I am nearing the end of an enthralling book, "Unbroken," by Laura Hillenbrand. Since it is coming to theaters near you during the holiday season, if you haven't already heard of it, you will. It is about a former Olympic track star who is taken prisoner by the Japanese during WWII and the unbelievably cruel treatment he received - treatment that was so cruel that many authorities questioning former POW's dismissed their testimonies as fantasies. No one could be that cruel. But they were. The author in the first 100 or so pages makes a few weak moral - equivalency arguments, comparing this treatment to that of slaves in the antebellum (pre-Civil War) South, but the comparison does not hold. Yes, of course there were harsh and even sadistic slave owners then, but this was never a set policy. Slaves were to be seen as a primitive race, whose enslavement would give them the benefits of Christian civilization. The hypocrisy makes one gasp, as it did the abolitionists of the time, but I believe the point is made. The owners were encouraged to be paternalistic. The Japanese, by the authors own words, were encouraged to be brutal, and brutal most of them were.
I am near enough towards the end to see the redemptive features, and certainly America's refusal to punish Japan after the war was a massive victory for both countries in the long run. We have learned that citizens of both countries are, at heart, people - different, but still capable of love and compassion. A cycle of bitterness and reprisals, as we see in the Near East and much of the more traditional world, was avoided, and that is the point I would like to make here: that we can make moral equivalence arguments about the West, but we would have to go back before Black slavery to the era of Quasimodo and the Inquisition. It is rather to medieval Europe that WWII Japan can be compared, as can many of the unbelievably cruel Muslim extremists (and some others) in Asia and Africa today. The point is, we have seen social evolution, and it is one of greater inclusiveness and union, where people are seen not as tribal parts, but as people just like everyone else. In the West, where most of this evolution began and flourished, it was the Christian Gospels that paved the way.
To the Jews and to everyone else of the time, tribal membership meant everything. The Ten Commandments were meant to be applied within the tribe, not with others. Raping, killing and pillaging of others was par for the course. It was natural for a Jew to leave a Samaritan by the road to die, and vice versa. It was natural for the Jews to think that the Christ came only for their benefit. It was also natural for Christendom to believe that they alone were blessed, but the facts proved a stubborn thing: it was written. It was clearly written that ALL were to be considered one's neighbor, that ALL wore the face of Christ. The West struggled with this up through slavery, and still does to a degree today, but the die has been cast. Even those of the West who now despise Christianity cannot escape the fact that the basis of their morality - the very basis for which they despise formal Christianity - is based on Christ.
This expansive new template for humanity rests not only on Christianity - there are ample words of universal brotherhood in Islam and Buddhism - but this was Christianity's central role, and it has made a huge difference. Internationally, nations (often cynically) quote human right's decrees and fairness doctrines based on the concept that all humanity deserves respect (again, even if they don't believe it themselves). The Japanese learned this lesson in an astonishing way. If they had been the victors, they know what they would have done. That the US did not has gained America their eternal gratitude and, I think, has expanded the sense of humanity in Japan. It is no longer a strictly tribal or medieval society.
Our question, then, is not if the groundwork has been laid for the new evolutionary step for humankind, but if traditional peoples - for it is them who still think in terms of "tribe" - will be willing, without a catastrophic defeat, to accept the fullness of humanity of all peoples. For the Muslim extremists, we are left in doubt. They are adamant that one is either on their bus or off, and if off, whoa be to you. Will a turning of mind be accomplished peacefully, or will it require that the tribalists be unconditionally defeated? In that case, will such a defeat occur? Are we now witnessing the furtive end of the old tribalism, or the rise of a new one, as vehement as those of the past?
I believe it resolves around a contest of wills. As the West is the most advanced and powerful, so it is also losing its will due to hubris or simple complacency. It also is torn from within because it does not perfectly reflect its own ideals. We are at the crossroads. What will define the victory will be the ethos that is most strongly advanced: the power of free union or the power of coerced abdication? We shall soon find the answer, I believe, and maybe get a clearer glimpse of God's will at work. FK
I am near enough towards the end to see the redemptive features, and certainly America's refusal to punish Japan after the war was a massive victory for both countries in the long run. We have learned that citizens of both countries are, at heart, people - different, but still capable of love and compassion. A cycle of bitterness and reprisals, as we see in the Near East and much of the more traditional world, was avoided, and that is the point I would like to make here: that we can make moral equivalence arguments about the West, but we would have to go back before Black slavery to the era of Quasimodo and the Inquisition. It is rather to medieval Europe that WWII Japan can be compared, as can many of the unbelievably cruel Muslim extremists (and some others) in Asia and Africa today. The point is, we have seen social evolution, and it is one of greater inclusiveness and union, where people are seen not as tribal parts, but as people just like everyone else. In the West, where most of this evolution began and flourished, it was the Christian Gospels that paved the way.
To the Jews and to everyone else of the time, tribal membership meant everything. The Ten Commandments were meant to be applied within the tribe, not with others. Raping, killing and pillaging of others was par for the course. It was natural for a Jew to leave a Samaritan by the road to die, and vice versa. It was natural for the Jews to think that the Christ came only for their benefit. It was also natural for Christendom to believe that they alone were blessed, but the facts proved a stubborn thing: it was written. It was clearly written that ALL were to be considered one's neighbor, that ALL wore the face of Christ. The West struggled with this up through slavery, and still does to a degree today, but the die has been cast. Even those of the West who now despise Christianity cannot escape the fact that the basis of their morality - the very basis for which they despise formal Christianity - is based on Christ.
This expansive new template for humanity rests not only on Christianity - there are ample words of universal brotherhood in Islam and Buddhism - but this was Christianity's central role, and it has made a huge difference. Internationally, nations (often cynically) quote human right's decrees and fairness doctrines based on the concept that all humanity deserves respect (again, even if they don't believe it themselves). The Japanese learned this lesson in an astonishing way. If they had been the victors, they know what they would have done. That the US did not has gained America their eternal gratitude and, I think, has expanded the sense of humanity in Japan. It is no longer a strictly tribal or medieval society.
Our question, then, is not if the groundwork has been laid for the new evolutionary step for humankind, but if traditional peoples - for it is them who still think in terms of "tribe" - will be willing, without a catastrophic defeat, to accept the fullness of humanity of all peoples. For the Muslim extremists, we are left in doubt. They are adamant that one is either on their bus or off, and if off, whoa be to you. Will a turning of mind be accomplished peacefully, or will it require that the tribalists be unconditionally defeated? In that case, will such a defeat occur? Are we now witnessing the furtive end of the old tribalism, or the rise of a new one, as vehement as those of the past?
I believe it resolves around a contest of wills. As the West is the most advanced and powerful, so it is also losing its will due to hubris or simple complacency. It also is torn from within because it does not perfectly reflect its own ideals. We are at the crossroads. What will define the victory will be the ethos that is most strongly advanced: the power of free union or the power of coerced abdication? We shall soon find the answer, I believe, and maybe get a clearer glimpse of God's will at work. FK
RSS Feed