May 9, 2024 • 49 mins
Join me as we navigate the nuanced realities of leadership, grappling with the paradoxical nature of revered icons like Martin Luther King Jr. and President Nixon. We celebrate the resilience of France through Joan of Arc's heroism and delve into the transformative legacies of Nelson Mandela, Ivan the Terrible, Winston Churchill, and Elizabeth I. By exploring these complex narratives, we gain a deeper understanding of how leadership shapes national identity and governance, setting the stage for future generations. Tune in for thought-provoking insights that promise to change the way you perceive the titans of history.
Like, Share, and Follow, Wherever you get your podcasts!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Have feedback? Send us a Text and Interact with us!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
BlueSky: @historyhelix.bsky.social
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome to Double Helix Blueprint of Nations,
season 1, episode 11, season 1Recap.
Welcome back to Double HelixBlueprint of Nations.
(00:30):
This is our recap episode and,as I mentioned before, this is
the episode where we willdistill everything that the
season was about what thepodcast was about, which I
explained in the very firstintroduction episode, if you
haven't heard it about which Iexplained in the very first
introduction episode, if youhaven't heard it and to sort of
explain why we chose who wechose, why we decided to go with
the people that we did and whythey're meaningful to the
(00:53):
history of their respectivenations.
So, as I mentioned before, thepodcast Double Helix for me, was
something that I devised withthe notion and the idea of
trying to understand nations,trying to understand why nations
act the way they act.
If you think about America, thecountry where I live, think
(01:15):
about the propensity that thiscountry has for freedom,
patriotism, the desire forindependence, that all has roots
in the things that havehappened in the history, the
good and the bad, and it's notonly events, it's not only
moments in time, but it ispeople as well, and season one,
(01:40):
for us, was all about leadership, legacies is people who have
impacted the shape or theperception of leadership within
their respective nation and, insome cases, beyond their nation.
If you think of a figure likeNapoleon Bonaparte, who had
impacts that went well beyondjust out of France, it went on
(02:01):
to impact all of Western history.
It went on to impact militaryhistory across the world.
If you think of someone likeGeorge Washington, whom, I have
to admit, I knew about but I didnot understand sort of the
magnitude of the impact that histenure had, and it wasn't
(02:23):
really the things that I hadcome to understand him to be
famous for, like his militarycampaigns or in the War of
Independence in the UnitedStates, but it was really giving
up power.
What made Washington specialwas playing the role of
Cincinnatus, and Cincinnatus wasa Roman leader, many, many
(02:46):
centuries before who, whenpresented with the opportunity,
at the cusp of absolute power,he could have been the first
Caesar.
Really, he decided to give itall up and become a farmer, and
I think that is what makesWashington special.
In fact, james Thomas Flexneris a historian and he authored a
(03:07):
book, one that I use for thispodcast on Washington, called
the Indispensable man, and in ithe says that, in relinquishing
power in favor of democracy.
Washington had made a majorcontribution to the development
of American political ideas, tothe development of American
political ideas.
With this single act heestablished a standard of
(03:29):
selfless leadership that hasinspired countless generations
and that, to me, encapsulateswhy I chose Washington, even
though he's widely acknowledgedas the father of the American
nation and sort of seems like anobvious choice.
I think is that tradition, thattradition of Republicanism, is
what made him special beyondother leaders that were there.
(03:53):
He was definitely a man of histime, one that really was
steeped into the idea of virtue,and he cultivated this image
ferociously.
But I do think that what madeWashington special is that he
kind of took it beyond.
He was a true believer in whathe was doing.
Richard Brookshire, anotherhistorian who authored a book,
(04:14):
founding Father RediscoveringGeorge Washington, mentioned
that he could have been amonarch.
Instead he chose to return toprivate life.
This was an unprecedented actionin the history of the world and
set a crucial precedent for thenew nation.
I will say that's probably alittle bit overstated because it
wasn't the first time in thehistory of the world, but it was
(04:37):
certainly one of the mostprominent instances that this
had happened and it was not inkeeping with the traditions of
the time.
At the time of Washington,you're a successful military
general.
You just defeated the worldsuperpower.
It would be like the equivalentof someone defeating the United
(04:57):
States in open combat intraditional warfare today, and
instead of sort of walking awaywith your spoils and doing what
you want to do, you end upsaying no, I will not take power
, absolute power.
Obviously, he was presidenttwice, was reelected once, but
(05:20):
the reality is Washington couldhave been reelected multiple
times if he had wanted to, andagain he chose to walk away.
And had he chosen to stay on, Idon't really think there would
have been much fuss.
It was not unexpected for thetime period that he lived in,
and it was not unexpected by hispeers.
Thomas Jefferson, we know him,famed from being a founding
(05:44):
father and the author of theDeclaration of Independence.
He talks about what madeWashington a special character,
and he says that his integritywas the purest, his justice the
most inflexible.
I have ever known, no motivesof interest or consanguinity, of
friendship or hatred being ableto bias his decision.
(06:06):
He was indeed, in every senseof the words, a wise, a good and
a great man, and that was thespirit of Washington.
That is what made him special,beyond those peers that he had
and I tried to capture that inthe episode those peers that he
had, and I tried to capture thatin the episode.
(06:26):
I tried to mention why he wasso special and why I believe he
deposited this incredible DNAstrain into the fabric of
America.
I will say that that depositthat he put into the soul of
America, that deposit ofrepublicanism, is fading.
I think there's no way aroundit.
There's certainly a spirit thatis different in the modern day
(06:50):
American discourse, particularlythe political discourse, but
across leadership, and I don'treally know what that is the
result of.
I don't really have a goodsense of exactly where we've
gone awry.
But that is why I'm doing thispodcast, because I want to
explore those questions throughthe study of history and through
(07:10):
the study of other charactersthat have influenced American
life.
A pretty safe choice.
I then had to make somedecisions of who did I want to
feature.
For context, I had originallyplanned to do three leaders from
(07:35):
each nation.
The first couple leaders, ortwo of the leaders, were to be
people who I think are generallyacknowledged as virtuous, as
people who've deposited a gooddeal of goodwill or a good
spirit, I guess a good depositinto the DNA of their nation,
and how people in that countryperceive or see leadership may
be a reflection of themselves,someone who is viewed favorably
(08:03):
either by history or viewedfavorably broadly, but who still
influences the way people thinkof leadership, perhaps not for
the good, but the way peoplethink of leadership in that
nation.
And for the United States,again, I could have gone many
different routes with politicalleaders, military leaders,
leaders of movements, becauseultimately, when we're talking
(08:31):
about blueprint of nations, whenwe're talking about broad
impact, I think is necessary forthose who either led large
organizations, large movementsor large ideas to be at the
forefront, because ultimatelythey are the ones who dictate,
sort of the shape and the courseof history for many of these
nations.
So, again, going from Washington, I could have gone to Lincoln
(08:56):
as one who came to mind, seemedlike an obvious choice, widely
acknowledged by many historiansas the father of the you know,
one of the fathers of theAmerican nation, perhaps the
best president ever.
For obvious reasons, he savedthe Union.
It was under his leadershipthat the United States fought
(09:19):
the most brutal war that it hasever fought, the Civil War,
where the stakes were thehighest because it was the
survival of the very nation andLincoln was able to lead the
Union, or the North, to victoryagainst the Confederacy and in
the process eliminate probablyone of the greatest evils that
(09:40):
has afflicted, broadly speakingand there's been many evils, but
one of the greatest evils thathas afflicted, I think, world
history which was chattelslavery in the Western
Hemisphere and in particular inthe United States.
It is worth pointing out thatLincoln was not a convert of the
anti-slavery movement early on.
(10:01):
It was an evolution, it wassomething that he evolved into
and it's not something that henecessarily wanted to abolish
slavery, but it was the thingthat he found morally
reprehensible.
But at the same time thewriting suggests that he did not
think that it was somethingthat he needed to get embroiled
(10:21):
with until he did, until hefigured out that getting rid of
slavery not only would give himand his government cause worth
fighting for but it wouldactually accelerate, hopefully,
the conclusion of the war andsort of provide a new meaning,
almost a religious-like fervor,to fighting the Civil War.
So I could have gone withLincoln.
(10:43):
He obviously had profoundimpact on the United States,
revered, like I said, by manypeople, many former presidents,
many historians, but it justfelt a little bit too overplayed
, a little bit of a trope in mymind, I guess, because you know
(11:05):
it's Lincoln, he was the greatemancipator, save the union,
hooray.
And I don't think that doesLincoln justice and I don't
think that is really accordswith the historical record,
quite clearly, because again, hewas a late convert to the party
of emancipation.
It wasn't why he initiallyfought the Civil War.
(11:28):
In broad terms, yes, the CivilWar was definitely about slavery
, but for him it was aboutpreserving the union.
And preserving the union meantyou had to come to terms with
slavery and you had to agree onwhat the course was going to be.
And he did not believe thatthere was any authority for
states to secede because theywanted to keep slaves.
(11:50):
And that is ultimately hisprimary goal was to preserve the
union.
And you can even see that someof the writing after or as the
war was coming to a close, whereit suggests that he may have
been quite lenient with theSouth in the Reconstruction
period had he not beenassassinated by John Wilkes
(12:13):
Booth.
So again, could have gone with.
Lincoln decided not to.
There was also Teddy Rooseveltpresent and also, who is a
source of great admiration forlots of folks because of what he
represented.
He was a Republican but hereally governed, I would say,
like a modern center leftpresident, in many ways Big on
(12:37):
sort of expanding the franchiseand the rights of his fellow
citizenship, big outdoorsman,just sort of a larger than life
figure.
Would have been great, I think,to do the podcast on Teddy
Roosevelt, just because hedefinitely, in my head at least,
represents a great deal of whatI would say is the
(12:59):
quintessential American spiritRugged, self-deterministic,
wants to go out there and do ithimself.
So I could have gone that route, but again chose not to,
because I think we needed tosort of look at a world, an
America that was more inaccordance with the America that
(13:20):
is today, which is amultiracial society, and so
again could have consideredFranklin Delano Roosevelt.
The president who was presidentduring the Great Depression,
during World War II, saw Americathrough perhaps the most
consequential time of the modernage.
But Franklin Delano Rooseveltwas a difficult one to read.
(13:42):
I've read historians who saythat he was an enigma, even unto
himself.
Some of his closest advisorssaid they didn't really know him
and that even he didn't knowwho he was in secret, and that
is because, you know, franklinFDR was a politician first, a
master tactician of thepolitical stage, a man of great
(14:05):
conviction, great ideas, but healways kept his cards close to
the vest and, as such, I didn'tfind him to be that much of an
inspirational leaderConsequential, sure,
Inspirational, maybe not as muchas some of the others and, like
I said I mentioned, washingtonwas inspirational and that's why
(14:26):
I used him.
And the leader that I decidedto feature was the definition of
inspiration, and to this day hecontinues to have that impact
on America and, I would say, onthe world.
The second person that I featurein Leadership Legacies for the
United States was, of course,martin Luther King Jr, and he
(14:51):
was someone who articulated avision of justice, of radical
love, that I think was differentfrom much of anything that had
been done before.
He was someone who, through hisChristian faith, really
believed in the power of peopleto change through love.
And I don't mean love in thissort of squishy way, I mean love
(15:12):
in a very powerful, activistway that can penetrate deeply
entrenched divisions insocieties, and that's what he
meant to do.
Taylor Branch, which is ahistorian and the author of
(15:33):
Parting the Waters America inthe King Years.
He says that King's leadershiptranscended the civil rights
movement.
He demonstrated that moralclarity and nonviolent
resistance could move a nationcloser to its ideals of equality
and justice, even against theweight of centuries of
oppression.
And that is, to me, at the key,at the center of what made King
(15:55):
special.
It is what I mentioned in theepisode.
King, to me, represents thebetter angels of America.
He represents what we allaspire.
Our leadership was what weaspire we could be and really
sort of hearken to the ideals ofthe better place for America.
(16:18):
Now that hasn't alwaysmanifested in truth, but I think
that's what makes him special,because it's almost like this
beacon that holds out and tellsyou where this is, where you
could be, and you know whetherwe reach it or not it's up to us
as a society.
But I think that's what makeshim special.
Cornel West, who's a philosopherand author, he said Dr King was
(16:42):
not just an American hero but aworld historical figure who
embodied the prophetic Christiantradition.
His courage, vision and deepempathy continue to challenge us
to build a more just andcompassionate society, and I
think that's right.
I think when you think about acrisis, a moral crisis, in the
(17:02):
United States I mentioned it inthe episode when we got into the
George Floyd murder the firstthing you hear is Dr King, his
quotes, his admonishments, theway he spoke to people, the
things he said, how he channeled, again the dreams of the nation
(17:23):
, the credo of the nation, intoaction.
And so that tells you about hislegacy, that tells you about
his impact and, again, for me,leadership legacies and what
they mean to the United States.
In this case, again, was aboutwhat are those seeds that have
been deposited into the mindsetof the average American?
(17:43):
Or you know, when you migratedhere and became a citizen or
were born here, that you justbelieve at your core right, like
these are American values,these are American values of
leadership, and so that's what Iwas trying to go for.
I also could have you know, Ialso could have gone into sort
of other leaders, other aspectsof the civil rights movement,
(18:06):
but I think I chose to keep itnarrow again, to focus on what
made King special and what hewas able to transfer to the rest
of America.
I think President Barack Obamacaptured it well when he said Dr
King held up a mirror toAmerica and forced us to
confront the reality ofinequality.
(18:26):
His unwavering faith in thepromise of our nation still
challenges us to live up to theideals of liberty and justice
for all, and so I think that isa good summary of what I think
his legacy is and what he leftbehind in his untimely demise
(18:48):
what he left behind in hisuntimely demise.
In the episode.
I did not get into the detailsof some of the seedier aspects
of Martin Luther King's life.
I mentioned that, I think inlike one or two sentences.
He had huge problems withinfidelity.
He liked to sleep around.
What can I say?
That is a known thing.
Hoover, who was the FBIdirector at the time, had a bone
(19:08):
to pick with King and he woulduse secret recordings of King
committing infidelity sleepingaround, as sometimes wanted to
use that as blackmail and sortof to say that King was an
insincere man and how hepresented himself versus what he
was doing in his private life.
It's hard to tell.
I would say nobody's perfectand that just shows you right
(19:32):
there, right Like he was flawed.
And I think when you coverthese characters and you talk
about these people and yousomehow want to paint them as
well, they were great andperfect and they didn't do
anything wrong.
I think you're missing thepoint.
I think that is their humanity,is what makes them actually
more relevant and moreinteresting.
And then, finally, you know, towrap up, the United States and
(19:57):
the leadership legacy there.
Obviously I think there's goingto be a part two of leadership
legacies at some point in thispodcast.
I will come back and do thatlater because there's even
deeper strains and currents thatyou could say feed into the
American psyche.
So we will do that and I thinkI will also concentrate on the
(20:17):
not so good.
I consider doing a podcast onNixon.
President Nixon, who waspresident in the early 70s,
wrapped up Vietnam, but notbefore.
He sort of lied about what hewas trying to do in Vietnam in
order to get elected.
Nixon was, I think, generallyrecognized as a shady character
(20:38):
who maybe should have been thefirst president to serve jail
time, but President Fordpardoned him is certainly a
character that I think invites adeeper analysis, because I also
do think he represents a strainof American thought.
He represents a deposit intothe DNA bank, and I ultimately
(21:02):
chose not to, mostly because oftime and research efforts that I
would have taken to sort of putthat together, but certainly,
what I would say is Nixon is oneof those who I think had a
broader impact on Americansociety than we like to admit
and who still to this day,represents a strain of thought
(21:25):
in American society thatsometimes we like to turn away
from and pretend like we don'treally think that way.
But we do.
And if you don't believe me'tlook at who we sometimes
(21:56):
celebrate as our leaders ofindustry, captains of industry,
how they act, their value set.
I think that's reflective ofthe Nixon strain, as I've
decided to call it.
So then we moved on to France,and in particular I wanted to
feature two people or twocharacters that I feel capture
well the spirit of French nation, the spirit of the fatherland
(22:18):
as it is known in French, andthose would be, of course,
napoleon Bonaparte, the Corsican, who later became a Frenchman
fooling his own right, and Joanof Arc.
And in the case of Napoleon,it's not a hard one, right, it's
not a hard choice.
I consider looking at Charlesde Gaulle, consider looking at
(22:38):
Louis XIV, the Sun King, whosort of came up with the whole
notion of divine rights of king,and he is the, what I would say
when you think about anabsolute monarch, absolute
control over everything.
That's Louis XIV, if you thinkabout.
If anyone listening has watchedthe movie History of the World,
(23:01):
it's pretty funny.
But there is actually what Iwould say they do a good job of
capturing the absolute powerthat someone like Louis XIV
would have had in Versailles andhow he chose to project power.
Again, it's a comedy and satire, but quite funny though.
(23:22):
So Napoleon, you know, is again.
I think he embodies sort of ashift in the world.
He came in the heels of theFrench Revolution, lived through
the French Revolution and usedit to create the system around
himself.
He was driven by animmeasurable amount of ambition.
He was driven also by thisbelief in self, this belief that
(23:46):
he was destined for something,and whenever he felt like he
wasn't reaching those heights,he would fall into this deep
melodramatic depressions.
That's something I didn'treally mention in the podcast,
but he would.
He was kind of dramatic ingeneral.
If you read some of his lettersyou can see that his letters to
Josephine over the top dramatichis letters in his childhood.
(24:09):
He would despair about thingsin ways that may be, again a bit
melodramatic, but it wasbecause he was driven by this
insatiable hunger to achieve, todo more.
And so I would imagine that thelast few years for the emperor
on St Helena were terrible, justbecause he was completely
(24:31):
divorced from all of this grandplans, all of these things that
he thought he should achieve andhe thought he should have
reached.
But again, napoleon to me wasyou can't discuss France without
discussing Napoleon.
And Andrew Roberts wrote ahistorian and he wrote Napoleon
(24:52):
A Life.
I used that book to researchfor the podcast.
He said that Napoleon'sinfluence on France is
unparalleled.
He transformed French societywith the Napoleonic Code, which
set a legal standard based onmerit, equality and the rule of
law.
He laid the foundation for themodern state by centralizing
(25:12):
administration and rationalizingthe bureaucracy.
And that's just likeadministratively right, the
impact that Napoleon had on theFrench nation, that Napoleon had
on the French nation, but notonly that.
He transformed the things thathad been gained through the
(25:33):
French Revolution I read someonemention took the crazy out and
turned it into somethingtangible, something that could
actually carry on as a legacy,and that is the positive impact
I think he had on France, on themodernity of France.
He sort of ushered this new ageof efficiency and good
bureaucracy in French government, a lot of which still survives
(25:55):
to this day and it is in manyways the birth of the modern
French nation.
Jean Tullard, which is anotherhistorian on Napoleon, mentioned
that Napoleon's rule representsa break from the old regime and
the birth of modern France.
His reforms in law,administration and education
(26:16):
revolutionized French societyand made him a symbol of
national regeneration, and Ithink that's right.
I think that's what madeNapoleon special in the episode.
I tried to capture some of thatthrough the middle parts in the
second episode, emperor of theWorld.
I think the wars of conquest,napoleonic wars, which we have a
(26:37):
companion to sort of shadow orcover up some of those more
consequential advances, and Ithink the personality of
Napoleon sometimes wins outversus some of the
accomplishments that he achievedfrom an administrative front,
which are the types ofaccomplishments that I think
have lasted.
(26:57):
You know, I think Napoleon also, you know, represents sort of
this leadership, this type ofleadership and dynamism that is
seldom seen in the world, butwhen it shows up it changes sort
of the entire perspective ofthe world.
(27:18):
It changes, it almost makes theaxis of the earth tilt
differently when you haveleaders like this, paul Johnson,
who again wrote another book onNapoleon.
He says that Napoleonrepresents the embodiment of
dynamic leadership, combiningruthless pragmatism with
visionary reforms.
He showed friends that it couldbe a great power through the
(27:41):
sheer force of will and aunified state through the sheer
force of will and a unifiedstate.
So I think his impact on Frenchsociety, on the French nation
as a whole and the way it seesitself, is unquestionable.
He was an example of not onlycharismatic leadership and
(28:02):
ability to inspire others, buthe was an example of what
happens when the force of willof one individual sort of drives
behind a nation.
And again, I don't want to makethat sound like it's always
great.
There were, after all, millionsof deaths as a result of his
wars of conquest.
France was left in ruins inmany ways, socially and
(28:25):
demographically.
So was much of Europe after themany wars, the wars of the
Napoleonic Wars and then sort ofon the tail end of the
Revolutionary Wars as well.
So I don't want to make lightof that and I don't want to say
that force of will, individualsare the solution to all the
problems, because that's whatpopulism trades on right.
(28:48):
It's like oh, if you just trustthis one guy or one gal,
they'll do it all for you, andthat simple.
I always say simple answers tocomplex problems probably the
wrong answer.
Complex problems typicallyrequire complex solutions when
we're talking about societiesand nations, but individuals
(29:10):
that offer those simplesolutions sometimes it's not the
best outcome and I think we cansee that in Napoleon.
It's a mixed bag.
French historian Emmanuel deVarsky.
He says, in the Making of aLegend, that Napoleon's legacy
is complex, embodying bothheroism and tyranny.
(29:31):
For France, he represents thepinnacle of transformative
leadership, a leader who couldboth unify and divide a nation.
So I think that's a good way towrap up why we chose Napoleon
and why we did the episode onhim.
And then now we will discussJoan of Arc briefly.
I think I, re-listening to theepisode I think there was a good
(30:14):
job of was consequential to notjust the friends of her time
but also historically.
And I chose her because shereally sort of drove to a new
line in a friends that wasreally embroiled in despair, in
despair that was sort oflistless, and she provided
inspiration.
And her story is so remarkablebecause of just the fact that
(30:36):
she came out of nowhere.
There was no expectation ofsomeone like Joan of Arc showing
up.
You know the reason that shebecame so important and in one
of the books I use for thepodcast, mary Gordon, who wrote
Joan of Arc Alive, she says thatJoan embodied the hopes of her
(30:58):
people at a time of despair.
Her courage and unwaveringfaith turned the tide of the
Hundred Years' War, transformingthe fate of France forever.
Just think about how differentlife would be for France had
they lost the Hundred Years' War.
And they were well on their way.
As I mentioned during theepisode, henry V had just been
(31:19):
stringing victory after victory,stringing victory after victory
.
Had he not died, he would havebecome the king of France,
likely unified the two kingdoms,and he was such a strong leader
that history of Western Europeas we know it today may be
completely different.
There is a train of thought outthere in history that says, if
(31:42):
not Joan, somebody else wouldhave come along and done what
she did anyways, like it wouldhave happened eventually, right.
That is why, when peoplefantasize about time travel and
say that they would have goneback and killed baby Hitler to
prevent the Holocaust and WorldWar II and the whole thing,
people say, well then Stalinwould have become the big bad
(32:05):
guy and would have doneeverything Hitler did, and so
forth.
So there's that, but I dobelieve there are some people
like Joan of Arc again came outof nowhere and really changed
the direction of the HundredYears' War and changed the
direction of the country.
At that point, you know, joanreally revitalized the French
monarchy, point.
(32:28):
You know Joan reallyrevitalized the French monarchy.
She created hope and sheprovided vision at a time when
it was sorely lacking.
And then what she hasrepresented after that, you know
, she has represented sort ofthe spirit, the flame that sits
in the heart of the Frenchnation.
Winston Churchill, our friendfrom our podcast as well, he
said that Joan was a being souplifted from the ordinary run
(32:49):
of mankind that she finds noequal in a thousand years.
Her leadership represents anunbreakable spirit that
transcends any age and I thinkhe would find her a kindred
spirit, given his own story andwhat he was able to do for the
United Kingdom during World WarII and why she was chosen for
(33:09):
this podcast as a featurecharacter in the Leadership
Legacies.
I think I'll close with whatAndrew Lang, a historian who
wrote the book Made of Friendsbeing the story of the life and
death of John D'Arc, which is abook I used, and he says she
represents the ultimate model ofleadership.
The Life and Death of JohnD'Arc, which is a book I used,
and he says she represents theultimate model of leadership,
(33:30):
where divine inspiration meetshuman will.
Joan's legacy has lived on as asymbol of faith, courage and
the transformative power of asingle individual, and I think
that's absolutely right and thatis what makes her so special.
That's what makes her stand outabove all others.
So really enjoyed doing theepisode on Joan.
(33:53):
I feel like I have to go backto that time period.
I have to go back at some pointto the Hundred Years War and
dig a little bit deeper.
There's tons of stories thatcome out of that time period
that are super interesting andworth exploring further.
So we will probably do that,probably in broader themes, not
so focused on individuals, butindividuals will always surface
(34:16):
because it is the history ofhumanity and driven by humans.
I'll skip around from here tojust wrap up.
You know the recap of seasonone.
I think you guys get it at thispoint what I was trying to go
for, which is to look at leaderswho had outsized impact on
their countries, likely changedthe trajectory of their
(34:39):
countries and made such animpact that today you can't
really conceive of that nation,of that country, without the
impact of that specific leader.
You know Mandela and I'm goingto absolutely butcher this but
Mandela Pumla Gobodo Madikisela,who was a psychologist and she
(35:00):
wrote a book.
It covers broader themes ofSouth African society, but it
does talk about Mandela, saysthat his greatest gift was his
capacity to forgive and seekreconciliation, even with those
who had inflicted the deepestpain.
Mandela represents the triumphof empathy and moral courage.
Absolutely powerful statementand I think, encapsulates
(35:25):
perfectly why Mandela is one ofthe characters that I wanted to
look into.
And his impact Because you'veheard of Mandela, I think if you
read a lot of history or youare familiar with broadly
speaking world history, youprobably know Mandela.
But I think that was his impactis how he was able to go the
(35:46):
other way, when I think historyhas shown us that when there is
great injustices and people areoppressed in really brutal ways,
the typical answer isrevolution and lots of killing,
but Mandela chose to dosomething different.
The situation in South Africa,I would say, is probably not
perfect and shout out to all thepeople in South Africa who
(36:08):
listen to this podcast there's alot of them, so I really
appreciate it.
Keep it going.
I hope I was able to do yournation justice.
It's something that I'mlearning as well, so please send
feedback if you feel likethere's parts that I missed.
I know there's a topic thatcarries a lot of passion.
Some people gave feedbackaround Winnie Mandela.
(36:30):
She was more radical, forcertain, than her husband.
There was also feedback on FWthe Clerk.
Maybe he did not deserve apodcast episode, but again,
remember, leadership legaciesare not always about the ones
who make you feel nice andsquishy, make you feel good.
Leadership legacies are alsoabout those who, for ill or for
(36:57):
better or ill, had an impact onhow the nation perceives itself
and what are the challenges andthe struggles that are sort of
running through the strain,through the DNA of that nation.
And then we looked at Russia aswell.
A lot of people asked me doepisodes on Stalin and Lenin?
We did do Lenin.
People wanted to do episodes onPutin.
(37:17):
Not ready to go into Putin yetit is something that I will
absolutely explore, but I thinkthe forces at least from my
reading, the forces thatinfluence Putin are broader than
just him.
It's sort of this desire thathe has to re-referee, I guess,
or replay the Cold War and redothe things that happened over
(37:42):
the last half century and say,yeah, nevermind, we didn't like
the outcome, so we're going torewrite it.
And so there are broader forces.
I think it's a better study ofPutin would be to study the Cold
War, what happened at the endof the Cold War and what impact
this had on Russia directly.
I think that may be a moreuseful exercise because Putin
(38:04):
himself displays all of thecharacteristics of your classic
autocrat oligarchy.
You know, kleptocracy, whateverC you want to use.
I think that's probably a moreaccurate representation of where
he's at.
But I chose Ivan the Terribleas one of the two because you
(38:24):
know, as Robert Payne, who was ahistorian who wrote about Ivan
the Terrible, as one of the two,because you know as Robert
Payne, who was a historian whowrote about Ivan the Terrible,
used that book also for thepodcast.
He says that Ivan the Terriblestands as the pivotal figure in
the shaping of Russia.
His reforms, military campaignsand the establishment of a
centralized autocracy left alegacy that influenced Russian
(38:45):
governance for centuries.
That's right.
I think that is the heestablished sort of the
beginnings of the modern Russianstate.
You would then have Catherinethe Great, you would have Peter
the Great and they would, youknow, sort of lay down even
stronger foundations.
But I think what is undeniableis that as the first real czar
(39:08):
of Russia, ivan IV, ivanIvanovich, is sort of truly the
founder of that tradition, andthe way that he consolidated
power, the way that he createdthe Tsarist autocracy, is
something that became sort of ahallmark of Russian governance
(39:28):
and something that wasinescapable even after the
revolution that Lenin and hiscomrades led, and then it
carried on through from Lenin toStalin all the way through to
today to Putin.
I think some of those thingsare still carrying through in
Russian psyche and Russiansociety.
You know, I thought Ivan was agood sort of representation of
(39:57):
absolute power as well.
The DNA bank of Russia is thisidea that the ruler it's always
right has this innate divineauthority and sort of governs
almost unchecked.
You know, his reign also sortof symbolized that.
(40:18):
What happens with that dissentwhen that marriage of autocracy
and the desire to sort of rulesingle-handedly?
Edward Keenan wrote Ivan theTerrible and the I to sort of
rule single-handedly?
Edward Keenan wrote Ivan theTerrible and the Iconography of
Power.
He says his reign symbolized adark allure of autocracy, ivan
forged a template of fear andcontrol that subsequent rulers
(40:41):
would follow, making him asymbol of the often brutal
nature of Russian governance.
And so there you have it, folks.
That is why Ivan was one of thepeople that I featured, just
because of that absolute abilitythat he had to control the
destinies of the nation at thetime and what he deposited into
(41:02):
the mindset of Russiangovernance going forward, which
is you do what the leader saysand their will is in question,
and it can be brutal, and that'sokay because that's what we do.
And then we concluded season onewith the stories of Winston
(41:25):
Churchill.
Of course we talked about Lenin, but we concluded with Winston
Churchill and Elizabeth I andwhat they meant for their island
nation.
I think both of thosecharacters are also pretty
self-explanatory.
We talked a little bit aboutsort of what led to the choosing
of certain characters, to thechoosing of certain characters.
(41:48):
In Churchill's case it was thatspirit.
It was what he was able to sortof do for the United Kingdom at
a time when they needed thatbold, energetic leadership that
was able to turn things aroundand provide hope for a world
that was really in turmoil atthe time.
Roy Jenkins, who wrote Churchill.
A biography said he was beyonddoubt the most remarkable and
(42:12):
versatile man ever to have beenprime minister of Great Britain.
His legacy is one of resolutedetermination and moral clarity.
And I do think it's importantto sort of and I went through
great lengths in the episode tocontextualize the whole moral
clarity piece.
In Churchill's mind there wasprobably no distinction between
(42:45):
what he was advocating for,which was the overthrow of these
fascist world under thisimperial rule, and which
essentially classified largeswaths of people as somewhat
inferior to the British people.
There was no contradiction inhis mind about that.
But it is important to pointout that that is sort of a
(43:06):
representation of who he felt.
You know how he was definitelya man of his time, didn't think
he was being out of step, and Ithink what he found out is,
particularly when he becameprime minister again in the 50s,
some lesser peoples and allthis stuff.
(43:26):
It was way outdated and it wastime for a change.
But what I will give him creditfor is he was a true believer
in the greatness of his ownnation and the cause of his
nation and that he felt, youknow, it was a mission
ultimately for the good of theworld, and so I think that made
(43:48):
a huge difference in how heapproached governance and how he
approached British resistanceduring the Second World War.
And then, finally, for QueenElizabeth.
She was just so remarkable.
I do wish I would have spenteven more time on her.
She was absolutely smart.
Wish I would have spent evenmore time on her.
(44:10):
She was absolutely smart,played all the right cards, made
mistakes.
One of the key mistakes is notbeing more forceful around her
succession plan.
I think she left things so wideopen that it eventually led to
the Stuart reign I mentionedthat in the podcast and the
Stuarts will then lead us to theEnglish Civil War, to the brief
Commonwealth.
In Oliver Cromwell, I mean, oneof them ended up getting
(44:31):
executed as a result of the sortof the schism that was left in
place because Elizabeth did notdo a good job of securing her
succession.
But outside of that I mean shejust she managed to create the
foundations of the superpowerthat the United Kingdom
eventually became, and it wasall thanks to the work that she
(44:53):
did.
Susan Doran, a historian andauthor of Elizabeth I and Her
Circle, says she was a masterstrategist and a charismatic
ruler who understood how tonavigate the treacherous waters
of politics.
Elizabeth's intelligence andstatecraft ensured the stability
of the English crown during avolatile period.
(45:15):
So, again, elizabeth was justconsequential, beyond belief,
really ushered this golden agethat we all discussed during the
episode in the arts andliterature and other mediums.
Amazing historical figure whoreally changed the face of
(45:35):
Britain forever and, as Imentioned, ushered in this great
age and eventually set it onits path to world power status
and, as a woman in a period whenthis was not common, again
similar to Joan of Arc.
Just something that even makesit more remarkable, more
impressive what she was able toaccomplish during this time
(45:57):
period.
Okay, so I think we sort ofreached the overview of the
podcast.
I know I mentioned that I wouldhave some guests.
I mean, it didn't work out, butthat's okay, it will happen.
I think we sort of reached theoverview of the podcast.
I know I mentioned that I wouldhave some guests.
I mean, it didn't work out, butthat's okay, it will happen.
I think for season two we'repreparing to do that for sure.
Bring in some expertise, bringin some folks that we can
(46:17):
interview and really give youguys a little bit more context.
And finally, the moment you'veall been waiting for is what is
season two going to be about?
And I'm going to release atsome point in the next couple of
months I'll release sort of apreview episode to talk about,
sort of tell you what season twois going to be about.
I'm going to put it on socialmedia as well, but what I will
(46:39):
tell you is season two.
I've decided.
I waffled between a few areasthat I could have covered.
We're going to talk about civilwars.
The civil wars are a sort of aloaded topic with lots of
different angles and,unfortunately, somewhat relevant
in today's society because ofthe deep divisions that we're
(47:00):
observing across many societiesin the world.
There are active civil wars,civil conflicts that we will
explore, but we're going to godeep into several of them and we
are going to start with theColombian conflict, or the
Colombian civil war.
Some people don't call it acivil war because it's sort of
(47:20):
so fluid.
It comes and goes and has thesedifferent factions that step in
and step out.
There are really like fourdifferent factions that are
playing and step out.
There are really like fourdifferent factions that are
playing in this Colombianconflict, but it has been
ongoing truly, probably at someform or another since the very
inception of the nation.
So we'll talk about that, we'llgo in detail.
(47:41):
I plan to bring some expertinsights to help us do that as
well.
At least at the end of eachseries we'll probably go four,
five, six episodes deep intoeach country.
So season two is going to behopefully much, much longer.
Hopefully, my schedule and myrelease timetables get better.
Right now, like I said, it'slike bi-weekly-ish, but we hope
(48:03):
to get much better and much moreconsistent and hopefully, if
you guys like what you'rehearing, if you want to hear
more of it, if there's aparticular format that you think
is more useful than another,let me know that as well and we
will try to do that.
Ultimately, if I can get just acouple people to view things a
(48:23):
little bit different, to thinkabout things a little bit
differently, I think I'm happywith that.
So thank you for tuning in tothis wrap-up episode of Double
Helix.
For now this is the end ofSeason 1.
This is the first thing you'relistening to.
Then you got like 12 or 13episodes you can go listen to.
But otherwise, thank you foryour support.
Those of you listening Lookforward to Season 2, looking
(48:46):
forward to your questions andyour actions.
Now, if you go to my website,the podcast website, there's now
a link at the top of eachepisode where you can actually
submit feedback and chat with medirectly.
So hopefully that's encouragingfor some.
Maybe some don't care.
Either way, it's all good.
We'll be here working alreadyon season two and trying to work
(49:08):
through all of the differentpermutations and the structure
of the different episodes.
Again, it's going to be aboutcivil wars and that's the theme
for season two.
We're going to start with theColombian conflict, or the
Colombian civil war, and we'llgo from there and then, when I
do the preview for season twoepisode, I will share with you
guys what other countries we aregoing to feature, and right now
(49:30):
it's going to be around 10countries.
So long season, but I'm excitedfor it.
So look forward for it.
I think a few months and thenwe'll be ready to go.
Thank you once again for tuningin to Double Helix.
Look forward to having you.
Thank you for listening onceagain.
Bye-bye.
Welcome to Double Helix Blueprint of Nations,
season 1, episode 11, season 1Recap.
Welcome back to Double HelixBlueprint of Nations.
(00:30):
This is our recap episode and,as I mentioned before, this is
the episode where we willdistill everything that the
season was about what thepodcast was about, which I
explained in the very firstintroduction episode, if you
haven't heard it about which Iexplained in the very first
introduction episode, if youhaven't heard it and to sort of
explain why we chose who wechose, why we decided to go with
the people that we did and whythey're meaningful to the
(00:53):
history of their respectivenations.
So, as I mentioned before, thepodcast Double Helix for me, was
something that I devised withthe notion and the idea of
trying to understand nations,trying to understand why nations
act the way they act.
If you think about America, thecountry where I live, think
(01:15):
about the propensity that thiscountry has for freedom,
patriotism, the desire forindependence, that all has roots
in the things that havehappened in the history, the
good and the bad, and it's notonly events, it's not only
moments in time, but it ispeople as well, and season one,
(01:40):
for us, was all about leadership, legacies is people who have
impacted the shape or theperception of leadership within
their respective nation and, insome cases, beyond their nation.
If you think of a figure likeNapoleon Bonaparte, who had
impacts that went well beyondjust out of France, it went on
(02:01):
to impact all of Western history.
It went on to impact militaryhistory across the world.
If you think of someone likeGeorge Washington, whom, I have
to admit, I knew about but I didnot understand sort of the
magnitude of the impact that histenure had, and it wasn't
(02:23):
really the things that I hadcome to understand him to be
famous for, like his militarycampaigns or in the War of
Independence in the UnitedStates, but it was really giving
up power.
What made Washington specialwas playing the role of
Cincinnatus, and Cincinnatus wasa Roman leader, many, many
(02:46):
centuries before who, whenpresented with the opportunity,
at the cusp of absolute power,he could have been the first
Caesar.
Really, he decided to give itall up and become a farmer, and
I think that is what makesWashington special.
In fact, james Thomas Flexneris a historian and he authored a
(03:07):
book, one that I use for thispodcast on Washington, called
the Indispensable man, and in ithe says that, in relinquishing
power in favor of democracy.
Washington had made a majorcontribution to the development
of American political ideas, tothe development of American
political ideas.
With this single act heestablished a standard of
(03:29):
selfless leadership that hasinspired countless generations
and that, to me, encapsulateswhy I chose Washington, even
though he's widely acknowledgedas the father of the American
nation and sort of seems like anobvious choice.
I think is that tradition, thattradition of Republicanism, is
what made him special beyondother leaders that were there.
(03:53):
He was definitely a man of histime, one that really was
steeped into the idea of virtue,and he cultivated this image
ferociously.
But I do think that what madeWashington special is that he
kind of took it beyond.
He was a true believer in whathe was doing.
Richard Brookshire, anotherhistorian who authored a book,
(04:14):
founding Father RediscoveringGeorge Washington, mentioned
that he could have been amonarch.
Instead he chose to return toprivate life.
This was an unprecedented actionin the history of the world and
set a crucial precedent for thenew nation.
I will say that's probably alittle bit overstated because it
wasn't the first time in thehistory of the world, but it was
(04:37):
certainly one of the mostprominent instances that this
had happened and it was not inkeeping with the traditions of
the time.
At the time of Washington,you're a successful military
general.
You just defeated the worldsuperpower.
It would be like the equivalentof someone defeating the United
(04:57):
States in open combat intraditional warfare today, and
instead of sort of walking awaywith your spoils and doing what
you want to do, you end upsaying no, I will not take power
, absolute power.
Obviously, he was presidenttwice, was reelected once, but
(05:20):
the reality is Washington couldhave been reelected multiple
times if he had wanted to, andagain he chose to walk away.
And had he chosen to stay on, Idon't really think there would
have been much fuss.
It was not unexpected for thetime period that he lived in,
and it was not unexpected by hispeers.
Thomas Jefferson, we know him,famed from being a founding
(05:44):
father and the author of theDeclaration of Independence.
He talks about what madeWashington a special character,
and he says that his integritywas the purest, his justice the
most inflexible.
I have ever known, no motivesof interest or consanguinity, of
friendship or hatred being ableto bias his decision.
(06:06):
He was indeed, in every senseof the words, a wise, a good and
a great man, and that was thespirit of Washington.
That is what made him special,beyond those peers that he had
and I tried to capture that inthe episode those peers that he
had, and I tried to capture thatin the episode.
(06:26):
I tried to mention why he wasso special and why I believe he
deposited this incredible DNAstrain into the fabric of
America.
I will say that that depositthat he put into the soul of
America, that deposit ofrepublicanism, is fading.
I think there's no way aroundit.
There's certainly a spirit thatis different in the modern day
(06:50):
American discourse, particularlythe political discourse, but
across leadership, and I don'treally know what that is the
result of.
I don't really have a goodsense of exactly where we've
gone awry.
But that is why I'm doing thispodcast, because I want to
explore those questions throughthe study of history and through
(07:10):
the study of other charactersthat have influenced American
life.
A pretty safe choice.
I then had to make somedecisions of who did I want to
feature.
For context, I had originallyplanned to do three leaders from
(07:35):
each nation.
The first couple leaders, ortwo of the leaders, were to be
people who I think are generallyacknowledged as virtuous, as
people who've deposited a gooddeal of goodwill or a good
spirit, I guess a good depositinto the DNA of their nation,
and how people in that countryperceive or see leadership may
be a reflection of themselves,someone who is viewed favorably
(08:03):
either by history or viewedfavorably broadly, but who still
influences the way people thinkof leadership, perhaps not for
the good, but the way peoplethink of leadership in that
nation.
And for the United States,again, I could have gone many
different routes with politicalleaders, military leaders,
leaders of movements, becauseultimately, when we're talking
(08:31):
about blueprint of nations, whenwe're talking about broad
impact, I think is necessary forthose who either led large
organizations, large movementsor large ideas to be at the
forefront, because ultimatelythey are the ones who dictate,
sort of the shape and the courseof history for many of these
nations.
So, again, going from Washington, I could have gone to Lincoln
(08:56):
as one who came to mind, seemedlike an obvious choice, widely
acknowledged by many historiansas the father of the you know,
one of the fathers of theAmerican nation, perhaps the
best president ever.
For obvious reasons, he savedthe Union.
It was under his leadershipthat the United States fought
(09:19):
the most brutal war that it hasever fought, the Civil War,
where the stakes were thehighest because it was the
survival of the very nation andLincoln was able to lead the
Union, or the North, to victoryagainst the Confederacy and in
the process eliminate probablyone of the greatest evils that
(09:40):
has afflicted, broadly speakingand there's been many evils, but
one of the greatest evils thathas afflicted, I think, world
history which was chattelslavery in the Western
Hemisphere and in particular inthe United States.
It is worth pointing out thatLincoln was not a convert of the
anti-slavery movement early on.
(10:01):
It was an evolution, it wassomething that he evolved into
and it's not something that henecessarily wanted to abolish
slavery, but it was the thingthat he found morally
reprehensible.
But at the same time thewriting suggests that he did not
think that it was somethingthat he needed to get embroiled
(10:21):
with until he did, until hefigured out that getting rid of
slavery not only would give himand his government cause worth
fighting for but it wouldactually accelerate, hopefully,
the conclusion of the war andsort of provide a new meaning,
almost a religious-like fervor,to fighting the Civil War.
So I could have gone withLincoln.
(10:43):
He obviously had profoundimpact on the United States,
revered, like I said, by manypeople, many former presidents,
many historians, but it justfelt a little bit too overplayed
, a little bit of a trope in mymind, I guess, because you know
(11:05):
it's Lincoln, he was the greatemancipator, save the union,
hooray.
And I don't think that doesLincoln justice and I don't
think that is really accordswith the historical record,
quite clearly, because again, hewas a late convert to the party
of emancipation.
It wasn't why he initiallyfought the Civil War.
(11:28):
In broad terms, yes, the CivilWar was definitely about slavery
, but for him it was aboutpreserving the union.
And preserving the union meantyou had to come to terms with
slavery and you had to agree onwhat the course was going to be.
And he did not believe thatthere was any authority for
states to secede because theywanted to keep slaves.
(11:50):
And that is ultimately hisprimary goal was to preserve the
union.
And you can even see that someof the writing after or as the
war was coming to a close, whereit suggests that he may have
been quite lenient with theSouth in the Reconstruction
period had he not beenassassinated by John Wilkes
(12:13):
Booth.
So again, could have gone with.
Lincoln decided not to.
There was also Teddy Rooseveltpresent and also, who is a
source of great admiration forlots of folks because of what he
represented.
He was a Republican but hereally governed, I would say,
like a modern center leftpresident, in many ways Big on
(12:37):
sort of expanding the franchiseand the rights of his fellow
citizenship, big outdoorsman,just sort of a larger than life
figure.
Would have been great, I think,to do the podcast on Teddy
Roosevelt, just because hedefinitely, in my head at least,
represents a great deal of whatI would say is the
(12:59):
quintessential American spiritRugged, self-deterministic,
wants to go out there and do ithimself.
So I could have gone that route, but again chose not to,
because I think we needed tosort of look at a world, an
America that was more inaccordance with the America that
(13:20):
is today, which is amultiracial society, and so
again could have consideredFranklin Delano Roosevelt.
The president who was presidentduring the Great Depression,
during World War II, saw Americathrough perhaps the most
consequential time of the modernage.
But Franklin Delano Rooseveltwas a difficult one to read.
(13:42):
I've read historians who saythat he was an enigma, even unto
himself.
Some of his closest advisorssaid they didn't really know him
and that even he didn't knowwho he was in secret, and that
is because, you know, franklinFDR was a politician first, a
master tactician of thepolitical stage, a man of great
(14:05):
conviction, great ideas, but healways kept his cards close to
the vest and, as such, I didn'tfind him to be that much of an
inspirational leaderConsequential, sure,
Inspirational, maybe not as muchas some of the others and, like
I said I mentioned, washingtonwas inspirational and that's why
(14:26):
I used him.
And the leader that I decidedto feature was the definition of
inspiration, and to this day hecontinues to have that impact
on America and, I would say, onthe world.
The second person that I featurein Leadership Legacies for the
United States was, of course,martin Luther King Jr, and he
(14:51):
was someone who articulated avision of justice, of radical
love, that I think was differentfrom much of anything that had
been done before.
He was someone who, through hisChristian faith, really
believed in the power of peopleto change through love.
And I don't mean love in thissort of squishy way, I mean love
(15:12):
in a very powerful, activistway that can penetrate deeply
entrenched divisions insocieties, and that's what he
meant to do.
Taylor Branch, which is ahistorian and the author of
(15:33):
Parting the Waters America inthe King Years.
He says that King's leadershiptranscended the civil rights
movement.
He demonstrated that moralclarity and nonviolent
resistance could move a nationcloser to its ideals of equality
and justice, even against theweight of centuries of
oppression.
And that is, to me, at the key,at the center of what made King
(15:55):
special.
It is what I mentioned in theepisode.
King, to me, represents thebetter angels of America.
He represents what we allaspire.
Our leadership was what weaspire we could be and really
sort of hearken to the ideals ofthe better place for America.
(16:18):
Now that hasn't alwaysmanifested in truth, but I think
that's what makes him special,because it's almost like this
beacon that holds out and tellsyou where this is, where you
could be, and you know whetherwe reach it or not it's up to us
as a society.
But I think that's what makeshim special.
Cornel West, who's a philosopherand author, he said Dr King was
(16:42):
not just an American hero but aworld historical figure who
embodied the prophetic Christiantradition.
His courage, vision and deepempathy continue to challenge us
to build a more just andcompassionate society, and I
think that's right.
I think when you think about acrisis, a moral crisis, in the
(17:02):
United States I mentioned it inthe episode when we got into the
George Floyd murder the firstthing you hear is Dr King, his
quotes, his admonishments, theway he spoke to people, the
things he said, how he channeled, again the dreams of the nation
(17:23):
, the credo of the nation, intoaction.
And so that tells you about hislegacy, that tells you about
his impact and, again, for me,leadership legacies and what
they mean to the United States.
In this case, again, was aboutwhat are those seeds that have
been deposited into the mindsetof the average American?
(17:43):
Or you know, when you migratedhere and became a citizen or
were born here, that you justbelieve at your core right, like
these are American values,these are American values of
leadership, and so that's what Iwas trying to go for.
I also could have you know, Ialso could have gone into sort
of other leaders, other aspectsof the civil rights movement,
(18:06):
but I think I chose to keep itnarrow again, to focus on what
made King special and what hewas able to transfer to the rest
of America.
I think President Barack Obamacaptured it well when he said Dr
King held up a mirror toAmerica and forced us to
confront the reality ofinequality.
(18:26):
His unwavering faith in thepromise of our nation still
challenges us to live up to theideals of liberty and justice
for all, and so I think that isa good summary of what I think
his legacy is and what he leftbehind in his untimely demise
(18:48):
what he left behind in hisuntimely demise.
In the episode.
I did not get into the detailsof some of the seedier aspects
of Martin Luther King's life.
I mentioned that, I think inlike one or two sentences.
He had huge problems withinfidelity.
He liked to sleep around.
What can I say?
That is a known thing.
Hoover, who was the FBIdirector at the time, had a bone
(19:08):
to pick with King and he woulduse secret recordings of King
committing infidelity sleepingaround, as sometimes wanted to
use that as blackmail and sortof to say that King was an
insincere man and how hepresented himself versus what he
was doing in his private life.
It's hard to tell.
I would say nobody's perfectand that just shows you right
(19:32):
there, right Like he was flawed.
And I think when you coverthese characters and you talk
about these people and yousomehow want to paint them as
well, they were great andperfect and they didn't do
anything wrong.
I think you're missing thepoint.
I think that is their humanity,is what makes them actually
more relevant and moreinteresting.
And then, finally, you know, towrap up, the United States and
(19:57):
the leadership legacy there.
Obviously I think there's goingto be a part two of leadership
legacies at some point in thispodcast.
I will come back and do thatlater because there's even
deeper strains and currents thatyou could say feed into the
American psyche.
So we will do that and I thinkI will also concentrate on the
(20:17):
not so good.
I consider doing a podcast onNixon.
President Nixon, who waspresident in the early 70s,
wrapped up Vietnam, but notbefore.
He sort of lied about what hewas trying to do in Vietnam in
order to get elected.
Nixon was, I think, generallyrecognized as a shady character
(20:38):
who maybe should have been thefirst president to serve jail
time, but President Fordpardoned him is certainly a
character that I think invites adeeper analysis, because I also
do think he represents a strainof American thought.
He represents a deposit intothe DNA bank, and I ultimately
(21:02):
chose not to, mostly because oftime and research efforts that I
would have taken to sort of putthat together, but certainly,
what I would say is Nixon is oneof those who I think had a
broader impact on Americansociety than we like to admit
and who still to this day,represents a strain of thought
(21:25):
in American society thatsometimes we like to turn away
from and pretend like we don'treally think that way.
But we do.
And if you don't believe me'tlook at who we sometimes
(21:56):
celebrate as our leaders ofindustry, captains of industry,
how they act, their value set.
I think that's reflective ofthe Nixon strain, as I've
decided to call it.
So then we moved on to France,and in particular I wanted to
feature two people or twocharacters that I feel capture
well the spirit of French nation, the spirit of the fatherland
(22:18):
as it is known in French, andthose would be, of course,
napoleon Bonaparte, the Corsican, who later became a Frenchman
fooling his own right, and Joanof Arc.
And in the case of Napoleon,it's not a hard one, right, it's
not a hard choice.
I consider looking at Charlesde Gaulle, consider looking at
(22:38):
Louis XIV, the Sun King, whosort of came up with the whole
notion of divine rights of king,and he is the, what I would say
when you think about anabsolute monarch, absolute
control over everything.
That's Louis XIV, if you thinkabout.
If anyone listening has watchedthe movie History of the World,
(23:01):
it's pretty funny.
But there is actually what Iwould say they do a good job of
capturing the absolute powerthat someone like Louis XIV
would have had in Versailles andhow he chose to project power.
Again, it's a comedy and satire, but quite funny though.
(23:22):
So Napoleon, you know, is again.
I think he embodies sort of ashift in the world.
He came in the heels of theFrench Revolution, lived through
the French Revolution and usedit to create the system around
himself.
He was driven by animmeasurable amount of ambition.
He was driven also by thisbelief in self, this belief that
(23:46):
he was destined for something,and whenever he felt like he
wasn't reaching those heights,he would fall into this deep
melodramatic depressions.
That's something I didn'treally mention in the podcast,
but he would.
He was kind of dramatic ingeneral.
If you read some of his lettersyou can see that his letters to
Josephine over the top dramatichis letters in his childhood.
(24:09):
He would despair about thingsin ways that may be, again a bit
melodramatic, but it wasbecause he was driven by this
insatiable hunger to achieve, todo more.
And so I would imagine that thelast few years for the emperor
on St Helena were terrible, justbecause he was completely
(24:31):
divorced from all of this grandplans, all of these things that
he thought he should achieve andhe thought he should have
reached.
But again, napoleon to me wasyou can't discuss France without
discussing Napoleon.
And Andrew Roberts wrote ahistorian and he wrote Napoleon
(24:52):
A Life.
I used that book to researchfor the podcast.
He said that Napoleon'sinfluence on France is
unparalleled.
He transformed French societywith the Napoleonic Code, which
set a legal standard based onmerit, equality and the rule of
law.
He laid the foundation for themodern state by centralizing
(25:12):
administration and rationalizingthe bureaucracy.
And that's just likeadministratively right, the
impact that Napoleon had on theFrench nation, that Napoleon had
on the French nation, but notonly that.
He transformed the things thathad been gained through the
(25:33):
French Revolution I read someonemention took the crazy out and
turned it into somethingtangible, something that could
actually carry on as a legacy,and that is the positive impact
I think he had on France, on themodernity of France.
He sort of ushered this new ageof efficiency and good
bureaucracy in French government, a lot of which still survives
(25:55):
to this day and it is in manyways the birth of the modern
French nation.
Jean Tullard, which is anotherhistorian on Napoleon, mentioned
that Napoleon's rule representsa break from the old regime and
the birth of modern France.
His reforms in law,administration and education
(26:16):
revolutionized French societyand made him a symbol of
national regeneration, and Ithink that's right.
I think that's what madeNapoleon special in the episode.
I tried to capture some of thatthrough the middle parts in the
second episode, emperor of theWorld.
I think the wars of conquest,napoleonic wars, which we have a
(26:37):
companion to sort of shadow orcover up some of those more
consequential advances, and Ithink the personality of
Napoleon sometimes wins outversus some of the
accomplishments that he achievedfrom an administrative front,
which are the types ofaccomplishments that I think
have lasted.
(26:57):
You know, I think Napoleon also, you know, represents sort of
this leadership, this type ofleadership and dynamism that is
seldom seen in the world, butwhen it shows up it changes sort
of the entire perspective ofthe world.
(27:18):
It changes, it almost makes theaxis of the earth tilt
differently when you haveleaders like this, paul Johnson,
who again wrote another book onNapoleon.
He says that Napoleonrepresents the embodiment of
dynamic leadership, combiningruthless pragmatism with
visionary reforms.
He showed friends that it couldbe a great power through the
(27:41):
sheer force of will and aunified state through the sheer
force of will and a unifiedstate.
So I think his impact on Frenchsociety, on the French nation
as a whole and the way it seesitself, is unquestionable.
He was an example of not onlycharismatic leadership and
(28:02):
ability to inspire others, buthe was an example of what
happens when the force of willof one individual sort of drives
behind a nation.
And again, I don't want to makethat sound like it's always
great.
There were, after all, millionsof deaths as a result of his
wars of conquest.
France was left in ruins inmany ways, socially and
(28:25):
demographically.
So was much of Europe after themany wars, the wars of the
Napoleonic Wars and then sort ofon the tail end of the
Revolutionary Wars as well.
So I don't want to make lightof that and I don't want to say
that force of will, individualsare the solution to all the
problems, because that's whatpopulism trades on right.
(28:48):
It's like oh, if you just trustthis one guy or one gal,
they'll do it all for you, andthat simple.
I always say simple answers tocomplex problems probably the
wrong answer.
Complex problems typicallyrequire complex solutions when
we're talking about societiesand nations, but individuals
(29:10):
that offer those simplesolutions sometimes it's not the
best outcome and I think we cansee that in Napoleon.
It's a mixed bag.
French historian Emmanuel deVarsky.
He says, in the Making of aLegend, that Napoleon's legacy
is complex, embodying bothheroism and tyranny.
(29:31):
For France, he represents thepinnacle of transformative
leadership, a leader who couldboth unify and divide a nation.
So I think that's a good way towrap up why we chose Napoleon
and why we did the episode onhim.
And then now we will discussJoan of Arc briefly.
I think I, re-listening to theepisode I think there was a good
(30:14):
job of was consequential to notjust the friends of her time
but also historically.
And I chose her because shereally sort of drove to a new
line in a friends that wasreally embroiled in despair, in
despair that was sort oflistless, and she provided
inspiration.
And her story is so remarkablebecause of just the fact that
(30:36):
she came out of nowhere.
There was no expectation ofsomeone like Joan of Arc showing
up.
You know the reason that shebecame so important and in one
of the books I use for thepodcast, mary Gordon, who wrote
Joan of Arc Alive, she says thatJoan embodied the hopes of her
(30:58):
people at a time of despair.
Her courage and unwaveringfaith turned the tide of the
Hundred Years' War, transformingthe fate of France forever.
Just think about how differentlife would be for France had
they lost the Hundred Years' War.
And they were well on their way.
As I mentioned during theepisode, henry V had just been
(31:19):
stringing victory after victory,stringing victory after victory
.
Had he not died, he would havebecome the king of France,
likely unified the two kingdoms,and he was such a strong leader
that history of Western Europeas we know it today may be
completely different.
There is a train of thought outthere in history that says, if
(31:42):
not Joan, somebody else wouldhave come along and done what
she did anyways, like it wouldhave happened eventually, right.
That is why, when peoplefantasize about time travel and
say that they would have goneback and killed baby Hitler to
prevent the Holocaust and WorldWar II and the whole thing,
people say, well then Stalinwould have become the big bad
(32:05):
guy and would have doneeverything Hitler did, and so
forth.
So there's that, but I dobelieve there are some people
like Joan of Arc again came outof nowhere and really changed
the direction of the HundredYears' War and changed the
direction of the country.
At that point, you know, joanreally revitalized the French
monarchy, point.
(32:28):
You know Joan reallyrevitalized the French monarchy.
She created hope and sheprovided vision at a time when
it was sorely lacking.
And then what she hasrepresented after that, you know
, she has represented sort ofthe spirit, the flame that sits
in the heart of the Frenchnation.
Winston Churchill, our friendfrom our podcast as well, he
said that Joan was a being souplifted from the ordinary run
(32:49):
of mankind that she finds noequal in a thousand years.
Her leadership represents anunbreakable spirit that
transcends any age and I thinkhe would find her a kindred
spirit, given his own story andwhat he was able to do for the
United Kingdom during World WarII and why she was chosen for
(33:09):
this podcast as a featurecharacter in the Leadership
Legacies.
I think I'll close with whatAndrew Lang, a historian who
wrote the book Made of Friendsbeing the story of the life and
death of John D'Arc, which is abook I used, and he says she
represents the ultimate model ofleadership.
The Life and Death of JohnD'Arc, which is a book I used,
and he says she represents theultimate model of leadership,
(33:30):
where divine inspiration meetshuman will.
Joan's legacy has lived on as asymbol of faith, courage and
the transformative power of asingle individual, and I think
that's absolutely right and thatis what makes her so special.
That's what makes her stand outabove all others.
So really enjoyed doing theepisode on Joan.
(33:53):
I feel like I have to go backto that time period.
I have to go back at some pointto the Hundred Years War and
dig a little bit deeper.
There's tons of stories thatcome out of that time period
that are super interesting andworth exploring further.
So we will probably do that,probably in broader themes, not
so focused on individuals, butindividuals will always surface
(34:16):
because it is the history ofhumanity and driven by humans.
I'll skip around from here tojust wrap up.
You know the recap of seasonone.
I think you guys get it at thispoint what I was trying to go
for, which is to look at leaderswho had outsized impact on
their countries, likely changedthe trajectory of their
(34:39):
countries and made such animpact that today you can't
really conceive of that nation,of that country, without the
impact of that specific leader.
You know Mandela and I'm goingto absolutely butcher this but
Mandela Pumla Gobodo Madikisela,who was a psychologist and she
(35:00):
wrote a book.
It covers broader themes ofSouth African society, but it
does talk about Mandela, saysthat his greatest gift was his
capacity to forgive and seekreconciliation, even with those
who had inflicted the deepestpain.
Mandela represents the triumphof empathy and moral courage.
Absolutely powerful statementand I think, encapsulates
(35:25):
perfectly why Mandela is one ofthe characters that I wanted to
look into.
And his impact Because you'veheard of Mandela, I think if you
read a lot of history or youare familiar with broadly
speaking world history, youprobably know Mandela.
But I think that was his impactis how he was able to go the
(35:46):
other way, when I think historyhas shown us that when there is
great injustices and people areoppressed in really brutal ways,
the typical answer isrevolution and lots of killing,
but Mandela chose to dosomething different.
The situation in South Africa,I would say, is probably not
perfect and shout out to all thepeople in South Africa who
(36:08):
listen to this podcast there's alot of them, so I really
appreciate it.
Keep it going.
I hope I was able to do yournation justice.
It's something that I'mlearning as well, so please send
feedback if you feel likethere's parts that I missed.
I know there's a topic thatcarries a lot of passion.
Some people gave feedbackaround Winnie Mandela.
(36:30):
She was more radical, forcertain, than her husband.
There was also feedback on FWthe Clerk.
Maybe he did not deserve apodcast episode, but again,
remember, leadership legaciesare not always about the ones
who make you feel nice andsquishy, make you feel good.
Leadership legacies are alsoabout those who, for ill or for
(36:57):
better or ill, had an impact onhow the nation perceives itself
and what are the challenges andthe struggles that are sort of
running through the strain,through the DNA of that nation.
And then we looked at Russia aswell.
A lot of people asked me doepisodes on Stalin and Lenin?
We did do Lenin.
People wanted to do episodes onPutin.
(37:17):
Not ready to go into Putin yetit is something that I will
absolutely explore, but I thinkthe forces at least from my
reading, the forces thatinfluence Putin are broader than
just him.
It's sort of this desire thathe has to re-referee, I guess,
or replay the Cold War and redothe things that happened over
(37:42):
the last half century and say,yeah, nevermind, we didn't like
the outcome, so we're going torewrite it.
And so there are broader forces.
I think it's a better study ofPutin would be to study the Cold
War, what happened at the endof the Cold War and what impact
this had on Russia directly.
I think that may be a moreuseful exercise because Putin
(38:04):
himself displays all of thecharacteristics of your classic
autocrat oligarchy.
You know, kleptocracy, whateverC you want to use.
I think that's probably a moreaccurate representation of where
he's at.
But I chose Ivan the Terribleas one of the two because you
(38:24):
know, as Robert Payne, who was ahistorian who wrote about Ivan
the Terrible, as one of the two,because you know as Robert
Payne, who was a historian whowrote about Ivan the Terrible,
used that book also for thepodcast.
He says that Ivan the Terriblestands as the pivotal figure in
the shaping of Russia.
His reforms, military campaignsand the establishment of a
centralized autocracy left alegacy that influenced Russian
(38:45):
governance for centuries.
That's right.
I think that is the heestablished sort of the
beginnings of the modern Russianstate.
You would then have Catherinethe Great, you would have Peter
the Great and they would, youknow, sort of lay down even
stronger foundations.
But I think what is undeniableis that as the first real czar
(39:08):
of Russia, ivan IV, ivanIvanovich, is sort of truly the
founder of that tradition, andthe way that he consolidated
power, the way that he createdthe Tsarist autocracy, is
something that became sort of ahallmark of Russian governance
(39:28):
and something that wasinescapable even after the
revolution that Lenin and hiscomrades led, and then it
carried on through from Lenin toStalin all the way through to
today to Putin.
I think some of those thingsare still carrying through in
Russian psyche and Russiansociety.
You know, I thought Ivan was agood sort of representation of
(39:57):
absolute power as well.
The DNA bank of Russia is thisidea that the ruler it's always
right has this innate divineauthority and sort of governs
almost unchecked.
You know, his reign also sortof symbolized that.
(40:18):
What happens with that dissentwhen that marriage of autocracy
and the desire to sort of rulesingle-handedly?
Edward Keenan wrote Ivan theTerrible and the I to sort of
rule single-handedly?
Edward Keenan wrote Ivan theTerrible and the Iconography of
Power.
He says his reign symbolized adark allure of autocracy, ivan
forged a template of fear andcontrol that subsequent rulers
(40:41):
would follow, making him asymbol of the often brutal
nature of Russian governance.
And so there you have it, folks.
That is why Ivan was one of thepeople that I featured, just
because of that absolute abilitythat he had to control the
destinies of the nation at thetime and what he deposited into
(41:02):
the mindset of Russiangovernance going forward, which
is you do what the leader saysand their will is in question,
and it can be brutal, and that'sokay because that's what we do.
And then we concluded season onewith the stories of Winston
(41:25):
Churchill.
Of course we talked about Lenin, but we concluded with Winston
Churchill and Elizabeth I andwhat they meant for their island
nation.
I think both of thosecharacters are also pretty
self-explanatory.
We talked a little bit aboutsort of what led to the choosing
of certain characters, to thechoosing of certain characters.
(41:48):
In Churchill's case it was thatspirit.
It was what he was able to sortof do for the United Kingdom at
a time when they needed thatbold, energetic leadership that
was able to turn things aroundand provide hope for a world
that was really in turmoil atthe time.
Roy Jenkins, who wrote Churchill.
A biography said he was beyonddoubt the most remarkable and
(42:12):
versatile man ever to have beenprime minister of Great Britain.
His legacy is one of resolutedetermination and moral clarity.
And I do think it's importantto sort of and I went through
great lengths in the episode tocontextualize the whole moral
clarity piece.
In Churchill's mind there wasprobably no distinction between
(42:45):
what he was advocating for,which was the overthrow of these
fascist world under thisimperial rule, and which
essentially classified largeswaths of people as somewhat
inferior to the British people.
There was no contradiction inhis mind about that.
But it is important to pointout that that is sort of a
(43:06):
representation of who he felt.
You know how he was definitelya man of his time, didn't think
he was being out of step, and Ithink what he found out is,
particularly when he becameprime minister again in the 50s,
some lesser peoples and allthis stuff.
(43:26):
It was way outdated and it wastime for a change.
But what I will give him creditfor is he was a true believer
in the greatness of his ownnation and the cause of his
nation and that he felt, youknow, it was a mission
ultimately for the good of theworld, and so I think that made
(43:48):
a huge difference in how heapproached governance and how he
approached British resistanceduring the Second World War.
And then, finally, for QueenElizabeth.
She was just so remarkable.
I do wish I would have spenteven more time on her.
She was absolutely smart.
Wish I would have spent evenmore time on her.
(44:10):
She was absolutely smart,played all the right cards, made
mistakes.
One of the key mistakes is notbeing more forceful around her
succession plan.
I think she left things so wideopen that it eventually led to
the Stuart reign I mentionedthat in the podcast and the
Stuarts will then lead us to theEnglish Civil War, to the brief
Commonwealth.
In Oliver Cromwell, I mean, oneof them ended up getting
(44:31):
executed as a result of the sortof the schism that was left in
place because Elizabeth did notdo a good job of securing her
succession.
But outside of that I mean shejust she managed to create the
foundations of the superpowerthat the United Kingdom
eventually became, and it wasall thanks to the work that she
(44:53):
did.
Susan Doran, a historian andauthor of Elizabeth I and Her
Circle, says she was a masterstrategist and a charismatic
ruler who understood how tonavigate the treacherous waters
of politics.
Elizabeth's intelligence andstatecraft ensured the stability
of the English crown during avolatile period.
(45:15):
So, again, elizabeth was justconsequential, beyond belief,
really ushered this golden agethat we all discussed during the
episode in the arts andliterature and other mediums.
Amazing historical figure whoreally changed the face of
(45:35):
Britain forever and, as Imentioned, ushered in this great
age and eventually set it onits path to world power status
and, as a woman in a period whenthis was not common, again
similar to Joan of Arc.
Just something that even makesit more remarkable, more
impressive what she was able toaccomplish during this time
(45:57):
period.
Okay, so I think we sort ofreached the overview of the
podcast.
I know I mentioned that I wouldhave some guests.
I mean, it didn't work out, butthat's okay, it will happen.
I think we sort of reached theoverview of the podcast.
I know I mentioned that I wouldhave some guests.
I mean, it didn't work out, butthat's okay, it will happen.
I think for season two we'repreparing to do that for sure.
Bring in some expertise, bringin some folks that we can
(46:17):
interview and really give youguys a little bit more context.
And finally, the moment you'veall been waiting for is what is
season two going to be about?
And I'm going to release atsome point in the next couple of
months I'll release sort of apreview episode to talk about,
sort of tell you what season twois going to be about.
I'm going to put it on socialmedia as well, but what I will
(46:39):
tell you is season two.
I've decided.
I waffled between a few areasthat I could have covered.
We're going to talk about civilwars.
The civil wars are a sort of aloaded topic with lots of
different angles and,unfortunately, somewhat relevant
in today's society because ofthe deep divisions that we're
(47:00):
observing across many societiesin the world.
There are active civil wars,civil conflicts that we will
explore, but we're going to godeep into several of them and we
are going to start with theColombian conflict, or the
Colombian civil war.
Some people don't call it acivil war because it's sort of
(47:20):
so fluid.
It comes and goes and has thesedifferent factions that step in
and step out.
There are really like fourdifferent factions that are
playing and step out.
There are really like fourdifferent factions that are
playing in this Colombianconflict, but it has been
ongoing truly, probably at someform or another since the very
inception of the nation.
So we'll talk about that, we'llgo in detail.
(47:41):
I plan to bring some expertinsights to help us do that as
well.
At least at the end of eachseries we'll probably go four,
five, six episodes deep intoeach country.
So season two is going to behopefully much, much longer.
Hopefully, my schedule and myrelease timetables get better.
Right now, like I said, it'slike bi-weekly-ish, but we hope
(48:03):
to get much better and much moreconsistent and hopefully, if
you guys like what you'rehearing, if you want to hear
more of it, if there's aparticular format that you think
is more useful than another,let me know that as well and we
will try to do that.
Ultimately, if I can get just acouple people to view things a
(48:23):
little bit different, to thinkabout things a little bit
differently, I think I'm happywith that.
So thank you for tuning in tothis wrap-up episode of Double
Helix.
For now this is the end ofSeason 1.
This is the first thing you'relistening to.
Then you got like 12 or 13episodes you can go listen to.
But otherwise, thank you foryour support.
Those of you listening Lookforward to Season 2, looking
(48:46):
forward to your questions andyour actions.
Now, if you go to my website,the podcast website, there's now
a link at the top of eachepisode where you can actually
submit feedback and chat with medirectly.
So hopefully that's encouragingfor some.
Maybe some don't care.
Either way, it's all good.
We'll be here working alreadyon season two and trying to work
(49:08):
through all of the differentpermutations and the structure
of the different episodes.
Again, it's going to be aboutcivil wars and that's the theme
for season two.
We're going to start with theColombian conflict, or the
Colombian civil war, and we'llgo from there and then, when I
do the preview for season twoepisode, I will share with you
guys what other countries we aregoing to feature, and right now
(49:30):
it's going to be around 10countries.
So long season, but I'm excitedfor it.
So look forward for it.
I think a few months and thenwe'll be ready to go.
Thank you once again for tuningin to Double Helix.
Look forward to having you.
Thank you for listening onceagain.
Bye-bye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!