Movies tend to awaken senses and invite
ideas to take a deeper and more profound spot in one´s mind. A series of shots
with visual effects that are interwoven beautifully within a script could allow
for a reassessment of notions and beliefs. In the movie 'Darkest Hour', the mute inner
dialogue of Winston Churchill once he was appointed Prime Minster of England at the acme
of World War II resonated with a sapient audience from the future. Churchill´s romantic
and patriotic refusal to bow before German attacks and offer a dignified
surrender was admired by viewers, who reminisced about the days of glory and
pride. The weak, feeble figure of Edward Frederick Lindley Wood, First Earl of
Halifax, was naturally ridiculed for its defeatist standpoint. After all, it was
the Earl of Halifax who pushed for striking a deal with Adolf Hitler after the
fall of most of Western Europe. But Churchill the hero defied his party and its
leadership, and stood by the pride and will of a glorious nation. And history
proved his decision right.
Interestingly, English statesman and
writer, George Savile, the first Marquess of Halifax (1633 –1695) held similar views to the 20th century Halifax.
A staunch opponent to the concept of ´fundamental
principles´, he defined such a hyped and defended concept as the ‘nail that
everyone would use to fix what is convenient for them at a moment and keep it unshakeable.
Fundamental is similar to sacred vocabulary that maintains things in
their state, disallowing anyone touching them’. Such progressive intellect
could be broadened to tackle the right to question any concept, belief, or costume
– including national pride. A fundamental belief in any concept could be a vice
that is cladded in ethical discipline. Any government that is based
on a set of fundamental principles that are rigid, inherent, and defining to a
nation could be subject to auto-destruction if opposed to re-evaluation and assessment.
Earl Halifax warned his English peers in
1940 of the dangers of transforming principles into causes. He championed
peace, even if it meant surrender, and accepted that England´s history of
victories see a setback- potentially and hopefully temporarily. Refusing to rejoice pride might have echoed the 17th century Marquess´ views regarding the need for a `radical compromise between
power and freedom…whereby governments should be able to be strong to
maintain peace, and liberal enough in order not to cause repression'. Had
history taken another turn, most viewers would have supported Halifax´s questioning
of a romantic notion that was promoted by a leader who refused to compromise a fundamental
principle. A strong government must ensure peace. It is acceptable to lose at times, to surrender at others, and to
start again.
If both Halifaxes were here today, they
would most likely have key insights on world events. Should the question of
principle kill any attempt for peace? Should a fundamental
belief in a cause or an idea deny other alternative notions to emerge? Should
the principle that binds Gulf Arab States together in their opposition to
Persian expansion stand at a higher pedestal than potential for prosperity and
harmony? Are Arab States willing to shed more blood to defend their romantic principles?
While it ended well for the Allies in the 20th century, it will
likely not be case for their allies in the 21st.
No comments:
Post a Comment