"Whatever Europe is, it is emphatically open-minded, especially about science, the most important activity yet invented. "

What Europe is he talking about? It certainly isn't the one with which I am familiar. The one that bans genetically modified crops and insists contrary to all recorded evidence that there is such a thing as 'global warming.' Mr. Watson appears to be something worse than the most bigoted and ignorant, snake-handling, tongue-speaking, barefoot, trailer park dwelling fundamentalist. He is a fundamentalist trendnoid. Basically, he has the same intellectual curiosity and innate skepticism as his religious fundamentalist nemesis, i.e. none, but he lacks the religious ethic that motivates those people, who even if they are as butt ignorant as a Guernsey, at least have some means of determining right from wrong.

Mr. Watson, with all the intellectual curiosity of a snail in garlic butter and puff pastry, doesn't even have that. All he has is his smug sense of superiority, a certainty that whatever he chooses to do is right, and that those who disagree with him are by definition, sub-human.

As you know, I'm no creationist but I know some folks who are while working in scientific fields from physics to medicine, and working at the very highest levels. People whose intellectual rigor and honesty is beyond dispute, no matter what this Euro-Twerp Watson may say about it.

As for his recounting of history, he didn't paint with a broad brush, he used a hose. It was far more Earl Scheib than Rembrandt.

"i can misinterpret anything for $29.95"

bart, did earl schieb advertise back east , too ?
i always thought he was a socal local. what next, cal worthington had a lot in poughkipsee ?

peter b. indicates that people like this hack -- and that is what he is -- are a problem, but i think they are losing credibility and influence.
this article is just a projection of the left's waning grip on power, in the media, academia, and politically.

cjm,

He used to advertise all over the NY area. I don't know who Cal Worthington is and I still can't find Roscoe's Fried Chicken and Waffles anywhere.

I wish people would get "fundamentalist" right. They are folks like the Hutterites who drive around in pickups with the radios torn out, or the Amish who walk five miles a day and live till they are 105. If this British guy, Peter, is afraid of the Amish, he sounds more like he's from France.

My Mennonite family was "fundamentalist" up until the Communist revolution in Russia, when Harry Eager's boys took over and stole their land for the good of the people. Some of them escaped and moved to Canada where they were promptly assimilated into the culture and became spineless wimps.

Now, most Mennonites would be considered "evangelicals" -- which means they only like to do things when "God opens the door". They also hate war and spend their summers in Bolivia building houses for poor people or in Africa doing free eye operations.

If these are the people Mr British fears, then he isn't even French.

When it comes right down to it the fundamentalists the author speaks of are those that live this every day and are not afraid.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Those who refuse to be shamed must be crushed.

"Crushed"?

Uh oh.

Brit:

Read NC3's post more carefully.

"provoked the Romans, who annihilated them, sparking a diaspora which lasted 2,000 years."

Annihilated peoples can not engage in a diaspora.

Who wants to crush someone?

Mr. Watson, I presume.

Maybe a pontificator, hardly a crusher. "I crush thee!"

I'd love to read what your dinner companion wrote on his blog about you...Something not entirely dissimilar, I expect :)

Peter B,

Why did you not excerpt the statistics portion of the article? Why is that not of concern, regardless if the historical portion of the article is suspect?

"[... the number of scientific papers published by West European authors had overtaken those by U.S. authors in 2003, whereas in 1983 there were three American authors for every West European. ...]"

Brit:

No doubt. But the next evening I got into a me-against-three discussion on the cousins. All was well until (aided by a glass or two) I decided to throw out the everyday Brothersjudd argument that anti-Americanism was a modern variant/parallel of anti-semitism. Unsurprisingly, I was met with stunned, incredulous stares and thought "Uh, oh, I think I've just moved down the social ladder a notch".

Fortunately my wife interceded and sent me to bed before I could tackle witches and natural selection.

Bret:

Why does that statistic impress you?

Peter:

One of the great joys of the internet is that it expands your debating horizons and you find yourself in all sorts of unlikely arguments.

Back in real life, I'm widely considered a yank-loving, hard-right hawk. On here, I'm a loony left darwinist who wants to destroy religion. Funny, innit?

Peter, I'm not sure "impress" is the right word. Just some concern that since science, engineering, and technology are all related, and technology is an important input to productivity growth, it may foreshadow slowing of GDP per capita relative to the rest of the world, which might lead to reduced influence of our ideology.

The root of anti-Americanism is pure jealousy. "If I were running the world's only superpower, I would manage things so much better." Which, come to think of it, is the mindset behind much of atheism...

I'm curious as to what they are including in "scientific papers." There's crap science, and there's good science, and most people are too polite to point out the difference.

Bret

American capitalists will make money off the research of our European research peons. Take their research and make actual products while they are filing grant requests with the EU.

when did the eu produce something new and important ? name one important software or hardware company in europe ? the only one i can think of is SAP, and they are just about played out.

isn't it the case that the best researchers from eu come to the u.s. because that's where the best facilities are ?

with regards to the number of papers published, i believe our friend josef said it best "quanity has its own quality"

Timothy wrote: "There's crap science, and there's good science..."

Sure, but trust me, there's plenty of crap science here as well and I'm not sure the crap/good ratio is any higher in Europe.

h-man wrote: "American capitalists will make money off the research of our European research peons."

I have no doubt you're right to a certain extent. My concern is whether or not the current trends will take us to a point where we don't have the expertise to commercialize foreign (or domestic) inventions.

cjm wrote: "when did the eu produce something new and important ? name one important software or hardware company in europe ?"

Philips, for example, invented the compact disc and has hundreds of thousands of patents, many of which are in cutting edge fields.

cjm also wrote: "isn't it the case that the best researchers from eu come to the u.s. because that's where the best facilities are ?"

If the U.S. doesn't continue to be the hotbed of research and science, they may no longer come.

Brit:

You can't be too looney if you continue to drop in at BJB.

Bret: Isn't the compact disc a perfect example of why we needn't be worried?

if you think the compact disc is signifigant, then, well....

here are some of the important things britain used to develop:
radar
tv
penicilin
the tank
printed circuit boards
etc, etc, etc

now the interesting thing is that list doesn't include anything since the uk went socialist, which is no coincidence.

Sure, there is plenty of hysteria about fundamentalists, but it isn't like there aren't any actual people who fit the bill that are worth keeping an eye on, like these folks.

Peter, as you are so vigilant in defending the faith community from hysterical slanders and hyperbole, it is a wonder that you are not more vigilant about weeding out the hysteria and hyperbole from your own words when it comes to discussions about the "scourge" of secular humanism.

almost all of the domestic terrorism in this country, is coming from the left. religous people spend their time engaged in faith based activities, they aren't plotting the take over of anything. projection is an interesting phenomena.

Well, I don't accept that the cataclysms of thee 20th century were any more cataclysmic than of most, perhaps all, previous centuries.

Things seemed pretty grim to Boethius in the 6th, for example, and that was before the really bad stuff in the 7th.

The problems in the 7th were not, come to think of it, due to rampaging secularists, were they?

Nevertheless, I think Watson is making invalid comparisons.

The world, or at least the part that embraced scientific inquiry, really did start changing around 1600. Comparing any scientific century with the best years of the Song, or of Classical Mediterranean civilization, is apples and oranges.

That self-imposed ignorance or refusal to accept evidence is a threat to the scientific approach goes without saying, or should.

Since religion is , if nothing else, committed to the principle of never changing its mind, no matter what evidence is or could even possibly be presented, if religion gets the upper hand, science goes down the tubes.

If religion and science are truly compatible, it's really, really hard to explain the number of patents coming out of Islamic countries.

David Cohen wrote: " Isn't the compact disc a perfect example of why we needn't be worried?"

Yes and no. It is true that Philips has been very poor at commercializing their inventions in the past. But that may be at least partly because the U.S. was still better at every aspect of technology. If we fall behind in the future, they may beat us to the punch on such things.

Secondly, they did collect more than $1 billion royalties on CD related patents. Nice work when you can get it - hard for me to consider that a failure.

cjm moves the goal posts with: "if you think the compact disc is signifigant, then, well...."

The original challenge, to which I responded, was "name one important software or hardware company in europe ?". There's plenty of other technology that has been and is developed in Europe.

i wasn't moving the goal posts, there was a miscommunication. my definition of hardware and software are just different than yours. it's true consumer electronics and media content are also called h/w and s/w but i was thinking more along the lines of computers. $1B is a lot for you or me, but for a company the size of philips its peanuts. they make 20x that selling light bulbs.

the basic argument is whether or not europe is going to surpass the u.s. in research and development. and the answer is "no". socialism drives out real accomplishment.

If I can extrapolate publications in the field of Materials Science (think semiconductors, computer chips, etc.) to the more general "technical papers" in the fields of "science, engineering, and technology," I would not begin to worry about Europeans overtaking Americans. The simplest example is to compare "Thin Solid Films," dominated by the Europeans, kicking out fifty volumes a year with decidedly poor articles full of descriptions of routine processes and tests and no conclusions, with the American-dominated "Journal of Materials Research," which publishes a mere 12 slim volumes per year, and is perhaps the most widely respected journal in the field. Numerous other examples could be cited. Quantity over quality, indeed. (Although in all fairness, the Max Planck institutes remain very influential.)

Robert:

Well, let's look at Brit's (good fellow that he is) response above. He suggests that Watson is just "pontificating". One can't have followed public affairs in the last few years without noticing a certain aysemmetry. If the religious right objects to gay marriage or unrestricted p#rn or whatever, it's obigatory Nazi, or the shutting down of free inquiry or aux barricades against the theocracy time. But if a Dawkins or Watson argues that religion is intrinsically the source of everything evil and backward about society since the dawn of time, then it's just boys will be boys.

Robert, you are acerbic of late. What exactly is your beef?

Bret: Good for Phillips, but why is that bad for me? If we're free traders, then we should be happy that even Europeans can come up with useful tech from time to time, so long as we can make use of it. The Japanese heyday in the 80s, after all, was characterized by their exploitation of tech that was invented here. They sold it back to us and we bought it. Now they're in the crapper and we're not. If there's a good international patent regime with transparent publication of new tech, I'm not really concerned about whether the new tech is developed in Cambridge or in Cambridge.

Tech is not a zero sum game.

Harry: If religion and science are truly not compatible, it's really, really hard to explain the number of patents coming out of Israel.

Peter: We all seem to be a little acerbic recently. I'm as guilty as anyone, but I'm not sure what's going on.

David:

Terri, I think. Both sides.

Terri, perhaps. But also the political stasis of the past 7 months (and not just the filibuster stuff). There is an odd sort of hesitation in the air, even though lots of big things have happened (the collapse of the EU constitution, the beginnings of movement on SS, Iraqi elections, the Gaza withdrawal, etc.). The flash issues (Iran, NK, Syria, Iraq, the Supreme Court) are waiting to jump forward, but just not yet.

The underlying culture battles are, of course, ongoing, but the left must feel like they are fighting a rear-guard action. Terri died, but is that really a victory? The European beacon is pretty dim today. The media is continuing to implode as it fights accountability.

Oh well - the next few days look to be less humid. Time for some golf!

Peter,

I'm not trying to be acerbic, just trying to make a point. It seems that everyone is most sensitive about the hysteria directed at their own "side", and less so about the language that is used to describe the other side. As I recall, when Dawkins last shot off his mouth about the horrors of religion, I took him to task on this blog. Such hysterical ranting is common on both sides of the spiritual divide.

Peter,

The answer to your party question is legalized abortion.

"Under the influence of the Israelite zealots in the centuries before Christ, ancient Israel dropped behind the surrounding civilizations both politically and materially"

The zealots were a movement of the Roman era. They did not exist before that. The rest of the sentence is ludicrous. Ancient Israel was a society of peasants and shepherds and a buffer state between Egypt and Mesopotamia (Assyria, Babylon, etc.). They were not contending for power, they were just trying to survive. The miracle is that they did. All of their conquerors are gone but Am Yisroel Chai.

"and provoked the Romans, who annihilated them, sparking a diaspora which lasted 2,000 years."

Beyond the non-sense of the sentence. Since when does a conquered people rebelling against an occupying power count as a "provocation?" The author probably believes that the Romans were right to crush the rebellion because the land belongs to the Palestinians.

"Christianity in the Roman Empire led to half a millennium of dark ages,"

Nonsense. The whole dark ages meme is rubbish. Yes, civilization did disappear from Brittan in the 5th century and not return for a while, but Brittan is not the whole world. Modern Europe is only partially co-extensive with the Roman Empire. Large parts of Modern Europe were never civilized during the Roman era, such as Scandinavia, most of Germany and the low countries, and the now Slavic portions of north-eastern Europe. France, Italy and Spain suffered in the wake of the collapse of the Western Empire, but not as much as Brittan. One measure of their continuity with Rome is that they still speak its language, live under its laws, in its houses, and worship in its churches. OTOH, civilization did continue in the eastern half of the Roman Empire uninterrupted for a thousand years after the western empire collapsed.

"ending only with the rediscovery of Aristotle in the 12th century."

Actually, it was the Muslims who revived Aristotle in the 12th century. Most prominently Ibn Rush'd (Averroes, 1126�98), followed by the great Jewish sage Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides, 1135�1204). (You will note below, that this occurred after Watson claims that the lights were turned out in the Muslim world.) In the 13th century Christian west Europeans, such as Thomas Aquinas (1225�74), imported these doctrines and re-examined them. It was neither the end of the "dark ages" nor the beginning of the renaissance.

"Ascetic Buddhist fundamentalism in China from the fourth century to the ninth century resulted in 4,600 monasteries being destroyed..."

The sentence would make more sense if it had said that the Buddhist fundamentalism resulted in 4,600 monasteries being built.

"And Islamic fundamentalism beginning in Baghdad around 1067 led to a millennium of backwardness, which still afflicts the Islamic world."

Rubbish, see above.

"By contrast, the very history of modern Europe - the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, the modernist battles of the 19th century - may be characterized as the victory of rationalism and science over religious dogmatism."

Apparently nothing happened in Europe between the 12th century when they didn't rediscover Aristotle, and the 17th century when the scientific revolution began. Absolutism, nationalism, eugenics, Nazism, Leninism, syndicalism, fascism, colonialism and a dozen other pathologies all grew up in Watson's reign of sweetness and light. How does he account for them?

"Europe is the birthplace of science."

So much for the Greeks, who mostly came from Asia Minor, the Babylonians, who invented astronomy, the Hindus who invented a lot of mathematics which was refined by the Muslims who passed it on to the Europeans, and the Chinese above.

It was in the universities of Europe, in the 12th and 13th centuries, that the experiment was conceived and the testing of hypotheses became a rival form of authority to that of the church, creating the accuracy, efficiency and prosperity on which the modern world is founded.

Nonsense. It wasn't in the universities. Science entered the universities in the 19th century. And it wasn't in the 12th and 13th century. The idea that science had any form of authority came out of 18th century France.

"Whatever Europe is, it is emphatically open-minded,"

I guess the Euros are open minded, maybe that is why they are empty headed, their brains leaked out.

"especially about science, the most important activity yet invented."

It couldn't be better than fourth.

Sex is first, followed by napping and eating.

Fifth. You left out gambling.

Sixth.

Cricket is number one by any reasonable measure.

Thank you for taking the time for that fisking, Robert.

Robert D:

The site you linked is not one that reflects a typical post here or, as far as I can tell, the views of posters here. Nor is there any realistic danger that people of faith will abandon all reason en masse and impose the dreaded Puritan theocracy Harry lies awake worrying about or hoping for or whatever. We do not see Boeing's planes as works of the devil, want Darwinism banned from the schools, call for imprisonment for adultery or want science faculties closed down. Yet in the debates we have had over conflicts between morality and secular rationalism or relativism, the spectre of all that is raised with each and every issue, no matter how mundane, and is used to defend an absolutist position that must prevail whatever popular opinion thinks. The rationalists/leftists/libertarians simply won't let go or compromise on anything--not even chicken sandwiches in airports on Sundays.

You can't compare the stature and influence of a Dawkins, Frank Rich, etc. etc. with extremists of questionable emotional balance on the religious fringe. Call me when the latter are appointed professors at Oxford or edit the NYT, and I'll speak out. We are long passed the era when debates about religion or morality in public life were about the trade-offs with genuine, serious political freedoms, as opposed to campaigns for unfettered vice or flavour-of-the-month oppressions and human rights invented to sidestep the democratic process. What we are faced with today is a kind of narrow rationalism that simply is unable to acknowldege, let alone respect, any knowledge, doubt or experience outside its purview. And it is getting increasingly touchy when challenged. Not only is Alan Bloom's American mind closing, it is filling with contempt.

Until 2001, I believed that most people shared a baseline "common sense" that transended political disputes and could be counted on to protect us all from extremist excess from wherever. But let's look at the domestic issues since then and how the mainstream elites have responded. Although no one, least of all gays, even thought about gay marriage twenty years ago, and although no one is calling for restrictions on gay lifestyles or benefit entitlements, those who question gay marriage for any reason are shouted down as purveyors of hate and intolerance, including by some here. Although no one insists life be prolonged in all circumstances, the Schiavo case was used single-mindedly to defend new, chillingly awful legal and moral arguments that will expose the dependant to real dangers born of impatience with their existence. No one is calling for evolution to be banned, but the scientific community is doing everything it can to keep it from being criticized or even analysed comparatively. No one wants scientific inquiry halted or restricted, but one moral objection to one isolated area of research (embryo stem cell)and you get dismissive screeds like Mr. Watson's about the fight between darkness and light and the return of Savonarola. So just who are the extremists here?

There seems to be a real panic among rationalist secularists whenever they sense that history may not be unidirectional or that religion is not dying out as forseen and planned. It doesn't bring out the best in them.

Robert S:

Yes, that was great. Thanks.

We now interrupt this mild (and entertaining) flamewar to respond to David Cohen who wrote (yesterday): "Good for Phillips, but why is that bad for me? If we're free traders, then we should be happy that even Europeans can come up with useful tech from time to time, so long as we can make use of it."

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Indeed, just as with drafting while riding a bike, it's much easier to follow a leader in technology. That's why a marginally run India and a poorly run China can have much larger gains in per capita GDP than the United States. And Europe may be able to draft well enough to maintain an adequate standard of living, even as they grow old and socialist.

Nonetheless, there are advantages to being the dominant technological and economic power. It gives us enormous capacity for influence, enabling us to be a "force for good", a theme that is often heard on this blog.

I don't actually have a strong opinion on this one, just trying to point out that there may be some downsides to failing to maintain our lead in science and technology.

Now, back to the Peter B. and Robert D. show...

anyone doubt our propensity for war is what supports our dominance in science and technology ? our lead is exploding, not closing. aog, back me up on this :)

Peter, I don't know what they are saying in Canada, but the Christian apologists I read do want darwinism banned from the schools.

Alvin Plantinga, for example, who is presented as the most respected Christian professional philosopher in the US.

I just plowed my way through 800 pages of intelligent design creationism, and those guys are attacking science in every aspect, not just biology.

On another point, 20 years ago, I was attending gay marriages (celebrated by Christian ministers), so somebody must have been thinking about it. Maybe not in Canada.

Third point. I don't think I've gotten any testier lately. And you guys still have a ways to go before you catch up.

The site you linked is not one that reflects a typical post here or, as far as I can tell, the views of posters here.

That's not the point Peter. The link reflects a facet of fundamentalist Christianity that is worthy of the fear directed at them by rationalist secularists like your dinner guest. They are not representative of all Christians or all fundamentalist Christians, but neither are they merely an insignificant fringe.

You can't compare the stature and influence of a Dawkins, Frank Rich, etc. etc. with extremists of questionable emotional balance on the religious fringe

Many of the leading Christian Right figures have ties to the Christian Reconstruction movement, including Pat Robertson and Dr James Kennedy. These aren't backwoods crackpots.

We do not ... want Darwinism banned from the schools

To reiterate Harry's point, that is not correct. Maybe you don't, but you are not representative of all conservative Christians, certainly not fundamentalist Christians. Or am I wrong? Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If not, why are you so ready to issue blanket denials in their behalf? Are you not capable of making any substantive distinctions between different strains of Christian thought, or is it that you feel so beseiged as a Christian that you feel compelled to defend every Christian against every charge?

Although no one, least of all gays, even thought about gay marriage twenty years ago, and although no one is calling for restrictions on gay lifestyles or benefit entitlements, those who question gay marriage for any reason are shouted down as purveyors of hate and intolerance, including by some here.

You're only shouted down if you allow yourself to be silenced by ad hominem attacks. There are a small, vocal minority who react as you describe, but the majority of Americans are against marriage rights for gays, so you really can't present yourself as a beseiged minority. And is this is really a "secularist/rationalist" crusade, when you have Christian conservatives like Andrew Sullivan and religious leaders like Bishop Gene Robinson are promoting the gay marriage side? I'm with you on this one.

Although no one insists life be prolonged in all circumstances, the Schiavo case was used single-mindedly to defend new, chillingly awful legal and moral arguments that will expose the dependant to real dangers born of impatience with their existence.

I don't want to reopen this argument again, but just point out that this is not a religion vs secular ratinalist divide. The majority of Americans, including the majority of religious Americans, are on the opposite side of you on this.

Robert:

This will be my very last word on the Schiavo case, which seems to have caused so many on both sides to lose it, including me. Apologies for that. David asked an extremely good question the other day, which was why, considering this happens to lots of people in her condition, did so many people become so completely rocked over her fate. Presumably the obverse question is equally valid--i.e. given that many people are kept alive in that condition, why did so many line up so fervently behind Judge Greer and Michael in such ambiguous circumstances? I'm not sure I can give a completely coherent answer, but I think much of it has to do with the conservative notion that many ambiguous, "tough choice" matters on the boundaries of life, death, morality, etc. should be left to the realm of the personal and private and not codified in civil law on the basis of the lowest common denominator of actual behaviour, versus the progressive notion that the law should be an enabler that abjures morality altogether. The family fight made a private resolution impossible and the result was the judicially-ordered death of one who, whatever her medical state, was helpless and innocent, which for many was a "heavy" to be sure. ("Truly, Prometheus, I fear the horrors in store for thee, for thou hast defied almighty Zeus and, with forward purpose, prized mankind too highly.") Was it a "one-off" that was only about the particular circumstances of one very difficult case, or a harbinger of a general shift away from one of society's most humane and civilised ideals? May we live long enough to find out.

As to fundamentalists, you don't need to persuade me there are lots of fruitcakes and worse in their ranks. But, as with "ultra-orthodox", the very word has taken on a menacing connotation among the beautiful people that seems to grow in strength as they move further and further from religious knowledge and influence. (I'm talking about public discourse and the formation of public opinion here, not churchgoing statistics). Beseiged isn't the right word, but I am constantly and astounded and depressed by the number of ordinary, pleasant, decent people I meet who will take a Harry line on religion at the drop of a hat without knowing what they are talking about or being able to articulate any real fears (I really do suspect most of it has to do with sex). The fundamentalists are what they are and much of what they are is very, very good.

Now, let me buy you a virtual beer and then maybe we can move on to those issues that bind us. France? Canadian healthcare? I know, how about Darwinism?

Peter:

I'm late to the fight, but I'd like to point out one inaccuracy in the post above.

Removing Terri's feeding tube was judicially permitted, not ordered.

Mr. Schiavo was the agent, not the court.

Separately, you describe as "progressive" notion that the law be an enabler abjuring morality whatsoever.

To the extent law can enable activity, I grant your point. But I think it is a very conservative notion that legislating morality is a fool's errand.

Well, I object to other people taking a Harry line at the drop of a hat if they don't know what they are talking about.

But if they do . . .

I am totally unqualified to judge whether Plantinga is a highly respected Christian philosopher (to me, he sounds like a goofball), but apparently that is the verdict among whatever group of Christians it is that rates these things.

As Pennock has demonstrated at length, the arguments used against darwinism also destroy all science.

That would be fine with Orrin -- couldn't come too soon for him -- but I harbor some hope that many other posters here (the ones who want man to colonize space, for instance) would be unhappy to learn that the physical theory that underlies space flight is incompatible with Christian morality.

But what do I know? Maybe Christians are even crazier and more ignorant than I think they are.

OK, Peter, you talked me into it.

The Schiavo case really was surprising for the visceral reactions that it invoked. At the time I started a post on the Daily Duck that I never finished, but my thesis was that it bore similarities to border wars, such as France and Germany fighting over Alsace/Lorraine, or India and Pakistan fightng over Kashmir. The amount of territory at stake is quite minor, and the incidents that spark them can be quite minor (from the standpoint of state interests), such as a Hindu shopkeeper shooting a Muslim thief. But the dispute quickly inflames partisan fears and resentments among the populations of the nations, and threaten to ignite hostilities out of all proportion to what is at stake. The incident really is just a pretext for buried fears and resentments.

What! A pretext for what? Boy, you are lucky I promised.