Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

If I Could Go Back

I dreamed, last night, that I went back in time to when Benny and I met. I don't know how I did it, I only know why. There were some things I thought I could do better – like communicating with more honesty and openness and being less assuming about what he was like before I actually knew him.

There were some problems with my plan. 

First of all, I was the only one who knew what would happen between us. Having already gone through our courtship-of-sorts, engagement, and two and a half years of marriage, I was completely aware of where we would be headed. This knowledge robbed our relationship of what I think was its most unique and essential aspect: Benny pursuing me with no idea of romance or a crush. He had noticed me, he has said before, because of my being a lady, and that had encouraged his approaching me. When I went back, I was the one pursuing him. I knew already what would happen if he pursued me, so why shouldn't it work the other way around? If you know Benny very well at all, you can imagine the disaster that turned into. He is so slow and careful in his decision making, he was not at all receptive to my taking charge, nor did this allow his need to fight for me to take place. That would be difficult for any man.

One thing I also had not considered was that I was going back with all the maturity I had gained over a period of five years. Benny did not have such an advantage. Instead of going back to the man I know now, I was interacting with Benny and a considerably lesser maturity level. That was not at all easy to deal with. He grew so much in the two years between when we met and when we married, people would have a hard time recognizing him from one year to the next. It was truly impressive, and I wouldn't have married the man he was when we initially met.

It also meant that all that time we spent getting to know one another was lost. I already knew so much about him, we didn't need to write the many letters asking each other questions that were so pivotal to our relationship. I think we wrote nearly 100 letters back and forth before we got married, and that doesn't include emails, talking in person, chatting on Facebook, or phone calls. We got to know one another in a very short amount of time as a result of all the types of talking which took place. How would you react if someone started pursuing you, seeming to know way too much about you, and you have no clue what he or she is like?

How did it end? I'm not really sure, because Benny woke me up to nurse Ellie, but it wasn't going anywhere good. As tempting as it could be to say I could make things better by going back, I think my dream convinced me there would be much to lose, as well.


As Benny said, when I told him about it: “It's like you were in the Room of Consequence. Now you know better.” 

Friday, November 28, 2014

Thoughts On Young Dumbledore and WWII

I remember reading the last Harry Potter book in its entirety the day it came out. I've since read it probably five times, enjoying it more each time, and still discovering new things. I'm sure I wasn't the only person who was shocked (and maybe a little hurt) when I read about Dumbledore's teen and young adult years – the years he spent fawning over Grindelwald, succumbing to his influence and supporting the ideas of pure blood in the wizarding world. Although he hadn't shown any signs of hating muggles and “dirty bloods” before or after this time in his life, the idea that he had ever had such leanings was startling, and I was really disappointed.

In the midst of my shock, however, I found myself irritated with Harry for being so angry with Dumbledore's actions. I felt that it was unfair to expect so much of him when Harry himself hadn't ever been in the same position. Sure, he could say he wouldn't have acted the same, but how could he know for sure?

It reminds me a lot of how people react to Germany in WWII. This country seemed too quick to accept the influence of Hitler. Never mind how much he did to help Germany or the fact that he was like a balm to them when they were trying to recover themselves and their pride after WWI. Never mind his adeptness at speaking and seemingly harmless ease of influence.

Like Germany, Dumbledore was recovering from great loss, feeling abandoned and a new, frightening sense of responsibility. Like the people there, he was quick to come under the banner of someone who made him feel powerful again – someone who gave him a new purpose to live for. And like that country, he also came to recognize his faults and did his best to never be associated with the mistakes of his past. And, like so many other countries, Harry was quick to see fault in Dumbledore. Instead of seeing vulnerability, he saw weakness. Rather than accounting for the changes and improvements that were clear in Dumbledore's later life, he took offense at the past, taking pride in the assumption that he could never make the same mistake.

God forbid.

I don't think this similarity was lost on Rowling. In fact, I would guess it was intentional, though she hasn't said that outright. She has, however, pointed out that the fall of Grindelwald coincides with the downfall of Hitler in 1945. And let's not look over the fact that the character has a German name and was accused of causing great turmoil in all Europe.


I think there's an important lesson to be learned from this aspect of the Potter books, as well as from the parallel in history. We can't be quick to judge people's mistakes – especially when they are in a weakened state. Although there are people who rise above wrongful influences, they are not a majority. There are powerful people, waiting on the sidelines, watching for frailty, and no culture or country is guaranteed insusceptibility. 

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Attending an Antipodal Church

Now, just to clarify before I even start, this post is not meant to bash another church, theology, or even to say which one is right or wrong. I do have certain beliefs which will show, because it is inevitable that one often thinks he or she is right. I only want to share my thoughts on how it feels to attend a church that is founded on theology about as opposite of mine as you can get in the protestant group.

~~~~~

There are various things one will look for in a church. Some look for fellowship, others look for a good children’s program, some look for a specific denominational background. You can’t look for a perfect church, because if you happen to find one, you would ruin it by joining. When Benny moved to Appleton, almost a year ago, I told him I trusted him to pick a church for us to attend after we married. This, I knew, was to take a risk, because although we basically agree theologically, he paid a lot less attention to it than I did. You can imagine how nervous I was when he called me, excited about this church he had found and thought would be a perfect fit for us, and told me it was an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Don’t get me wrong, here. I’m not saying that I don’t like being exposed to other denominations. I’ve experience the worship and teachings of various ones, including – at least three full length services, often more – Nazarene, Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Bible Missionary, Congregational, Evangelical, Methodist, etc. I was raised Wesleyan-Arminian in a non-denominational church. When asked what denomination I am, I always give the same answer: I’m Wesleyan-Arminian Congregational (not Roman) Catholic Baptist Nazarene Methodist. Is this a cop-out? Nope. I simply understand that my theology and how I follow Christ can be traditionally seen in each of those denominations, if not seen in the present time.

Why this explanation? Mostly to illustrate how different the church I was raised in is from the one I now attend. I went from a Wesleyan church to a Calvinist church (glad I knew my TULIP well…). I’ve attended close to two months of services in this church, now, and have had some thoughts on what I truly value in a church.

First, and most importantly, I value a church in which the pastor is a genuine shepherd. This means that the pastor has studied his doctrine and church history well and desires to impregnate his congregation with those doctrines and traditions which he believes have been fundamental. In other words, he believes firmly in what he stands on and desires to hold his flock to the standards which he believes God has biblically founded. A pastor who additionally pulls no punches is an excellent pastor to have.

Second, I value a church in which great importance is placed on the family. This can be seen in many ways, but it is always clear when the family is important to the church. Partly it is seen within the literal families but mostly in the blood-washed family. A church where there is clear fellowship, love, and a desire to serve one another is a church where I cannot help but feel blessed.

Third, despite of (or in spite of?) any differences in doctrine which may be present, it is clear that the people there yearn to serve God with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. I believe that anyone who truly serves God and longs to serve Him better every day will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, despite what doctrines he may hold. Although I deem your doctrine is incredibly important, I do not believe it saves you – but nor does it keep you from the throne of grace. I follow God to the best of my abilities, and I believe that my doctrines are scriptural. I know many who differ in doctrine but live with that aim as well, thus I cannot condemn them but rather wish them many blessings.

Attending this church has been a challenge, in several ways, but I have found it to be a place of peace as much as the church in which I grew up. God is preached there. I don’t feel persecuted or hindered by the differences in such a way that I am unable to worship. In fact, I find the differences strengthening my faith and encouraging me. I am fed, for each of us comes knowing we have fallen short of the glory of God and desperately need His strength for every step to come.

In Christ.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

I Hate Pop Music

In a recent conversation with my father (recent meaning in the past five months), we were discussing classic “hippy” music and other music from the 70’s which my father so enjoyed. I’ve been exposed to and love quite a bit of it, and I was sharing with him some of my irritation with how little regard it is given – especially since it is such a staple in the United States’ history. My father pointed out, with some disgust, that at least the music of that age – despite the trashing it often receives these days – meant something. People were trying to spread messages to other people about what was important to them politically, spiritually, and socially. As he said this, I did not challenge him, but I did wonder: do the singers who are popular today still express “the issues” as they did in the 70’s? Has that desire to influence been lost?

First, it is important to note exactly what is important to people during this age. To name several issues off the top of my head: sexual liberties (a freedom to express your sexuality without fear of discrimination – I am not only referring to gay rights but also to the feminist movement and similar movements), animal and nature protection/rights, self esteem (the need to feel beautiful, important, and completely in charge or your life), carpe diem (the freedom to live how you want to, even if that means being an alcoholic or living on a constant high), the need to be number one in someone’s life (to be in love – even if with someone who isn’t right for you or doesn’t want to be with you), and being rich (the ultimate goal is to be powerful with as little effort as possible). These are, in my estimation, those issues which are most important to this generation, whether they be right or not

I took my thoughts even further. Music for my father’s generation was meant to represent that generation, and what they represented was clear in their music. Even if my generation isn’t singing about the issues which are important to them, what messages are they sending about what is important? What will people be studying in fourty years and saying: “What the heck were they on?”

To answer my own questions, I pulled two albums: one of a feminist and one of an openly homosexual male who are considered two of the top artists in America. They are performers, they are singers, they are 21st century American icons: Christina Aguilera and Adam Lambert. I decided to pay close attention to the messages these two artists are sending to other countries, this generation, and the next generation. The albums I pulled were “For Your Entertainment,” and “Bionic.” If you read further, please take note that I will be referencing lyrics which may be offensive – containing language and sexually explicit phrases. It is my intention to prove to you that this generation of pop singers is attempting to indoctrinate certain beliefs into this generation and the next through their music. They use crude, blunt methods to get their points across, and it is my hope that you will see the dangerous power to which we expose ourselves and others.

Now, I have spent a lot of time listening to both of these albums. I am intimate with each of them partially because I have a sister who enjoys listening to this sort of music. I do not wish to insult her or anyone else by saying that listening to this music rots your brain, but I will say that I hope you come to understand how influential the music you listen to can be.

First, I will pick one song from each album which I believe addresses one or more of the issues I mentioned and discuss each in some detail.

From Adam Lambert’s album: “For Your Entertainment.” This song cannot be played on the radio because of the sexually vulgar lyrics. Some songs, you can just bleep out a few words, and it’s okay, but not with this song. This song describes, in great detail, the sexual encounter of two people. We are not told the sexual orientation of this “couple,” but that is the only vague thing about the lyrics. There are three things especially disturbing about this song: There is an intimation that the performer has seduced or trapped the other person into the sexual encounter. Things are said like: “There’s no way you’ll ring the alarm,” “no escaping when I start,” and “I’ma hurt ya real good, Baby.” Although it is never directly said, it is implied that this experience is not completely consensual. Second, there is a hunger – a need – for complete power and dominance: “It’s all right, you’ll be fine, Baby, I’m in control. Take the pain, take the pleasure; I’m the master of both.” Thirdly, and probably most disturbing, this seduction and hunger for power are combined and portrayed as a gift to the victim: “Ya thought an angel swept ya off your feet. Well I’m about to turn up the heat; I’m here for your entertainment.” What is a person to say? Hey, I’m being molested, but I’m sure entertained!

From Christina Aguilera’s album: “Vanity.” Here’s another one you won’t hear on the radio. It is full of crude sexual references and language. The basis of the song is that the singer is so amazing, she can live life within herself, regardless of what people think of her. Again, I have three things I want to point out which are particularly troublesome in this song: Right away, you are brusquely told that the singer is clearly the star of… everything. The singer makes some startling claims such as: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the flyest bitch of them all? Never mind, I am… ain’t nobody got shit on me; I’m the best for sure.” Secondly, there is a complete disregard of anyone who might think little of the singer: “Hit up Prince Charming, telling him give me a call. Never mind, screw him… I make myself so much wetter… Can’t love no one else ‘til you love yourself, and if they don’t like it, tell ‘em get in line and kiss your ass… It’s me. Bow down; get on your knees.” Obviously, this person needs power, and she isn't shy about her self conceit: "And now I take myself to be my lawfully wedded bitch." Lastly, the performer claims that powers are her birth-given rights, and she can do with them as she wishes. Having this power means she will live forever in the memories of later generations: “V is for vanity. Every time I look at me I turn myself on… thank you, Mom and Daddy… and the legacy lives on, going strong. Let us not forget.” The song ends with the singer asking: “Who owns the throne?” You hear the voice of her baby son saying: “You do, Mommy.” In an interview, Aguilera was asked how she felt about her son hearing her singing such music. Her answer was that she wanted her son to be aware and appreciate the powers and rights of strong women. Hm…

If you flip through the other music of these two artists, you will find more themes that draw attention to what is important to this generation: “Everybody’s looking for some love, but they don’t know how to let it all hang out, and that’s why they’re solo” (Lambert: Strut). “Step in the light for your perfect close-up. Be superficial; it’s your one shot… it’s all an attitude” (Aguilera: Glam). “I know every apple here ain’t bad, but I found a worm in every single one I had. Boys, they’re only good for fruit – I mean bananas… oh, boys, you should pack ‘em up and ship ‘em out… I hate ‘em” (Aguilera: I Hate Boys).

When people study our music, years from now, what will they see? Will they know about the politics of the time or will they see the true desires of a generation? I’ve come to agree with my father: music used to give important messages in an attempt to better the human race. This generation, however, is all about self satisfaction. I gave you two horrible examples, but they are in no way the worst, nor are they uncommon. If you think you can handle it, try listening to the entire Aguilera album and feeling uplifted or hopeful. Perhaps try turning on the radio and finding popular music which isn’t focused on being on top.

I tried.

The 1918 Influenza

The 1918 Influenza is an almost forgotten pandemic. Many would think that the enormous violence of it, and the number of deaths that were the outcome, would have made more of an impression on the world than it has. History books rarely say more than a paragraph about it, and what is written about it does not even hint at the ferocity of it. In the 2001 World Encyclopedia, there is only a paragraph of information, and the information is not even close to stating the information adequately.

In the Spring of 1918, around mid February, a mild influenza started at a military camp in Kansas. The troops dubbed it, “Three day fever” because it usually lasted about three days, and only on rare occasions did people die. Nevertheless, in only four months, the mild strain had swept the globe, killing tens of thousands. In Boston, it infected 81 people in the space of four days. In London, 1,175 died in three weeks. But this was only the first wave of the influenza, and the milder of the two. No one was prepared when, only a month after the world had recovered from the mild influenza, it sprang up again, in a military camp at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.

On August 22nd, the first person who had the second strain of the influenza was diagnosed as having cerebrospinal meningitis. Because the doctors did not believe that a flu would have such extreme symptoms. The soldier came in with a fever, headache, burning eyes, chills, and a sore body. Soon, signs of delirium started. His face turned a brownish-purple color, he started coughing up blood, and his feet turned black. He was dead only days after showing symptoms. The next day, eight more soldiers walked into the hospital with the same symptoms. The day after that, 58 more. The fourth day, 81 more were sick. The next week, 118. Then they started dying, two hours to five days after being infected. An average of 100 soldiers died per day. Out of the 300 nurses caring for the men, 90 died. The doctors there begged the government to send scientists to diagnose the illness and try to find a cure before it spread out of the camp.

The government sent William H. Welch, a well known and revered medical scientist in America. It was said of him, “(He can) ...transform men’s lives almost with the flick of a wrist.” He was looked up to, and was considered one of the most important medical professors of the age. When he did an autopsy on one of the victims of the influenza, he actually trembled with fear at what he saw. The lungs were filled with blood and fluids. The victims were dying because they were drowning in their own blood. The doctors who were assisting him were shocked at his response when he said, “This must be some new kind of infection... Or plague.”

So the influenza started, plaguing the young and healthy with an 80% death rate. The mild strain that had swept the globe in February had mutated into a deadly flu. The doctors were very hesitant to call the sickness a flu. Some called it Bronchopneumonia. Others called it things like an Epidemic Respiratory Infection, or an unidentified pandemic disease. Doctors raced to find a vaccine, but nothing was effective. Throughout the states, the influenza attacked the humans lung cells, and black feet indicated the death that would inevitably occur.

Massachusetts was the first state to suffer huge numbers of deaths, but it quickly spread. The Great Lakes Training Station, in Chicago, Illinois, was struck hard. 2,600 men were squeezed into barracks for 1,800. In a military camp in Ohio that held 13,161 men, 1,101 died. Some cities had multiple waves of the strain. Louisville, Kentucky suffered three waves in rapid succession. San Francisco was told to start digging graves in preparation for the influenza. In many cities, they made it a requirement to wear a surgical mask at all times. In San Francisco alone, they distributed 5,000 masks in one hour. Fines for leaving the home without a mask were a minimum of $5, to 30 days in jail. Seattle and New York were two other cities that required the masks. In most cities any public gatherings were banned, but some churches continued to meet outside. If you were sick while traveling by ship, you were told to sleep on deck, with no one to nurse you, to lessen the chance that others would get ill. Sheets were hung in military barracks to keep soldiers from breathing on one another. The influenza was nicknamed, “Purple Death.”

Philadelphia was the hardest hit American city. The doctors there claimed that the influenza wouldn’t survive because of the climate, so they didn’t even try to take any precautions. When it struck, 4,500 died in two weeks. In one day, 759 died. Morgues were so crowded with bodies that embalmers refused to go into them. Funerals were limited to 15 minutes long. There were ten times more bodies than caskets to put them in. Signs were posted, begging people not to spit or close their windows. Priests drove carts down the streets, calling out, asking people to bring out their dead. There was such a need for doctors that they asked for volunteer doctors, and didn’t require someone with a medical degree. 72,000 volunteered. Non Certified doctors and nurses were frantically assigned to hospitals in need. The number of dead bodies was so great, mass graves were dug, and bodies thrown in without coffins. Grave-diggers were accused of dealing ghoulishly with the bodies, but there simply wasn’t enough time to do anything differently. One doctor said, “The life of the city had almost stopped.”

Between September 11th, and October 3rd, there were an estimated 75,000 cases of the influenza in America. September through November, the American Expeditionary Force listed 9,144 deaths. In September alone, 12,000 American’s died. In all, 38% of the American Army and Navy were killed. More American soldiers, not including civilians, died than those in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, World War I, and World War II, put together. Rumors were spread that the influenza was an act of war: That the German drug company, Bayer, was mixing the virus with the aspirin they were sending to the states; Or maybe the German military released an airborne virus in Boston Harbor and other major American cities.

But the US was not the only place to suffer. Within two months, the entire globe was infected, excluding Australia, and islands under Australia’s jurisdiction. Australia, when hearing about the virus, cut off all contact of the outside world.

They got the better end of the deal. The French army suffered at least 10,158 deaths in three months. The French called the influenza, “La Grippe.” In two months, the British Expeditionary Force suffered at least 3,656 deaths. In Wales, two thirds of the population died. In Germany, people were literally dropping dead in the streets. The Germans called it, “Blitzkatarrh,” which means, “Lightning.” An Eskimo village of 80 people was hit, and when the influenza had passed, only five adults and a number of children had survived.

But those numbers pale in comparison of the overall affect of the influenza. It killed more in a year than the Black Death had killed in 100 years. More people died in 24 days than those that die from AIDS in 24 years. It killed more in it’s duration than any other disease in history. The number of deaths was at least 50 million, but is more likely over 100 million. There is no way to find the actual amount of deaths, because it swept the globe so fast and thoroughly that accounts of it are vague, and in many places, nonexistent. In 1917, the average life expectancy was 51 years. In 1918, it dropped 12 years.

Doctors and scientists were so very frightened by the event, they immediately started looking for a vaccine, in the case that the virus might appear again. Richard Shope proved that the influenza was caused by a virus, and later, Wilson Smith discovered the virus that caused it. But this was no help.

The common flu mutates, at least once, annually. That is why new vaccines for it come out every year. But the flu mutates so fast that the vaccine quickly becomes useless. Since the 1918 Influenza was the common flu, mutated, Richard Shope’s discovery of the virus was useless. The exact same flu pattern happening again is slim, so why create a vaccine for a specific virus that will most likely never strike again? But the possibility of another bad mutation is pretty good. In fact, bad mutations of the influenza have already happened twice, but were stopped before they could spread too far. Statistics show that if the wrong mutation occurred again, it would result in 1.5 million deaths in America alone. That is roughly the number of citizens of Nebraska! The deaths would numerate over the number of deaths from heart disease, cancers, strokes, Chronic Pulmonary Disease, AIDS, and Alzheimer in one year.

So why is the 1918 Influenza so avoided when it had, and can have, such disastrous results? Alfred Crosby believes that the people who survived it are too terrified of it to speak about it. Another reason might be that it killed no big political leaders. It also left nothing behind. No cripples, no lasting disorders to those that managed to survive, and so on.

It is America’s forgotten pandemic; A killer that ravaged the globe, killing millions. Then it disappeared, leaving the world to recuperate. It is the common flu. Something that the world is so used to, they don’t even see it as a threat. The world is almost unaware that it has ever wreaked such destruction. The only question is, will the world be ready if it happens again?
"This is the mark of a really admirable man: Steadfastness in the face of trouble." Ludwig van Beethoven
"It is a sad fate for a man to die too well known to everyone else and still unknown to himself." Francis Bacon
It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? .... The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil. ~ Ravi Zacharias