Victor Davis Hanson Responds to Rowan Williams

Posted by Kendall Harmon

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalArchbishop of Canterbury

18 Comments
Posted November 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Jeffersonian wrote:

Hanson barely scratches the surface of ++Rowan’s nonsense.  It’s a target-rich environment.

November 25, 7:31 pm | [comment link]
2. Theron Walker✙ wrote:

Target-rich is an understatement.  There must be some mistake…somebody tell me there’s been a mistake, there’s more context, something, anything.

November 25, 7:51 pm | [comment link]
3. robroy wrote:

David Fischler, The Reformed Pastor, has written what I consider the definitive rebuttal of the most recent, very sadly embarrassing essay by Rowan. Found here.

Some have pointed out that RW might be subtly criticizing the TEC’s imperialism. If this is the case, I would tell the ABC, that the TEC has been turning a deaf ear to subtle language for many years now. The time for nuanced language is so very much in the past.

November 25, 8:45 pm | [comment link]
4. Carolina Anglican wrote:

I think Mr. Hanson just went after the low-hanging fruit here. There is much more that could be said in rebuttal.

November 25, 9:28 pm | [comment link]
5. Barry wrote:

He really ought to get out more.

November 25, 9:49 pm | [comment link]
6. David Fischler wrote:

robroy: Thanks for the kind word, but I have to admit that I quit when the subject turned to Islam. The foreign policy stuff brought up enough bile that I just couldn’t take any more after that.

November 25, 9:52 pm | [comment link]
7. William P. Sulik wrote:

VDH writes, in part,

SIX, all Williams will accomplish is to convince Episcopalians in the U.S. not to follow the Anglican Church…

I am not so sure about that.  While the leadership of the American Episcopal Church is notoriously imperialistic and tyrannical when it comes to the rest of the Anglican Communion, my impression is that they also tend to be the first to blame America for whatever ills exist in the world.

November 25, 10:12 pm | [comment link]
8. RoyIII wrote:

I agree that the ABC should stick to his area of expertise, presiding over a disintegrating Anglican Communion.

November 25, 10:12 pm | [comment link]
9. Tom Roberts wrote:

Instapundit:
“VICTOR DAVIS HANSON offers a history lesson for the risible Rowan Williams.”

Calling him “risible” must be the lowest blow. Particularly from a non Anglican.

November 25, 10:22 pm | [comment link]
10. Jeff Thimsen wrote:

The ABC would do well to reflect on Colin Powell’s comment that in all our wars we sought no overseas conquest, but only enough ground in which to bury our dead.

November 25, 11:03 pm | [comment link]
11. athan-asi-us wrote:

Ecclesiastes 10:1:  As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor. 2. The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of a fool to the left. 3. Even as he walks along the road, the fool lacks sense and shows everyone how stupid he is.

November 25, 11:31 pm | [comment link]
12. Tom Roberts wrote:

10. I wouldn’t forget the Spanish American War (we still have Puerto Rico and Guantanamo Naval Base) or the various territories we gained in WWII in the Pacific. Colin Powell’s quote was subtle, depending on the conceptual difference between “sought” and “got”.  Many historians would disagree with Powell on several levels: e.g. if US motives vs Japan were non territorial, then why were the war plans for reconquest drawn up to specifically displace the Japanese from bases needed to project attacks against Australia as the Japanese had in 1941-2? The projection of US military power into the Central Pacific, whose Japanese domination in 1942 had doomed the US Philipine forces, necessitated the US’s taking over the Japanese conquests in that arena after the war, and which we still hold today.

November 25, 11:38 pm | [comment link]
13. stevenanderson wrote:

ABC having failed the AC and COE searches now for something he can do. He does pander well to non-Christians. Perhaps he can join Jimmy Carter in building houses for the homeless.
But then he has shown no skill at hitting a nail on the head or building anything at all, come to that.

November 26, 12:05 am | [comment link]
14. Jeff Thimsen wrote:

12: I’ll stick with Colin Powell. The spirit, if not the letter, of his comments are correct and give lie to the charge of American imperialism (Teddy Roosevelt and the Spanish American War, notwithstanding).

November 26, 12:23 am | [comment link]
15. robroy wrote:

This is an instrument of unity?

November 26, 12:34 am | [comment link]
16. William P. Sulik wrote:

#10 writes,

The projection of US military power into the Central Pacific, whose Japanese domination in 1942 had doomed the US Philipine [sic] forces, necessitated the US’s taking over the Japanese conquests in that arena after the war, and which we still hold today.


This makes no sense whatsoever.  I think you are making a point about either the hegemony of the US in the South Pacific or the fact that the United States has had territorial possessions in the South Pacific in the past.  Because of your other comments (i.e. the Philippines), I’m assuming the latter. 

The Philippines were claimed by Spain in the 1500s and were ceded to the U.S. in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, along with Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guam (see below).  The Philippines were captured by Japanese forces in 1941-2 and were liberated by Allied Forces in 1945.  On July 4, 1946, the Philippines were granted independence from the United States (which my many Filipino friends remind me is the real reason the US celebrates Independence Day on July 4).

As previously indicated Guam was also part of the “spoils” of war and became a U.S. territory in 1898.  Guam was attacked on 12/8/41 [12/7/41 on the US East Coast] as part of the massive invasion of the South Pacific.  In both Guam and the Philippines, the Japanese were extremely brutal conquerors.  Accordingly, the Allied forces were in truth liberators.  Guam was established as an unincorporated organized territory of the United States by the the Guam Organic Act of 1950 (organized means that the U.S. established the structure of the island’s civilian government.  There has been talk over the last 20 years of Guam moving to “Commonwealth” status, like Puerto Rico, but it seems unlikely in the near future.

The Federated States of Micronesia (“FSM”) were a United Nations Trust Territory administered by the United States until 1986.  Pursuant to treaty, the United States still gives the FSM aid, but has no say in its government.

There were other distinct entities in the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI), including the Northern Mariana Island (now a commonwealth) and The Marshall Islands (now an independent sovereign state).

The Samoan Islands were jointly claimed at various times by Germany, Great Britain and the United States.  [I wrote my first paper on American Samoa 30 years ago and earlier this year visited Tutuila.]  Pursuant to the Treaty of Berlin at the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. took possession of Tutuila, Aunu’u, some smaller atolls and later the Manuʻa islands.  American Samoa is still an unincorporated unorganized (meaning the US let the local citizens establish their government) territory of the U.S., but it was never part of Spain, nor was it ever captured by the Japanese.

However, let’s face it, all this is off the subject.  I just couldn’t leave your comment standing uncorrected.

November 26, 2:22 am | [comment link]
17. chips wrote:

The Archbishop’s comments are unhelpful - we are at war with the crazy part of non-western civilization.  A war that can only be won when the part of the Muslim world that is not crazy makes it painfully clear to the crazy part that it will no longer tolerate the insanity.  The relative size and strength of the two parts is debatable.  The Archbishop’s comments will be viewed as weakness by our foes - it will also not be seen as helpful to the Archbishop of Nigeria who has more personal experience than +++Williams with the sharp end of the crazy part. 
I still believe that the British Empire was in the main a force for good.  Its departure from India led to the slaughter of an estimated million persons by mobs along the borders of what is now Pakistan and India.

November 26, 12:53 pm | [comment link]
18. evan miller wrote:

Chips,
I agree that the British Empire was a force for good.  Their record in India was excellent.
Of course, I agree with Prof. Hansen that the ABC’s comments were overall laughably absurd.

November 30, 11:58 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): Pastor from Nigeria who built megachurch in Ukraine expands reach into U.S.

Previous entry (below): A 100 Huntley Street Video report on the Canadian Anglican Essentials Meeting this week

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)