"History belongs to the victor." We seldom think this, though, but rather go about our lives thinking we know about the great events of our collective past, those things which form many of our concepts of right and wrong, and also of who we are. But what we believe we know is often - even usually - a twist or "spin" on actual events from the past. This is easy enough to see, for instance, among British and American historians arguing about the causes of the American Revolution. Because it is long over and the two nations are friends, the interpretations go well beyond over-the-top patriotism and xenophobia. Still, the argument continues. Until King George III went insane, the British see his demands as quite reasonable (to mention his later insanity probably shows which side I am on), and the Americans as not.
But history is more than different sides to the same coin. I brought up the Hawaiian god Lono before in this blog as a great example of culture-blinded reality, because the clashing of his myth and actual history - the objective facts - are so clear. In short: Captain Cook came to the Islands with his great sails from the East, circled the big island clockwise and so on - just as Hawaiian legend had said Lono would do on his return. Because of this, they were convinced that Cook was Lono, and they treated him as legend said they must: first, to give him plenty of food and women for enjoyment, then to slay and eat him for his "mana."
The victors eventually righted that story (if Europeans never returned, Hawaiians would have continued believing their story), but we see here something much more than that; we see that history is not only a tool to be employed cynically to sway one's society, but is also a reflection of deep cultural beliefs (even 'objective history' is a reflection of European thought). A few days ago, I mentioned the differences between black and white perceptions of our society, and not all were caused by exploitative politicians. Today, what with political convention season upon us, we can see the different reality lenses of the different parties by the way they cast America's past, and hope to forge its future. And those visions, too, are not all cynical and manipulative.
In America, there are many, many mythological currents, but the values most shared are based on fairness and equality and individual liberty. Fairness is a concept that is spread world-wide, although what it actually means to different peoples varies greatly. Equality and liberty are not so well shared, but still, what they means varies widely among those few nations that propose it.
And so it is with the two parties in our country: both parties latch onto these ideas as the basis of their legitimacy, while they then go on to define them differently. Some of these definitions have cynical motives, but many do not. Instead, they are based on the perceived history of the respective party members - each with their own interpretation - and the broad myths which underline the party platforms. The former form the "facts" for the latter, which give each side its self-perceived moral superiority. Obviously, an old-fashioned Hawaiian would think them both blind or crazy, or both.
Oddly, if asked, most people would not know exactly where these basic values came from, and in truth, there are many roots. The tap root, however, is the New Testament. In this we learn from a god no less than Lono that all people are equal in the sight of the Lord; that in the end, God will judge all and deliver ultimate justice; and that each are, or should be, free to make their own choice - that between Mammon and God - which can only be done by a free people. The Founders knew this, of course. Although many had developed their own ideas concerning God in this era of Enlightenment, they understood the fundamentals. The fundamentals were, if we are to be equal and fair to all peoples, part of our our foundation myth, much of it no more "objective" than the myth of Lono, as far as a scientist would understand it. They were, as all genuine myths are, "self-evident."
All myths have some kind of ending though, even if that ending is a return to normalcy by the end. Our myth tells us we will have redemption. It is the job of the party to sell you on their definition of redemption, and their ability to make it so. That, I think, is how we define ourselves politically in the end. Political redemption, however, is a myth as we now understand the word, a chimera, because it cannot give us what we truly need and crave - real, eternal redemption - paradise. But it is there in the mix, beyond mere cynicism, because we cannot help but mix our worldly reality with the spiritual. The two are, indeed, linked, but not as any of us expect - as the Hawaiians found out, the hard way. FK
RSS Feed