Growing old is something of a conundrum: for something we are told exists only in our minds, people seem to spend every waking hour thinking about it. The problem is that no one quite knows what to do. Even our media is hopelessly conflicted on the subject.
On the one hand, the media hits us with ads for every manner of potion, lotion, hair dye, viagra, and other chemical known to humankind, all designed to prevent or reverse time. We're shown admiring portraits of people who have surgically tightened, smoothed, and sucked away their age, the implication being that if we look like "before" pictures it must mean we are lazy or cheap. Into this category fall those "raging against the light" (to quote Dylan Thomas) and those older men and women who pursue youth by literally pursuing youths, using the mantra, "if I can get away with/afford it, why not?" No one HAS to look old is the mantra that keeps plastic surgeons in their Ferraris.
On the other hand, we are given unctious sermons on accepting ourselves as we are and growing old "gracefully," which seems to mean not whining about getting old, accepting whatever stereotype of age our culture decides to imnpose on us, and showing up on time to babysit the grandchildren. Usually, though, it's tied to appearance as few overweights (even the mild forms) are said to be aging "well."
If we take all this nonsense seriously--which I can't--what, then, are we left with? The apparent choice seems either to take action against a sea of sags ( the solution approved by a society that links appearance to success) or get off the boat and sink beneath the waves (a solution not favored by people who still have alert minds).
Well, I neither desire nor wish to pay for growing old "well," nor do I wish to recede into a rocking chair waiting for the ultimate call. Instead, I propose to grow old "graciously." Allow me to explain.
You are at a busy airport with heavy luggage and someone you don't know offers to help. What do you do?
a. Say you are perfectly capable of handling your things. You're not a cripple, thank you very much. You've got enough money to pay for a porter if you want one.
b. Agree to the help but complain about how things are so rushed these days and warn the person not to damage your suitcase.
c. Although perfectly capable, accept the help with a smile and thanks.
If you chose a), you're still trying to compete with the big dogs in the world of power. If b) you have sunk into self-pity. If c) you are gracious. The person who offered help to a) will walk away muttering about old farts. If b) the person will feel used and manipulated. If c) the person will feel they have done a good deed and, who knows, maybe they'll be a little bit kinder to other people for the rest of the day. The younger folk are so unkind to one another these days, a little genuine humanity and concern for others might go a long way.
Little acts of kindness--the pat on the shoulder I got from the waiter at lunch today, the unexpected offer to open a water bottle with a stuck cap, doors held open a little extra long for me, help pulling my suitcase off the airport carousel--can only be done for children and seniors because we are believed safe to show kindness to. They don't think we're still competing or slighting others--frankly, because we're supposed to be mature and grown beyond egocentrism and greedily grasping for a world that is no longer ours. Some of us anyway.
I believe growing old graciously means providing a model of maturity and compassion for those behind us still locked in the rat race. We don't have to be rich, looking fifteen years younger, and flattening and shaping our aging bodies to compete with the people to whom youth really belongs. We carry with us the marks life has put on us, but we have one thing youth doesn't: we have experience and instead of spouting about the good old days, it would behoove us to behave as a model of them.
Fortunately, experience is one thing that's safe from botox.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Leaders of the War and Peace
As a species, we tend to glorify the creative forces among us--those people who initiate new things like internets, cures for diseases, new government structures, and wondrous works of technology and art. You know, the big stuff that gets an age named after it. The bronze age, the age of steam, the age of electricity. Schools teach the famous names of these movements, well, maybe not the bronze age, but we all know about the Curies, Salk, Whitney, Edison, Crick, and Gates et al. The pioneers of each new field are lauded and feted with prizes of various value and prestige, well deserved, of course, but perhaps inclined to blind us to what happens next. I'm thinking here of the classifiers, statesmen, and philosophers who follow behind, looking beyond the joy of creating something that did not exist before and on to the question of what such discoveries really mean and how they interact with one another.
I found myself thinking about this process the other day by recalling a poignant scene in the David Lean film, "Lawrence of Arabia." It occurs toward the end. One of the sheikhs, played as I recall by Alec Guiuness, tells Lawrence that young men fought the war but must now leave it to old men to negotiate the peace. In that moment, Lawrence's role in the war he has so passionately fought is over and he knows he is no longer wanted. The world is now in the hands of others.
It's not hard to imagine a similar thing happening in regard to the protests in Egypt. The revolution is over, thank you very much, and now the politicians, and the military, and the business-as-usual-men, will take over. The protestors will undoubtedly fight their marginalization and they may earn a few up-front concessions, but eventually their own protests will turn on themselves and become ugly. 'Twas ever so with mass revolutions--they are difficult to control because of the varying purposes and motives within them. Undoubtedly, the idealistic and ethical among the protestors will be indignant about being lumped together with a criminal element, but it will be inevitable. Attacking a CNN female reporter in the square is one example; it smacks of hysteria and thuggism and will be used to show the unfitness of any protestors to play a role in building a new constitution and country.
Yet one cannot be too judgmental on this process. The qualities that build enduring nations are not the same as those that defeat armies and tear down walls and barriers. With few exceptions, revolutionary leaders capable of inspiring men in desperate battle seldom make effective leaders of the peace. It's rather like the current political process in the US these days--I wonder if it isn't easier to be part of the minority party snapping at the heels of those in power rather than being in power and trying to make sensible decisions for our future.
I found myself thinking about this process the other day by recalling a poignant scene in the David Lean film, "Lawrence of Arabia." It occurs toward the end. One of the sheikhs, played as I recall by Alec Guiuness, tells Lawrence that young men fought the war but must now leave it to old men to negotiate the peace. In that moment, Lawrence's role in the war he has so passionately fought is over and he knows he is no longer wanted. The world is now in the hands of others.
It's not hard to imagine a similar thing happening in regard to the protests in Egypt. The revolution is over, thank you very much, and now the politicians, and the military, and the business-as-usual-men, will take over. The protestors will undoubtedly fight their marginalization and they may earn a few up-front concessions, but eventually their own protests will turn on themselves and become ugly. 'Twas ever so with mass revolutions--they are difficult to control because of the varying purposes and motives within them. Undoubtedly, the idealistic and ethical among the protestors will be indignant about being lumped together with a criminal element, but it will be inevitable. Attacking a CNN female reporter in the square is one example; it smacks of hysteria and thuggism and will be used to show the unfitness of any protestors to play a role in building a new constitution and country.
Yet one cannot be too judgmental on this process. The qualities that build enduring nations are not the same as those that defeat armies and tear down walls and barriers. With few exceptions, revolutionary leaders capable of inspiring men in desperate battle seldom make effective leaders of the peace. It's rather like the current political process in the US these days--I wonder if it isn't easier to be part of the minority party snapping at the heels of those in power rather than being in power and trying to make sensible decisions for our future.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
A Little Revolution Now and Then
I haven't felt much like writing of late. Partly it's being strung between two homes--one the 27 foot RV down in Phoenix and the other our main home, both of which require attention when left to their own devices. When we came home this time, the hot tub blew a freeze plug, emptied itself, and fountained water at us. Fortunately, this happened with us on premises or who knows what further mischief it might have done. But I'm fully aware that the RV is lying awake at night without us there, plotting what to do to us when we go back.
It's not as if there hasn't been a lot to write about. Floods and weather everywhere, political upheavals, economic misery--it seems that Sid may be right when he commented the other day that Mother Nature dodesn't like ugly. Since we've been ugly all right, I guess we are being served the results of our polluting, uncaring, and insensitive behavior.
But there's something more in the air that speaks of unrest. In particular, I've been watching the events unfold in the Middle East with very conflicted emotions. Anyone British with any sense of history has to look at the world's trouble spots and recognize the heavy hand of Victorian empire. India, Pakistan, Palestine, Africa--Britain was right there. And while a case might be made for the advantages of the British raj--language, legal system. education et al, I sense in that argument an echo of Kipling's "taking up the white man's burden" of bringing civilization to those deemed to be in need of it. The native populations seldom took the same view of the garrisons among them.
But quite apart from that, history tells us that empires cannot hold for long. Greece, Rome, France, and Britain--not to mention the German Reich--have been among those to learn that lesson. There are always barbarians at the gate, not to mention local populations who object to seeing their goods and treasure take a one-way journey into the coffers of their conquerors.
History also tells us that when these empires crumble, it is am ugly process. Seldom are fuindamental changes brought about through moderate transition. Telling Tom Payne that he should negotiate a transitional process with King George would hardly be persuasive. The colonial rebels wanted action and wanted it now. It's a given that those in power never yield authority willingly. There must be force or the threat of it to effect change. We might wish that things were different, that everyone behaved in rational ways, but that is not the way of the human species.
But there is more than Egypt. In my opinion, we have two revolutions going on right now--the physical uprising in Egypt and an unrecognized one in this country.
Egypt's is the most obvious since our media is in love with it. One can only shake one's head at the current Egyptian premier who had only to look at his country's demographics to predict the unrest. When a country has a predominance of educated people under 40 who have no prospects for employment and careers, it is only a matter of time before they spill into the streets. This is their version of the tea in the harbor in Boston. There will be change in Egypt. It is inevitable. But it is very unclear whether the change will address the issues of the young or will prove to be yet another corrupt regime that started out idealistically but was coopted by special interests.
The US is on the opposite end of the spectrum, but we have just as many discontents. One look at US demographics tells the story. In this case, the population is an aging one. People over 55 are in the ascendancy. If younger people may be (stereotypically) expected to be passionate and looking for opportunity, our aging population may be expected (stereotypically) to behave like a querulous octagenarian, opposed to change, mired somewhere in a familiar past, self-involved, and dedicated to its own comfort. The octagenerian will not take to the streets but certainly takes to the airwaves and the ballot box. Given the passion for the status quo, it remains to be seen whether the weapon arsenal built up in this country will be used against its citizens. If it is, it may be the well-armed over 55s against the younger minority population.
I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic. As the captain of Red October said in the novel, The Hunt for Red October, "a little revolution is a good thing now and then." I wish Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and the other countries with oppressive leadership all the best in their search for a brighter future. I just hope that the passion pouring into the streets translates into wise and humanitiarian decisions further down the line.
It's not as if there hasn't been a lot to write about. Floods and weather everywhere, political upheavals, economic misery--it seems that Sid may be right when he commented the other day that Mother Nature dodesn't like ugly. Since we've been ugly all right, I guess we are being served the results of our polluting, uncaring, and insensitive behavior.
But there's something more in the air that speaks of unrest. In particular, I've been watching the events unfold in the Middle East with very conflicted emotions. Anyone British with any sense of history has to look at the world's trouble spots and recognize the heavy hand of Victorian empire. India, Pakistan, Palestine, Africa--Britain was right there. And while a case might be made for the advantages of the British raj--language, legal system. education et al, I sense in that argument an echo of Kipling's "taking up the white man's burden" of bringing civilization to those deemed to be in need of it. The native populations seldom took the same view of the garrisons among them.
But quite apart from that, history tells us that empires cannot hold for long. Greece, Rome, France, and Britain--not to mention the German Reich--have been among those to learn that lesson. There are always barbarians at the gate, not to mention local populations who object to seeing their goods and treasure take a one-way journey into the coffers of their conquerors.
History also tells us that when these empires crumble, it is am ugly process. Seldom are fuindamental changes brought about through moderate transition. Telling Tom Payne that he should negotiate a transitional process with King George would hardly be persuasive. The colonial rebels wanted action and wanted it now. It's a given that those in power never yield authority willingly. There must be force or the threat of it to effect change. We might wish that things were different, that everyone behaved in rational ways, but that is not the way of the human species.
But there is more than Egypt. In my opinion, we have two revolutions going on right now--the physical uprising in Egypt and an unrecognized one in this country.
Egypt's is the most obvious since our media is in love with it. One can only shake one's head at the current Egyptian premier who had only to look at his country's demographics to predict the unrest. When a country has a predominance of educated people under 40 who have no prospects for employment and careers, it is only a matter of time before they spill into the streets. This is their version of the tea in the harbor in Boston. There will be change in Egypt. It is inevitable. But it is very unclear whether the change will address the issues of the young or will prove to be yet another corrupt regime that started out idealistically but was coopted by special interests.
The US is on the opposite end of the spectrum, but we have just as many discontents. One look at US demographics tells the story. In this case, the population is an aging one. People over 55 are in the ascendancy. If younger people may be (stereotypically) expected to be passionate and looking for opportunity, our aging population may be expected (stereotypically) to behave like a querulous octagenarian, opposed to change, mired somewhere in a familiar past, self-involved, and dedicated to its own comfort. The octagenerian will not take to the streets but certainly takes to the airwaves and the ballot box. Given the passion for the status quo, it remains to be seen whether the weapon arsenal built up in this country will be used against its citizens. If it is, it may be the well-armed over 55s against the younger minority population.
I don't mean to be unduly pessimistic. As the captain of Red October said in the novel, The Hunt for Red October, "a little revolution is a good thing now and then." I wish Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and the other countries with oppressive leadership all the best in their search for a brighter future. I just hope that the passion pouring into the streets translates into wise and humanitiarian decisions further down the line.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
An Illegal Is Not Just a Mexican Bird
Recently there has been a flap down here in RV land—our park, which shall remain nameless lost its activities director. He had been directing things here for six seasons, long enough to build an empire and have followers. He was given a severance package and twenty-fours notice to remove his rig to another park. Ashes and sackcloth followed. People were in tears, people threatened not to return next season, people cursed the park owners. You would have thought someone had been killed.
The reason for all this heartbreak? It turns out that the activities director was not a US citizen and was working illegally. In other words, he was an illegal alien to the extent he was violating his tourist visa.
The situation (his unlawful employment) came to light when various parks and businesses catering to RVers were called into a meeting and told that there was going to be a crackdown.
Right there, you can tell he wasn’t Mexican. When Mexicans are involved, the IRS raids, arrests, and sorts thing out later. The director was Canadian. The park was warned, he was given a severance package, and he was moved out quickly (probably on advice of legal counsel) since his RV space was part of his pay package. No arrest. No jail. No deportation. Genteel, as these things go, and definitely preferential.
Now what gets my goat and the reason for this blog is that the same people wearing ashes and sackcloth have been the ones passionately complaining about illegals here in Arizona. The law has been broken, they’ve said loudly, and why couldn’t these people wait for work permits and green cards, why don’t they learn English, and why don’t they go back where they came from? The whole matter has been turned in a moral maelstrom in the park.
The many Canadian RVers don’t really understand the seriousness of the situation so think he treated shabbily with only 24 hours notice. The director’s followers see the loss of their little privileges and wonder why now after six years (good question). And the self-righteous among us are busy stereotyping all Mexicans into vicious criminals and drug runners (even the children) in order to defend the director from label of illegal: he was a good guy, why aren’t they out catching the real ones.
Now I’m not in favor of illegal immigration myself (I went through what I call the sewer of the regular process to emigrate to Canada and then the US) but I am a foe of hypocrisy. I am making myself unpopular, of course, pointing out the fallacy to those folk now saying the director “at least came legally into the country.” He came in on a tourist visa, chums, that says specifically that he may not accept employment in the US. The law is the law, and—yes—anglos, I want to tell them but don’t, it applies to you too. I think it says reams that this park is just about one hundred percent anglo.
I’m glad the director wasn’t taken out of the park in handcuffs. I’m glad he’s not sitting in INS jail with all the Mexicans awaiting a hearing. I’m really glad they didn’t shut down the park and freeze assets (which would have seen the lot of us trying to find spaces in 24 hours with no refunds), but I am very disappointed in the park’s willingness to expose all of us to those risks (and, yes, the IRS and INS can do that).
The little legalistic core in me, left over from dealing with federal investigations on campus (which no one in their right mind would ever want—trust me) says there’s a reason the figure of Justice wears a blindfold.
The reason for all this heartbreak? It turns out that the activities director was not a US citizen and was working illegally. In other words, he was an illegal alien to the extent he was violating his tourist visa.
The situation (his unlawful employment) came to light when various parks and businesses catering to RVers were called into a meeting and told that there was going to be a crackdown.
Right there, you can tell he wasn’t Mexican. When Mexicans are involved, the IRS raids, arrests, and sorts thing out later. The director was Canadian. The park was warned, he was given a severance package, and he was moved out quickly (probably on advice of legal counsel) since his RV space was part of his pay package. No arrest. No jail. No deportation. Genteel, as these things go, and definitely preferential.
Now what gets my goat and the reason for this blog is that the same people wearing ashes and sackcloth have been the ones passionately complaining about illegals here in Arizona. The law has been broken, they’ve said loudly, and why couldn’t these people wait for work permits and green cards, why don’t they learn English, and why don’t they go back where they came from? The whole matter has been turned in a moral maelstrom in the park.
The many Canadian RVers don’t really understand the seriousness of the situation so think he treated shabbily with only 24 hours notice. The director’s followers see the loss of their little privileges and wonder why now after six years (good question). And the self-righteous among us are busy stereotyping all Mexicans into vicious criminals and drug runners (even the children) in order to defend the director from label of illegal: he was a good guy, why aren’t they out catching the real ones.
Now I’m not in favor of illegal immigration myself (I went through what I call the sewer of the regular process to emigrate to Canada and then the US) but I am a foe of hypocrisy. I am making myself unpopular, of course, pointing out the fallacy to those folk now saying the director “at least came legally into the country.” He came in on a tourist visa, chums, that says specifically that he may not accept employment in the US. The law is the law, and—yes—anglos, I want to tell them but don’t, it applies to you too. I think it says reams that this park is just about one hundred percent anglo.
I’m glad the director wasn’t taken out of the park in handcuffs. I’m glad he’s not sitting in INS jail with all the Mexicans awaiting a hearing. I’m really glad they didn’t shut down the park and freeze assets (which would have seen the lot of us trying to find spaces in 24 hours with no refunds), but I am very disappointed in the park’s willingness to expose all of us to those risks (and, yes, the IRS and INS can do that).
The little legalistic core in me, left over from dealing with federal investigations on campus (which no one in their right mind would ever want—trust me) says there’s a reason the figure of Justice wears a blindfold.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Life's Illusions 2011
Anyone reading my blog through the years will not be surprised by this list. This is where I stand and it lies behind everything I have written. As we start 2011, therefore, I'd like to thank you all for reading my work. It's been a personal adventure for me and I hope a source of interest and amusement for you. Here's hoping that the new year is kind to us all.
• Religion and Politics are not ends in themselves—they are symptoms of the people who support them. If people did not need to feel secure and superior, neither would exist.
• Organized religion is a corporation providing a service: giving pre-digested answers to life’s great questions, licensing human behavior, and providing employment.
• Religions exist for community. They become political when they legislate human behavior and then attempt to enforce it.
• Spirituality does not require an organized place of worship or prescribed ways of recognizing blessings.
o The founders of a religion are the idealists. Followers take and pervert the original ideas as people sign on. It is much easier to gain followers by promising benefits than asking for sacrifice.
o People can create better myths and beliefs for themselves if they go out to a hillside in complete darkness and try counting stars.
o It is entirely possible to be ethical and not part of organized religion.
o Any religion looks ridiculous if its basic beliefs are examined closely. Contrary to religious belief, science is not a religion. It is subject to hypothesis and correction through evidence. Belief and truth are not the same. Try telling the creationists to prove or disprove their beliefs.
o Parents who raise their children in an organized religion without thinking shut down young minds and then act as enforcers for religion if the children start to think for themselves.
o Politics is not the art of the possible: it is the art of the expedient, particularly in lining the pockets of those who know how to play the game. Too often, any good done for society as the result of political action is incidental and accidental. The wisest question to ask a politician is “Who is benefitting from this?” or, more bravely, “How are you benefitting from this?”
o Religion assumes prominence when people are starving and stressed. At other times it is one more form of oppression, purporting to add spiritual authority to human unkindness.
o Religious and political “values” are merely slogans to sway large numbers of people by referring to ideologies and ideas that people know only by name and have not taken the time to examine. Anyone who really studies politics and religion should be scared witless by them.
o Wars are a form of profit seeking and taking. Lunatics start them, people die for them, religion justifies them, and armament manufacturers encourage it all. Money is not the root of all evil. People believing they deserve it is.
• Religion and Politics are not ends in themselves—they are symptoms of the people who support them. If people did not need to feel secure and superior, neither would exist.
• Organized religion is a corporation providing a service: giving pre-digested answers to life’s great questions, licensing human behavior, and providing employment.
• Religions exist for community. They become political when they legislate human behavior and then attempt to enforce it.
• Spirituality does not require an organized place of worship or prescribed ways of recognizing blessings.
o The founders of a religion are the idealists. Followers take and pervert the original ideas as people sign on. It is much easier to gain followers by promising benefits than asking for sacrifice.
o People can create better myths and beliefs for themselves if they go out to a hillside in complete darkness and try counting stars.
o It is entirely possible to be ethical and not part of organized religion.
o Any religion looks ridiculous if its basic beliefs are examined closely. Contrary to religious belief, science is not a religion. It is subject to hypothesis and correction through evidence. Belief and truth are not the same. Try telling the creationists to prove or disprove their beliefs.
o Parents who raise their children in an organized religion without thinking shut down young minds and then act as enforcers for religion if the children start to think for themselves.
o Politics is not the art of the possible: it is the art of the expedient, particularly in lining the pockets of those who know how to play the game. Too often, any good done for society as the result of political action is incidental and accidental. The wisest question to ask a politician is “Who is benefitting from this?” or, more bravely, “How are you benefitting from this?”
o Religion assumes prominence when people are starving and stressed. At other times it is one more form of oppression, purporting to add spiritual authority to human unkindness.
o Religious and political “values” are merely slogans to sway large numbers of people by referring to ideologies and ideas that people know only by name and have not taken the time to examine. Anyone who really studies politics and religion should be scared witless by them.
o Wars are a form of profit seeking and taking. Lunatics start them, people die for them, religion justifies them, and armament manufacturers encourage it all. Money is not the root of all evil. People believing they deserve it is.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Both Sides Now
Recently I started writing my autobiography. Benvenuto Cellini once said anyone who had achieved anything had the responsibility to do so. What Cellini actually said was more along the lines of every important man (of which number he included himself) needed to do so, but I'll make his comment more inclusive.
I'm finding that writing about my life is far more difficult than I anticipated, not the least because I've needed to confront my demons with honesty and persistence, none of which I expected when I started. I'm finding, like Judy Collins in her song about life and clouds, that life's illusions are seductive side alleys.
Writing about life and living means dealing with parts of life that have been neatly (or maybe not so neatly) locked away in the file cabinets that are our brains. Sometimes we have tried to dump these memories because they are painful, or because they reveal us in ways we would prefer not to show the world. Whatever the reason, if one is to write an autobiography rather than a straight history or a journal, it is necessary to deal with feelings, prejudices, fears, unruly emotions--the things that make us human and also make life difficult. The good stuff in our lives is easy. It's the darker things we learn from--and, as I am learning, we all have them.
I've written many times in this blog about my dismay with religion and politics. Both of these pursuits have been with us since our earliest days as human beings. At least, we assume they have since every time we come across a new cave painting or carving, the first guess we make is that it is ceremonial and has to do with religion. Part of that is extrapolating onto ancient people our own need to find purpose in life and to express the wonder of our own improbable existence. I've been reading a history of the British Isles and have to wonder how my ancestors survived the plundering, warfare, plagues, and natural disasters--why me? why any of us? why didn't our ancestral lines die out? I suppose this is why we pay professional religionists to tell us what to think about these things.
When it comes to religion, I get the human impulse, but at the same time, I doubt the "accepted" answers we are told we have to believe. I cannot accept the idea of some godhead sitting in judgment of the day to day activities of four billion people in the world, and I am offended when someone says that their lucky escape from some disaster was a deity's handiwork when that means that all the others who weren't so lucky were on his s-- list. It doesn't work that way--and herein my problem both with religion and with politics: they are the creation of the human species, born out of our need to feel part of a group, and, even more, to feel superior.
There's a Jewish joke about a town always needing two synagogues: the one you attend and the one you don't. The implication, of course, is that your synagogue (or church, or school, or political opinion) is better than the other. All this is absolute nonsense. Nothing religious can be proved--that's what faith means--yet we are willing to kill each other over it. In politics, I doubt very much that someone asked directly to support a political prejudice (the poor are lazy for example) can produce any data to prove it. It is sufficient only for the speaker to feel good about themselves by judging other people.
If you look back to the last time we were told that the US was going to hell, that freedom as we know it has been lost, and that our children will never know the "real" America, it occurred when Reagan was running for president and he was talking about Medicare (which he promised to oppose). We older folk gratefully accept Medicare these days as undoubtedly we will accept the newest health care reforms in the years ahead. Obamacare may well be one of the cornerstones of our future. Politics is the art of finding people's prejudices and getting out in front of them--all the while hoping that people are too vain to notice.
I think Cellini is right--we all need at some point to sit down to look ourselves in the mirror and ask what the heck we are about. I highly recommend writing an autobiography, finding out why we are so willing to accept the closing of our minds through religion, why we are so willing to give up our individuality in the name of conforming to some political position or other that makes absolutely no sense when looked at in the dispassionate light of day, and why we don't trust our own observations of a universe that deserves so much better from us.
I'm finding that writing about my life is far more difficult than I anticipated, not the least because I've needed to confront my demons with honesty and persistence, none of which I expected when I started. I'm finding, like Judy Collins in her song about life and clouds, that life's illusions are seductive side alleys.
Writing about life and living means dealing with parts of life that have been neatly (or maybe not so neatly) locked away in the file cabinets that are our brains. Sometimes we have tried to dump these memories because they are painful, or because they reveal us in ways we would prefer not to show the world. Whatever the reason, if one is to write an autobiography rather than a straight history or a journal, it is necessary to deal with feelings, prejudices, fears, unruly emotions--the things that make us human and also make life difficult. The good stuff in our lives is easy. It's the darker things we learn from--and, as I am learning, we all have them.
I've written many times in this blog about my dismay with religion and politics. Both of these pursuits have been with us since our earliest days as human beings. At least, we assume they have since every time we come across a new cave painting or carving, the first guess we make is that it is ceremonial and has to do with religion. Part of that is extrapolating onto ancient people our own need to find purpose in life and to express the wonder of our own improbable existence. I've been reading a history of the British Isles and have to wonder how my ancestors survived the plundering, warfare, plagues, and natural disasters--why me? why any of us? why didn't our ancestral lines die out? I suppose this is why we pay professional religionists to tell us what to think about these things.
When it comes to religion, I get the human impulse, but at the same time, I doubt the "accepted" answers we are told we have to believe. I cannot accept the idea of some godhead sitting in judgment of the day to day activities of four billion people in the world, and I am offended when someone says that their lucky escape from some disaster was a deity's handiwork when that means that all the others who weren't so lucky were on his s-- list. It doesn't work that way--and herein my problem both with religion and with politics: they are the creation of the human species, born out of our need to feel part of a group, and, even more, to feel superior.
There's a Jewish joke about a town always needing two synagogues: the one you attend and the one you don't. The implication, of course, is that your synagogue (or church, or school, or political opinion) is better than the other. All this is absolute nonsense. Nothing religious can be proved--that's what faith means--yet we are willing to kill each other over it. In politics, I doubt very much that someone asked directly to support a political prejudice (the poor are lazy for example) can produce any data to prove it. It is sufficient only for the speaker to feel good about themselves by judging other people.
If you look back to the last time we were told that the US was going to hell, that freedom as we know it has been lost, and that our children will never know the "real" America, it occurred when Reagan was running for president and he was talking about Medicare (which he promised to oppose). We older folk gratefully accept Medicare these days as undoubtedly we will accept the newest health care reforms in the years ahead. Obamacare may well be one of the cornerstones of our future. Politics is the art of finding people's prejudices and getting out in front of them--all the while hoping that people are too vain to notice.
I think Cellini is right--we all need at some point to sit down to look ourselves in the mirror and ask what the heck we are about. I highly recommend writing an autobiography, finding out why we are so willing to accept the closing of our minds through religion, why we are so willing to give up our individuality in the name of conforming to some political position or other that makes absolutely no sense when looked at in the dispassionate light of day, and why we don't trust our own observations of a universe that deserves so much better from us.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Looking Back Down the Road
These days, we hear endless talk from certain circles about not liking illegals, not liking the national debt, not liking Nancy Pelosi, not much liking the unemployed (but loving the unemployment rate as long as it is going up or down), not liking paying for education, not liking anyone else getting something for nothing all the while greedily accepting whatever pension or public slop comes down the trough. Everyone's unhappy with something; some are unhappy with everything; some just don't want anything but anarchy; some just want change for its own sake.
All this compaining seems to be burned into the human psyche.
I bet when they were building the pyramids, Kufu the stone carver grumbled about all those freeloading illegals come over from Sinai, stealing jobs from the locals and having too many children. And what about the pharaoh, how intelligent is it to run up the national debt just to build a tomb? It has to be the influence of all the homosexual courtiers waving about more than their fans. And what about Ramses, the new wonderboy stone cutter that everyone wants to carve on their tombs? It's all about youth anymore. Now back in the days, life was good: women didn't meddle in politics and children were raised to respect their elders--not playing in the streets but working to help support the family. There was more discpline and more respect for the gods--today we need to burn more incense, slaughter more sheep, and return Egypt to what it once was.
So as Kufu chips and shapes the blocks of masonry, he dreams of returning to this wonderful past. It's a time he hardly remembers except through the haze of years--choosing to forget the violence, illiteracy, and short lifespans that were part of daily life. It was a halcyon time for Kufu because it was familiar and he had a place within it. The fact that it may not be for anyone else escapes him.
Kufu's unfocused nostalgia continues today. It lives on among our conservative brethren who would like to return us to something, although I'm not clear what.
Is it, I wonder, the days of the early Republic when members of Congress fired pistols in the halls and beat one another about the head with canes? When the South based its economy on cotton and slavery? When a woman who didn't conform was burned as a witch? Or is it the early 19th Century with the settlement of the West when graveyards were full of children dead from lack of medical attention and when law was only as good as the fastest draw? Is it the late 19th Century when women and children were the chattel of their husbands and only men of property could vote? Or was it the early 20th Century when the world was consumed in war after war? When my grandfather would have denied me an education because teaching a woman more than housework was a waste? When my grandmother would have been startled by my irreligious attitudes? When my greatgrandparents would have sent me to work in the mills to help pay the rent?
I have to admit that I can do a credible Kufu too. I remember happy times from my childhood in 1950s Britain. People seemed more neighborly. Life seemed less rushed. There wasn't such an emphasis on what Wordsworth called getting and spending. But before I get carried away, I remember my mother and her friends doing a Kufu over the loss of Britain's empire. Having an empire meant prestige for her generation; yet how many among us today would advocate acquiring one? My memories are obviously cherrypicked.
The kids raised today will probably look back on life in the early 21st Century as familiar because it is all they have ever known. Now that is a thought.
All this compaining seems to be burned into the human psyche.
I bet when they were building the pyramids, Kufu the stone carver grumbled about all those freeloading illegals come over from Sinai, stealing jobs from the locals and having too many children. And what about the pharaoh, how intelligent is it to run up the national debt just to build a tomb? It has to be the influence of all the homosexual courtiers waving about more than their fans. And what about Ramses, the new wonderboy stone cutter that everyone wants to carve on their tombs? It's all about youth anymore. Now back in the days, life was good: women didn't meddle in politics and children were raised to respect their elders--not playing in the streets but working to help support the family. There was more discpline and more respect for the gods--today we need to burn more incense, slaughter more sheep, and return Egypt to what it once was.
So as Kufu chips and shapes the blocks of masonry, he dreams of returning to this wonderful past. It's a time he hardly remembers except through the haze of years--choosing to forget the violence, illiteracy, and short lifespans that were part of daily life. It was a halcyon time for Kufu because it was familiar and he had a place within it. The fact that it may not be for anyone else escapes him.
Kufu's unfocused nostalgia continues today. It lives on among our conservative brethren who would like to return us to something, although I'm not clear what.
Is it, I wonder, the days of the early Republic when members of Congress fired pistols in the halls and beat one another about the head with canes? When the South based its economy on cotton and slavery? When a woman who didn't conform was burned as a witch? Or is it the early 19th Century with the settlement of the West when graveyards were full of children dead from lack of medical attention and when law was only as good as the fastest draw? Is it the late 19th Century when women and children were the chattel of their husbands and only men of property could vote? Or was it the early 20th Century when the world was consumed in war after war? When my grandfather would have denied me an education because teaching a woman more than housework was a waste? When my grandmother would have been startled by my irreligious attitudes? When my greatgrandparents would have sent me to work in the mills to help pay the rent?
I have to admit that I can do a credible Kufu too. I remember happy times from my childhood in 1950s Britain. People seemed more neighborly. Life seemed less rushed. There wasn't such an emphasis on what Wordsworth called getting and spending. But before I get carried away, I remember my mother and her friends doing a Kufu over the loss of Britain's empire. Having an empire meant prestige for her generation; yet how many among us today would advocate acquiring one? My memories are obviously cherrypicked.
The kids raised today will probably look back on life in the early 21st Century as familiar because it is all they have ever known. Now that is a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
