The word "peace" has a pleasant ring to it, but it is thrown around much too easily, often without much thought as to what it really means and requires. When we think of peace as a desirable thing, it is not a "peace" floating in space, devoid of any social context or history or social obligations. It is a peace that makes people content to refrain from conflict because their needs have been satisfied to some extent, and because they feel respected and understood by those with whom they have been in conflict or disagreement.
In a couple of situations that have been very much in the news in recent weeks, the Palestinian-Israeli attacks, counter-attacks and ongoing animosity, and the tensions between protesters and police in Ferguson, Missouri following the police slaying of the unarmed, 18 year old young black man, Michael Brown, I note the tendency among many observers, commentators and politicians to plead for "peace," by which they mean an immediate cessation of violence. This make me reflect on how, for many people who do not think very often or very deeply about these matters, there is a very simple solution to such conflict situations: just stop fighting. Palestinians, stop shooting rockets and killing Israelis. African-Americans of Ferguson, stop throwing rocks and flaming bottles at the police. Embrace "peace." Lion and lamb, please come together, and all the surrounding sheep will BAAAAA in agreement!
This kind of quick, easy and empty "peace," a cessation of conflict without any resolution of the underlying grievances and injustices that drove the conflict in the first place, is not only simplistic, short-sighted and disrespectful to those who have risked bodily harm or even sacrificed their lives to voice their grievances in these actions, but often ensures that there will be more conflict and violence in the future, for the simmering grievances will not become less heated over time simply because "peace" has been declared or imposed.
In the two cases cited above, most of our news media and political leaders tend to side with whoever the dominant power in the situation is, and to show much more sympathy for their suffering and losses than those of the other side. So, in the violence between the Palestinians and Israelis, we hear much more about how the Israelis are justified in using force against the Palestinians than we do about why the Palestinians are rising up in the first place. If an Israeli civilian such as a mother or a child is killed by a Hamas rocket, this is lamented and dramatized, but less so when Palestinians are killed or have their homes and communities reduced to rubble by Israeli missiles and soldiers, even though many more Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than the reverse, in this and past conflicts as well. Still, the Palestinians are expected to accept the destruction of their communities, pick up the pieces and move on, and live happy, "peaceful" lives despite their poverty, trauma and despair, which Israeli policy enforces through such measure as the "Separation Wall" that seals off the Palestinian territories, the Israeli military-manned checkpoints that they have to pass through on a daily basis, to their great frustration and humiliation, and the Israeli-imposed economic blockade that strangles their economic life and ensures continuing poverty and desperation. Where is the sympathy and understanding for that? It seems to me that in much of our media and among many of our leaders, it is only the suffering of the Israelis that receives attention.
In Ferguson, though there is sympathy expressed for the death of Michael Brown, the protesters who have turned to violence are seen as unreasonable hooligans, unlike the "good" protestors, who march in the daytime in the streets holding signs and flowers without resorting to any violence. The state's governor, Jay Nixon, and senior senator, Claire McCaskill, have also embraced this narrative of "good" peaceful protestors versus "bad" violent ones who dare to threaten the police. When the state authorities send in National Guard forces and fire tear gas at protestors in the streets, this may be questioned as to whether it might be a bit excessive, but is still seen as understandable because something must be done to keep the protestors from getting out of control. This understanding attitude toward police use of force, coupled with an unwillingness to allow citizens to use force to fight back against the force used against them, overlooks the deeper reality that the violent protestors are not merely responding to the slaying of Michael Brown but expressing their burning resentment over months, years, and even decades of abuse and harassment that African-Americans in Ferguson have endured at the hands of the Ferguson police and other local and state authorities. There is the stubborn reality of decades of white flight, white-dominated government agencies, including the police, and economic disinvestment in the Ferguson area that have made the black community as poor and troubled as it is. So, when the African-American community here or elsewhere explodes in violence, it has to be understood as an explosion that was caused first and foremost by a long and continuing historical experience of injustice and suffering. Where is the sympathy and understanding for that? It is my impression that for many in our media and among many of our leaders, it is only the violence of the angry African-American protestors that is condemned, not the social conditions and police brutality that drove them to this point.
If we could have "peace" of the sort that our media and politicians seem to be calling for in these situations, a cessation of violent actions before there is any resolution of the issues driving the violence, what an empty and horrible thing it would be. It would mean that people in such situations as the Palestinian territories or the African-American community in cities like Ferguson would have to accept a life as a disrespected, disempowered second class of people, with no effective ability to oppose those who oppress, brutalize and disenfranchise them, vulnerable at any moment to violent treatment by state authorities, with no means of redress. This would be similar to the kind of peace that the Nazis were hoping to achieve, a nice peaceful society of clean, orderly, white German people after all the dirty and disorderly Jews and Slavs and others had been done away with. It would indeed have been very peaceful, but not at all very just.
Though I regret violence and loss of life of any sort, I do not condemn those in harshly oppressed situations who turn to violence when they reach the desperate conclusion that they have no other way of asserting their needs and concerns. Since the creation of Israel, the grievances of the Palestinians pushed out of their homes and off their land to make way for the nation of Israel have never been fully addressed or resolved. Israeli groups continue to build settlements on land that still, according to international law, belongs to the Palestinians, and so the Palestinians, already disadvantaged by the way in which they were treated during the creation of Israel, see their lands further diminished by these continuing encroachments, while they endure such hardships as the checkpoints and embargoes mentioned above. Who can blame them for exploding into violence, as regrettable as its effects may be? And answer this: would the world pay any attention to the Palestinians, would many people outside Palestine actually know or care about their issues and grievances, if they did not occasionally attack Israel? Do the proponents of empty "peace" expect them to simply suffer and die in silence, so that Israeli communities can flourish in peace and security and never have to worry about the people living right next to them in abominable conditions that they, the Israelis, helped to create and now help to maintain, who live under constant fear of the Israeli police and military? When the Palestinians rise up out of their segregated areas to fire rockets at the Israelis, could this not be compared to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, when the disadvantaged, oppressed Jews decided to fight back courageously against their Nazi oppressors? This is indeed a most painful and horrible irony of the situation of the state of Israel and its troubled co-existence with its Palestinian citizens and neighbors.
And in Ferguson, if there were not violent protestors out in the streets at night throwing Molotov cocktails at the police, would anyone really know or care about the death of Michael Brown and the suffering of the black people of Ferguson? Would the national news media or politicians really pay much attention to quiet, peaceful protests? If the African-Americans there had only protested peacefully, without the drama of violence, would anyone really pay attention or care?
When the long-suffering, oppressed people of any location rise up in violence, it is only because they have been pushed to the brink by authorities that have often preferred to bury them than to care for them. If you want to stop the violence of tomorrow, start thinking about the disadvantaged, underprivileged, and either overtly or subtly oppressed people of today, and start thinking about how we and our institutions and authorities can help those people have a better life today and tomorrow, so that there will be no need for anyone to turn to violence to express the anger, sorrow, humiliation, bitterness and despair that we see in all too many places in our troubled and all too often indifferent world, and don't ask people to respect "law and order" when they have never seen any benefit or justice from that so-called law and so-called order.
Peace without justice is no peace at all. We need peace with justice and caring for the needs of all, not just for certain classes or colors of people, who get to live the good life while others have no life at all.
And to put a Pagan twist on this, I once again reject the narrow tribalism of ethnic division that some Pagans embrace. Just look at Ferguson and all the other communities in America where there is a sharp division between predominantly black and white communities. There are your clearly demarcated tribes, and there you have injustice and hate. Look at Israel and Palestine, and you find the same thing. We need to build bridges, not fences, and break bread together, and look for the good of all humanity, not just one enclave walled off from another and played off against it. Ethnic traditions such as songs, prayers, myths and forms of folk art that come to us from the past are beautiful things, but they are part of the common human heritage and should be respected and enjoyed as such. They should bring us together in moments of sharing and appreciation, and discovery of commonality across the range of diverse expressions of human spirituality and local culture, and not be used to separate us or inflame us against one another.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Saturday, February 23, 2013
A Pagan Walks into a Synagogue...
Long-time readers of this blog, as opposed to accidental victims led here against their will, may recall that on several occasions I have mused about connections, whether contrasts or commonalities, between Judaism and Paganism. This entry is a further walk down this path. It may also provide a bit of instruction in Jewish history for those who may not be well-acquainted with this topic. It's also nice to have a way to ward off any truly right-wing Pagans or anti-Semitic neo-Nazi types, for whom I would imagine a sympathetic discussion of Judaism has the same effect as a silver crucifix wrapped in garlic has on a vampire!
On Friday evening, 22nd of February, I was a guest speaker at a synagogue in a town not too far from where I live in New York State. I took the opportunity to speak about some topics that I have been researching and writing about for the last several years for my hopefully-someday-to-be-finished book about religious diversity in Eastern Europe. I focused on two very strange, fascinating and indeed troubling characters from Jewish history, the so-called "false messiahs" Shabbetai Zevi and Jacob Frank. Both men claimed to be the long awaited Jewish messiah, Zevi in Turkey in the 17th century, Frank in Poland in the 18th, but asserted a path to Jewish salvation that involved massive diversion, if not perversion, of many of the standard forms of Jewish life. Though simply narrating their weird careers as Jewish leaders of essentially anti-Jewish movements that attracted thousands of followers and caused massive headaches for both the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania would have probably been quite enough, I wanted to sketch out both the historical and religious-ideational backgrounds of these renegade religious movements, and also discuss the various ways in which these movements influenced or paralleled other modern Jewish movements from Hasidism to the "Jewish Enlightenment" Haskalah, as well as foreshadowing the French Revolution in certain ways. I even spoke a bit about the Kabbalah as one of the main inspirations for Zevi and Frank.
I then went on to talk about some of my impressions of Jewish life and culture in Eastern Europe, explaining how my slowly growing awareness of the Jewish culture of the past in places like Budapest as well as my encounters with ugly flashes of anti-Semitism in Siauliai had inspired me to want to know more about the Jewish side of Eastern European history, resulting in my decision to write a book not only about Eastern European Paganism, which would have been relatively easy for me, as this has been my major research area for some years, but about Judaism as well, in an attempt to arrive at an overview of the diversity of Eastern European religious life beyond the stereotyped assumption of total Christian dominance, as in the usual description of Poland as a "Catholic country," for example.
It ended up being a rather lengthy talk that I gave, definitely a bit TOO long for one tough old lady in the congregation, who approached me later in the evening to teasingly scold me, saying she felt like standing up and yelling "SHUT UP!" at me. However, the reaction was very positive overall, not least from the rabbi, who praised me for getting at the heart of some very important issues in a way that reminded her of her past graduate studies during her rabbinical training. Other members of the congregation approached me to thank me for a stimulating talk. I stayed for the Friday evening Shabbat dinner and had friendly conversations with a very nice group of people. I was very moved, especially by the words of appreciation from the rabbi, as I have been working on this research and thinking in almost total isolation for the last three years. I have really had no one to discuss these things with, other than engaging in imaginary conversations with the authors of the books and articles that I have been collecting. It was therefore extremely gratifying to not only not be laughed out of the temple, so to speak, but to hear people of the faith that I have been exploring tell me that I was on the right track with many of my perceptions and interpretations.
I also attended the evening religious service, and found that quite meaningful and moving as well. Much of the liturgy was focused on imploring the God of the Jews to continue to provide for the welfare and protection of the people of the nation of Israel, and calling on the sons and daughters of Israel to keep faith with their God. This might be seen as a narrow, tribal focus from some points of view. However, at this stage in my life, differences and dividing lines are much less important to me than areas of common ground and expressions of shared yearning and common purpose, and I find my ears increasingly tuned to the universal dimensions of any religious message. I therefore hear the call to the people of Israel as echoing a universal call to all people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds to seek holiness and betterment, and I find nothing strange or alienating in that. This also has interesting implications for my occasional arguments with Norse Pagans who want to make modern-day Norse Paganism into a strictly ethnic, "Northern European" faith, which I and others disagree with, preferring that this be a more universal faith open to any people of any background anywhere.
The alternation between mostly English-translated and Hebrew-original texts in the service also made me think that for Norse or other Pagans in America or other English-language countries, some similar accommodation between modern and ancient language is a pragmatic solution. To speak of the two types of Paganism that I have been most involved with, I could envision Norse Pagans studying Old Norse for reading and prayer purposes, or Lithuanian American Pagans studying Lithuanian, the way young Jewish boys and girls are herded into Hebrew classes, to their childish frustration but their adult pride and satisfaction.
Of course, modern Pagans have a LONG way to go if they want to have any kind of liturgy to match that of Judaism or other long-established religions. This is in fact half the reason why some would-be Pagans give up on Paganism and go back to traditional faiths, whatever their reservations or private differences might be with the faith traditions that they choose to join or rejoin. It is certainly nice to plug right into something that has been long-established and well-worked out, as opposed to something that is forever under construction and endlessly argued over, as is the case with much of the Paganism that I have known!
The evening service included the singing of certain passages by both the rabbi and the congregation, and this was very pleasing to me. My Eastern European journeys have acquainted me with klezmer and other forms of Jewish music, including the experimental Jewish jazz of that mad New York City mystic, John Zorn, that I have developed a warm appreciation for alongside other types of Eastern European folk music from the Baltic to the Balkans. There are certain styles and melodies of Jewish music that really touch my heart. Those damned Jewish musicians, they really know how to rip your heart out with an aching violin and a haunting melody! In the synagogue, I could feel more clearly how more contemporary forms of Jewish music like klezmer are outgrowths of the ancient Hebrew melodies and singing styles.
So, this was a very special evening for me. I feel I made some new friends and feel a new sense of kinship with Judaism--in my own way, of course. "My own way" does not however extend to wanting to imitate Shabbetai Zevi or Jacob Frank in developing a new form of Judaism!
But what about a new form of Paganism? That is something to think about and discuss... In fact, since all of our modern types of Paganism are really quite new entities, despite the older traditions that we draw upon, I would argue that "new forms of Paganism" is the only thing we are ever talking about!
Question: When do Jews get to dress up like Pagans and have a bit of carnival-esque fun?
Answer... Happy Purim! (Today: Saturday, February 23).
On Friday evening, 22nd of February, I was a guest speaker at a synagogue in a town not too far from where I live in New York State. I took the opportunity to speak about some topics that I have been researching and writing about for the last several years for my hopefully-someday-to-be-finished book about religious diversity in Eastern Europe. I focused on two very strange, fascinating and indeed troubling characters from Jewish history, the so-called "false messiahs" Shabbetai Zevi and Jacob Frank. Both men claimed to be the long awaited Jewish messiah, Zevi in Turkey in the 17th century, Frank in Poland in the 18th, but asserted a path to Jewish salvation that involved massive diversion, if not perversion, of many of the standard forms of Jewish life. Though simply narrating their weird careers as Jewish leaders of essentially anti-Jewish movements that attracted thousands of followers and caused massive headaches for both the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland-Lithuania would have probably been quite enough, I wanted to sketch out both the historical and religious-ideational backgrounds of these renegade religious movements, and also discuss the various ways in which these movements influenced or paralleled other modern Jewish movements from Hasidism to the "Jewish Enlightenment" Haskalah, as well as foreshadowing the French Revolution in certain ways. I even spoke a bit about the Kabbalah as one of the main inspirations for Zevi and Frank.
I then went on to talk about some of my impressions of Jewish life and culture in Eastern Europe, explaining how my slowly growing awareness of the Jewish culture of the past in places like Budapest as well as my encounters with ugly flashes of anti-Semitism in Siauliai had inspired me to want to know more about the Jewish side of Eastern European history, resulting in my decision to write a book not only about Eastern European Paganism, which would have been relatively easy for me, as this has been my major research area for some years, but about Judaism as well, in an attempt to arrive at an overview of the diversity of Eastern European religious life beyond the stereotyped assumption of total Christian dominance, as in the usual description of Poland as a "Catholic country," for example.
It ended up being a rather lengthy talk that I gave, definitely a bit TOO long for one tough old lady in the congregation, who approached me later in the evening to teasingly scold me, saying she felt like standing up and yelling "SHUT UP!" at me. However, the reaction was very positive overall, not least from the rabbi, who praised me for getting at the heart of some very important issues in a way that reminded her of her past graduate studies during her rabbinical training. Other members of the congregation approached me to thank me for a stimulating talk. I stayed for the Friday evening Shabbat dinner and had friendly conversations with a very nice group of people. I was very moved, especially by the words of appreciation from the rabbi, as I have been working on this research and thinking in almost total isolation for the last three years. I have really had no one to discuss these things with, other than engaging in imaginary conversations with the authors of the books and articles that I have been collecting. It was therefore extremely gratifying to not only not be laughed out of the temple, so to speak, but to hear people of the faith that I have been exploring tell me that I was on the right track with many of my perceptions and interpretations.
I also attended the evening religious service, and found that quite meaningful and moving as well. Much of the liturgy was focused on imploring the God of the Jews to continue to provide for the welfare and protection of the people of the nation of Israel, and calling on the sons and daughters of Israel to keep faith with their God. This might be seen as a narrow, tribal focus from some points of view. However, at this stage in my life, differences and dividing lines are much less important to me than areas of common ground and expressions of shared yearning and common purpose, and I find my ears increasingly tuned to the universal dimensions of any religious message. I therefore hear the call to the people of Israel as echoing a universal call to all people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds to seek holiness and betterment, and I find nothing strange or alienating in that. This also has interesting implications for my occasional arguments with Norse Pagans who want to make modern-day Norse Paganism into a strictly ethnic, "Northern European" faith, which I and others disagree with, preferring that this be a more universal faith open to any people of any background anywhere.
The alternation between mostly English-translated and Hebrew-original texts in the service also made me think that for Norse or other Pagans in America or other English-language countries, some similar accommodation between modern and ancient language is a pragmatic solution. To speak of the two types of Paganism that I have been most involved with, I could envision Norse Pagans studying Old Norse for reading and prayer purposes, or Lithuanian American Pagans studying Lithuanian, the way young Jewish boys and girls are herded into Hebrew classes, to their childish frustration but their adult pride and satisfaction.
Of course, modern Pagans have a LONG way to go if they want to have any kind of liturgy to match that of Judaism or other long-established religions. This is in fact half the reason why some would-be Pagans give up on Paganism and go back to traditional faiths, whatever their reservations or private differences might be with the faith traditions that they choose to join or rejoin. It is certainly nice to plug right into something that has been long-established and well-worked out, as opposed to something that is forever under construction and endlessly argued over, as is the case with much of the Paganism that I have known!
The evening service included the singing of certain passages by both the rabbi and the congregation, and this was very pleasing to me. My Eastern European journeys have acquainted me with klezmer and other forms of Jewish music, including the experimental Jewish jazz of that mad New York City mystic, John Zorn, that I have developed a warm appreciation for alongside other types of Eastern European folk music from the Baltic to the Balkans. There are certain styles and melodies of Jewish music that really touch my heart. Those damned Jewish musicians, they really know how to rip your heart out with an aching violin and a haunting melody! In the synagogue, I could feel more clearly how more contemporary forms of Jewish music like klezmer are outgrowths of the ancient Hebrew melodies and singing styles.
So, this was a very special evening for me. I feel I made some new friends and feel a new sense of kinship with Judaism--in my own way, of course. "My own way" does not however extend to wanting to imitate Shabbetai Zevi or Jacob Frank in developing a new form of Judaism!
But what about a new form of Paganism? That is something to think about and discuss... In fact, since all of our modern types of Paganism are really quite new entities, despite the older traditions that we draw upon, I would argue that "new forms of Paganism" is the only thing we are ever talking about!
Question: When do Jews get to dress up like Pagans and have a bit of carnival-esque fun?
Answer... Happy Purim! (Today: Saturday, February 23).
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Our Shiny New War Against Iran
Today's blog is a humorous attempt to deal with something I find very frightening: the apparent coalescence of an acceptance of using military force against Iran for quite dubious reasons that are all too reminiscent of our most recent military adventures. One hopes that people learn from their mistakes, but in this case, I fear that we are on the edge of a whole new tragic chapter in idiotic American imperialism. It is so sickening that I need to attempt some dark humor. Here goes:
War is coming. A NEW war. Not one of those old, worn-out, pre-owned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,but a shiny NEW war that we all can feel proud and patriotic about. Aren't you happy? Don't you miss the EXCITEMENT and PATRIOTISM of the post-9/11 days when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, before those wars became dragged-out, boring and uninteresting? Oh, there is nothing like that initial rush of war to bring out the best in our country! Hooray for war. Let's go!!
What is this new war? You don't know?You don't follow the news? War against Iran, you dummy. Don't you know that Iran is VERY VERY dangerous, it is developing nuclear technology,and that IT MUST BE STOPPED? And we and our friends the Israeli government have been laying the groundwork. It's kind of like what we did in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, only better because many people have forgotten how that particular little foreign adventure came about. Oh, you have a vague recollection of that and would like to know more how the new rush to war resembles the previous one? OK, here goes.
As with Iraq, we are accusing an oil-rich country in the Middle East of striving to develop nuclear technology which could someday be turned into nuclear weapons. We claim this gives us the right to attack them even if they have not attacked anyone else. AS IF THAT MATTERED TO US! Hello-o, haven't you heard of "pre-emptive strike?" Duh! We claim the right to attack anyone anywhere who we think MIGHT be a threat. What's wrong with that? What could possibly go wrong? Isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? Our way or the death ray!
As with Iraq, we have no patience with the Iranian point of view. We "know" they cannot be trusted, certainly not their president with the supposedly unpronounceable name, Ahmedinejad. It's always more fun to vilify someone with a "weird" name, don't you know?
The Iranians claim they need nuclear technology for peaceful purposes of energy production and medical technology, such as radioactive isotopes used in chemotherapy for cancer. THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS!
Furthermore, we "know" that Iran is a menace in the region. President whose-name-no-patriotic-American-dare-pronounce has said ugly things about Israel, unlike the nice things that people say in other nearby countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Everyone knows that we insist that every Middle Eastern country love and respect Israel 110%, or we go to war against them right away.
And poor little Israel, it has done nothing to deserve any criticism or animosity from the other countries in the region. Those Palestinians who were forced off their land in 1947 and continue to cry-baby complain about this when they are not whimpering about Israel making their lives impossible with checkpoints, economic blockades and occasional military invasions that demolish neighborhoods are not people that we have to worry about, except that they show an irritating capacity to launch missile strikes and suicide attacks against Israel. So annoying! Can't they just accept their poverty, dispossession and isolation without having to make such a fuss? Can't they just withdraw into their pitiful shanty towns and quietly wait to die? What's wrong with them? I guess you just never know with those crazy Muslims. What, you are telling me that some of the Palestinians are Christians? That cannot be right; please just shut up.
Even more ridiculous is the accusation that Israel has its own nuclear weapons. You say the CIA has reported this? OK, maybe they have a few little bombs. They are our ally, so they are entitled. Anyway, it's a dangerous neighborhood. No one should get excited just because this or that country develops a few nuclear weapons without cooperating with nuclear treaties or allowing international inspection, UNLESS THAT COUNTRY IS IRAQ....I MEAN IRAN!!
Iran is quite the cry-baby too. Have you heard this OUTRAGEOUS idea that they might feel threatened by American power in the region? THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS. What American "power?" OK, we have some soldiers over there. OK, we have invaded countries on both the eastern side of Iran (Afghanistan) and on the western side (Iraq). That's none of their business! Did we complain when Russia put missiles into Cuba? Hell no! Did we attack Canada when they introduced nationalized health insurance? No, of course not. So where does Iran get off bitching and bitching about this? OK, so maybe we do have some bases to the north of Iran in some of those "-stan" countries. OK, so maybe our naval fleet does take the occasional pleasure cruise off the coast of Iran. OK, so maybe we do have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia and soldiers in Kuwait. OK, maybe we have allowed or even assisted Israel in developing nuclear weapons. That is no excuse for Iran to get all hissy-fitsy and nuclear. Only two countries in the world have the right to self-defense, including nuclear weapons: America and Israel. If Iran thinks they have a right to develop nuclear weapons just because they are surrounded by hostile forces, then they really do deserve to be attacked and invaded.
Iran is the craziest, most dangerous, and violent country on the planet. Just compare how many countries in the Middle East they have attacked and invaded to how many we have! It's like night and day. What, you are saying that it was not Iran that started the Iran-Iraq War, it was Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, who we were supporting at the time? I don't believe it. Besides, everyone knows that Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group in Lebanon that launches missiles against Israel from time to time. What, you are saying that Hezbollah first came about as a reaction to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s? You mean Israel attacked first? Well, that was 30+ years ago. Why can't Hezbollah give it a rest? Crazy damned Muslims.
As you can see, there is no way to look at the objective facts without reaching the sole possible conclusion: Iran must be attacked, and we're going to do it! Yay, go America!
(**Bonus points for you Political Science majors if you can answer the following question: could a military strike on Iran help Obama in the general election? And, would not doing it hurt him? Advantage to the Republicans, who are, with the exception of Ron Paul, united in seeking an attack on Iran! You can tell how patriotic a politician is by how eager he or she is to attack other countries!! Yay!)
It may be Israel that attacks first, but that won't even matter, because we have a defense alliance with them and if they get into any trouble, if Iran or anyone else tries to strike back, we can rush in and show the Iranians the same kind of "shock and awe"--I mean "freedom and democracy" that--we brought to Afghanistan and Iran. Consider the Israeli military our advance scouts and the whole thing makes perfect sense.
From a lot of the information I see in the media, this is a no-lose situation. After all, with our huge, excellent military involved, what could possibly go wrong?
What, you mean Iran could shut down the Persian Gulf and disrupt our oil supply? Just when you thought it was safe to buy a Hummer again....
What, you mean a strike by Israel against Iran could lead to other countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon getting involved, and a spiraling, expanding war? No way; you need to take your medication.
What, you mean some of OUR young men and women will die? Not if we stick with drones and long-range nuclear missiles....but even if a ground invasion were necessary, well, at least our boys and girls would take a whole lot of them Iranians down with them. We'll have a nice parade for our fallen patriots.
What, you mean the money that we will spend on the war is money we can't use for things at home? Well, since when do we care about the people in America? It's killing foreigners that counts, not taking care of things like bridges, schools, mortgages, pensions, unemployment and child poverty. War is patriotic. Trying to do anything about that other stuff sounds suspiciously like socialism. Can't have that. Lots of people don't have jobs, sure, but they could always join the army. If kids are going hungry, they could be trained to serve as mine-sweepers, make themselves useful.
What, you mean Russia and China are allies with Iran? Well, what could they do about it?
World War III? Well, we would win, wouldn't we? Doesn't it say so in the Bible? Don't you believe in America?
Shut up. We are going to war, and the only opinion you are going to be allowed to have is, "Support the troops!" and maybe also, Support the Drones. Support the Nukes.
Somewhere the war-god is smiling... America, with its lack of respect and understanding for other cultures and inability to examine its own actions or history is so easy to lead to the battlefield. The war-god will be well-fed with the bodies and souls of the dead. He is smiling.
(War-)God Bless America?
War is coming. A NEW war. Not one of those old, worn-out, pre-owned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,but a shiny NEW war that we all can feel proud and patriotic about. Aren't you happy? Don't you miss the EXCITEMENT and PATRIOTISM of the post-9/11 days when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, before those wars became dragged-out, boring and uninteresting? Oh, there is nothing like that initial rush of war to bring out the best in our country! Hooray for war. Let's go!!
What is this new war? You don't know?You don't follow the news? War against Iran, you dummy. Don't you know that Iran is VERY VERY dangerous, it is developing nuclear technology,and that IT MUST BE STOPPED? And we and our friends the Israeli government have been laying the groundwork. It's kind of like what we did in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, only better because many people have forgotten how that particular little foreign adventure came about. Oh, you have a vague recollection of that and would like to know more how the new rush to war resembles the previous one? OK, here goes.
As with Iraq, we are accusing an oil-rich country in the Middle East of striving to develop nuclear technology which could someday be turned into nuclear weapons. We claim this gives us the right to attack them even if they have not attacked anyone else. AS IF THAT MATTERED TO US! Hello-o, haven't you heard of "pre-emptive strike?" Duh! We claim the right to attack anyone anywhere who we think MIGHT be a threat. What's wrong with that? What could possibly go wrong? Isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? Our way or the death ray!
As with Iraq, we have no patience with the Iranian point of view. We "know" they cannot be trusted, certainly not their president with the supposedly unpronounceable name, Ahmedinejad. It's always more fun to vilify someone with a "weird" name, don't you know?
The Iranians claim they need nuclear technology for peaceful purposes of energy production and medical technology, such as radioactive isotopes used in chemotherapy for cancer. THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS!
Furthermore, we "know" that Iran is a menace in the region. President whose-name-no-patriotic-American-dare-pronounce has said ugly things about Israel, unlike the nice things that people say in other nearby countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Everyone knows that we insist that every Middle Eastern country love and respect Israel 110%, or we go to war against them right away.
And poor little Israel, it has done nothing to deserve any criticism or animosity from the other countries in the region. Those Palestinians who were forced off their land in 1947 and continue to cry-baby complain about this when they are not whimpering about Israel making their lives impossible with checkpoints, economic blockades and occasional military invasions that demolish neighborhoods are not people that we have to worry about, except that they show an irritating capacity to launch missile strikes and suicide attacks against Israel. So annoying! Can't they just accept their poverty, dispossession and isolation without having to make such a fuss? Can't they just withdraw into their pitiful shanty towns and quietly wait to die? What's wrong with them? I guess you just never know with those crazy Muslims. What, you are telling me that some of the Palestinians are Christians? That cannot be right; please just shut up.
Even more ridiculous is the accusation that Israel has its own nuclear weapons. You say the CIA has reported this? OK, maybe they have a few little bombs. They are our ally, so they are entitled. Anyway, it's a dangerous neighborhood. No one should get excited just because this or that country develops a few nuclear weapons without cooperating with nuclear treaties or allowing international inspection, UNLESS THAT COUNTRY IS IRAQ....I MEAN IRAN!!
Iran is quite the cry-baby too. Have you heard this OUTRAGEOUS idea that they might feel threatened by American power in the region? THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS. What American "power?" OK, we have some soldiers over there. OK, we have invaded countries on both the eastern side of Iran (Afghanistan) and on the western side (Iraq). That's none of their business! Did we complain when Russia put missiles into Cuba? Hell no! Did we attack Canada when they introduced nationalized health insurance? No, of course not. So where does Iran get off bitching and bitching about this? OK, so maybe we do have some bases to the north of Iran in some of those "-stan" countries. OK, so maybe our naval fleet does take the occasional pleasure cruise off the coast of Iran. OK, so maybe we do have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia and soldiers in Kuwait. OK, maybe we have allowed or even assisted Israel in developing nuclear weapons. That is no excuse for Iran to get all hissy-fitsy and nuclear. Only two countries in the world have the right to self-defense, including nuclear weapons: America and Israel. If Iran thinks they have a right to develop nuclear weapons just because they are surrounded by hostile forces, then they really do deserve to be attacked and invaded.
Iran is the craziest, most dangerous, and violent country on the planet. Just compare how many countries in the Middle East they have attacked and invaded to how many we have! It's like night and day. What, you are saying that it was not Iran that started the Iran-Iraq War, it was Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, who we were supporting at the time? I don't believe it. Besides, everyone knows that Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group in Lebanon that launches missiles against Israel from time to time. What, you are saying that Hezbollah first came about as a reaction to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s? You mean Israel attacked first? Well, that was 30+ years ago. Why can't Hezbollah give it a rest? Crazy damned Muslims.
As you can see, there is no way to look at the objective facts without reaching the sole possible conclusion: Iran must be attacked, and we're going to do it! Yay, go America!
(**Bonus points for you Political Science majors if you can answer the following question: could a military strike on Iran help Obama in the general election? And, would not doing it hurt him? Advantage to the Republicans, who are, with the exception of Ron Paul, united in seeking an attack on Iran! You can tell how patriotic a politician is by how eager he or she is to attack other countries!! Yay!)
It may be Israel that attacks first, but that won't even matter, because we have a defense alliance with them and if they get into any trouble, if Iran or anyone else tries to strike back, we can rush in and show the Iranians the same kind of "shock and awe"--I mean "freedom and democracy" that--we brought to Afghanistan and Iran. Consider the Israeli military our advance scouts and the whole thing makes perfect sense.
From a lot of the information I see in the media, this is a no-lose situation. After all, with our huge, excellent military involved, what could possibly go wrong?
What, you mean Iran could shut down the Persian Gulf and disrupt our oil supply? Just when you thought it was safe to buy a Hummer again....
What, you mean a strike by Israel against Iran could lead to other countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon getting involved, and a spiraling, expanding war? No way; you need to take your medication.
What, you mean some of OUR young men and women will die? Not if we stick with drones and long-range nuclear missiles....but even if a ground invasion were necessary, well, at least our boys and girls would take a whole lot of them Iranians down with them. We'll have a nice parade for our fallen patriots.
What, you mean the money that we will spend on the war is money we can't use for things at home? Well, since when do we care about the people in America? It's killing foreigners that counts, not taking care of things like bridges, schools, mortgages, pensions, unemployment and child poverty. War is patriotic. Trying to do anything about that other stuff sounds suspiciously like socialism. Can't have that. Lots of people don't have jobs, sure, but they could always join the army. If kids are going hungry, they could be trained to serve as mine-sweepers, make themselves useful.
What, you mean Russia and China are allies with Iran? Well, what could they do about it?
World War III? Well, we would win, wouldn't we? Doesn't it say so in the Bible? Don't you believe in America?
Shut up. We are going to war, and the only opinion you are going to be allowed to have is, "Support the troops!" and maybe also, Support the Drones. Support the Nukes.
Somewhere the war-god is smiling... America, with its lack of respect and understanding for other cultures and inability to examine its own actions or history is so easy to lead to the battlefield. The war-god will be well-fed with the bodies and souls of the dead. He is smiling.
(War-)God Bless America?
Friday, August 21, 2009
War and Peace in Paganism
As a dedicated peacenik and staunch foe of militarism, which I consider one of the greatest curses of modern life, but also a Pagan, I have often pondered how the ancient European Pagan traditions had gods of both war and of peace. Obviously, then as well as now, war was sometimes an unavoidable necessity, and then as now, it had an economic dimension as well, in that "to the victors go the spoils," to which we might add modern-day reflections on the military industrial complex and how much profit and employment is wrapped up in the war biz. The greater the number of people who depend on the military-industrial complex for their employment, education, housing, health insurance etc., the harder it becomes to cut back any aspect of the military, as it has become an ever-expanding social welfare program for soldiers and their families as well as all the people who work in military-related industries.
In the Pagan religious traditions I am closest to, the Norse-Germanic Asatru/Heathen tradition and the Baltic-Lithuanian Romuva movement, I have seen that what often seems to attract a certain number of men to these religious movements dealing with the Pagan past is the opportunity to play and pose with swords and other medieval weapons and imagine themselves great warriors of the distant past. A lot of this is just testosterone bluster in honor of the Gods of War, but I worry about how this kind of thing may drown out an appreciation of the Gods of Peace.
I cannot help but relate this to modern American culture, with its endless images of war and violence that are drilled into our heads 24 hours a day. I do understand that boys will be boys, and that they often do love to play with war toys. I had my toy soldiers as a boy too, and enjoyed my share of make-believe combat. But I do worry at how this ties in with our modern, post-9/11 military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it seems to me that in this last decade, war and the military have gained a sort of sacrosanct status, as something sacred that cannot be questioned but must only and always be obeyed. We are all pressured to "support the troops" rather than to THINK about what these wars are based upon and what they are actually achieving or not achieving.
I find the Gods of War a pretty scary lot. Even Odin, one of my favorite Pagan deities, is described as sometimes being untrustworthy in his aspect as a war god, giving victory to the undeserving and sacrificing his own followers on the battlefield for his own mysterious purposes, including drafting them into the elite force that will battle frost giants and fire demons in the final battle of Ragnarok, which, according to the Eddic poem "Voluspa," will plunge the whole world into fiery chaos, prior to an eventual regeneration of the cosmos after its total destruction. I think that for many in the Heathen or Asatru community, the mythology of Odin, Valhalla and Ragnarok is seen as a straightforward glorification of war and warriors. I see darker, more ambiguous meanings here. Odin's shiftiness on the field of battle seems a perfect metaphor for the horrible uncertainty of war; the destruction on both sides, never knowing who will live or die, and in the aftermath, the grieving for the dead and the wounds both psychological and physical, the broken limbs and shattered minds that even the victors will carry home from the battle, and the possibility of renewed war in the near or distant future as the losing side nurses grievances and dreams of vengeance. Not exactly a good time for all. Not the great fun of "The World of Warfare" video game.
And, Ragnarok is a failure, an absolute disaster for the gods. All the combined efforts of Odin and the other great gods like Thor and Freyr to protect the worlds of gods and of men are all in vain. Odin is swallowed by the great wolf Fenrir; Thor is slain by the Midgard Serpent. The other gods go down in defeat as well, and the fire-demon Surt runs wild, in what seems a medieval version of a nuclear holocaust. There are obviously different ways to interpret this, and my thoughts here are strictly my own. I read this as actually suggesting a weariness with war, a sense that war only leads to greater and greater destruction. Others may view this as prophesizing that some kind of all-destroying conflict (Israel versus Iran in the Middle East? India vs Pakistan? Yankees versus Red Sox? soccer versus football?) is inevitable, and that we should all sharpen our axes, shine our shields and prepare to go down fighting.
However, the peacenik in me finds other threads to follow in the Norse myths. When Odin gains mastery of the magical runes in the poem Havamal, one of the abilities he acquires is the ability to make peace. So he is not a 24/7, bloodthirsty war god who only knows how to rhyme "war" with "more." He knows the value of peace, when possible. There is also the tale of the battle between two families or tribes of divine beings, the Aesir (including Odin and Thor) and the Vanir (fertility gods all, sea-god Njord, brother and sister fertility deities Freyr and Freyja). It was the "first war in the world," and neither side could win. So they arranged a truce, exchanged prisoners, and Freyr and Freyja came to dwell among the Aesir. This truce, unlike the apocalyptic battle of Ragnarok, was a success. Peace worked, at least in this case.
Elsewhere in the mythology, a minor episode that I also find significant is that Freyr, in the course of wooing a maiden of interest, gives away his sword, and when the battle of Ragarok comes, he is without a proper weapon, and has to make do with the horn of a stag; we might jokingly say, Freyr has to "go stag" at the worst possible moment. He gave up his weapon for love. Now, this didn't end so well for Freyr, so it is not necessarily an argument that this was the best move to have made, but I find it expressive of Freyr's primary nature as a fertility god, who was often worshipped in the form of a giant phallus. He seems to have been a "make love not war" kind of god.
Therefore, I think that a cogent case can be made that the Norse tradition is not wholeheartedly pro-war or pro-military. There are also anti-military, pro-peace dimensions that deserve contemplation. Stepping back to our modern society, I think that pro-peace voices need to be bolder and louder. For too long now, the worship of the war god has dominated our political discourse. To be anti-war is seen as wimpy, traitorous, un-American. On the conservative side of politics, there is the strange, ironic coincidence of "pro-life" and pro-war points of view. I think that being truly pro-life should extend to opposing war, or at least being very cautious and reserved about the hellish mass murder that war is, and not celebrating it as if it were a big happy football game for the whole family to watch and cheer. In the Pagan world, I would personally like to join forces with other Pagans who feel that their spirituality calls them to promote peace and denounce war. I will stand with you. There was once a "Pagans for Peace" organization in the late 1990s, but I don't think it survived the Bush years. Perhaps it is time to try again?
In the Pagan religious traditions I am closest to, the Norse-Germanic Asatru/Heathen tradition and the Baltic-Lithuanian Romuva movement, I have seen that what often seems to attract a certain number of men to these religious movements dealing with the Pagan past is the opportunity to play and pose with swords and other medieval weapons and imagine themselves great warriors of the distant past. A lot of this is just testosterone bluster in honor of the Gods of War, but I worry about how this kind of thing may drown out an appreciation of the Gods of Peace.
I cannot help but relate this to modern American culture, with its endless images of war and violence that are drilled into our heads 24 hours a day. I do understand that boys will be boys, and that they often do love to play with war toys. I had my toy soldiers as a boy too, and enjoyed my share of make-believe combat. But I do worry at how this ties in with our modern, post-9/11 military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it seems to me that in this last decade, war and the military have gained a sort of sacrosanct status, as something sacred that cannot be questioned but must only and always be obeyed. We are all pressured to "support the troops" rather than to THINK about what these wars are based upon and what they are actually achieving or not achieving.
I find the Gods of War a pretty scary lot. Even Odin, one of my favorite Pagan deities, is described as sometimes being untrustworthy in his aspect as a war god, giving victory to the undeserving and sacrificing his own followers on the battlefield for his own mysterious purposes, including drafting them into the elite force that will battle frost giants and fire demons in the final battle of Ragnarok, which, according to the Eddic poem "Voluspa," will plunge the whole world into fiery chaos, prior to an eventual regeneration of the cosmos after its total destruction. I think that for many in the Heathen or Asatru community, the mythology of Odin, Valhalla and Ragnarok is seen as a straightforward glorification of war and warriors. I see darker, more ambiguous meanings here. Odin's shiftiness on the field of battle seems a perfect metaphor for the horrible uncertainty of war; the destruction on both sides, never knowing who will live or die, and in the aftermath, the grieving for the dead and the wounds both psychological and physical, the broken limbs and shattered minds that even the victors will carry home from the battle, and the possibility of renewed war in the near or distant future as the losing side nurses grievances and dreams of vengeance. Not exactly a good time for all. Not the great fun of "The World of Warfare" video game.
And, Ragnarok is a failure, an absolute disaster for the gods. All the combined efforts of Odin and the other great gods like Thor and Freyr to protect the worlds of gods and of men are all in vain. Odin is swallowed by the great wolf Fenrir; Thor is slain by the Midgard Serpent. The other gods go down in defeat as well, and the fire-demon Surt runs wild, in what seems a medieval version of a nuclear holocaust. There are obviously different ways to interpret this, and my thoughts here are strictly my own. I read this as actually suggesting a weariness with war, a sense that war only leads to greater and greater destruction. Others may view this as prophesizing that some kind of all-destroying conflict (Israel versus Iran in the Middle East? India vs Pakistan? Yankees versus Red Sox? soccer versus football?) is inevitable, and that we should all sharpen our axes, shine our shields and prepare to go down fighting.
However, the peacenik in me finds other threads to follow in the Norse myths. When Odin gains mastery of the magical runes in the poem Havamal, one of the abilities he acquires is the ability to make peace. So he is not a 24/7, bloodthirsty war god who only knows how to rhyme "war" with "more." He knows the value of peace, when possible. There is also the tale of the battle between two families or tribes of divine beings, the Aesir (including Odin and Thor) and the Vanir (fertility gods all, sea-god Njord, brother and sister fertility deities Freyr and Freyja). It was the "first war in the world," and neither side could win. So they arranged a truce, exchanged prisoners, and Freyr and Freyja came to dwell among the Aesir. This truce, unlike the apocalyptic battle of Ragnarok, was a success. Peace worked, at least in this case.
Elsewhere in the mythology, a minor episode that I also find significant is that Freyr, in the course of wooing a maiden of interest, gives away his sword, and when the battle of Ragarok comes, he is without a proper weapon, and has to make do with the horn of a stag; we might jokingly say, Freyr has to "go stag" at the worst possible moment. He gave up his weapon for love. Now, this didn't end so well for Freyr, so it is not necessarily an argument that this was the best move to have made, but I find it expressive of Freyr's primary nature as a fertility god, who was often worshipped in the form of a giant phallus. He seems to have been a "make love not war" kind of god.
Therefore, I think that a cogent case can be made that the Norse tradition is not wholeheartedly pro-war or pro-military. There are also anti-military, pro-peace dimensions that deserve contemplation. Stepping back to our modern society, I think that pro-peace voices need to be bolder and louder. For too long now, the worship of the war god has dominated our political discourse. To be anti-war is seen as wimpy, traitorous, un-American. On the conservative side of politics, there is the strange, ironic coincidence of "pro-life" and pro-war points of view. I think that being truly pro-life should extend to opposing war, or at least being very cautious and reserved about the hellish mass murder that war is, and not celebrating it as if it were a big happy football game for the whole family to watch and cheer. In the Pagan world, I would personally like to join forces with other Pagans who feel that their spirituality calls them to promote peace and denounce war. I will stand with you. There was once a "Pagans for Peace" organization in the late 1990s, but I don't think it survived the Bush years. Perhaps it is time to try again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
