Deadly Things

There’s a passage in CS Lewis’s The Great Divorce where one of the ghosts offers up the red lizard of lust that sits constantly on his shoulder, whispering in his ear. The ghost begs an angel to kill the lizard, although the lizard assures the ghost that his death will mean the death of them both. The lizard dies, and both ghost and lizard are transformed. The ghost becomes a man – a glorious risen spirit – and the lizard is transformed into a stallion, full of beauty and power.

“Do ye understand all this, my Son?” said the Teacher.

“I don’t know about all, Sir,” said I. “Am I right in thinking the Lizard really turned into the Horse?”

“Aye. But it was killed first. Ye’ll not forget that part of the story?”

“I’ll try not to, Sir. But does it mean that everything – everything – that is in us can go on to the Mountains?”

“Nothing, not even the best and noblest, can go on as it now is. Nothing, not even what is lowest and most bestial, will not be raised again if it submits to death. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. Flesh and blood cannot come to the Mountains. Not because they are too rank, but because they are too weak. What is a Lizard compared with a stallion? Lust is a poor, weak, whimpering whispering thing compared with that richness and energy of desire which will arise when lust has been killed.”

“But am I to tell them at home that this man’s sensuality proved less of an obstacle than that poor woman’s love for her son? For that was, at any rate, an excess of love.” [The narrator had just observed a ghost begging for the son she had idolised, and for whom she had neglected all other relationships.]

” Ye’ll tell them no such thing,” he replied sternly. “Excess of love, did ye say? There was no excess, there was defect. She loved her son too little, not too much. If she had loved him more there’d be no difficulty. I do not know how her affair will end. But it may well be that at this moment she’s demanding to have him down with her in Hell. That kind is sometimes perfectly ready to plunge the soul they say they love in endless misery if only they can still in some fashion possess it. No, no. Ye must draw another lesson. Ye must ask, if the risen body even of appetite is as grand a horse as ye saw, what would the risen body of maternal love or friendship be?”

There's a needed balance in understanding religious rules.  Political and nonsensical issues aside, some things the rules mention aren't simply disqualifiers on judgement day.  Just because you did this or that, you're not some poor, unfortunate person who in the end didn't get the right boxes checked. The rules point to things that are in and of themselves deadly now.  Like sticking your hand in the fire, doing so will burn you.  Like living a life of selfishness will dehumanize you, or like living at the porn trough will cripple you in love and relationships.  Life can be hellish long before the end.  Some things are just deadly.

In the end, I suspect, there are just two kinds of people.  Those who live, saying to their creator, "thy will be done," and those to whom the creator at the end must say, "thy will be done."

Whose History?

The 'possessions' of the European powers c. 1790.

Portuguese, French, Spanish, English, Dutch,

Danish, and Turkish claimed regions.

Africa in the millenia leading up to the colonial era.

A largely uncivilized and sparsely inhabited continent available for the taking - that was the thinking that made colonial conquest seem right, I suppose.

In 1910, the coloring shows the possessions of the
European powers.  Independent states are uncolored.
Only Abyssinia (Ethiopia) and a few other areas remain
independent in 1910.

The first European explorers knew nothing of the civilizations and cultures of Africa that preceded their own by more than a thousand years.

Africans had established nations and trade, economies and relationships. Towns along the Niger River had collaborated for the common good for more than 1600 years before the first European arrived.  It wasn't eden, but neither was it empty.

Conquest and colonization followed along with the imposition of political boundaries by western rule.  The Atlantic slave trade, as inhumane as it was, was not the worst of what Europe brought.

Artificial boundaries separated tribes, 'divide and conquer' by arbitrary segregation that pitted one against another. Service was indentured, in-country servitude reduced local people to the status of slave labor, and the high mortality rate of such an existence introduced the requirement to replenish the work force from the surrounding regions. Population declines resulted across the continent as the demand for male slaves increased. The horror of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was equaled by the local repression within the African 'possessions', the colonies.

The demographic impact on the continent was crippling.  Population growth stagnated while Europe boomed.  The export of so many people was a disaster that left Africa permanently disadvantaged compared to other parts of the world.  The colonial focus on low-cost manual labor and resource extraction meant that Africa did not participate in the industrial revolution that launched developing economies elsewhere which largely explains the continent's current lagging behind and poverty.

The results persist today

Most colonial governments were not rich. The European colonial powers were not willing to fund the governing of their colonies in Africa fully. Each colony was responsible for raising most of the revenue (money) needed to fund the operations of colonial rule. Wealth flowed from the colonies to Europe.  No matter how rich in resources a colony was, the government lacked the income and revenue necessary to develop a government system able to go beyond maintaining law and order. This meant that colonial governments were not able to provide basic infrastructure, such as roads and communication networks, nor were they able to provide basic social services such as education, healthcare, and housing.  The results persist today.

The results, unfortunately, do indeed persist today.
The streets of my favorite west African locale, 2012.

The legacy of it all? Maulana Karenga explains, "the morally monstrous destruction of human possibility involved redefining African humanity to the world, poisoning past, present and future relations with others who only know us through this stereotyping and thus damaging the truly human relations among people of today."  He cites that it constituted the destruction of culture, language, religion and human possibility.

Africa isn't the only venue for the quest for land and rule and wealth, of course.  The Americas are yet another story of similar conquest and the death of millions at the hands of those who would advance themselves at the expense of another.  Today, Wall Street is headquarters for the same quest.  Is there a lesson here that can be learned?  Can we actually make a difference?

Poison Politics

We've reached the greatest degree of polarization in our nation in a hundred and fifty years.

Republicans and democrats with help from the media have divided us and disassembled our common values, common goals, and our national identity.

LEFT vs. RIGHT WING.  Did you know that the political Left and Right positions are defined by their view on equality?
The political left favors social equality while the political right defends the social hierarchy and economic inequality.

LIBERAL vs. CONSERVATIVE.
Did you know that Liberalism is founded on ideas of liberty and equality.  Liberals generally support ideas such as democratic elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.  Conservativism supports retaining traditional social institutions and cultural norms from recent history.

Liberals led the movements to abolish slavery, to end discrimination, and to create an equal opportunity nation.  Conservatives resisted them all.  Liberals also make the case for abortion, for the redefinition of marriage, and for the welfare state.  Conservatives are pro-life, traditional marriage, and support a reduced deficit with reduced federal spending.

Republicans vs. Democrats vs. People of Faith
Today the Republican and Democratic parties are not merely uncomfortable, imperfect homes for people of faith; they are prisons that artificially divide us and prevent us from coming together as a community to advance the common good. ~Archbishop Charles Chaput

NO DANCING!

That's the rule!  They told us that when we were kids in church in the South.  Good grief.

Rules have been the source of cultural distress for thousands of years, of course.  Who gets to rule, and what rules are imposed on us regular folks. 

There are good rules, we all agree. No killing, no stealing, don't lie, don't hurt other people. The reasonable next steps are things like respect your parents and take care of them when they're old. Heal the sick, feed the hungry, make a place for everyone. Love others like you love yourself.

Then there are the odd rules that persist and make little sense.  Honor killings, kidnapping students, forbidding girls to study in school, bikinis and burkas, insisting that porn is the same as free speech, and ... no dancing. Someone thought that was a good idea, I suppose.

A broadly understood concept, commonly shared
among religions and philosophies ...

While the rule of law is indeed a recognized necessity, no one suggests that it addresses the root of the problem.  It's the individual heart, right?

A good heart rules well, especially if it is refined over years by good counsel and experience.

Law has been shown to define the boundary against which we press, struggling for the best advantage, looking for the loophole.  A good heart, on the other hand, is pushing in the opposite direction, struggling to do right, looking for the opportunity to serve well.

It's funny ... funny strange, not humorous ... how little time we spend pursuing the goal of a good heart.  Little is said of it in the public arena, and perhaps little in our daily conversations as well.  In the business world, it's a little odd or even uncomfortable when 'doing the right thing' comes up in a meeting.  Why is that, I wonder.  In today's world where it seems that those who have the gold make the rules, is there a good path, a better way that an individual can follow?

Zombie Prejudice

'Canada will never be a safe haven for zombies,' according to Foreign Minister John Baird. 

During parliamentary discussions on crisis response, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird stood up and, with a straight face, assured the nation that zombies would not be welcome in Canada should the U.S. devolve into a zombie wasteland. "I want to assure this member and all Canadians that I am dedicated to ensuring this never happens. I want to say categorically to this member, and through him to all Canadians, that under the leadership of this Prime Minister, Canada will never become a safe haven for zombies.  Ever." The room burst into applause.

We all laughed, of course.  It was a joke.

Interestingly, similar thinking has been popular in the past, and it wasn't humorous. Depending on who and where you are, your history includes a vicious unwillingness to make a place for Africans or Jews or local natives or members of some other class than your own.

The Irish weren't welcome in America in the 19th century; the prejudice against them was old by then, though.  In the 12th century, the Irish resistance to invasion and domination gives us our first look at their "barbarous nation" with "filthy practices".  The Gaelic Irish lived under the weight of such characterizations for centuries, and in some regions they still do even now, in the 21st century.

Black Africans, Asians, Latinos, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and Jews; the list of those unfairly judged is long and persists in cultural thinking.

None of us are free of prejudice.  We're generally unaware of its extent in us.

... according to social science and psychology.  Do the research yourself if you're curious.

It's deeply pervasive.  Beyond the obvious prejudice about race or skin color, we find similar discrimination against people on the basis of body type, employment area, education, dialect, gender, tribe, hair style, religion, and their social class, wealth, and home size.  Every culture has their own version of these or others.  Destructive, in every case; from anorexia to ... zombies?

Prejudice - defined

A hostile opinion about some person or class of persons; prejudice is socially learned and commonly grounded in misconception, misunderstanding, and inflexible generalizations.  

Most often rooted in personal fear or insecurity, we perhaps fear loss of what we have or how we live.  It's as though we fear a dilution of the 'good' we deserve if these new players join.  Prejudice feeds on our perceived need to be better or superior in some way.

There is a way out, of course; and toward what we hope for in ourselves ... clear thinking, compassion, kindness, graciousness to others, and patience.

Both our culture and we ourselves can change. Though neither quick nor simple in either case, such cannot be ignored by a good conscience.  True?

Some resources ... here and here and here.  I couldn't find anything to help with the zombie problem, though.

Life in Memories

“People wait all week for Friday, all year for summer, all life for happiness.”

Life is surprisingly empty if not accompanied by moments worth remembering.  It might not be uncommon for a day or a month to pass in a blur, just marking time.  Can we choose otherwise?

Friends near and far, they shape our understanding,
our purpose, our view of life, of ourselves,
and the world.

Memories are made in brief moments or perhaps in a long struggle.  Joy or horror, memories are where we look back and see our self and others, the things that mattered, maybe the purpose for which we've lived.  Our happiness is in there.


Magnificent moments and the best of memories arise from doing well, do they not? And they often include people about whom we care deeply.

Our family, and particularly our children exemplify our hope to do well by others.  And our grandchildren.  Them, especially.

In that circle and beyond, a life invested in serving for the benefit of others appears to provide the deepest and most meaningful bedrock of happiness.  Not surprisingly, social science and psychology studies suggest a life focused on self, wealth, and pleasure is the least likely to satisfy more than fleetingly.  

Do the research yourself, if you're curious. Here's a good place to start.  It's a quick summary of 40 years of research.

Despite free will, we have few choices.  We have no choice at all about where or when we were born, how we were raised or the things we experienced along the way.  We have little choice about the culture or the economy in which we live.  That which we can choose is perhaps limited to how, and to what end, we serve.  True?  

If you didn't stop to see the video, you should.  It's useful understanding about what to do next.