Philip Jenkins posts for the Anxious Bench, self-consecated to Saint Joseph. Lately he's been talking colonialism. He posts exactly the opposite of a Saint Joseph Christian. Should we reconsider Jenkins?
On 15 February he poasted on Washington Irving's take. Irving has his own issues. His biography of Muhammad was classic überprotestant bien-pensant tripe, which even in the early 1800s he should have known better than to attempt. I suspect that wretched book inspired much American amateurism - and adventurism, in the case of Joseph Smith Jr.
Then there's the question of whether imperialism is even all bad. We have Sinclair Jenkins, and Robert Tombs for us Brits. Bruce Gilley has made quite a name for himself (even supporting the Second Reich!). For the Americas in particular we have Carol Delaney; and Fynn-Paul, law kariha al-mujrimoona. For the U!S!A!'s inheritance of that White Man's Burden (but #woke?): Kaplan. At least Jenkins isn't chinstroking about asteroid-settlements.
Which is not to say I approve spreading religiosity to the fuzzie wuzzies, as a principle. India was hardly a savage and empty land; Dalrymple's Anarchy was excellent here, as is Matthews (and was Aurangzeb himself not a religious colonialist?). We apologists for Oriental Christendom must ponder the wreck which the Portuguese made in Malabar.
Washington Irving on his analogy with the Lunar war upon Earth isn't just hilarious satire, it even gets the science right, down to seeing the Earth rolling
- fixed in place in their sky. The Lunatics can concentrate light. They can also use the sun itself as a lens (a looking-glass
). Most concerningly their artillery can hurl moon rocks at us. As for Jenkins, his summary convinces me that this is the missing-link on the way to HG Wells' (and Orson Welles') dramatisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment