The Power of Metaphor (and Meme)

Can a metaphor replace a truth?

Metaphor: a figure of speech containing an implicit comparison.  

Over a few years of inquiry, I've noticed that things which are abhorrent can be justified or minimized by the way we describe them, by our metaphors.

Snakes: in Rwanda, Hutus described Tutsis as snakes and treated them as such.
Vermin: Germany’s Reich portrayed Jews as vermin and treated them as such.

For the sake of the nation, it had to be done.  It was necessary, for example, during WWII, to bomb civilians.  In the pursuit of room to live (lebensraum), Germany began bombing Polish cities and towns that weren’t military targets. Japan similarly bombed civilian targets in China.

In response, allied bombing destroyed many cities in Germany and Japan before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Targeting the morale of the nation, we said.  After the war, it was examined and acknowledged that many attacks had targeted innocent civilian populations that were uninvolved in the decision to go to war or in the war effort.  It continues to be troubling.

Manifest Destiny: for our new-born nation, it was necessary to vacate the country ahead of our expansion westward as our manifest destiny required.

Over the decades, the abuse of others has been metaphorically justified.  They’re savage beasts, we said of those we enslaved.  Of desperate migrants seeking refuge, we said they are criminals and rapists, an invasion.

In each case, metaphoric misdirection provided an excuse for violation of absolute principle.

If you inquire into such issues, it often circles back to simplistic, metaphoric justification rather than a principled foundation, and there is no objective answer.

A question for us as individuals and as a culture, then; do we have genuine principles?  Or a confusion, perhaps, of conflicting values?

Either we have an anchor, or we're left to drift with the wind and waves. He said, metaphorically. 😏 Thoughts? Memes?

It's worth remembering, Jesus didn't suggest his followers choose between the ruling parties of their day.

   We're fed a constant stream, not of simple truth, but of someone's preferred interpretation. And it needn't be factual, apparently.

   If we accept it, we dull our own heart. If we join in and play along, we perhaps corrupt our own understanding along with that of others.

   And the most difficult issue, I suspect ... if we give our loyalty to either side, we find ourselves approving of things our Father warned us against. It's worth remembering, Jesus didn't suggest his followers choose between the ruling parties of their day. Both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were a blight on their culture.

   So how do we see the truth with some measure of objectivity, some measure of clarity? And how do we choose our own path? Is there a downside if we do nothing?

   It's perhaps time to take a deep breath and remember the goal of a united people, a virtuous nation, and principled governance.  Now perhaps, remind your friends as well.

Capitalism’s Grandfather

Like every ‘ism’, Capitalism emerged slowly over many decades. It came into an economy that had been controlled by Feudalism and then Mercantilism for centuries.

In the 12th century, Feudalism was the norm in Europe. Most workers were serfs for the landed nobles. Less than 5% of folks lived in towns, but things changed. By the late middle-ages, urbanization, production, and trade became more important giving rise to Mercantilism, i.e., trade between towns, between regions, and eventually between countries.

Mercantilism ran hand-in-hand with Colonialism as countries sought to increase their wealth and power through restricted trade and resource extraction. World trade routes and attempts to ensure exclusive access were fought over continuously, and wealth flowed to the top of the economic ladder.

Capitalism, emerging just in time for the Industrial Revolution, was best described by Adam Smith who clearly saw that the restrictive trade practices were impediments to development and change. He envisioned a free market, and it opened the world to capitalism.

Tycoons (and robber barons) amassed great wealth quickly, passing by the aristocracy as industries and productivity grew. Industrial Capitalism tended to benefit more levels of society than just the aristocratic class. Wages increased, helped greatly by the formation of unions. For the first time in history, common folks had the hope of becoming comfortably self-sufficient. A middle class was born, and economic growth began to lift more and more folks from the lower class into the dream.

Through deregulation beginning in the 80's, the financial sector became the key player in our economy.  Banks, now bigger than countries, rule a complex international financial system.  Some economists refer to the move from banks as money storage to the broader credit, exchange, and investment options as Financial Capitalism.

A capitalist economy is unconcerned about fair dealing. Scruples are not included in the plan, and mutual benefit is not guaranteed as the market manages itself. Players must choose wisely or lose.

While wealth tends to flow to the top, the consumer is the essential part of the equation. Attempts along the way to improve the lot of the consumer have been controversial.  Although modern economics requires a consumer base able to buy, pure capitalism would let those at the bottom of the ladder just fall off and disappear. That’s the moral inadequacy of capitalism.

Political Capitalism, by the way, is just the rhetoric of governance that supports industrial and financial growth. While perhaps constrained by other principles like liberty and opportunity, governments are inordinately influenced by corporations and the wealthy elite along this evolutionary economic path.

Reagan 1981-89, G. Bush 1989-93, Clinton 1993-2001, G.W. Bush 2001-09, Obama 2009-17

In the last thirty years, we have seen modern capitalism turn away from the middle and lower classes while focusing primarily on national wealth and market dominance.

Despite shortcomings, most political theorists and economists argue that, at least for now, capitalism is the essential component of an efficient economy.  With few exceptions, governments around the world agree in some measure that capitalism is essential to economic progress and security. Even Russia and China.

Those same governments agree that more is required and each attempts to mitigate the downside of capitalism; some effectively, some not so much.

Capitalism isn't the gospel, by the way, just the current 'ism', and like its predecessors, it has flaws.  Each 'ism' attempts to fit a particular circumstance of population density, productivity, and resource allocation, and each 'ism' is left behind when a better solution is needed.  The likely fail point today, perhaps, is the rapidly accelerating inequality seen in larger economies.

So for now, we need capitalism, and we perhaps prefer limited federal government and a free market. Does that address all of today's issues adequately?  

Or are there emerging risks and costs that need our collective attention? 

One of Many

It was just one of more than fifty occasions in history where tens of thousands were driven out and killed.  Each time, it was pretty much the same.

They'd lived there for generations, tending to kids and crops and some communities as large as 80,000 citizens.  They had governments and trade and civil society.  Then the invasion began and the holocaust followed.

Many did their best to respond appropriately, but they were often treated viciously.  Driven from their homes, many fought back and were killed along with their families.  As refugees, they fled, leaving everything behind.  When they wouldn’t leave fast enough, they were herded at gunpoint for a thousand miles and one in four died along the way.  Massacres, chaos, and death fill the timeline, and millions died.

The invaders claimed to be Christian, perhaps because the church had bent a bit in their favor.  They swept across territories and civilizations, and destroyed everything human in their path.  After more than two centuries, the remaining descendants of the indigenous peoples were finally granted citizenship, and more recently, equal rights like white folks had always had.  

Today, perhaps few grasp why those original Americans might have a different view of this country built by self-proclaimed discoverers, a land they claimed, ordained to be theirs by a gracious and loving God who let them murder the inhabitants, slaughter children in their mother’s arms, …. 

Today, we've either dealt with issues like these in our history or not.  Many still don’t understand the animosity of folks whose lives are affected by how we behave as a nation.  Many don’t understand refugees and what they face.  They just presume to be adequately informed.  The impact of such ignorance persists for generations in the character and values (or lack thereof) of a culture.

Note the problematic comparisons.  When Germany wiped out Jews and Poles, it was wicked.  When Russia did the Holodomor, it was wicked.  When Japan invaded China and did it, it was wicked.  But when colonists came to the Americas and did it, it was ....  well, the South American invasions and wars were wicked, but the North American ... slaughters, torture, and forced removals from their ancestral territories were ....  

While the truth is available, it is generally ignored or brushed aside.  As we celebrate our birth as a nation, not everyone sees the same story.

Civilization's Odd Illusion

"Why are diamonds so valuable," she asked with genuine interest.

They're not.  They have industrial uses, perhaps, but no intrinsic value.  You can't use them for much except in trying to impress others. Billionaire De Beers chairman Nicky Oppenheimer once succinctly explained, “diamonds are intrinsically worthless, except for the deep psychological need they fill.”  So how does such imaginary value emerge in society?

Beginning with the simplest life issues - food and water, shelter and clothing, health and learning, and safety - neither diamonds nor gold or other 'precious' things have any practical use.

• In Spain, a fellow took me to the commons where he had a root cellar.  In it, he proudly showed me his prosperity, about ten bushels of potatoes he had grown and harvested all by himself that year.
• In Djibouti, a fellow cheerfully introduced me to his camels and goats, his family's valuables.  
• In Kenya, a Masai friend explained that goats were his extended family's reserves.  If need arises, they sell a goat.  If a year goes well, they buy a goat.

At the lowest economic echelon:  If the world lived at that self-sustainment level, crops and flocks would be valuable.  Craftsmanship would be marketable.  Fabrics and clothing, bread and produce would be traded, and folks would help each other.  Negotiated trades and a handshake would be the currency, and diamonds would still be worthless.

Second echelon: enter the middle-man; the one who buys and sells, who employs laborers and manufactures products.  Currencies emerge, whose value is perhaps just a promise, to enable transactions.

Third echelon: rule makers (rulers) rise above and impose control; the right to rule and tax people and property and productivity, all justified by the benefit of governance and employment and some protection.  Luxury (useless decor) emerges for the privileged.  Appearance and reputation become goals.  Currencies and financial instruments become useful repositories for their excess wealth.

In a few centuries, currencies and equivalents become an industry that shapes the world.  Confined to the rules of imaginary value, the focus of life is acquisition and accumulation of currencies.  And what do you do when you have more than you need?  You buy a bigger home, a cooler car, expensive clothes, a diamond ring .... and we're far down that imaginary road but completely unaware.

Real world and not-real world ...

There's progress for the fortunate.  Health and income stability improve.  Manual labor declines as mechanization sweeps through home and workplace.  Geographic mobility becomes normal.  Freedom to choose your path emerges through the years, although much is chosen for you based on the imaginary model of things.

For appearance and reputation, rarely used ....

It's revealing to see the priorities those in top positions follow now.  The decisions they make change the country and the world, and as they focus on territory or religion or trade, they'll affect the lives of millions.  When economic competition becomes the focus, that's where imaginary wealth does the most harm, and competition becomes just a continuation of previous wars.  Economic decisions are made for advantage, not for human benefit, and the devastating result at the lower end of the pyramid is deprivation and struggle as wealth is deliberately extracted from communities and countries.

... if you know who to ask ...

He offers a different value system

than the one we see here.

To Him, every person is valuable,

wealth is a crippler, and the

the first shall be ... last.

Curious why the oil industry fights so fervently against climate change?  The U.S. is now the world's largest oil producer and has the largest proven reserves (more than 200 billion barrels).  That's wealth worth defending despite the devastating cost, at least according to the near-term economics.  Much like the tobacco industry's defense, it fights for gain not human benefit.

Curious why the financial industry has fought so long against regulatory oversight?  Major banks and financial corporations are bigger than countries now, and wealth is their only goal, not human benefit.

There are real truths available despite all the imaginary.  There is a view, a perspective that's real-world based.  There are foundational principles, and there is inalienable value in each individual, but it's hard to see that from the upper echelons of worldly wealth, enclosed in civilization's illusion.

The Split

More people voted the the party line for president and
senate than at any time in the past century.

The split between left and right ... and between friends.

2017 - "That the leading candidate’s platform is mostly comprised of satire and ridicule reflects the kind of popular anti-establishment frustration seen elsewhere among the Western democracies. But the hidden hold of the country’s most powerful businessmen will be difficult to break. ... because of the asymmetry of time and resources, elections are dominated by the organized and the moneyed who are then chosen to govern."

~an interesting observation by legal scholar Ganesh Sitaraman.

In the U.S., our elections today reflect an extraordinary polarization in our culture, a divisive rhetoric from the extremes, and a loss of that once deemed precious to us all, a nation united.

Deliberate interference by external interests like the Russians has exaggerated the divisiveness among us. Social media has proved to be a useful tool for influencing shallow thinking. Popular opinion rises from the few moments available in busy lives to consider an issue, so memes and ridicule have become the language spoken by a significant segment of the population.  But this trend began more than forty years ago, implemented by monied interests.  That in itself is an interesting study.

Our political process has moved beyond divided to adversarial, and it now will enact policy one year and repeal it the next, further crippling our progress.

Among the citizens, objective and disciplined inquiry is rare.  Loyalty to biased sources is a common illness.  The middle-ground is gone.  Friends find themselves insulted or demeaned, unintentionally perhaps, by casual ridicule.  Having a friend who thoughtfully disagrees and is perhaps interested in your point of view is a rare treasure, increasingly rare across recent decades.  Is there a better position we might take, one based on principle and integrity rather than preferred party ideology?

A precious brother laughed the other day at the long list of things we talk about, often without agreement.  It's okay because we work at it, not competitively but in an effort to understand.  I so treasure his good heart.  The issues don't push us apart.