Arts, Books, History

Book Review: In Rome’s Long Shadow

LITERARY REVIEW

Intro: Ancient Rome offers many valuable lessons about how to safeguard democracy. History shows us there is only one way to avoid tyranny – and that’s through free speech

We all know of the adage “history repeats itself”. And historians have been repeating that cliché ever since Classical times.

For Roman historians like Livy, history was full of brief anecdotes and illustrations, showing what true tyranny looks like, how freedom is won, and what it takes to sustain a decent political system.

History should never be seen as a dry chronicle of dates and events: we should learn from it about human heroism and triumph, as well as idiocy and wickedness, and then practice and exercise the good from what we’ve learned.

This is the central theme at the heart of this book by Jamie Gianoutsos, an intellectually demanding but fascinating overview of how Rome faced the same problems as we do, dealt with them (or failed to), and inspired later rulers, from the Italian Renaissance to America’s Founding Fathers.

The latter were so obsessed with Rome they created Senators and diplomatic Consuls. Even now, Washington’s political centre brims with “Corinthian columns and toga-styled statues”.

Key themes

Eschewing straight narrative, the book examines key themes: liberty and slavery, women and the republic, tyranny and lust.

The Roman republic was born out of a horrific rape, and they never forgot it. The last tyrant-king was Tarquinius Superbus, whose son committed this vile and horrific crime against the virtuous Lucretia, another man’s wife.

Before stabbing herself to death, Lucretia cried out for vengeance, whereupon her cousin verbally snapped at her mourners to “Trade your tears for marching. Act like men!”. Very Roman.

The corrupt last kings of Rome were duly chased from the city, and Rome became a proud republic – until Augustus, and the return of the emperors.

For the freedom-loving Romans of the old republic then, those who lorded it over the people without their consent were symbolically described as rapists. That’s an extraordinary and disturbing image, but one that inspired the American republicans fighting British rule in the 18th century.

They castigated Britain for ravishing the innocent land of America, and when opposing one of Britain’s Coercive Acts, in 1774, a shocking cartoon was published showing prime minister Lord North forcibly pouring the hated and heavily-taxed British tea down the throat of a Native American girl. It was ferocious political propaganda – and it worked.

The Romans saw there were three forms of government, all of which have a dark shadow: monarchy, which can denigrate into tyranny; aristocracy, literally “rule by the best,” which can become a corrupt self-serving elite or oligarchy; and democracy, which can become mob rule by an ignorant, bullying majority. In fact, some like the historian Tacitus, believed that all three are bound to deteriorate into their shadow versions.

Democracries always turn self-indulgent until the Strong Man rises to impose law and order, and the cycle begins again.

Roman historian Livy warned about certain societies which appear to be “in love with death both individual and collective”, and are doomed to be replaced.

There’s a riveting chapter on the connection between democracy and free speech: one cannot exist without the other.

After the rise of the emperors, books were burned and writers like poor old Ovid, the poet, were exiled to the Black Sea coast.

Under the austere but freedom-loving old Roman republic, freedom of speech was protected to the hilt: all speech, without qualification. There was no State police force, the author reminds us, nor censors. Even plain invective and abuse were fine: Cicero once called an opponent in a law court a “bastard”. No one objected. Deeds might be illegal, but mere words never could be.

This example inspired the republicans of 17th-century England, like the poet John Milton, who insisted that “for the truth to be reached, all opinions must be voiced freely”.

It also gave rise to the first recognisable newspapers, but not without insult as they were denigrated as “this moth-eating crew of newsmongers” – perhaps the first (but not the last) rant slung at those wretched journalists. But newspapers became essential in informing the people.

False facts

Over in America a century later, Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison privately discussed “private facts” – what we would now call fake news or misinformation. In the name of freedom, they defended the right to publish even these.

In 1798, the States passed a Sedition Act, which condemned anyone who dared “write, print, utter or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writings against the government”. Jefferson was horrified, and the Act expired in 1801. Falsehoods and malice were seen as the price you paid for freedom.

In Rome’s Long Shadow the narrative shows how today’s troublesome issues were long-since debated, though not solved, by some of the most influential historical figures.

– In Rome’s Long Shadow by Jamie Gianoutos, is published by Allen Lane, 384pp

Standard
Health, Medical, Research, Science

Vitamin D: Who should take it?

HEALTH

Intro: Vitamin D’s main role is in helping your body to absorb calcium from food. If you don’t get enough, the body draws calcium out of your bones

As the winter nights draw closer, many of us will be reaching for the vitamin D tablets. One of the UK’s most popular supplements, the “sunshine vitamin” is known to be essential for healthy bones, teeth, and muscles – and the NHS advises all adults to take a daily 10mcg supplement from October/November to April, when the sun’s rays are too weak for our skin to make it.

Many older people also take it year-round (as the skin’s production of it declines with age and they spend less time outdoors). More recently, research has suggested it also plays an important role in immunity and may even help to prevent dementia and cancer.

But a new study appears to raise questions about who really needs it.

Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the research showed that vitamin D supplements made no meaningful difference to whether older people suffered bone fractures.

The accepted wisdom is that supplements are vital during winter months because of the low position of the sun in the sky. Susan Lanham-New, a professor of nutrition at the University of Surrey and a leading expert on vitamin D, explains: “When UV rays hit our skin, it triggers sterol 7-DHC [a precursor of vitamin D] that sits just under the skin, to commence production of an active form of the vitamin.”

In the UK, ten to 15 minutes of midday sun on bare skin in spring and summer is generally considered sufficient to manufacture our body’s recommended daily need for 10mcg. But the weaker rays in the winter months do not contain the UVB rays that our bodies need to make it, says Professor Lanham-New.

Vitamin D’s main role is in helping your body to absorb calcium from food. If you don’t get enough, the body draws calcium out of your bones. Over time, this makes them more fragile, raising the risk of fractures and osteoporosis (which affects more than three million Britons).

Although certain foods, including oily fish, eggs and fortified breakfast cereals contain modest amounts, you’re only likely to get about a third of your daily requirement from food at best.

About one in six adults in the UK is deficient in vitamin D – and the figure rises to one in three during winter months.

The NHS recommendation to take a supplement is based on the evidence for the nutrient’s crucial role in bone health and follows a 2016 recommendation by an independent committee of experts, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN).

Earlier this year, however, the recommendation was challenged as being too low by a group of UK doctors. They argued in the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology that the definition of vitamin D deficiency – a blood level of anything under 25nmol/l – should be increased to 50nmol/l, the threshold used by the World Health Organisation, the US National Academy of Medicine and the European Food Safety Authority.

The doctors cited the fact that, although uncommon, rickets – weak bones due to a lack of vitamin D – has not been wiped out, with about 480 hospital cases in year in England alone. Another argument is that people with obesity, those with darker skin (which absorbs less from the sun) and people in deprived areas who may not have sufficient quantities in their diet, were more likely to be deficient.

Vitamin D intake from food has also fallen, partly because people are eating less meat and fish.

TWO

Vitamin D also plays a critical role in immunity and in preventing cardiovascular disease, cancer, and dementia. People who are severely deficient in it are 33 per cent more likely to be hospitalised with respiratory infections, according to a recent study by the University of Surrey. The researchers analysed data from 36,000 adults and found that those with a severe vitamin D deficiency – classed as a blood concentration below 15nmol/l – were a third more likely to be admitted to hospital with infections such as flu, pneumonia and bronchitis, compared to those with levels over 75nmol/l. They concluded that taking adequate vitamin D could protect against respiratory infections.

The vitamin is also thought to play a role in heart and brain health, by regulating inflammation, blood pressure-related hormones and the function of blood vessels, which could in theory reduce artery damage and high blood pressure. Laboratory research suggests it might also slow cancer cell growth and limit damaging inflammation (by enhancing immune cell function). According to Eamon Laird, a lecturer of nutrition and health at Atlantic Technological University, Sligo, Ireland, as we get older, our immune systems become less efficient and produce inflammatory molecules that circulate more freely in the body, potentially causing damage and disease. It is thought vitamin D might help to regulate this.

A US study also found that older adults who took high doses (125mcg) of the vitamin daily scored higher on memory and cognitive tests than those who didn’t take it. These findings were reported in the journal Sleep Medicine in August.

In addition, it protects cells from “rusting” caused by unstable molecules in the body and environment, and may help immune cells to remove the sticky amyloid plaques which build up in those with dementia.

Nonetheless, these results on cognition should be treated with caution, says Paresh Malhotra, a professor of clinical neurology at Imperial College London. “This was an exploratory study: The number of people studied was low and there was no before and after comparison,” he said.

He adds that the study merely used a questionnaire “to determine who took vitamin D supplements” and did not measure the vitamin D levels in participants.

THREE

More concerning is whether the latest research that shows no meaningful improvement in bone health among older people raises questions about the key reason to take vitamin D supplements in the first place.

The BMJ study pooled results from 69 trials, involving 154,000 adults aged over 65, and found that taking vitamin D made no difference to fracture rates over the following 2.5 years.

The authors concluded that the evidence “does not support routine supplementation” to prevent fractures, and they speculated that older people may be better spending their time and money on resistance exercise and balance training, which have a proven track record in this regard.

This echoes earlier large trials, including a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2019, which found that taking 50mcg of vitamin D a day did not prevent fractures in generally healthy middle-aged and older people. It also did not prevent cancer or heart disease.

A study in 2022 involving 21,000 older Australians who took a monthly vitamin D pill (1,500mcg) for up to five years found that it didn’t reduce overall deaths or cancer or cardiovascular deaths.

However, Professor Lanham-New says that these trials largely involved people who already had healthy levels of the vitamin and “there’s little evidence that giving extra vitamin D to those with adequate amounts will give extra protective benefits”.

So who should take it?

Professor Lanham-New says the recommended daily supplement of 10mcg is enough to keep most people’s blood level above 25nmol/l in the winter months.

In addition, those who spend little time outdoors, including many care home residents, and people with darker skin tones whose skin makes less vitamin D from sunlight, should all take a year-round supplement, she says.

Standard
Economic, Middle East, Politics, Society, United States

Trump’s capriciousness is undermining international stability

GEOPOLITICS

Intro: Trump boasted he would make America great again. What bitter irony that he’s now presiding over its slow demise as a superpower

President Donald Trump has never been shy of hubris in his self-declared role as a negotiator of world peace.

When sworn into office for the second time in January last year, the 47th US President claimed he would be ushering in a new era: “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” he proclaimed.

Just days ago, following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to UN human rights commissioner Navanethem Pillay and his evident belief it should have gone to him, he went further: “I have saved more lives than anyone in history.”

And yet since his inauguration it has become abundantly clear this president’s most enduring legacy may well be the greatest threat to the world order for decades.

From the battlefields of Ukraine to the oil-rich Persian Gulf and volatile waters of the Red Sea, the consequences of Trump’s erratic foreign policy are being felt across the globe.

At precisely the moment when the world desperately needs calm and experienced leadership – with 130-armed conflicts raging globally – it finds itself dependent on a US president whose capricious behaviour is directly undermining international stability.

The missile attacks on Riyadh airport by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, which killed 14 people and injured hundreds more, represented a chilling and unprecedented escalation in a Middle Eastern conflict that threatens to plunge the global markets into further imminent chaos.

For those in Saudi Arabia and beyond, it remains a terrifying reality that the Houthis, an Iranian-backed militia whose fighters have often been dismissed as little more than barefoot tribesmen, now not only have the capacity to throw the Arab world’s largest economy into further turmoil but also to inflict such economic damage on the West that it could dwarf the ongoing war between America and Iran.

To date, much attention has been focused on Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which enormous quantities of the world’s oil and gas ordinarily pass. The disruption sent shockwaves through energy markets, caused prices to soar, and worryingly threatened supplies of fuel and fertiliser, the lifeblood of industrial and agricultural production.

Several hundred miles to the south-west, however, lies another maritime bottleneck that might yet prove even more damaging, particularly for Britain and Europe.

The Bab al-Mandab Strait, separating Yemen from the Horn of Africa, is the gateway to the Red Sea and, ultimately, the Suez Canal.

It is one of the great arteries of international commerce, carrying not only oil and liquified natural gas but container ships transporting everything from Chinese cars to Japanese electronics and white goods. If the Houthis succeed in closing this passage, the consequences could be catastrophic.

The Red Sea corridor handles roughly 30 per cent of global container traffic and, while it is one thing to pay more to fill your car, it is quite another when the supply of vehicles, fridges, washing machines, and pretty much everything else is suddenly imperilled.

This is not a theoretical threat. The Houthis have demonstrated through their attacks on Riyadh airport that they possess missiles and drones capable of penetrating defences in Saudi, a country that has spent billions on sophisticated military equipment.

And at a moment when the future of world trade has seldom looked more vulnerable, the current US president is so unpredictable we can no longer assume Washington would intervene in the Bab al-Mandab Strait to protect global commercial shipping.

While the US Navy may have done so under Joe Biden – in 2024 American carrier strike groups were deployed to counter Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, albeit ineffectively – the current US President has demonstrated an alarming unwillingness to protect anything other than American interests.

Only last month, for example, he called off a missile strike against the Houthis in return for a guarantee that attacks on US vessels in the area would not take place. And he will be fully aware that if he launches strikes, the Houthis may well attack US bases in the Middle East.

Despite his bellicose rhetoric, the truth is that President Trump looks desperately weak when confronted with the realities of international power. Supporters of Trump believed they were electing an “American First” president that would extricate them from expensive foreign entanglements, rebuild the economy, and end the military adventures of past administrations.

Instead, their erstwhile hero has achieved almost precisely the opposite. And with midterm elections fast approaching, the president is staring in the face the political consequences of his overseas adventures. With just over two weeks to go before the vote, polls show he is failing to arrest his declining popularity.

This is the primary reason why Trump decided to ease sanctions on Russian diesel, pursuing short-term political expediency at the expense of long-term international stability.

For years, Western policy towards Vladimir Putin has rested on the principle that Russia must pay an economic price for invading Ukraine.

Yet now the American President is prepared to loosen those restrictions to ease the energy crisis and attempt to bring down prices in the US.

The message this sends out is beyond appalling. While Western sanctions have never been watertight, and European countries have permitted exceptions when vital economic interests were at stake, there is a big difference between limited exemptions and the world’s most powerful democracy handing Russia a lifeline. It raises the possibility that the West’s entire strategy towards Ukraine could unravel.

At the same time, Trump continues to espouse extravagant and fantastical claims about his diplomatic achievements. Consider his announcement that there had been an energy ceasefire in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and that both parties had agreed. This was greeted with surprise in Kyiv. Relentless Russian attacks have continued.

The louder the threats and more extravagant the pronouncements, the greater the impression of a man desperately posturing while events slip beyond his control.

Together, these crises cannot be considered separately. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted our access to energy supplies from eastern Europe while the confrontation with Iran has threatened supplies from the Persian Gulf. Now the Houthi escalation threatens a crucial commercial route linking Europe to Asia. In effect we are facing a disastrous triple whammy.

While Trump blusters, Britain and France may promise further assistance to Saudi Arabia, but neither possesses the resources required to replace American power, for so long the guarantor of international security and free trade.

And herein lies perhaps the most unsettling prospect of all. It may fall to China, possibly alongside India, to broker an agreement between the Houthis, Iran and Saudi Arabia that removes the threat to international commerce.

Beijing has every reason to want this outcome, with its export economy depending on functioning trade routes. Yet their intervention would be one of the most troubling kind: what might this authoritarian state ask in return?

The erosion of America’s world leadership did not begin with Trump. But under this president it is accelerating at a terrifying pace.

The bitter irony is that the man who promised to make America great again may instead be presiding over its great dismantling as an international superpower.

Standard