Context
I was looking at pictures on the internet of people who have replaced their lawns with gardens and found a link to this story of a man who's been cited for having an educational garden instead of a lawn in front of his house because it's considered an eyesore. Wanting to see for myself, I found this picture of the garden in question.
Commentary
Does the garden in the link above look bad to you, like it would diminish property values in the neighborhood? It's OK; you can be honest. It does look a little odd, doesn't it? I mean, there's food growing right out there where everyone can see it!
It seems to me that Americans sometimes have a paradoxical relationship to work. Everyone is supposed to work hard, but when you return to your middle-class home in the suburbs no one is supposed to see the effort you put in. You go to an air-conditioned office in the city for eight hours a day to make enough money to buy food; you don't grow it yourself! It's not just food, either. You're not supposed to work on your car in your yard either, and you're not supposed to hang your clean laundry out to dry.
Pardon the digression, but having been raised in Mexico, that last one was quite a shock to me when I returned to the United States. I mean, line-dried laundry can be a little stiff, but it smells so much better and lasts so much longer than the dryer-processed version. Not to mention how much better it is for the environment.
Which brings me back to the garden, which is also more environmentally sensible than keeping a lawn. And it shouldn't be that difficult. After all, we used to all grow our own food and hang out our own laundry. But I think that's part of the problem. Americans are very fond of progress. We like to feel like we're starting at one point and constantly improving on our way to one goal or another. Going back to something we've already done feels like failure or surrender. In our culture "old-fashioned" and "traditional" are usually meant pejoratively. That's why the words "new" and "improved" so often go together.
Realistically, though, we have to recognize that some progress is not good. Like the constant upward climb of our average weight, which is considerably diminishing our quality of life. Increasingly sophisticated and efficient weaponry is not my favorite form of progress either. Mind you, I'm not advocating that we return to the good old days of beating each other up with rocks. I'm just saying that maybe growing a little food on your property is not a crime. Even if it is a little unusual-looking.
What did you see?
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
8/28/2012
7/20/2012
I saw a corporate settlement
Context
This morning, an agreement was reached between DirecTV and Viacom in their 10-day-long dispute over how much the former would pay to carry the latter's channels. DirecTV's announcement posits the settlement as a triumph over "bullying" by a programming provider. Viacom's announcement is more subdued. I myself am a DirecTV subscriber who frequently watches Comedy Central, one of Viacom's channels.
Commentary
I found many interesting aspects to this dispute and its resolution, but I'm going to start with the one that caused me to want to blog in the first place: the belligerents immediately removed all references to the dispute itself from not only their main websites, but the little ancillary ones each of them had set up just to rag on each other about it (this one for DirecTV, and this one for Viacom).
I was sad this information was gone, because I thought the tone each company took in defending its viewpoint might be indicative of their corporate culture, and I wanted to share them with you. Fortunately, the people over at Ping! Zine have been covering the story and have some characteristic quotes from each side here.
It's funny, in the past the two parties seemed to be taking the opposite positions of the ones they're using today. DirecTV generally spoke in measured tones. "We are negotiating." "We'll get this handled." "We're on your side." Viacom claimed to be on the consumer's side as well, but their rhetoric went more along the lines of, "DirecTV is run by greedy, lying bastards who want to take away your Spongebob!" In fact, I have to believe that one of the reasons Viacom took down their previous comments so quickly was because only yesterday they were saying, "DirecTV refuses to negotiate!" And yet a settlement was reached today. Magic, yes?
Perhaps I'm predisposed to take DirecTV's side. I've been generally happy with them as an entertainment provider, and I don't really feel like I have a relationship with Viacom. I like The Daily Show, but I associate that with Comedy Central and Jon Stewart, not Viacom. And of the other 16 channels that were in dispute (See, I even take DirecTV's word for that figure.), TV Land and Nick at Night are the only ones I watch, and those very rarely.
That being said, I really just liked DirecTV's approach to the whole conflict. I don't like scare tactics under the best of circumstances, and Viacom's making the loss of a few TV channels sound like a personal assault was just egregiously bad. It's more than that, though. From my perspective, disputes over money rarely have an ethically right or wrong side. If money's been stolen, or if one party is much more vulnerable, sure, but we're talking about two corporations arguing over how much money they were going to, let's face it, take from me. Best to make it sound like business, because that's all it was. So DirecTV's decision to use the emotionally charge "bullying" word today was disappointing. Ah well, at least I get my Daily Show back.
What did you see today?
This morning, an agreement was reached between DirecTV and Viacom in their 10-day-long dispute over how much the former would pay to carry the latter's channels. DirecTV's announcement posits the settlement as a triumph over "bullying" by a programming provider. Viacom's announcement is more subdued. I myself am a DirecTV subscriber who frequently watches Comedy Central, one of Viacom's channels.
Commentary
I found many interesting aspects to this dispute and its resolution, but I'm going to start with the one that caused me to want to blog in the first place: the belligerents immediately removed all references to the dispute itself from not only their main websites, but the little ancillary ones each of them had set up just to rag on each other about it (this one for DirecTV, and this one for Viacom).
I was sad this information was gone, because I thought the tone each company took in defending its viewpoint might be indicative of their corporate culture, and I wanted to share them with you. Fortunately, the people over at Ping! Zine have been covering the story and have some characteristic quotes from each side here.
It's funny, in the past the two parties seemed to be taking the opposite positions of the ones they're using today. DirecTV generally spoke in measured tones. "We are negotiating." "We'll get this handled." "We're on your side." Viacom claimed to be on the consumer's side as well, but their rhetoric went more along the lines of, "DirecTV is run by greedy, lying bastards who want to take away your Spongebob!" In fact, I have to believe that one of the reasons Viacom took down their previous comments so quickly was because only yesterday they were saying, "DirecTV refuses to negotiate!" And yet a settlement was reached today. Magic, yes?
Perhaps I'm predisposed to take DirecTV's side. I've been generally happy with them as an entertainment provider, and I don't really feel like I have a relationship with Viacom. I like The Daily Show, but I associate that with Comedy Central and Jon Stewart, not Viacom. And of the other 16 channels that were in dispute (See, I even take DirecTV's word for that figure.), TV Land and Nick at Night are the only ones I watch, and those very rarely.
That being said, I really just liked DirecTV's approach to the whole conflict. I don't like scare tactics under the best of circumstances, and Viacom's making the loss of a few TV channels sound like a personal assault was just egregiously bad. It's more than that, though. From my perspective, disputes over money rarely have an ethically right or wrong side. If money's been stolen, or if one party is much more vulnerable, sure, but we're talking about two corporations arguing over how much money they were going to, let's face it, take from me. Best to make it sound like business, because that's all it was. So DirecTV's decision to use the emotionally charge "bullying" word today was disappointing. Ah well, at least I get my Daily Show back.
What did you see today?
3/27/2012
I saw some information about Trayvon Martin
Context
I was reading this article about the Trayvon Martin case on Slate. Until I watched the Daily Show last night, I hadn't realized he was shot over a month ago. I keep learning new things all the time, including the tidbit included in the Slate article about Martin's school suspension for marijuana possession.
Commentary
My husband and I differ on whether Trayvon Martin's death should be considered a lynching. We were in the park walking our dogs discussing it, so we didn't have a dictionary at hand, but it turns out we were pretty close to the correct definition. According to Merriam-Webster Online, to lynch is to to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction. So I will concede to my husband that this was not a mob action (unless you want to blame the entire Florida Legislature) and make the half-concession that it was not achieved by hanging. Nonetheless, very much without legal sanction. Or at least, without common sense sanction.
Departing from the formal definition, my husband made another argument that we think of lynching, at least the form that was practiced regularly down here where I live (check this data set if you want your hometown's scorecard), as being predicated on teaching someone a lesson. I remarked that it's hard to teach a corpse a lesson, but I understood the point he was trying to make.
And now, from hyperbole to trivializing. Lynching in this country is what white people do to black people who are bugging them. It's our way of saying, "The law of proportional response only applies to people who look like me. For others, I can react however I want." Remember, we used to use this form of capital punishment for offenses like speaking to white women, failing to yield the sidewalk, or looking someone in the eye. Which is why I don't find the continued investigation into Trayvon Martin's various misdemeanors helpful. It's like we keep trying to come up with a sum of offenses that make it OK that he's dead.
Well, maybe it is helpful. Decide for yourself, does walking around a gated community + hoodie + marijuana use + school problems = put him down like a rabid dog? I'm going to be even meaner and say that if Martin was beating George Zimmerman up he still shouldn't have been shot. If someone is punching you in a populated area, you yell. You or someone else calls the cops and the perp is taken to jail. Everybody survives the encounter. Even people who bug the crap out of each other.
What did you see today?
I was reading this article about the Trayvon Martin case on Slate. Until I watched the Daily Show last night, I hadn't realized he was shot over a month ago. I keep learning new things all the time, including the tidbit included in the Slate article about Martin's school suspension for marijuana possession.
Commentary
My husband and I differ on whether Trayvon Martin's death should be considered a lynching. We were in the park walking our dogs discussing it, so we didn't have a dictionary at hand, but it turns out we were pretty close to the correct definition. According to Merriam-Webster Online, to lynch is to to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction. So I will concede to my husband that this was not a mob action (unless you want to blame the entire Florida Legislature) and make the half-concession that it was not achieved by hanging. Nonetheless, very much without legal sanction. Or at least, without common sense sanction.
Departing from the formal definition, my husband made another argument that we think of lynching, at least the form that was practiced regularly down here where I live (check this data set if you want your hometown's scorecard), as being predicated on teaching someone a lesson. I remarked that it's hard to teach a corpse a lesson, but I understood the point he was trying to make.
And now, from hyperbole to trivializing. Lynching in this country is what white people do to black people who are bugging them. It's our way of saying, "The law of proportional response only applies to people who look like me. For others, I can react however I want." Remember, we used to use this form of capital punishment for offenses like speaking to white women, failing to yield the sidewalk, or looking someone in the eye. Which is why I don't find the continued investigation into Trayvon Martin's various misdemeanors helpful. It's like we keep trying to come up with a sum of offenses that make it OK that he's dead.
Well, maybe it is helpful. Decide for yourself, does walking around a gated community + hoodie + marijuana use + school problems = put him down like a rabid dog? I'm going to be even meaner and say that if Martin was beating George Zimmerman up he still shouldn't have been shot. If someone is punching you in a populated area, you yell. You or someone else calls the cops and the perp is taken to jail. Everybody survives the encounter. Even people who bug the crap out of each other.
What did you see today?
1/10/2012
I read a definition of a term
Context
I'm reading A History of the End of the World by Jonathan Kirsch. I'm doing this because I'm thinking about attending a seminar on apocalyptic literature given by Dr. Susan Brayford, a professor emeritus at Centenary College, and she mentioned possibly using this book as a jumping off point.
Anyway, this footnote appears fairly early in the text: "The abbreviation B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) is the equivalent of B.C. (Before Christ), and C.E. (Common Era) is the equivalent of A.D. (Anno Domini, or "In the Year of Our Lord"). The abbreviations B.C.E. and C.E. are used by scholars to avoid the theological implications of B.C. and A.D., and I have used them here for the same reason."
Commentary
I don't care much for this book. I find it astonishingly disrespectful of people (like me) who take the Bible seriously and downright dismissive of the author of the book of Revelation. Usually I believe life is too short to read books I don't like, but I'm continuing with this one for two reasons:
1) It's an Interlibrary Loan. Since the library took extra effort to get it for me, I figure I should give extra effort to getting through it.
2) I am actually learning stuff, like how various apocalyptic prophesies in the Bible compare and contrast with each other.
All the above was to let you know I might be predisposed to snarkiness while reading this book. Here are the two thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the definition of B.C.E.:
1) If you're counting time forward and backward from what historic calendar makers considered to be Jesus's birthdate, calling it something different may avoid the theological implications of that, but the cultural ones are still glaringly obvious: there was some kind of history-changing event 2012 years ago.
2) Does the author really think there's anyone reading his book who won't know what B.C.E. means? This is an historical analysis of the impact of Revelation with lots and lots of references. I don't think people are going to pick it up unless they've at least seen one college classroom or done an equivalent amount of reading. And if any of that study has been in the realm of history, they've seen B.C.E. before.
What did you see today?
I'm reading A History of the End of the World by Jonathan Kirsch. I'm doing this because I'm thinking about attending a seminar on apocalyptic literature given by Dr. Susan Brayford, a professor emeritus at Centenary College, and she mentioned possibly using this book as a jumping off point.
Anyway, this footnote appears fairly early in the text: "The abbreviation B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) is the equivalent of B.C. (Before Christ), and C.E. (Common Era) is the equivalent of A.D. (Anno Domini, or "In the Year of Our Lord"). The abbreviations B.C.E. and C.E. are used by scholars to avoid the theological implications of B.C. and A.D., and I have used them here for the same reason."
Commentary
I don't care much for this book. I find it astonishingly disrespectful of people (like me) who take the Bible seriously and downright dismissive of the author of the book of Revelation. Usually I believe life is too short to read books I don't like, but I'm continuing with this one for two reasons:
1) It's an Interlibrary Loan. Since the library took extra effort to get it for me, I figure I should give extra effort to getting through it.
2) I am actually learning stuff, like how various apocalyptic prophesies in the Bible compare and contrast with each other.
All the above was to let you know I might be predisposed to snarkiness while reading this book. Here are the two thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the definition of B.C.E.:
1) If you're counting time forward and backward from what historic calendar makers considered to be Jesus's birthdate, calling it something different may avoid the theological implications of that, but the cultural ones are still glaringly obvious: there was some kind of history-changing event 2012 years ago.
2) Does the author really think there's anyone reading his book who won't know what B.C.E. means? This is an historical analysis of the impact of Revelation with lots and lots of references. I don't think people are going to pick it up unless they've at least seen one college classroom or done an equivalent amount of reading. And if any of that study has been in the realm of history, they've seen B.C.E. before.
What did you see today?
7/24/2011
I heard the Apostles' Creed
Context
I'm in Houston today, so per my usual custom, I went to worship at Christ the King Lutheran church. I used to be a Lutheran and this is the church I got married in. Lutherans always say a creed at some point during any communion service; today it was the Apostles' Creed. Quakers, on the other hand, are very non-creedal.
Commentary
I think the main reason Quakers are non-creedal is because of the feeling that creeds create an exclusive atmosphere. We're concerned that we would be saying, in essence, "If you don't believe this, you don't belong here."
Lately, when we talk about beliefs at my Quaker meeting, I feel like Friends are saying something beyond just: "We shouldn't have a set creed as a group." We seem to have moved on to: "We shouldn't have any strongly held religious beliefs as individuals, either." This perspective says our beliefs are so often proved spirit-killing and wrong that it is a bad idea to hold them at all. Better to just have faith in God in general and not be married to specific theological ideas.
As I was speaking the Apostles' Creed today, I realized I don't agree. For one thing, I actually believe everything in the Apostles' Creed. I don't think that gives me exclusive access to God, but I'm not going to pretend I don't believe those words just to make others feel comfortable.
Moreover, I don't think I can have faith in God without believing certain things. Here are four that seem pretty bedrock to me:
1) I believe that God is powerful.
2) I believe that the things I see constitute the work of God.
3) I believe that God has suffered.
4) I believe that God will ultimately bring justice to our exceedingly evil world.
Without these beliefs, having faith in God seems pointless to me. At its most primitive level, my trust is predicated on an expected outcome: the redemption of the world. If I believed that the march of history was just going to continue on its current path, I would commit ritual suicide. If I didn't care one way or the other, I wouldn't bother trying to learn about God and serve Him.
What's funny about the current discussion of beliefs in our meeting is that one of the ways we encourage people to discern whether Quakerism would be a good fit for them is to take this quiz at beliefnet.com. Unsurprisingly, most of the questions are about one's beliefs.
What did you hear today?
I'm in Houston today, so per my usual custom, I went to worship at Christ the King Lutheran church. I used to be a Lutheran and this is the church I got married in. Lutherans always say a creed at some point during any communion service; today it was the Apostles' Creed. Quakers, on the other hand, are very non-creedal.
Commentary
I think the main reason Quakers are non-creedal is because of the feeling that creeds create an exclusive atmosphere. We're concerned that we would be saying, in essence, "If you don't believe this, you don't belong here."
Lately, when we talk about beliefs at my Quaker meeting, I feel like Friends are saying something beyond just: "We shouldn't have a set creed as a group." We seem to have moved on to: "We shouldn't have any strongly held religious beliefs as individuals, either." This perspective says our beliefs are so often proved spirit-killing and wrong that it is a bad idea to hold them at all. Better to just have faith in God in general and not be married to specific theological ideas.
As I was speaking the Apostles' Creed today, I realized I don't agree. For one thing, I actually believe everything in the Apostles' Creed. I don't think that gives me exclusive access to God, but I'm not going to pretend I don't believe those words just to make others feel comfortable.
Moreover, I don't think I can have faith in God without believing certain things. Here are four that seem pretty bedrock to me:
1) I believe that God is powerful.
2) I believe that the things I see constitute the work of God.
3) I believe that God has suffered.
4) I believe that God will ultimately bring justice to our exceedingly evil world.
Without these beliefs, having faith in God seems pointless to me. At its most primitive level, my trust is predicated on an expected outcome: the redemption of the world. If I believed that the march of history was just going to continue on its current path, I would commit ritual suicide. If I didn't care one way or the other, I wouldn't bother trying to learn about God and serve Him.
What's funny about the current discussion of beliefs in our meeting is that one of the ways we encourage people to discern whether Quakerism would be a good fit for them is to take this quiz at beliefnet.com. Unsurprisingly, most of the questions are about one's beliefs.
What did you hear today?
11/05/2010
I saw another bumper sticker
Context
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.
Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.
Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.
I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.
What did you see today?
I saw another pro-gun ownership bumper sticker today, this one quoting Adolf Hitler in his apparent affinity for gun control. There is both a description of the sticker and evidence refuting its historical accuracy at this link.
Commentary
I have added a gadget to this blog whereby you can easily e-mail, tweet, Google Buzz, Facebook or reblog any entry on it. Maybe I'll become famous. Also, Blogger now says they're using automatic spam control on comments. That makes me a little sad.
Housekeeping aside, I do want to make it clear that I see and read bumper stickers about other issues besides the 2nd Amendment! I wonder if the pro-gun ones capture more of my attention because people are having to make kind of a tricky argument. After all, just saying, "I'm opposed to handgun control because I like to kill people" is kind of a non-starter.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see the Hitler quote is likely a fake. Although I find some NRA-type arguments spurious, I'm squarely on the side of those who say the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so citizens could defend themselves from government. After all, they had just finished separating themselves from an oppressive regime by, well, fighting a war.
I'd like to believe we don't have to worry about defending ourselves in a democracy, but historically that hasn't proven true. After all, most of the acts we complained about in the Declaration of Independence came from the British Parliament, a democratically-elected body. Even Hitler himself rose through the power of the ballot box. And everybody voted in the former Soviet Union.
So I'm sympathetic to the idea that we can't rely on any government to keep us safe or to have our best interests at heart. However, I don't think packing heat is the appropriate response to the situation. After all, if guns are outlawed, people who aren't outlaws might be inclined to come up with more sensible ways to resolve their differences.
What did you see today?
4/06/2010
I heard about a medical appointment
Context
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.
Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:
1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!
Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.
Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.
Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.
Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!
Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.
What did you hear today?
A coworker who was in my office today mentioned that she wouldn't be available for something because she had a doctor's appointment in Dallas she'd made a year ago. As the day went on I grew increasingly curious about what sort of medical appointment one would make a year in advance.
Commentary
If you think I'm going to satisfy your curiosity about what kind of medical appointment is made a year in advance, I have bad news for you for two reasons:
1) I don't know.
2) It's someone's medical appointment, for crying out loud!
Anyway, my intent is to blog about my curiosity. I have always been enormously curious. The "open my eyes" aspect of this blog is never a burden on me; I'm constantly trying to see what's going on and why, especially when it comes to people. It's the main reason I studied history at Rice: the opportunity to find out what people did in a given situation, and better yet, how it turned out, was well-nigh irresistible to me.
Nothing wrong with curiosity since I'm not a cat, but in my case it can lead to snooping. My curiosity about what makes people tick has lead me to read diaries, eavesdrop on private conversations and, on one memorable occasion, read a series of love letters between a coworker and someone who was decidedly not her husband.
Please understand, I don't snoop in order to exert any power over a person, either in terms of blackmail or gossip. Frankly, in order to use any secrets I learn I would have to reveal how I came by the knowledge and that's just plain embarrassing. Nope, it really is just a case of me saying, "Oh! That's what's going on in that person's life. Interesting." In fact, if I wanted to justify myself I could even say that it gives me some insights that help me love my brothers and sisters in Christ more.
Except that it doesn't, any more than rape helps spark a romantic relationship. I was so pleased, by the way, when General Hospital finally dealt with that. I know it was hard to tarnish one of their supercouples, but seriously!
Anyway, snooping is information rape: it takes something from a person that they might have offered willingly without giving him/her a choice in the matter. It's not only violence, it's laziness, in the sense of not taking the time to cultivate a relationship where intimacies are shared as equals. So I think it's better to live with a little unsatisfied curiosity than to feed vampirically off someone else's emotional life.
What did you hear today?
10/16/2009
I saw a story about violence
Context
I'm still working through John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. A passage I read today talked about the Akron Rubber Strike, and how part of the reason for its peaceful resolution was the fact that the striking workers made a show of being armed and organized.
Commentary
I used to plow through books, but that is no longer the case, possibly because of the number of things that divide my attention. And it's not only reading that suffers. During my attempt to write this entry I have removed a kitten from my sleeve seven times, overheard a conversation between my neighbor and her child (my windows are open) and played with the dog and let her out. And back in. My progress through the Grapes of Wrath is not helped in the slightest by the number of times I put the book down and go "huh!"
Steinbeck seems to be making a clear point in his discussion of the Akron incident: vigilantes in Akron were perfectly willing to violently put an end to the strike up until the time they realized the workers might fight back. Then they backed down.
I can see the reasonableness of this approach. No point in fighting if you can't guarantee yourself a victory, after all. In the U.S. we try to make sure we're never in this situation by "acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed," which is known as "preemptive self-defense." Even the Just War Doctrine (#2309 at this link), which is supposed to give a good ethical grounding to death and destruction, requires "serious prospects of success," a.k.a. "Don't be a David going up against a Goliath."
So there you have it. If you engage in violence, you run the risk of either getting hurt yourself or looking like the worst kind of coward by beating up on an obviously weaker opponent. Can you see why I'm a pacifist?
What did you see today?
I'm still working through John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. A passage I read today talked about the Akron Rubber Strike, and how part of the reason for its peaceful resolution was the fact that the striking workers made a show of being armed and organized.
Commentary
I used to plow through books, but that is no longer the case, possibly because of the number of things that divide my attention. And it's not only reading that suffers. During my attempt to write this entry I have removed a kitten from my sleeve seven times, overheard a conversation between my neighbor and her child (my windows are open) and played with the dog and let her out. And back in. My progress through the Grapes of Wrath is not helped in the slightest by the number of times I put the book down and go "huh!"
Steinbeck seems to be making a clear point in his discussion of the Akron incident: vigilantes in Akron were perfectly willing to violently put an end to the strike up until the time they realized the workers might fight back. Then they backed down.
I can see the reasonableness of this approach. No point in fighting if you can't guarantee yourself a victory, after all. In the U.S. we try to make sure we're never in this situation by "acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed," which is known as "preemptive self-defense." Even the Just War Doctrine (#2309 at this link), which is supposed to give a good ethical grounding to death and destruction, requires "serious prospects of success," a.k.a. "Don't be a David going up against a Goliath."
So there you have it. If you engage in violence, you run the risk of either getting hurt yourself or looking like the worst kind of coward by beating up on an obviously weaker opponent. Can you see why I'm a pacifist?
What did you see today?
6/01/2009
I saw a discussion of repatriation attempts during the Holocaust
Context
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.
Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.
I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.
I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.
Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!
For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.
Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.
But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."
What did you see today?
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.
Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.
I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.
I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.
Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!
For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.
Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.
But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."
What did you see today?
1/15/2009
I saw announcements about the Inauguration
Context
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.
Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.
That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."
Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?
I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .
Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?
What did you see today?
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.
Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.
That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."
Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?
I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .
Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?
What did you see today?
6/14/2007
I saw a comment about US military aid
Context
I'm currently reading the December 1999 edition of the Dominican Republic and Haiti country studies published by the Library of Congress. You can read the Dominican Republic portion online here and the Haiti portion here. I'm reading them together in a book I checked out from my library.
The Dominican Republic one contains an analysis of how the role of the military changes according to who holds the presidency. For example, Jorge Blanco, the president from 1982 to 1986, forced massive numbers of officers that he perceived to be disloyal to him to retire, which apparently prompted this response: "the United States . . . complained that its military training funds were being wasted as careers were cut short." I laughed out loud when I read that part.
Commentary
I'm concerned that if you read my blog often enough, you'll think all I read are books on international affairs. I actually read quite a few less serious things (for example, I just polished off the softcover Bizarro World today), but I don't necessarily "see" anything in them.
I'm a religious pacifist. I feel a little vindicated any time the military is thwarted. And when nobody is really hurt, I can even laugh about it. On a deeper level though, I'm thinking about what causes the US to send military aid to a country rather than just invading it. When it comes to warfare, the United States sometimes seems to want to keep an arm's length away by using the folowing logic:
1) We don't want to fight them here, so we'll fight them there.
2) We don't particularly want to fight them ourselves, so we'll help them fight each other.
How many things can I find wrong with this strategy? Well, more than two.
1) It's violent. Now matter who's doing the fighting, someone's getting hurt.
2) It's callous. La, la, la, it doesn't take place on our turf or kill our family members, so it doesn't really matter.
3) It's cowardly. For crying out loud, if we really think a cause is worth fighting for, we should put our lives where our mouths are.
Perhaps most damning of all, it's ineffectual. The United States started using this strategy nearly a century ago, at the outbreak of World War I. Ever since then, events have followed roughly this chronology: first, the United States develops certain goals. Then we provide aid to another country, faction, or dictator, believing that entity will pursue our goals. Later, we find that the other entity has actually pursued different goals, sometimes goals that are directly contrary to American interests (anyone remember who armed the Taliban in the first place?). Finally, the United States is forced to either abandon its goals or invade with actual American troops. Because of some inherent national characteristic, we usually choose the "invading" option. Often our troops can't accomplish the original goals either, but we go through a lot of bodies on both sides before we figure that out.
In light of this history, I think we're getting off pretty easy when the only "waste" is Dominican military careers being cut short. So I laugh.
What did you see today?
I'm currently reading the December 1999 edition of the Dominican Republic and Haiti country studies published by the Library of Congress. You can read the Dominican Republic portion online here and the Haiti portion here. I'm reading them together in a book I checked out from my library.
The Dominican Republic one contains an analysis of how the role of the military changes according to who holds the presidency. For example, Jorge Blanco, the president from 1982 to 1986, forced massive numbers of officers that he perceived to be disloyal to him to retire, which apparently prompted this response: "the United States . . . complained that its military training funds were being wasted as careers were cut short." I laughed out loud when I read that part.
Commentary
I'm concerned that if you read my blog often enough, you'll think all I read are books on international affairs. I actually read quite a few less serious things (for example, I just polished off the softcover Bizarro World today), but I don't necessarily "see" anything in them.
I'm a religious pacifist. I feel a little vindicated any time the military is thwarted. And when nobody is really hurt, I can even laugh about it. On a deeper level though, I'm thinking about what causes the US to send military aid to a country rather than just invading it. When it comes to warfare, the United States sometimes seems to want to keep an arm's length away by using the folowing logic:
1) We don't want to fight them here, so we'll fight them there.
2) We don't particularly want to fight them ourselves, so we'll help them fight each other.
How many things can I find wrong with this strategy? Well, more than two.
1) It's violent. Now matter who's doing the fighting, someone's getting hurt.
2) It's callous. La, la, la, it doesn't take place on our turf or kill our family members, so it doesn't really matter.
3) It's cowardly. For crying out loud, if we really think a cause is worth fighting for, we should put our lives where our mouths are.
Perhaps most damning of all, it's ineffectual. The United States started using this strategy nearly a century ago, at the outbreak of World War I. Ever since then, events have followed roughly this chronology: first, the United States develops certain goals. Then we provide aid to another country, faction, or dictator, believing that entity will pursue our goals. Later, we find that the other entity has actually pursued different goals, sometimes goals that are directly contrary to American interests (anyone remember who armed the Taliban in the first place?). Finally, the United States is forced to either abandon its goals or invade with actual American troops. Because of some inherent national characteristic, we usually choose the "invading" option. Often our troops can't accomplish the original goals either, but we go through a lot of bodies on both sides before we figure that out.
In light of this history, I think we're getting off pretty easy when the only "waste" is Dominican military careers being cut short. So I laugh.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)