Just a note that an essay was posted late yesterday under "Essays." For those who are fans, it is a long one.
On Ron Berg's comment: why did the US not go the way of Germany in the 1930's? A huge question that historians have pondered for decades, and it is huge because of the nearly infinite variables involved. We had lots of people of German decent in this country, but they were not the majority, in either numbers or power; we had a depression, but not to the extent of Germany, burdened with reparations from WWI, as well as a corrupt, inefficient government. We both had loud calls for change, followed by lots of change, but we did not go the route of communism (then the most powerful it has ever been) or of Huey Long because...of what? The list of differences could go on and on, and one might speculate: if Southern Whites had had more power, would we have had an apartheid government, as the Nazis had with the Jews? If northern WASPS had firmer control, might we have a plutocracy like, say, Arabia? But they did not - and instead we got big changes without a quintessential change.
Perhaps we were just not that bad off. Or perhaps - it just wasn't in our zeitgeist. I have mentioned before in this blog that I consider not two factors in creating who we are - environmental and genetic - but also a third, one that I think of as "spiritual." That could involve karma, or it could involve a higher power's need, or desire, for certain forms. However it might be, I believe we have all seen it: the nasty kid from an otherwise decent family, or the reverse; or the spectacular diversion of personality between identical twins. In an individual it is a mysterious thing, but in a people at large - a unity that is commonly embraced - one might see that the "spirit of the people" arises from certain conflicts and comforts that have long beset these people, setting up common goals and prejudices. On the "spiritual" level, I might say that these goals and prejudices are often unknown to the people themselves - that is, that they come from the shadow side of shared history. Germany had hatred of France, distrust of the Jews, hatred of Russia, and a strong belief in their own superiority, among other factors. Hatreds and dislikes might be hidden if they are considered by common convention to be forbidden - but they still exist. In Germany, in might have been Hitler who exposed the underside to light, under extreme conditions of resentment in the people, and who then made these prejudices not only acceptable, but laudable.
Our society is much more diverse than Germany's was in the 1930's, and so I used examples of sections of our society above. If certain groups were to gain firm control of America, would not their unvoiced, even unrecognized prejudices come to the fore?
On a different note, another tidbit from GK Chesterton: "The beginnings of a decline, in every age of history, have always had the appearance of being reforms." One might ask: was that true of FDR's reforms? It certainly was true of Hitler's. Or of Reagan's or of Obama's? The trouble with the quote, of course, is that it is a "truth" looking for an example (ie, what does not preclude decline would not then be a reform), but I love Chesterton anyway, and not just from his wit. He is so conservative - so antiquarian, that he would be hated by both liberals and conservatives of our era. He hated capitalism as much as he hated socialism (and forget Marxism!). His view gazes over all of European history, and as such, he has found certain ways that must be truth for the West - among them, privacy, property, and dignity. Capitalism takes away dignity, and socialism the other two. It might be that his reference to Christianity as something "never tried" - at least not enough - shows us his better world - a Christianity that has been tried, and at last tried enough. FK
On Ron Berg's comment: why did the US not go the way of Germany in the 1930's? A huge question that historians have pondered for decades, and it is huge because of the nearly infinite variables involved. We had lots of people of German decent in this country, but they were not the majority, in either numbers or power; we had a depression, but not to the extent of Germany, burdened with reparations from WWI, as well as a corrupt, inefficient government. We both had loud calls for change, followed by lots of change, but we did not go the route of communism (then the most powerful it has ever been) or of Huey Long because...of what? The list of differences could go on and on, and one might speculate: if Southern Whites had had more power, would we have had an apartheid government, as the Nazis had with the Jews? If northern WASPS had firmer control, might we have a plutocracy like, say, Arabia? But they did not - and instead we got big changes without a quintessential change.
Perhaps we were just not that bad off. Or perhaps - it just wasn't in our zeitgeist. I have mentioned before in this blog that I consider not two factors in creating who we are - environmental and genetic - but also a third, one that I think of as "spiritual." That could involve karma, or it could involve a higher power's need, or desire, for certain forms. However it might be, I believe we have all seen it: the nasty kid from an otherwise decent family, or the reverse; or the spectacular diversion of personality between identical twins. In an individual it is a mysterious thing, but in a people at large - a unity that is commonly embraced - one might see that the "spirit of the people" arises from certain conflicts and comforts that have long beset these people, setting up common goals and prejudices. On the "spiritual" level, I might say that these goals and prejudices are often unknown to the people themselves - that is, that they come from the shadow side of shared history. Germany had hatred of France, distrust of the Jews, hatred of Russia, and a strong belief in their own superiority, among other factors. Hatreds and dislikes might be hidden if they are considered by common convention to be forbidden - but they still exist. In Germany, in might have been Hitler who exposed the underside to light, under extreme conditions of resentment in the people, and who then made these prejudices not only acceptable, but laudable.
Our society is much more diverse than Germany's was in the 1930's, and so I used examples of sections of our society above. If certain groups were to gain firm control of America, would not their unvoiced, even unrecognized prejudices come to the fore?
On a different note, another tidbit from GK Chesterton: "The beginnings of a decline, in every age of history, have always had the appearance of being reforms." One might ask: was that true of FDR's reforms? It certainly was true of Hitler's. Or of Reagan's or of Obama's? The trouble with the quote, of course, is that it is a "truth" looking for an example (ie, what does not preclude decline would not then be a reform), but I love Chesterton anyway, and not just from his wit. He is so conservative - so antiquarian, that he would be hated by both liberals and conservatives of our era. He hated capitalism as much as he hated socialism (and forget Marxism!). His view gazes over all of European history, and as such, he has found certain ways that must be truth for the West - among them, privacy, property, and dignity. Capitalism takes away dignity, and socialism the other two. It might be that his reference to Christianity as something "never tried" - at least not enough - shows us his better world - a Christianity that has been tried, and at last tried enough. FK
RSS Feed