Just as many writers about 1930 had discovered that you cannot really be detached from contemporary events, so many writers about 1939 were discovering that you cannot really sacrifice your intellectual integrity for the sake of a political creed — or at least you cannot do so and remain a writer.
- George Orwell (The Frontiers Of Art and Propaganda)
"...the Indian lovers, like the Indian haters, were satisfied with their own image of the red man".
- Stephen E. Ambrose (Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives Of Two American Warriors)
Childhood is described as a time of innocence, but kids often spend it lying, cheating, stealing and inflicting pain on each other; while parents try their best to contain such impulses, at least until adulthood where there's a time and place for everything.
It's a time for learning your place in the world. Look at any children's toy section and it's obvious that sexual roles are defined early on, and as our perception of the world becomes more acute, we realize that the adult world seems to teach ideals and symbols but not reality. Living happily ever after in a big castle beccomes, in the real world, women doing the cooking on Super Bowl Sunday, and men getting to fart anytime they want (which is oversimplifying for the sake of pacing, but within the minimum standard for truth on the Internet).
A child's greatest tools to cope with the world, curiosity and imagination, are all too often treated as transitional phases to enjoy, then discard to assume the adult mantles of responsibility, conformity, and money grubbing. Luckily, the grown up world also teaches ambiguity and hypocrisy to help those who wish to customize the ratio of sin to virtue.
If childhood curiosity survives into the adulthood, it becomes a search for truth, and any subsequent disillusionment is really just a temporary phase in the process of discovery. The study of history is the passion that guides my life's journey, from the shiny symbols of childhood to real life.
It's not easy for a child to realize that there's a past, so we have to accept adult explanations about it. We don't realize that it's all filtered by adults deciding on what's suitable for young minds. They avoid exposing us to violent or erotic content (except in video games and cable TV), or explaining which political party is associated with Satan. Such matters are considered too advanced, and thus instead we're taught about dinosaurs; a subject that's politically neutral and doesn't need to be taught with any accuracy.
...Saturday matinee...
I loved the prehistoric beasts, but my real passion was Saturday afternoon TV matinees; a portal that led to a world full of muscular heroes like Hercules, beautiful women who were so much nicer than my second grade teacher, and coolest of all, men in colorful uniforms and armor who got to carry swords and fight monsters without getting scolded.
That's really as far as it went until I could at least read a comic book, which by fate was the old Classics Illustrated series. The main one was Caesar's Gallic Campaign, which transitioned my love of history into the world of literature, albeit with a lot of pictures and very little text.
The first inspirational book was Church's version of Homer for children. I checked it out constantly from the school library to the point where the librarian would hide it to make sure others could enjoy it. However, once she realized that I was the only kid who read it, it was kept available at all times.
I didn't check it out so often because the book was so good, but that at first I couldn't understand it. It was above my reading level at the time. It was a process of enjoying the illustrations at first, then gradually being able to read it later. I realized at the time that illiteracy was keeping the door to this wonderful world locked, so improving my reading skills became a priority. I was eventually able to read three or four grades above my level, and could have cared less about it (as an achievement) except for the fact that it finally made old historical classics available to me.
...the outline of history...
The book that ignited the passion for formal history was H.G. Well's "Outline Of History," which I read several times. It was the launching point for deeper explorations with other books, a panoramic view of history that was a perfect primer.
Formal history classes are like Sunday school or political rallies; lots of data that has to be taken at face value, or there's penalties, both officially or by peer pressure. It's hard to imagine doing it any other way, of course, as the biggest historical truth of all, that most of the facts are in dispute or subject to interpretation would make such a nuanced look impossible to teach to kids who still think dinosaurs talk. Finding out such tidbits that George Washington wasn't a saint was best left for later levels of education that have looser grading standards and beer pong.
Like most normal kids, I got through history class by putting down the correct answers on the tests even if I thought or knew different, and did the serious study offline. In defense of schools, it can't be easy to teach history in this loosey goosey era. Back in the 60s, we were taught to only trust "written sources," which were mainly encyclopedias and text books, but that axiom has become ambiguous with the advent of the Internet and the wide range of media now available.
It can make history seem like it has no real truths, as so much of it is in dispute, but that's actually the beauty of the subject. It isn't solely concerned with facts, but about process. The axiom that "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" is only partly true.
Those who don't know the process, that is to say, how history is created will often end up being manipulated. In other words, for those who treat history as some sort of gospel, one lie can be substituted for another, opinion or interpretation treated as fact, or data can be cherry picked and assembled into a biased or simplistic view.
...a thumbs up digression...
One famous historical stereotype has some sundry Roman Emperor standing before "the mob" at a gladiatorial show, who raises his thumb (sideways) to let the howling lowlifes decide if a defeated gladiator will be finished off or not. There's levels of nuance regarding power there, but also about how perception can color a historical event.
The mob is often depicted as a shiftless, indigent group dependent on the dole, which was partially true but much of the crowd at these popular entertainments were the employed and mercantile class that lazier historians (and certainly Hollywood) lump into that one image called the mob.
The moment when the Emperor raises his hand to let the crowd decide, the thumbs up or down was in effect, a momentary transference of absolute power to the audience who seemingly relished the opportunity to wield what is still considered, consciously or unconsciously, an ultimate prerogative of controlling the life and death of another.
In other words, when the hand went up, the crowd got a taste of being top dog and accepted that it was the Emperor's power to wield as he pleased. The people who cheered for thumbs up (the actual signal for death) or down didn't worry about acting like savages but were awed or filled with envy for a guy who was above the laws they were bound by. It wasn't just mob rule or appeasement, but a ritual that confirmed the Emperor's power.
...going to the movies...
It also goes without saying that the victorious gladiator was viewed as a rock star, both by the crowd then, and by modern warrior jocks.
The 2000 movie "Gladiator" reinforced the mob stereotype, but also inserted the more modern image of the gladiator as rock star, banding together with other bad asses like a pro football team to fight against the system and the Reaper of Death. A sweaty tonic for these snowflake times indeed!
Movies from the classic period of the 50s and 60s had a more realistic view.
In the classic 60s movie, Spartacus, there's a telling scene when four of the gladiator trainees are picked to engage in pairs for the amusement of a party of Roman nobles. It shows them being fearful, and reluctant to even look at each other. When the first pair fight to the death, the winner, played by John Ireland, comes back into the pen and his face shows a very human reaction to having survived.
Ireland's face shows shock, guilt, exhaustion, fear, relief that he's still alive, and most of all, the crushing realization that his life is worth very little, that survival merely means a temporary continuation of the short, brutal life he's trapped in. It's true that a sociopath or psychotic would have done an end zone dance to celebrate the victory, but that's not how average men would react if they had to kill another man to survive.
There's another important, and historical difference between the two movie scenes; the earlier one was written by and acted in by people who'd lived through World War Two and the Korean War. They knew that death wasn't glorious, and that the loud talking warrior types were generally ones who hadn't seen combat. Prewar and postwar art and literature always differ in tone, going from light to dark.
...attitudes...
Such interactions don't have to be about life or death. In a more peaceful era, an all or nothing struggle can be about a goal or career. Audiences cheer or root against contestants in TV talent competitions, watching the defeated's anguish with fascination, jeering the untalented, and assuming the process produces an affirmation of time honored virtues; a game with winners and losers who will be then given the appropriate labels and judgements.
People often view winning and losing as a destiny, and the road up or down labeled with subjective moral attitudes. A good example is a drug addict whose life degenerates into homelessness. Ask a dozen people why, and you get a dozen different answers blaming it on anything from stupidity to sinfulness. None of those judgements will help a homeless person if it's imposed by another, any more than it would for anyone in the "respectable" world. People don't like having simplistic labels stuck to their foreheads.
That's an important nuance. Many (but not all) of the homeless I met reacted in different ways to their life because of some moral judgement they were tagged with. Some were clearly depressed, afraid, and felt that it was a hopeless situation because they were told they were losers who "chose that life" or "deserved it" by those they looked up to or thought loved them.
The effect of imposing labels is more obvious than people think. For example, men who become indignant at the concept of "white privilege" or "sexism" rarely see the irony when minorities or women chafe at the stereotypes applied to them. Any assumption of fault, or inferiority that's imposed on any group will act to keep them down.
...redemption...
An assumption of potential redemption and good in those homeless seems to do wonders with those lucky enough to be helped by an agency or group. The problem, as I saw it, in my fourteen months (and five different locations), was that there were more assumptions of fault and punishment floating around than helping hands. So many saw themselves as losers, which is dangerous as it can lead to apathy and acceptance.
Homelessness is a relevant example, as these modern attitudes or labels can become part of the "facts of a subject," such as the homeless all being drug users or fallen women. It becomes repeated often enough that people trying to understand the subject will use such assumptions as a starting point to their own research.
That, in a nutshell, is the genesis of a lot of "history." Attitudes that past nobility and privileged classes had, like the poor being a wretched lot that deserve no better, can creep along and find its way into the mores of the modern day. Otherwise enlightened folk who, for example, rationalize gentrification as making something of property that the poor didn't have the drive or ability to improve, echo a similar attitude that past Americans had when stealing land from Native Americans. History, or to be more accurate, human frailties, tend to recur in similar situations.
...back to the past...
A history book is theoretically the result of extensive research, covering a mass of sources that can range from written, spoken word, and personal examination of sites and artifacts.
Those books become part of the body of knowledge that can be revised as new discoveries come into play, or sociological shift in attitudes change the emphasis, like with our current fascination with past sex lives and scandals. That can create the impression that older texts are no longer valid, but a true historian knows better. Past biases and attitudes explain the data, and provide context.
The wide range of conflicting data on the Internet can make it seem like there is no truth, but it's actually a chance to see history as a historian or researcher does. You can see what they see, but come to your own conclusion. That kind of access tends to go away and be replaced by more simple and comfortable orthodoxies, so while it may seem chaotic or even irritating, the Internet as it now exists should be enjoyed and seen for what it is, an unparalleled opportunity for individuals to find truth.
...off to war...
A good example of a history book that's a step forward in knowledge of a subject (rather than a definitive look) is John Stevens Cabot Abbott's "The Life of King Phillip, War Chief of the Wampanoag People" from 1857. The central theme is Wampanoag Chief King Phillip's war with the Pilgrims and other settlers in the Cape Cod region of the United States in 1675, but the work also gives background on the Pilgrim landing on Cape Cod in 1620 and the Pequot War in 1636.
King Phillip was the honorary name given to Metacomet, the son of Wampanoag Chief Massaoit, by the white settlers who did so to avoid having to learn to pronounce his actual native name. The American habit of not respecting foreign names started early.
Massaoit had refused to take an English name, but allowed it with his son's as a peace gesture. After his death, Metacomet became the new Chief, or more correctly, Sachem, and events described in the book finally led to a very bloody war that began in 1675 and lasted for three years.
It's a well written work. Abbott keeps the narrative simple and does a good job of delving into the political and sociological aspects of both the Pilgrims and the Native American tribes in a clear and surprisingly candid manner. Although there is a strain of white prejudice that permeates the work, the book is a clear advance over earlier histories that treated events purely as a triumph of western civilization over barbarism.
He documents Pilgrim war atrocities like the routine killing of Native American women and children, and the reason, which was to prevent the propagation of future warriors (in other words, genocide). Early histories tended to touch only on the massacre of white settlers, but Abbott makes it clear that there was ruthless behavior on both sides.
The exception to massacre was when a tribe could negotiate a surrender, or individuals were taken prisoner after a defeat; then as the author relates about one such incident, "We blush to record that the boys were all sent to the West Indies and sold into bondage. The women and girls were divided about among the colonists of Connecticut and Massachusetts as servants."
In fairness, it should also be noted that such behavior was objected to and decried by most of the military commanders and that the selling of prisoners into slavery was done by town officials who disregarded any negotiated conditions of surrender or protestations that it would encourage reprisals.
...watching your back...
Another thing that makes the book remarkable is that explains why the tribes were wary of the settlers. For example, the original Pilgrims were attacked while trying to find a place, and instead of just going with the "bloodthirsty savages attacking whites" narrative, Abbott records that a few years earlier, an English ship came to the area and welcomed the tribes aboard, only to imprison those who did and sell them as slaves in Barbados. It was a known incident among the tribes and colored their attitudes towards any white settlers.
The Pilgrims were also aware of that incident and it influenced their diplomacy. In the early days before the wars began, they made it a point to establish good relations, and only settled on land that was legally purchased. They also strictly avoided retaliatory attacks if a raid occurred by rogue warriors and instead took complaints to the various Chiefs. It wasn't just an exercise in good politics; they were heavily outnumbered and fighting a full scale war with thousands of warriors was beyond their ability.
Abbott makes it clear that both sides had leaders who tried to keep the peace, but were constantly beset by troublesome personalities that eventually created enough strife to move events towards war.
In my own book, I detail the rise and fall of some homeless camps and enclaves, and the arc tended to be similar. There'd be people who tried to keep it peaceful and off the grid, but as the numbers increased, there was always a loss of control and eventually enough troublemakers to force local civic leaders and authorities to disband the camp.
....and the women...
The book is also an interesting look at how women were regarded and treated back then. The modern narrative is that tribal women were like animals and treated like dirt, while white women lived a much better life with a lot more freedom. Which isn't how this book treats the subject.
It's clear that although women generally ranked lower than men on both sides, two of the tribes that the Pilgrims were anxious to keep peaceful were led or heavily influenced by women. The descriptions make it clear that the male warriors regarded them as Chiefs or the equivalent and obeyed them as such.
...Awashonks...
There is an interesting account of the Pilgrim envoys who came to visit the female Sachem named Awashonks, who led the Soykonate tribe which could field 300 Warriors, and who had sold land to the Pilgrim Captain Benjamin Church and others. Despite the fact that King Phillip's Wampanoag tribe could easily overwhelm her, she allied with the English.
That is, until her warriors later made it clear that they wanted to go to war against the English. A modern (that is to say, sexist) interpretation would be that she couldn't control her tribe, but that's because the English, and later, the "Americans," never really understood (or respected) how a tribe was run.
The march of civilization in Europe included the concept of rulers with absolute power, or at least that image. Early Kings and Queens were actually often similar to the Sachem Awashonks, in that they led but depended on a consensus of nobles or the army.
The Soykonates were run like most of the other tribes, in that each warrior decided if they wanted in or out of a fight. After an often vigorous debate, if they wanted to go to war, they would go. Anyone who didn't want to go could just stay home. Awashonks reluctantly decided to lead them, as it was her tribe, and the fact that she wasn't all in wasn't held against her. Later on, after the Warriors began tiring of the bloodshed, she was able to command the tribe to withdraw from the war.
Early Western historians tended to view this as weak leadership, and the warrior's reluctance to take heavy casualties in open battle seen as cowardice and inferior to the practice of, as a cynic might suggest, standing up within musket range of the enemy and dying for the enrichment of a few. However, we can discount such frisky talk about Indian cowardice as war jock talk by those who'd need an underwear change if goaded into a 17th century battle line.
...everyone with a brain took cover...
The fact is, both sides fought the same way; firing muskets or shooting arrows from behind any available cover. In one engagement described in the book, a small force of Pilgrims fought a group (probably Wampanoag) that outnumbered them by a ratio of fifteen to one. Both sides held back for practical reasons. The Pilgrims, led by Captain Church, didn't have the numbers to charge and the war party saw no reason to take unnecessary casualties charging a force that was trapped and heavily outnumbered.
The battle lasted over six hours, and it was obvious that neither side was willing to expose itself and more importantly, engage at a rate of fire that would have quickly exhausted their ammunition. In the case of Church's men, being unable to fire would certainly have brought on a charge by an overwhelming numbers.
The small English force slowly retreated towards a nearby river, and the attackers let them as the move would leave no line of retreat. As it turns out, a small ship arrived to rescue them. The captain had heard the firing and steered towards the sound. Although this ticked off the attackers, they accepted failure and didn't try to throw good money on bad by making a last minute attack in the open. It was a practical attitude, even if it was described as a Winnapoag defeat at the hands of a small heroic band of soldiers who inflicted "heavy" enemy casualties (though the author admits that an exact figure wasn't available).
...plenty of detail, and the first best seller...
Unlike the lives of the Pilgrim women, Awashonks' life was described in detail, without reference to feminine duty or supposed weakness. As her story was recorded by her enemies, she must have commanded respect back then.
One exception was a Pilgrim women who was taken prisoner in a raid, which was a rare occurrence as most were killed on the spot (albeit after torture in some cases). She was Mary Rowlandson, the wife of Rev. Rowlandson, who was held captive for eleven weeks and eventually ransomed.
We know this because she wrote a book about it, "The Sovereignty and Goodness of God: Being a Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson," which went through four printings and is considered by some to be America's first best seller. It's still read today, and available as a public domain ebook, and judging by the reader reviews, is inspirational to many as a testament to faith and her undeniable courage. Unfortunately, to some, it's proof that the Indians were a lying pack of savages.
...a lesson from history...
Her book illustrates a point for women to remember and take to heart; that to be part of history, it's best to write it yourself and not depend on others to do it. Rowlandson probably was only thinking of writing about her experiences, but the heavy emphasis on religious themes made it an inspirational book to friends, who persuaded her to publish it.
Women writing books about abuse or rape, for example, are in many cases doing the same thing as Rowlandson and creating a body of work that in some future time will provide historians and sociologists with a wealth of personal information beside the usual dry stats or sensationalist observations by males, like Abbott here, who generally describes the lives of women in laconic terms as casualty statistics or victims (with the appropriate level of shock).
Abbott draws heavily on her book, and what's apparent is that it wasn't just a stock adventure tale with bloodthirsty Indians (with the English only guilty of not bring pious enough, which was remedied later in the Salem Witch trials), but also a story containing a wealth of details about Native American life that probably wouldn't have made it into anything written by a male combatant or observer.
...I see you...
That's because her account wasn't describing tribe members acting under observation.
When I was homeless, one of my friends found out I was a writer, and his conversation changed from women and food to earnest speeches about living free outside of societies chains and so on. Good friends are scarce out there in the streets, so I'd patiently listen to all of it, but it drove home the point that people will act differently if they think they're being observed. Which is why Mrs. Rowlandson's book was not just an example of the "Captive" genre, but a good source of sociological data.
There's a tendency in history books to treat a tribe as a single entity or mentality, which in some cases is a necessary narrative device, but groups of people rarely act as one. They often lurch forward with a complex mix of agendas, motives and goals. In Mary's story, many distinct Native American personalities emerged, and a lot of small details were documented that give a sense of how the tribe lived on the move (there was an English Army in pursuit).
...motive...
Abbott's narrative tries to give the reader a sense of the motives of the Chiefs in the two wars, and in particular, describes King Phillip as one who was prescient about the ultimate goals of the white settlers and the real future of his way of life. By the time of his war, the pilgrims had been there for fifty years, and had evolved into a different group than the original Pilgrims.
As Abbott described it, "with prosperity came avarice. Unprincipled men flocked to the colonies; the Indians were despised and often harshly treated; and the forbearance which marked the early intercourse of the pilgrims with the natives was forgotten." It went both ways, Sachems found it difficult to control members of their own tribes who went on raids in retaliation and the book shows the two sides gradually edging towards conflict and war.
King Phillip knew the lessons of the earlier Pequot War, and had resolved to not attack until a full alliance of tribes was formed to create an overwhelming force. However, the actions of a few miscreants on both sides forced his hand and the Wampanoags went to war before all of the preparations were completed.
Even so, he nearly won, and it took three years to defeat him. The English couldn't cope with the wide ranging hit and run attacks that made later tribes like the Apache, who used the same tactics, so hard to defeat.
Even when King Phillip's fort was located and attacked in a bloody massacre of men, women and children, it didn't end the conflict. It looked like he could have continued the long, drawn out type of war that the English feared could happen, until a clumsy move by Phillip to draw the Mohawks into the war backfired and they joined the English side, tilting the balance against him.
Those are the general details of the war. What makes the book interesting to the average reader is that it was a remarkably candid book for 1857, and more honest than the narrative in modern times. Abbott's level of sympathy for the Native American tribes was at least at the level of James Finamore Cooper's Pathfinder series, which was, in that era's parlance, an "Indian Lovers" set of books.
...by the way...
It might be interesting to know, but the Uncas character in Cooper's "Last of the Mohicans" could have been based on an actual person. Abbott relates that there was a chief named Uncas, who led the Mohegan tribe that allied with the English in the Pequot War.
...all about context...
"The Life Of King Phillip" does have to be read in the context of being a good historical source, and with a historian's eye for bias. Abbott views the Native Americans as prone to laziness and deceit, to name one example, and though he does clearly admire King Phillip and others, they are seen as exceptions to the rule.
That tends to color his descriptions of the battles where the warriors often retreated or refused battle due to the supposed superior fighting qualities of the English. Later histories make it clear that tribal warfare involved engaging in pitched battles only when success was certain or when trapped. In fact, the King Phillip War mirrored later guerrilla wars like Vietnam and Afganistan, and had become a bloody stalemate until the intervention of the Massachusetts tribes on the side of the English.
Wampanoag warriors who survived the end of the war faced execution or slavery in the West Indies, which was a controversial move even in the Colonies, and the two hundred or so who were set free rejoined other tribes who were universally indignant over the treatment of the prisoners. The aftermath influenced future attitudes towards the white settlers.
While not a perfect history, it's clear that Abbott did his best to be fair and report the truth as he saw it. Given the level of detail, it probably is an important source for anyone researching that era.
...the era of settlements...
The author lived in an era that saw white settlement as a crusade to make America into a God fearing, and profitable land. His source material was most likely dominated by material written by people (including Rowlandson) who saw the Native Americans as savages or worse, and it took at least some moral courage to state that white men's treaties were often worthless, that the treatment of prisoners was disgraceful, and atrocities were common practice by both sides.
The book is early proof that attacking villages and killing women and children were an accepted part of Indian warfare, and that stories of white women routinely being raped by warriors weren't true. Abbott felt that the Chiefs, or more correctly, Sachems, often showed more political awareness and dignity than white leaders. It frankly is, in spite of its faults, a better book than some later accounts and certainly more enlightened than 50s era cowboy and Indian movies.
The reason is that a historian wrote the book. If Abbott had lived in this era, I would imagine that he'd have written it more like Dee Brown's Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, though that's my conjecture from what seems to be the author's personality that projects in the book.
...to the process...
Circling back to the point about history as process. My interest in history as a hobby and passion makes it possible to read the book, take what's good out of it, and not accept it all as gospel. My background as a writer helps me see the personality that's being projected, and recognize that it's excellent readability shows a strong ability to construct a narrative from a mass of data.
The point isn't that history contains no real truths, but that a serious study is more like an investigation, with the sources often just eye witness testimony and a lot of hearsay. A few versions of any story down the time line can also be colored by attitudes injected from later eras.
...women and history...
A good example of bias is the role of women in history, which is certainly more extensive and documented than many history books would suggest. In many eras, women were just as educated as men and not just sitting at spinning wheels like old movies would imply. There's plenty of literary writing and personal accounts by women in past eras that simply weren't included in past books or credited as sources.
Ken Burns' documentary about the Civil War wasn't a revelation to the general public just because it used actor's voices to move the narrative forward, but that letters and accounts by women like Mary Chestnut emerged as important voices to document the era. Voices that were always there.
...process again...
The process of history is easy to understand if it's treated with the same reverence given to buying a car or big screen TV. Many people will pore over the specs of various models, ask a lot of questions about it, test drive and determine what's best, but accept what a media talking head says about complex issues at face value, no matter how silly or biased. Simply knowing historical facts or having all the data at your fingertips doesn't stop people from making the same mistakes because it doesn't change human nature.
The study of history is about good research. Abbott's book about the King Phillip War is just one book, not the gospel on the subject. In my mind, I'd need to read more before developing a real feel for the era, and since there's no hurry, that might take a while, but until then, my mind would be open on the subject.
If one can examine a source from the past that way, it can be done with one from the present, and that's what makes the study of history relevant. It's another tool to help a person think and come to the truth, instead of just accepting what you're told.
The price could be high. The data could lead to a conclusion or view that is out of step with peers or society, and expose you to ridicule or hostility. But as any true historian will tell you, what you think and believe is always more important than approval.
In the case of history, or art for that matter, your real audience and judges may not have been born yet.
"Thus we take the name of Devil to signify not persons only, but actions and habits; making imaginary Devils, and transforming that substantial creature call’d Devil into every thing noxious and offensive..."
- Daniel Defoe (The History Of The Devil As Well Ancient As Modern, Part One of Second Edition 1727)
"I have heard it said there are men who read in books to convince themselves there is a God...if any such there be, and he will follow me from sun to sun, through the windings of the forest, he shall see enough to teach him that he is a fool, and that the greatest of his folly lies in striving to rise to the level of One he can never equal, be it in goodness, or be it in power."
- James Fenimore Cooper (The Last Of The Mohicans)
Note: Essayist now inserts a collection of odds and ends masquerading as an essay...please note satirical tone at points...also, this is Part 1, part 2 will come in October...
The concept that God tests your faith with hardship or disaster isn't a divine notion;---it has the stain of human hands all over it. Although in truth, most homeless probably give it at least a passing thought. That's merely one view:---There was plenty of God out there, and in fact, you could choose from a wide range of flavors.
Want a stern punisher calling down misfortune as punishment for a wicked life or a loving Deity that forgave all sins? Perhaps one that accepts credit and debit cards;---to be surrendered to his earthly Angels in exchange for a chaste life begging for donations, or the One True God that rules in upscale temples where wretches like you are considered undeserving of God's bounty of Cadillac SUVs and four dollar coffee.
To be fair, there are quite a few examples of secular stupidity, as religion doesn't have the monopoly on that sort of thing:---but since everyone has been labeled an idiot at some time in their life, perhaps treating it as a taboo subject, and acknowledging cretinism as a universal experience would restore civility to religious discourse. Such a truce would last maybe one minute on the Internet, but we should always try to aim high.
Religion isn't the only doctrine that has been turned into a temporal power trip. Darwinism has been codified by Capitalists into a power structure that's often meaner to the poor than the Church was, and modern Science often chases money and produces click bait studies more often than truth (whatever that may be).
...faith...
Once a faith resides in a church, then Jesus, or more specifically, those who act in his name, can seem to be as capricious as the Greek Gods, that bunch of elitist egomaniacs who only helped mankind if they were paid. Which might be an unfair thing to say about Zeus and his compadres, after all, he didn't ask for the job; He was probably happy enough being the child of Hera and Titan (if author Robert Graves is correct) until the Priests decided that religion needed to be a Game Of Dudes.
That transition to a patriarchal religion was obviously more involved than how I put it, if it actually happened that way, but accurate enough by Internet standards and for the purposes of this essay. Those who wish to defend the Greek religion or offer corrections in the comments section may do so. Please note that it's moderated so any rude comments as to how I came into this world, about my parentage, links to upcoming movies or how to earn 5,000 a week in your own home will be edited out.
The concept of churches isn't unique to religion. Most organizations, particularly political ones, behave pretty much the same way and can display the same human frailties and emphasis on conformity. The earlier mystic Christians, like Saint John of the Cross, wrote that the individual's relationship to God, or one's conscience as the Quakers would put it, was the main connection. Which I'm sure was a concept that at least some of the early Popes wanted out of the canon ASAP.
...hello Dalai...
Several years ago, I had the privilege of hearing the Dalai Lama speak at the Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, California, and he said an interesting thing; that there were many paths to God and that each culture had it's own way to get there. That's probably too open minded a statement for many cultures and churches, but it makes sense to any individual who sees the tacky cavalcade of money grubbing Evangelists, cults, ministers who engage in politics or abuse, and believers who think everyone who doesn't think like them are going to hell.
It makes sense because one can reject all that and find their own path to God, and whether someone else thinks you're going to hell, or just plain superstitious, is irrelevant as it's all about conscience, not approval. That's a principle that applies to any area where a person defines their own self; from politics, sexual roles, spirituality or sexuality, the concept of following one's own conscience applies.
...safety first...
To be clear, and for my own safety, my book doesn't attempt to resolve the question of what God is. If Saint Thomas Aquinas was right about God being an infinite power, then such things won't be completely knowable in my lifetime anyway. Plus, spirituality in the Native American sense, the concept of "listening to the wind" made a lot more sense when the only thing separating Ivy and me from nature was a car window.
God didn't save me, but the path to him did. Even my mistakes and failures were at least in the right direction. The alternate routes like drugs, crime, gaming the welfare system, or becoming an expert at street life were dead ends. Movies or TV shows can make it seem like the streets are full of winners, but in real life most are drowning and the worst off were the ones who didn't even know it.
I think that the search for God can be more valuable than actually finding him. Here on earth, such journeys all too often end with a human at the end of it, and as we all know, humans make lousy Gods.
End of Part 1...
- Al Handa
The Al & Ivy Homeless Literary Journal Archive:
Cover Reveal For Hide In Plain Sight
This is the cover for the upcoming book, Hide In Plain Sight, hopefully out sometime in 2020.
The American Primitive Acoustic Collection by Handa-McGraw International can be streamed on all of the major services, including Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, and dozens of others.
The Music Of Handa-McGraw International can also be heard on the Electric Fog Factory on YouTube. You can hear the album, and dozens of unreleased cuts and demos, plus exclusive video of Ivy.
I Can Make It To Christmas by Mark McGraw (of Handa-McGraw International). F IPlease check out and listen to Mark McGraw’s Christmas single from his album on Bandcamp,Can
