind of started doing something that I was going
Speaker 1: to ask you about, so I feel like this is
Speaker 1: a good way to get into it. I have a
Speaker 1: broad sort of thesis that one day I want to
Speaker 1: delve into in some depth, and the Typing rebellion is
Speaker 1: sort of the center of it. But really what I
Speaker 1: think this is a sort of premise about is the
Speaker 1: last century of dynastic rule in China, sure, and that
Speaker 1: I think we could probably point to the introduction of
Speaker 1: Christian missionaries as the catalyst, the basic catalyst of all
Speaker 1: of that, and they'd been around, as you pointed out,
Speaker 1: there's the Jesuits who've been there since like the sixteenth century,
Speaker 1: I believe, right, But the Jesuits don't really make as
Speaker 1: much of an impact, which I think is interesting to
Speaker 1: point out. And that's where I want to kind of
Speaker 1: fit Protestantism into this. But the way the sort of
Speaker 1: chain of events as I was thinking about it, is
Speaker 1: that you have the guys like Edwin Stevens who you
Speaker 1: talked about, and all the Western Protestant ministers who influenced
Speaker 1: people like hongep that their work led to the spread
Speaker 1: of this new extremely malleable belief system from the West,
Speaker 1: that is Protestant Christianity, and therefore the Tayping Rebellion happens.
Speaker 1: I mean putting inside the Opium War, I mean that
Speaker 1: already was weakening them militarily, but the Taiping Rebellion creates
Speaker 1: this internal weakness against the Ching that really can't be
Speaker 1: overestimated that it was existential at that point. And then
Speaker 1: that in turn led to a greater hostility towards outsiders,
Speaker 1: particularly Christians or the rest of the nineteenth century, which
Speaker 1: then in turn leads to the Boxer Rebellion in nineteen hundred,
Speaker 1: which was a profoundly xenophobic movement that is interesting of itself.
Speaker 1: I don't know which one of us is going to
Speaker 1: get to that story in our podcast first one day,
Speaker 1: but it fits into both of our turvras, I think.
Speaker 1: But we can call that World War zero essentially because
Speaker 1: all the great powers got together, including Japan, putting China
Speaker 1: in its place, and they'd already gotten their asses kicked
Speaker 1: by Japan in eighteen ninety five if I remember the
Speaker 1: date right, So then flash forward just one decade after
Speaker 1: the Boxer rebellion it's nineteen eleven, and the Ching dynasty collapses.
Speaker 1: You get nearly four decades of civil war, more Japanese imperialism,
Speaker 1: and eventually the triumph of maw and the Communists. So
Speaker 1: you have this long chain of events. But I guess
Speaker 1: what I'm wondering is, what do you think of that
Speaker 1: as an explanation for how China ended up where it
Speaker 1: was at the oddst of communism, the introduction of this
Speaker 1: one singular Western idea known as Protestant Christianity.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you wanna look at on the
Speaker 2: other side of the of the sea in Japan, there's
Speaker 2: a reason why Japan when on these rutal campaign to
Speaker 2: wipe out missionaries some couple of underd years earlier.
Speaker 1: That's right, courts As is silence exactly, film.
Speaker 2: That absolutely, And the thing is it's simple. I mean,
Speaker 2: it sounds bad to say in a way, but unfailingly
Speaker 2: like the reason why Japan did it it's because they
Speaker 2: look at just about every Otherssian country and they saw
Speaker 2: that first these countries would be visited by Western traders.
Speaker 2: With the traders, the missionaries would arrive, and after traders
Speaker 2: and missionary showed up, colonization would come in in full
Speaker 2: swing and take over. And Japan looked around inside their
Speaker 2: country and they see traders and they see missionaries, and
Speaker 2: they said, we know what happens next. And so that's
Speaker 2: why they decide to cut off the trade with the
Speaker 2: West almost entirely and to just wipe out Christianity of
Speaker 2: Japan has nothing to do with religion because you know,
Speaker 2: the Japanese and when Buddhism arrived, they mixed with Shintoday
Speaker 2: sometimes they practiced Into and Buddhism in the same temples.
Speaker 2: They didn't give a crap about that. Power. Yeah, is
Speaker 2: the fact that missionaries where the guys who pride the
Speaker 2: door open for colonization. And partially also is because Christianity
Speaker 2: is an exclusive religion, meaning there's only one right way ours,
Speaker 2: so it kind of creates some competing loyalties because if
Speaker 2: Buddhism arrives, you can incorporate it because with Buddhism you
Speaker 2: have okay, you know, we got you can believe Buddhist thing.
Speaker 2: You can mix them with Shinto. You can pay so
Speaker 2: much to the emperor, you can. It doesn't really challenge
Speaker 2: the political structure. Right with Christianity, where there's only one God,
Speaker 2: it's ours, it's with this particular set of rules. Well,
Speaker 2: that's a whole different thing now. It's like it puts
Speaker 2: a lot more power in the hands of those who
Speaker 2: control the religion, which should be Europeans in this case,
Speaker 2: favor in colonization, right.
Speaker 1: And the thing that I think is interesting about that,
Speaker 1: that's you're just giving me so many good things to
Speaker 1: transition off of here, man, because I really do think
Speaker 1: you're right, though, I think that there's a distinction there.
Speaker 1: I'm starting to get the sense. And this is what
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk to you about primarily because especially
Speaker 1: in Japan, it was mostly Jesuits were there, correct, which
Speaker 1: is an offshoot of the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 1: The thing about the Catholic Church and the thing about
Speaker 1: Islam specifically, those two big monotheisms that are expansionists by
Speaker 1: their very nature, they're very I guess we could say hierarchical,
Speaker 1: much more top down, much more associated with empire. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Protestantism isn't. And I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: the structure of Protestantism is very different, and as far
Speaker 1: as I know, Protestantism didn't well. Actually, I don't even
Speaker 1: think Protestantism was even out of Europe by the time
Speaker 1: the Jesuits were in Japan.
Speaker 2: I think they were still.
Speaker 1: Working things out to it my right, So I will
Speaker 1: have to wonder the counterfactual of what would happen if
Speaker 1: Protestantism had made it. We'll never know. But Protestantism did
Speaker 1: make it to China. And this gets into what I've
Speaker 1: been studying for school, specifically for my thesis about Protestantism
Speaker 1: in America and more broadly Protestantism as a delivery mechanism
Speaker 1: for change, because I think what it tended to do,
Speaker 1: much to the chagrin of a lot of very conservative
Speaker 1: people to this very day, is it gave us the
Speaker 1: creed of individualism. Sure, because if you look at the cycles,
Speaker 1: and I don't like that word in history, but there's
Speaker 1: no other way to put it. Of American Christianity through
Speaker 1: the awakenings as they're known, you have continuous perceptions and
Speaker 1: proclamations of institutional failure related to the previous authority. That
Speaker 1: previous authority is especially early on, inherently religious, and every
Speaker 1: single time, at least with the First Grade Awakening, but
Speaker 1: it was also with the second and I would argue
Speaker 1: all of the other ones that have happened since there
Speaker 1: was this claim that the real way to return to God,
Speaker 1: to wholeness, whatever you want to call it, was through
Speaker 1: personal devotion, and it very much emphasized this idea of yeah,
Speaker 1: not personal responsibility, but in a sense that too. Max
Speaker 1: Wember has talked about that about why Western capitalism succeeded
Speaker 1: was because of the ties to Protestant Christianity and all that.
Speaker 1: I'm throwing a lot at you, but basically what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say is there is this sort of constant
Speaker 1: sense of undermining previous authority that's at the core of
Speaker 1: every single Protestant movement that has happened, especially that has
Speaker 1: resulted in major events like every think from the Typing
Speaker 1: Rebellion all the way down to the first Grade Awakening,
Speaker 1: and some people if you argue that the American Revolution
Speaker 1: was a result of the first Grade Awakening, I don't
Speaker 1: know if I go that far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know that I would because
Speaker 2: then there is definitely a major strand of individualism that
Speaker 2: comes from the Enlightenment, which anyway breaks with a lot
Speaker 2: of the organizing was the time it was.
Speaker 1: A splinter of Protestants essentially that rejected a lot of
Speaker 1: a Protestant said. But at the same time, the argument
Speaker 1: can be made that Protestantism, or rather that the Enlightenment
Speaker 1: only existed because of the ethos of protestant I.
Speaker 2: Mean, in some way, I think it exists because like
Speaker 2: if we want to make a tie with Protestantism, I
Speaker 2: think is Protestantism manages to break the Catholic monopoly, yes,
Speaker 2: over religion and incidentally over politics. Because it does, it
Speaker 2: opens the doors to other things. Other things means a
Speaker 2: bunch of variations of Protestantism, but also thinks that reject
Speaker 2: Protestantism almost all together, like the more secular seeings that. So,
Speaker 2: you know, they kick the door open, but what comes
Speaker 2: through the door is not necessarily because they are ideologically related.
Speaker 2: It comes through the door because they just kicked it down,
Speaker 2: and everybody comes through the door themselves, the people opposing them,
Speaker 2: and all sorts of stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, though, there is an interesting thing that what the
Speaker 1: United States at least did, which was at the time
Speaker 1: it was unique, and I think it is still pretty
Speaker 1: much unique in all of the world. Which is a legal,
Speaker 1: a firmly placed legal separation of church and state, right
Speaker 1: which was I mean, it's part of the gig. It's like,
Speaker 1: there is no United States without a separation of church
Speaker 1: and state. Again, much as the chagrin of a lot
Speaker 1: of very conservative people. But that's what's interesting is that
Speaker 1: in a lot of these other examples of Protestant revival,
Speaker 1: we can call it because I do think the Typing
Speaker 1: Rebellion was probably the most extreme example of revival gone amok.
Speaker 1: So what you kind of get with that is a
Speaker 1: reality check that without that sort of predetermined separation of
Speaker 1: church and state, there's inevitably going to be a spiral effecture,
Speaker 1: you know. So I'm just wondering if, like if maybe
Speaker 1: that is just sort of an inevitable feature of Protestantism,
Speaker 1: because as you said, it started as a break from
Speaker 1: Catholic dogma and domination, and it's not the only one
Speaker 1: that ever happened or existed, but a lot of the
Speaker 1: other ones ended up turning into very dogmatic beliefs. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that Protestantism doesn't have its own dogmatizers,
Speaker 1: but it's also in some ways the most malleable. Like
Speaker 1: what other foreign religion could claim that much success in
Speaker 1: a place like China, like it just like all of
Speaker 1: the places that turned Catholic or Islamic, most of them
Speaker 1: did it by the sword. Sure, in most that's the
Speaker 1: sense I get. I mean maybe I'm wrong with the
Speaker 1: Catholic part. I don't know enough about Catholic history.
Speaker 2: I mean even I it depends on where because in
Speaker 2: some parents, for sure.
Speaker 1: But in places.
Speaker 2: Or even even if you look at like a lot
Speaker 2: of Ystasia, sure he's a little less conquest. There's a
Speaker 2: lot more trade and ideas. And don't get me wrong,
Speaker 2: it's not that concrest doesn't play a role, but it's
Speaker 2: not the single foundational thing. Like you know, Spaniards take
Speaker 2: over Mexico and now all the mats become Catholic. It's
Speaker 2: a little less. So I think it's a mix of things.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, especially with places like Indonesia. Indonesia was the impression.
Speaker 1: I mean, Islam made inroads there that were related to conquests,
Speaker 1: but it never really took hold. And then the impression
Speaker 1: I got, and I just I did a podcast about it.
Speaker 1: Earlier this year was when Krakatoa exploded. It just it
Speaker 1: produced this existential crisis in most people down there who realized, oh,
Speaker 1: our folk beliefs aren't saving us. And there's all these
Speaker 1: really angry, compelling people talking about Allah and these evil colonizers,
Speaker 1: the Dutch. You know where to go with these guys.
Speaker 1: And then flash forward to today. Indonesia is the most
Speaker 1: populous Muslim country in the world. So yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: a lot of it can be grassroots. I'm just wondering.
Speaker 1: I guess what I'm sort of trying to untangle here
Speaker 1: is this sense that Protestantism has this very weird aspect
Speaker 1: to it. And by weird, I don't mean bad or good,
Speaker 1: It just mean weird. It's so tied to individual expression,
Speaker 1: an individual agency connected with God him her itself. Just
Speaker 1: this this connection between the individual and God, which I
Speaker 1: think most religions would agree, is very huboristic. That's going
Speaker 1: to create tensions in society that I just don't really
Speaker 1: I just I don't really think can be escaped. But
Speaker 1: I don't know. I guess I'm asking you to walk
Speaker 1: me off this ledge because I'm feeling very not fatalistic,
Speaker 1: but deterministic about it. And I know that determinism is.
Speaker 2: A no no, because I mean, I think the problem
Speaker 2: is there's always, like any time there's if you're looking
Speaker 2: for a single cause for any big historical event, a
Speaker 2: priori are always wrong says that there's never a single
Speaker 2: cause for a giant historical event. He's always a mix
Speaker 2: of things. And I mean even in the case of
Speaker 2: like if you look at the development of the Enlightenment
Speaker 2: and Protestantism, is like they happen in some way in
Speaker 2: spite of each other, related to one another. But you
Speaker 2: know there's obviously it's not a linear a appen sobs,
Speaker 2: it's so on and see it's it's grand song kind
Speaker 2: of thing. You know, it's it's push and pull and
Speaker 2: all sorts of there are messic components to it. That's right,
Speaker 2: because there's never even a single way. I mean, even
Speaker 2: just when we talk about Protestantism, Protestantism is not even
Speaker 2: one thing. No, you know, it takes us. So once
Speaker 2: you say Protestantism is it's like, no, there are a
Speaker 2: tone of Protestantisms and it's well, that's.
Speaker 1: Sort of The thing that I keep getting hung up
Speaker 1: on is I remind myself of that. But then I think, well,
Speaker 1: why does Protestantism have so many different variations compared to
Speaker 1: Catholicism because they know the hierarchy exactly. That's what I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: is like, this is kind of like looping back to
Speaker 1: Dan Carlin's all time great episode Profits a Doom where
Speaker 1: he asked that question, what were the tradeoffs of translating
Speaker 1: the Bible making it something that anybody could access? Like
Speaker 1: the tradeoffs are, you know, like we've been saying the
Speaker 1: Enlightenment to a degree, individual individualism and all that, but
Speaker 1: the other trade offs are seem to be lots of
Speaker 1: violences of conflict, of course, And I mean, I think
Speaker 1: human conflict is inevitable. We've talked about this. I think
Speaker 1: you're always going to have reasons.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of like remember the movie I
Speaker 2: think it was called The Hero with Jentlee, Yes, where
Speaker 2: that movie. You know, the whole premise is that you know,
Speaker 2: you're trying to kill this emperor who's an asshole, and
Speaker 2: the emperor toward the end part of the argument is
Speaker 2: the emperor who's an asshole. It is still guaranteeing a
Speaker 2: certain degree of peace internally, because otherwise you have all
Speaker 2: these different kingdoms laughtering each other. And I mean, it's
Speaker 2: what every dictator want to be known. Is It's kind
Speaker 2: of like, you know, if I'm Saddamus saying, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I will murder a whole bunch of political dissidents, but hey,
Speaker 2: at least you guys, she and Sonny are not killing
Speaker 2: each other as much living the courage alone. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: like the argument is, I'm keeping it together, whereas, of
Speaker 2: course the early days of Iraq after Saddam was gone,
Speaker 2: it was a blad bat because everybody was shooting one another.
Speaker 2: You know. It's like, and of course it's not a
Speaker 2: real justification because there's horrible, but there is a logic
Speaker 2: to that, to that, I mean, it's even the Mongol thing, right,
Speaker 2: is like, we will slaughter the living hell out of
Speaker 2: anybody who resists, but if you join us and they
Speaker 2: are below us, then we guarantee a certain level of
Speaker 2: peace and stability about the.
Speaker 1: R The Sumerians were just the same. It's the logic
Speaker 1: for empire, right, and there does seem to be a
Speaker 1: logic to it. But what I struggle with and I
Speaker 1: always struggle thinking about this, is like, is there really
Speaker 1: such a thing as a third way that isn't Saddam
Speaker 1: or isis or Saddam or the insurgency or in the
Speaker 1: case of you know what I've been studying for a
Speaker 1: long time but also doing for school, Tito and Yugoslavia
Speaker 1: or what happened after Tito died.
Speaker 2: And I mean it's kind of like if you think
Speaker 2: about like Polybius the greater writer, he had this idea
Speaker 2: about these three systems of government. Sure, and he didn't
Speaker 2: target that one was good and one was bad. Is
Speaker 2: that each one could be good and each one could
Speaker 2: be terrible. Right, you had the in the ideal version,
Speaker 2: you had the enlightened king, who's brilliant, who smart, to
Speaker 2: one person who makes the decision, but he's a sweet,
Speaker 2: smart guy, and society perfectly Thomas Hobbes would call it,
Speaker 2: but that in the wrong ends. That's a tyrant, that's
Speaker 2: a dictator, that's a monster. Okay, So we go instead
Speaker 2: to the aristockers. You know, one guy, a group of
Speaker 2: the absolute best people in society, the smartest, the most creative,
Speaker 2: the most strategic society techno, Well, it depends you have
Speaker 2: to think that those guys are actually good, okay, Whereas
Speaker 2: you know most of the people today will look at
Speaker 2: some of the technicals and say, these guys are fucking crazy,
Speaker 2: and I would agree with them. No, here we are
Speaker 2: assuming a moral goodness to like the aristocrats are the
Speaker 2: good guys. When they become the bad guy. When the
Speaker 2: aristocrats are not of good qualities, they are oligarchs. Now
Speaker 2: they are. It's not a government of the best, is
Speaker 2: a government of the few. It looks the same, except
Speaker 2: that one is made of good people and one is
Speaker 2: made of shitty people. And then same idea with democracy. Oh,
Speaker 2: then government for the people. It's good. The people get
Speaker 2: to have their will express and they do it the way.
Speaker 2: That's the good version. It becomes absolute mob rule in
Speaker 2: the hands of an un educated electorate who doesn't know
Speaker 2: if barely can read, and they are a bunch of idiots,
Speaker 2: you know. So his argument is, Look, it's not that
Speaker 2: democracy is better than monarchy, or that is better than aristocracy,
Speaker 2: or it boils down to who's run in the show.
Speaker 2: If the people are good, democracy is amazing. If few
Speaker 2: people are brilliant, smart, strategic and in the aristocracy can
Speaker 2: work if one guy is in power and these a genius,
Speaker 2: and this a monarchy can work, and yet every single
Speaker 2: one of the systems can turn into a nightmare in
Speaker 2: the wrong head.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, none of those sound ideal
Speaker 1: to me, but then I remember, and this is obviously
Speaker 1: my bias as an American, but you probably shared lest
Speaker 1: to some degree. That is what makes the founders at
Speaker 1: least thinking when they created the United States brilliant because
Speaker 1: they created checks in Ballece.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, so you're trying to limit the I mean even
Speaker 2: think about it. He doesn't mention this among the tree.
Speaker 2: But if you look in a more anarchic viewpoint, the
Speaker 2: absence of oppressive laws, like an anarchic system in the
Speaker 2: hand of really smart, sweet, sensitive people who are responsible, discipline,
Speaker 2: work card and yet they are kind. You can run
Speaker 2: a partly a small society, but you can run a
Speaker 2: society with barely any rules and it can be a paradise. Sure,
Speaker 2: if the same people, or even if a solid majority
Speaker 2: of these people are not brilliant, smart, self motivated discipline,
Speaker 2: it turns into a night market. Yeah, you have a
Speaker 2: Somalia post. You know, it's like so it's like which
Speaker 2: one are we and people I think get hang up
Speaker 2: on the definition is like, anarchy is great, It's no,
Speaker 2: anarchy's evil. He's like, no, it's both. Yeah, defence always
Speaker 2: doing it.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like in this is the least democratic sentiment in
Speaker 2: the history of the world. But the idea is in
Speaker 2: the hands of person a masterpiece, the same thing in
Speaker 2: the hands of person B disaster.
Speaker 1: It's it's always the story. It's the backbone of the
Speaker 1: story of the twelve Emperors. I mean, Marcus Aurelius considered
Speaker 1: top none, right, and he probably was compared to a
Speaker 1: lot of them, right, you know. Then you I get
Speaker 1: the feeling that people like Caligula and probably even Nero
Speaker 1: were a little underrated. Yeah, but they still the point
Speaker 1: it remains. And then yeah, so I think that that
Speaker 1: is sort of something that obviously a lot of, if
Speaker 1: not most, of Western civilization do. I get the feeling.
Speaker 1: It's also all civilizations have grappled with these questions in
Speaker 1: one way or another, and then you just end up
Speaker 1: having when you get too wrapped up and grappling with
Speaker 1: these questions. You can see how someone like Hongshu twin
Speaker 1: will just show up and you just say doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: I but first of all, I just talked to God.
Speaker 1: I talked to Jesus is my brother, you know, and
Speaker 1: just here hear me out for a second, let me
Speaker 1: explain to you something. When you're so frustrated with the
Speaker 1: system as it currently exists, as the Hawka people were,
Speaker 1: and as obviously a lot of the Han were, and
Speaker 1: probably even some man Choose who weren't super elite were,
Speaker 1: like so many people were just very fed up with
Speaker 1: how things were. So they were willing to just hear
Speaker 1: this guy out, of course, and he just happened to
Speaker 1: be really, really good at convincing them of things. But
Speaker 1: he was also one of the latter group that you
Speaker 1: were talking about, and that is the danger I think
Speaker 1: of adhering to a single person. But as you also said,
Speaker 1: the other options are no picnic.
Speaker 2: I mean, even if you think something like communism, surely
Speaker 2: you use I mean, it's not really communism. But if
Speaker 2: you look at small tribal societies, the notion that you're
Speaker 2: essentially dealing with two hundred people, they are all extended family,
Speaker 2: they are all friends. So the sharing of resources, the
Speaker 2: relative equality, all of those things are things that happen
Speaker 2: somewhat naturally in a system that works fantastically. Now, apply
Speaker 2: communism to any large scale society, which include a lot
Speaker 2: of horrible people. Now includes the jealousy of why should
Speaker 2: I work harder for this guy who's not doing anything.
Speaker 2: Now you need a strong central rule to keep everybody
Speaker 2: in line and squash and now it's a totalitarian monstrosity
Speaker 2: because it has to be right in order to keep
Speaker 2: things in line. It's the thinking, and so part of
Speaker 2: it is that it's some systems are clearly less vulnerable
Speaker 2: to bullshit than others, but all systems are. And it
Speaker 2: really boils down to the quality of individuals involved. It's
Speaker 2: kind of like that old merely very idea that like,
Speaker 2: give me an average army in the hands of a
Speaker 2: brilliant general and he will beat the good army in
Speaker 2: the hands of a shitty general. Right, you know, it's
Speaker 2: part of that idea of there's an element of human
Speaker 2: quality that you can at legislate. Now you cannot plan
Speaker 2: for by law, because inevitably you're going to have the
Speaker 2: same tool that works fantastically one person sense is going
Speaker 2: to be a nightmare when it gets to somebody else's sense.
Speaker 1: And that's always why, you know, not to make it
Speaker 1: about contemporary politics, but whenever I see people getting really
Speaker 1: excited about some executive overreach, whether is when Biden was
Speaker 1: president or president now, I'm basically stealing from Dan Carlan
Speaker 1: is like once every five years. Epis sort of common sense,
Speaker 1: But he is right. Why would anyone who lives in
Speaker 1: America at least but any kind of democratic or republican
Speaker 1: system cheer on something that is very clearly going to
Speaker 1: be used as precedent against you later.
Speaker 2: I think part of the logic, if you can claim
Speaker 2: a logic in something like that, is the idea of
Speaker 2: we are gonna get screwed over regardless, we might as
Speaker 2: well get to ours while we can, you know, whereas
Speaker 2: like the system is unjust and messed up, and there's
Speaker 2: all this terriblety, So let's when we can use it
Speaker 2: to our advantage. Yeah, let's cheer and let's do it, sure,
Speaker 2: even though very clearly it's going to be used against
Speaker 2: you right afterwards. Oh yeah, but I think you know,
Speaker 2: most people don't think long term. B I think there's
Speaker 2: this it's screwed up anyway, Let's get what we can
Speaker 2: while we can, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's something that I understand the impulse of.
Speaker 1: If you are feeling that much despair at the future.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you're already thinking that the system doesn't
Speaker 2: work right and it's unfixable. Right in a system that
Speaker 2: doesn't work and it's unfixable, take what you can while
Speaker 2: you can.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: And I guess maybe my sort of view on things
Speaker 1: like that and this is now is kind of getting
Speaker 1: into my views of contemporary life rather than history. But
Speaker 1: I think it is history too to a degree in
Speaker 1: terms of like human nature is just that I think
Speaker 1: people have a tendency, for various reasons, at various times, to.
Speaker 2: Expect too much.
Speaker 1: They expect too much out of life in general, but
Speaker 1: they expect too much out of the system in which
Speaker 1: they live. And it's not to say that they don't
Speaker 1: deserve some measure of dignity and respect from their sure,
Speaker 1: the governing classes or anything like that. I mean I
Speaker 1: would say that they probably do, just from a purely
Speaker 1: pragmatic sense, like it's not smart for a government to
Speaker 1: talk down to its people.
Speaker 2: But I mean also think about is there any single
Speaker 2: government in the war today that you would go like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, these are the best human beings who
Speaker 2: have my best interest at art. I would love to
Speaker 2: live under their rule.
Speaker 1: My joking answer is Halvier Malelet, but not really because
Speaker 1: there's yeah, there's always going to be a trade off,
Speaker 1: as you know, as what you're basically saying, right, like,
Speaker 1: there's always negative there's always negative trade offs to any
Speaker 1: positive leader or positive matter.
Speaker 2: Of course, as you say, they are not all the same, right,
Speaker 2: you know, going on, there's somebody that I'm like, this
Speaker 2: kind of sucks, but you know, it works. It's not
Speaker 2: what I want. It's not idea. It could be so
Speaker 2: much better, but you know, it's like it's annoying, like
Speaker 2: some totalitarian nights. They are not all just because they
Speaker 2: are not perfect any of them doesn't mean they're all
Speaker 2: the same.
Speaker 1: There is also a very disturbing question at the core
Speaker 1: of a lot of this. This is getting way more
Speaker 1: philosophical than I expected, but this is fun. But like
Speaker 1: there are you can't say that there are places where
Speaker 1: certain leaders are rather where there are there are people
Speaker 1: that deserve those leaders, like in the sense that for
Speaker 1: reasons badly. But I'm trying to put it, like I
Speaker 1: jokingly brought up Haavier Malay, and I've heard people say, well,
Speaker 1: why can't we have more leadership like that in the
Speaker 1: United States, And I always say, because we're not Argentina.
Speaker 1: Like Argentina needed somebody like that, clearly because things have
Speaker 1: changed there and in a lot of cases for the better,
Speaker 1: in some cases not. But the point is things were
Speaker 1: not working there and they pick somebody radical, And I
Speaker 1: would say that things were not working as badly here
Speaker 1: when we voted in an obviously radical new administration. They
Speaker 1: weren't working as badly here. But maybe there's a country
Speaker 1: where somebody like Donald Trump would would have thrived better
Speaker 1: than here, is what I'm saying, or operated better as
Speaker 1: a leader than here. I don't know what that country
Speaker 1: would be, but I'm just making the point that it's there.
Speaker 1: Like I think sometimes there are there's just a general
Speaker 1: mismatch between people and leaders, and I think like a
Speaker 1: lot of the time it comes from looking enviously at
Speaker 1: other countries.
Speaker 2: Know what I'm saying, Yeah, yeah, I don't know. I
Speaker 2: have a hard time with the concept of anybody looking
Speaker 2: at any political figure enviously. Well, yeah, to me different degree.
Speaker 2: And again not that I'm saying just because I think
Speaker 2: overall political leadership is almost by nature horrible across the globe.
Speaker 2: That does not mean that they are all the same,
Speaker 2: because again I'm not into the oh, since they are
Speaker 2: not all since none of them is great, that means
Speaker 2: they're all the same.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, there's there's gradations.
Speaker 2: There's big gradation. You know, the guy who shoots you
Speaker 2: in the head is bad. The guy who tortures you
Speaker 2: for a moment before shooting you in the head is
Speaker 2: a lot worse. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it's like, you know,
Speaker 2: there's but of course, yeah, if you have an expectation
Speaker 2: of something that's great, good and amazing, yeah, the.
Speaker 1: Luck well, and you kind of got into that with
Speaker 1: your series. But the typing rebellion, that's kind of I
Speaker 1: think I've been thinking about a lot of this stuff
Speaker 1: and that that series really didn't like speak to me
Speaker 1: because of that, And I think like you really kind
Speaker 1: of hammered that home, especially with the second episode where
Speaker 1: you talked about well, no, it was all the episodes really,
Speaker 1: the first two especially, but where you talked about the
Speaker 1: reality of living in the Qing dynasty, you know, especially
Speaker 1: if you're a woman you can't walk, yeah, literally talking
Speaker 1: about footbinding like foot I mean, and then but then
Speaker 1: when you talked about how Hong and his follower are
Speaker 1: sort of running things, specifically with the foot binding example,
Speaker 1: if they caught you footbinding, they cut your feet off, Like,
Speaker 1: it's what kind of trade off is that? And that's
Speaker 1: the part that I think, really I struggle with is
Speaker 1: that where I struggle with the determinism again, is that
Speaker 1: is that really the only options we get do we
Speaker 1: really only get to choose been getting our feet cut
Speaker 1: off or our feet bound so to speak, or the
Speaker 1: shot in the head and dumped in a pit or
Speaker 1: tortured for a month like Tadam or isis Like, I
Speaker 1: just don't think that there is like that it should
Speaker 1: be bifurcated like that. But I worry sometimes that that's
Speaker 1: sort of the position that we always find ourselves in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's kind of like I was lecturing,
Speaker 2: yeah today in class about like the Chaerokeyes in the
Speaker 2: eighteen thirty and they are louting front the you know,
Speaker 2: you can try to resist against the US government You're
Speaker 2: probably gonna get crushed, yeah, Or you can abandon your homeland,
Speaker 2: abound everything, you have to travel to Oklahoma on a
Speaker 2: fleancy promise. They are gonna get to keep what they
Speaker 2: give you there after they've broken promises about seventy two
Speaker 2: times before. I mean, obviously they.
Speaker 1: Are both horrible choices, war or ethnic cleansing. Which one?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like, which one do I want it? And
Speaker 2: of course, inevitably what happens is that when people are
Speaker 2: off for horrible choices, they will fracture trying to figure out, well, yeah,
Speaker 2: this is horrible, but it's not as horrible as the
Speaker 2: other one. And you know, and usually when they are
Speaker 2: looking at the other one, they are spot on in
Speaker 2: pointing to all the problems with the other one. But
Speaker 2: often sometimes they forget about all the problems with the
Speaker 2: one that they decide to embrace my default. But it
Speaker 2: does become a game of you know, rock or hard Place,
Speaker 2: and which clearly is a terrible game, but the worst game. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but in some in some situations and in politics, that
Speaker 2: happens fairly often. That's often the case of what you're looking.
Speaker 1: At, Yeah, I mean, and that's why I always end
Speaker 1: up turning to like dark Humor and Syncess, because you're
Speaker 1: saying that I'm just imagining that, and I'm just like, well,
Speaker 1: at least, you know, I can see why characters like
Speaker 1: John Ross decided, well I get to keep my slaves. Yeah, cleansing.
Speaker 2: So yeah, no, totally is I listened to a podcast
Speaker 2: by our colleague Sebastian Major and R Fake History, and
Speaker 2: he had this He did this podcast on Joaquin Marietta
Speaker 2: was this legendary outlaw in California that probably inspires Zorro.
Speaker 2: And and the thing that he was going into is
Speaker 2: that one of the early sources of Marietta was this
Speaker 2: Cherokee guy.
Speaker 1: Was the song I Forgot if You the John rosson or.
Speaker 2: Was one of them, was one of the guys who
Speaker 2: signed a treaty to move to Oklahoma. And so he's like,
Speaker 2: on one end he's a proud Cherokee. On the other
Speaker 2: endother Cherokees killed his father because he was. So it's
Speaker 2: one of those that is like he gets complicated.
Speaker 1: To say, at least a rock and a hard place
Speaker 1: is a really good way to put it. And that
Speaker 1: does always seem to be what it comes down to
Speaker 1: a lot of the time for the Sophie's choices as
Speaker 1: I like to call them, you know, in history, and
Speaker 1: and I do, and I think that at least for me,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't want to speak for you, but
Speaker 1: I think you use some appreciation for that. Those are
Speaker 1: the moments of the highest of drama in history, of course,
Speaker 1: and I think, like, what's funny is that even though
Speaker 1: we don't get so much of that like on the
Speaker 1: ground as we could with the story of Hongshou twin,
Speaker 1: and that just has to do with sources, I think
Speaker 1: more than anything else.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: I do think that that's a good example of that
Speaker 1: because if you look at the status quo of what
Speaker 1: Chin dynasty shadow was like, it was not ideal.
Speaker 2: No, it was ter shit. And I think that's how
Speaker 2: often we end up in horrible situations, is that nobody
Speaker 2: takes a perfect great situation and go, you know what,
Speaker 2: I want to dive headfirst into shit. Usually what happens
Speaker 2: is you're dealing with problems of various skill and then
Speaker 2: in order to address this problem, you embrace something that
Speaker 2: promises to fix them, and that creates problems that are
Speaker 2: way worse than what you add.
Speaker 1: And that seems to me that kind of ties it
Speaker 1: into what my sort of overall I don't know what
Speaker 1: you would call it, just sort of vibe check on
Speaker 1: Protestant Christianity, and it's like before that, before you bring
Speaker 1: it all.
Speaker 2: But it's kind of like, you know, the tridio versaile sucks.
Speaker 2: Our poor German column is in shambles. This guy seem
Speaker 2: to have a good plan to get us out of there.
Speaker 2: Come on, let's give you a chance. Look at the
Speaker 2: shit we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: That is actually probably the most like relevant example the
Speaker 1: most people who care about history, because it is the
Speaker 1: ultimate Sophie's choice for them. I mean, well, they.
Speaker 2: Don't know where it is going, well, right, I mean well,
Speaker 2: that was the thing is that they had, you know.
Speaker 1: Social democracy, and it was going It was interesting, and
Speaker 1: it was a very for the time. It was a
Speaker 1: very new democratic experiment that was very impressive. But they
Speaker 1: clearly were not happy with it for multiple reasons and
Speaker 1: what had happened and they had to and then the
Speaker 1: sophie's choice within that sophie's choice was let's stick with
Speaker 1: this discomfort, this hyperinflation, or let's go with the Kamis
Speaker 1: or these really weird Nazi people. You know, it's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, you don't really have a good choice there.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Clearly when you look at it, originally was the best scenario,
Speaker 2: but clearly the best scenario still sucked.
Speaker 1: Right, And that's what I think was happening maybe with well,
Speaker 1: there only really seemed to be two choices with China
Speaker 1: at least, But that's what I'm wondering, Like in terms
Speaker 1: of like, what I find so fascinate about Protestantism is
Speaker 1: that it often seems to be the impetus for that
Speaker 1: kind of thing, that kind of shift, And I think
Speaker 1: it has to do with how it is structured, like
Speaker 1: it has that individualism that we love so much baked
Speaker 1: into it. And whether or not it was necessary for
Speaker 1: the Enlightenment to occur is trying to be irrelevant. They came,
Speaker 1: I mean they were, they came of age together, so
Speaker 1: to speak. And I think that this appreciation of individualism
Speaker 1: is this thing that has allowed for change to happen
Speaker 1: so quickly, so often, and so many different contexts around
Speaker 1: the world. But at the same time, I think what
Speaker 1: it has helped us do is notice these Sophie's choices
Speaker 1: and then force us to make those choices, and that
Speaker 1: leads to the problems that come down the line. So
Speaker 1: the conservative impulse is to say that's not a we
Speaker 1: just shouldn't be making those choices. We shouldn't be aware
Speaker 1: of those choices because it's they're too possibly inherently destabilizing.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, we miss out on a
Speaker 1: lot of good stuff if we don't have it, So
Speaker 1: we get that sort of trade off from from it,
Speaker 1: maybe more than we otherwise would have, and then we.
Speaker 2: Get the same trade offs even technologically. Oh yeah, right,
Speaker 2: is like, hey, Internet is fantastic. It to open all
Speaker 2: these doors. Oh my god, the level of depressure on
Speaker 2: suicide is skyrocketing because of social media. It's like it's
Speaker 2: a mix of things, you know. It's that's what makes
Speaker 2: it complicated that changes are rarely very clearly identifiable as
Speaker 2: black or white.
Speaker 1: I can't think of a single one that is.
Speaker 2: No, it's actually it's usually a mess.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's evolution is a mess. Yeah, that's kind of
Speaker 1: what we're mirroring for for Yeah, this is the most free,
Speaker 1: willing conversation I've had in a while, So thank you
Speaker 1: again for having it with me. I'm sure we'll have
Speaker 1: something else to talk about that won't necessarily just be video.
Speaker 2: Games, but yeah, we'll try even because video games are
Speaker 2: so good.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and I'm actually gonna probably at least be
Speaker 1: talking to you about shadows to see how it is.
Speaker 2: Absolutely but yes, that was it for this.
Speaker 1: Conversation, guys. Thank you again to Danielle for coming on.
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to say where can people find
Speaker 1: you because they all know where they can find you,
Speaker 1: which is History on Fire. Yes, listen to History on
Speaker 1: Fire guys, and thank you again. All right, everybody, glad
Speaker 1: to still have you here. Those of you stuck around
Speaker 1: for the post credit wrap up. I guess there's not
Speaker 1: much to say here except I really hope you guys
Speaker 1: enjoyed the conversation that Danielle and I had before we
Speaker 1: get going. I want to give a couple of shout
Speaker 1: outs to the people kind and generous enough to support
Speaker 1: this show over on Patreon at the Comrades and Friends
Speaker 1: level or above. Those people include Zazu, Ben Ben, Bob Downing,
Speaker 1: Sam Graham, Greg Hunter, s O, Skip Pacheco, Molly Pan,
Speaker 1: John Pisano, on A, R PJ Raider, Matthew m Rice,
Speaker 1: Philip Rice, Emily Schmidt, Pierre Vapuni, and as always, Fu
Speaker 1: and I want to just say again I really appreciate
Speaker 1: the support that these people have given me, but that
Speaker 1: everybody has given me over on Patreon or substack, or
Speaker 1: just generally by listening to the show. As always, please
Speaker 1: remember to share this show with anybody you think might
Speaker 1: enjoy these kinds of conversations or these kinds of stories
Speaker 1: that we get into here. And please stay tuned for
Speaker 1: the next installment in this exploration of American Christian history,
Speaker 1: specifically of Protestantism. But we're really going to be getting
Speaker 1: into more specific events with the next episode, so again,
Speaker 1: please stay tuned, and thank you again for listening and
Speaker 1: for all of your support.