Just as the mass migration of Middle East and Northern African people into Europe hit the news, I had finished the second of two books this week which eerily point out the different perspectives for those who seek what to do about it. The first, Mama Koko, by Lisa Shannon, is a non-fiction that focuses on the trials of a woman from the Congo, Francisca, who has moved to the US with her American husband, but has heard disturbing news of atrocities by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in her home town. Shannon, a self-employed humanitarian reporter and activist, convinces Francisca to take her back there, so that Lisa might interview and film her family, to make the plight known to the world.
It is written in reportorial style, sometimes carrying in its simplicity more impact than a more emotional journal. People are being killed, tortured, raped, and children are being forced to be soldiers and sex slaves. The central government's forces are sometimes as brutal as the guerrillas. Shannon begs us for more action - for food, for US intervention, for something to stop the death in the Congo (now called the Republic of Congo, once Zaire) where, since independence in 1961, nearly 6 million have died because of the violence. We feel for the people, of course, as we come to know them. What a waste, we think; these were not refugees, but self-supporting farmers and shop keepers who are now forced to live on scraps and hand-outs. Shannon also points to the US role in this - the overthrow of Lumumba (sp?), the first democratically elected leader, in the early 1960's. He had cozied up a little too tightly with the USSR at the height of the cold war.
I mention this last bit to show how Shannon both looks to the US for aid, and finds blame in its actions. It is often the way of the great powers - that whatever their intention, the fallout from their actions makes things worse. It is relevant to the crises in the Mideast - intervention in Iraq may have made things worse, but non-intervention since has also led to the humanitarian crises of the refugees. Even in this, action or no action, the world becomes suddenly very complex.
The the next book, a fiction titled One Second After by William Forstchen. It is about what would happen if an enemy nation burst an atomic bomb over the US in the upper atmosphere. We find that, in the real world, most electronics, from those in computers to those in cars and energy distribution plants, would be fried. Almost nothing requiring electricity, outside of the simplest of machinery, would work. Tech would go back to the mid 19th century in a world dependent on 21st century technology.
The fictional story is set in a small college town near Asheville, NC. After the EMP (electo magnetic pulse caused by the high atmosphere nuke) stops everything, people begin to die. Within a month, Asheville tells the small town that it must accept 5 thousand refugees from its city. The small town considers what would happen - how they would all starve in a matter of weeks - and tells them to pound sand. After that, a cordon is kept at the highway, forcing those on the road to continue moving past their town. Little children die. Women offer themselves for scraps of food. It is disturbing, and likely, because it is exactly what happened in other areas of the world in such situations, from post WWII Europe to current areas in Africa (and now, the Mideast). But the small town persists, for its own survival. We understand it must, or all would die. It is the classic case of triage that comes about in almost every area of extreme disaster.
What, then, to do in Europe? Shannon's view would be that we have to help, but everything that outside powers have done, and not done, has helped to create this situation (it is still largely, though, a result of domestic unrest). Forstchen, on the other hand, would probably have Europe turn most of the refugees away, perhaps containing them in camps and feeding them, as much as they could, until things got better at home. He, too, is right; taking the refugees in will increase the flow, until Europe is no longer Europe - and until, perhaps, Europe, too, is impoverished and fomenting with the same anger as that in the Mideast. For Forstchen, they, we, all must first look to their own survival.
Pope Francis has called for the most open of compassion, as he must. But it might lead to the demise of everything, all the humanitarian compassion and wealth, that Europe now has. It is easy to give if it does not hurt, but a different story when it does.
I do cannot tell anyone what to do here, in this situation or with our own problem with migrants and refugees, except for this: the Pope should tell us the whole truth, the truth that he works from, from the words of the Gospel. As Christ said, we must not look for our rewards here, but in heaven; and when asked for our coat, should give our cloak or another as well. For Christ, the loser is the winner; the town that sacrifices its life even though all will die, the better one. I cannot argue with Christ, and I can say simply enough, that if we have extra, we should try to find a way to help - one that will not make things worse. But it should be noted, and the Pope should remind us clearly, that being Christian more often than not does not come with earthly rewards. Wealth and power go to those who take and keep. Failure and starvation and death go to those who don't fight to keep what they have. It is the greater reality of our world.
So, give, give all, if that is what one, or a nation, wants to do. It is the Christian thing. But do not expect a reward, either now or later from the countries that have been helped. We should all understand this. If one wants to live by true Christian compassion, expect the worst in this world, for it is more likely than not that it will come. One's reward will be in heaven only. Once understood, once understood that one's children might be the next ones dying of starvation at the side of the road, then act. Act from the truth. That is what the Pope should be telling us, and Europe, now. FK
It is written in reportorial style, sometimes carrying in its simplicity more impact than a more emotional journal. People are being killed, tortured, raped, and children are being forced to be soldiers and sex slaves. The central government's forces are sometimes as brutal as the guerrillas. Shannon begs us for more action - for food, for US intervention, for something to stop the death in the Congo (now called the Republic of Congo, once Zaire) where, since independence in 1961, nearly 6 million have died because of the violence. We feel for the people, of course, as we come to know them. What a waste, we think; these were not refugees, but self-supporting farmers and shop keepers who are now forced to live on scraps and hand-outs. Shannon also points to the US role in this - the overthrow of Lumumba (sp?), the first democratically elected leader, in the early 1960's. He had cozied up a little too tightly with the USSR at the height of the cold war.
I mention this last bit to show how Shannon both looks to the US for aid, and finds blame in its actions. It is often the way of the great powers - that whatever their intention, the fallout from their actions makes things worse. It is relevant to the crises in the Mideast - intervention in Iraq may have made things worse, but non-intervention since has also led to the humanitarian crises of the refugees. Even in this, action or no action, the world becomes suddenly very complex.
The the next book, a fiction titled One Second After by William Forstchen. It is about what would happen if an enemy nation burst an atomic bomb over the US in the upper atmosphere. We find that, in the real world, most electronics, from those in computers to those in cars and energy distribution plants, would be fried. Almost nothing requiring electricity, outside of the simplest of machinery, would work. Tech would go back to the mid 19th century in a world dependent on 21st century technology.
The fictional story is set in a small college town near Asheville, NC. After the EMP (electo magnetic pulse caused by the high atmosphere nuke) stops everything, people begin to die. Within a month, Asheville tells the small town that it must accept 5 thousand refugees from its city. The small town considers what would happen - how they would all starve in a matter of weeks - and tells them to pound sand. After that, a cordon is kept at the highway, forcing those on the road to continue moving past their town. Little children die. Women offer themselves for scraps of food. It is disturbing, and likely, because it is exactly what happened in other areas of the world in such situations, from post WWII Europe to current areas in Africa (and now, the Mideast). But the small town persists, for its own survival. We understand it must, or all would die. It is the classic case of triage that comes about in almost every area of extreme disaster.
What, then, to do in Europe? Shannon's view would be that we have to help, but everything that outside powers have done, and not done, has helped to create this situation (it is still largely, though, a result of domestic unrest). Forstchen, on the other hand, would probably have Europe turn most of the refugees away, perhaps containing them in camps and feeding them, as much as they could, until things got better at home. He, too, is right; taking the refugees in will increase the flow, until Europe is no longer Europe - and until, perhaps, Europe, too, is impoverished and fomenting with the same anger as that in the Mideast. For Forstchen, they, we, all must first look to their own survival.
Pope Francis has called for the most open of compassion, as he must. But it might lead to the demise of everything, all the humanitarian compassion and wealth, that Europe now has. It is easy to give if it does not hurt, but a different story when it does.
I do cannot tell anyone what to do here, in this situation or with our own problem with migrants and refugees, except for this: the Pope should tell us the whole truth, the truth that he works from, from the words of the Gospel. As Christ said, we must not look for our rewards here, but in heaven; and when asked for our coat, should give our cloak or another as well. For Christ, the loser is the winner; the town that sacrifices its life even though all will die, the better one. I cannot argue with Christ, and I can say simply enough, that if we have extra, we should try to find a way to help - one that will not make things worse. But it should be noted, and the Pope should remind us clearly, that being Christian more often than not does not come with earthly rewards. Wealth and power go to those who take and keep. Failure and starvation and death go to those who don't fight to keep what they have. It is the greater reality of our world.
So, give, give all, if that is what one, or a nation, wants to do. It is the Christian thing. But do not expect a reward, either now or later from the countries that have been helped. We should all understand this. If one wants to live by true Christian compassion, expect the worst in this world, for it is more likely than not that it will come. One's reward will be in heaven only. Once understood, once understood that one's children might be the next ones dying of starvation at the side of the road, then act. Act from the truth. That is what the Pope should be telling us, and Europe, now. FK
RSS Feed