I just watched Barack Obama's inauguration on the Internet since I could not watch it live being at work and all. I enjoy my job very much and it's actually a very nice environment, but there is no time for things like watching political speeches live. So while I was watching it on MSNBC a few things came to my mind that were only tangentially related to President Obama's speech. By the way, isn't it something of a miracle that a black man with the least presidential name of all time--Barack Hussein Obama--is our 44th president? I think so.
I was at Barnes & Noble on Saturday and one of my old managers--whom I liked--was there and it was lovely to see her though also a little odd, because she works (or worked) at the Sandy store and she was all the way downtown at the Gateway store when I saw her. I don't know if she was there just to train or be trained or if she transferred permanently, but it was a little odd. Anyway, I was browsing through the history section because one of my friends thought it might be nice to read a history book for our next book club selection and thus I was skimming the titles and blurbs of books. So far I have the following titles to propose: Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, Mr. Gatling's Terrible Marvel by Julia Keller,The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson (which is more of a true crime book), A Bottle of Rum by Wayne Curtis, anything by Thomas Cahill, and Salt or Cod or The Big Oyster all by Mark Kurlansky. If you have any delightful history books that you have read recently, including those mentioned above, I would love to hear from you.
So I was browsing the US History section and came across such titles as 48 Liberal Lies About American History, The Ten Big Lies About America, and A Patriot's History About the United States. Only the last one might actually be balanced, but of course I haven't read any of them, but they all strike me as conservative propaganda. However, as a liberal it strikes me that conservative pundits like to associate liberals as synonymous with godless, unpatriotic liars. It reminds me of the SNL skit where Tina Fey as Sarah Palin lists the blue states as unpatriotic sections of America and then lists the swing states as having the choice to be either real pro- or anti-American. And of course the whole problem is that liberals and Democrats have taken this type of xenophobic abuse lying down with their tails tucked between their legs. (Or is it laying down? Damn those transitive and intransitive verbs!) Of course the other problem is that I, personally, am a godless, elitist, European-loving liberal and so don't have a lot of room to talk.
So anyway, from what I could tell, these books seemed to believe that the only way we can be proud of these United States is if we have an untarnished history of them, which I personally believe is irresponsible. It may be true that Howard Zinn and revisionist history may have gone too far post-sixties to be as politically correct as possible. I think the way we view history is like a pendulum--it's too bad there is no adjective form for that word (i.e., pendulumistic)--we go from an idealistic, white view of American history to one that is uber-PC and champions multiculturalism. Of course the truth usually lies somewhere in between the two, assuming that truth is an absolute and not relative which I personally believe is true--and we come full circle. How ironic. Go watch Rashomon people! I just finished watching the HBO miniseries John Adams which swept the Golden Globes. Anyway, there's a scene in the final episode where John Trumbull privately unveils his painting Declaration of Independence before John Adams who then eviscerates Trumbull for his idyllic portrait of this momentous event. (You all know this picture--Google image it.) Adams, who was there (some of the time), knows that no such scene was even remotely close to any of the actual happenings at Independence Hall. (I'm sure the same is true for Howard Chandler Christy's Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.) Adams then gives this speech, or rant, about the fiction which is just another word for so-called American history. I can't give you any of the quotes for IMDB is failing me at the moment. Anyway, I think it's dangerous to ignore the dark times of any history, but perhaps it's also time white men can again take pride for their accomplishments instead of obsequiously apologizing for all their faults--which do exist.
What I really wanted to talk about though is the problem with the Muslim world according to Gregory. In his inaugural address, Obama said, "The world has changed, and we must change with it." Just as the problem with the French is that they are all secular Catholic existentialists, so the problem with Islam is that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets and the Qur'an (or Koran if you prefer) is the final and absolute word of god, or Allah. La illaha illala: no god but God. So the problem is that Christianity modernized and only the fundamentalists believe the Bible to the be the literal word of God though perhaps not the final word. And while certainly there have been wicked Popes, there have also been those who have ushered in new ages. So sometimes it's nice to have a living spokesman for God. Of course the Pope's absolute power was lessened by the Reformation, yet he was and is still an important leader to Christians worldwide. There is no unifying leader of the Islam world. Of course there were the caliphs and Imams who succeeded Muhammad which is a bloody history and led to the bitter schism between Sunni and Shi'a Islam. The Shi'ites suffering from inferiority superiority complex because they are a minority in the Muslim world yet also zealously convinced that their version of Islam is the correct one. Anyway, so you have Muslims with only their local leaders to guide them, who are often also their political leaders--at least across much of the Middle East. I find this to be the main crisis facing Islam and the world at large--there is no unifying leader to interpret the Qur'an and the Sharia, and Islam, a religion born in the Middle Ages, is fundamentally opposed to change and modernity. Islam literally means "to surrender or submit" which directly opposes any questioning, Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, and the Qur'an is the final and absolute word of God. In fact it is so much so, that the Qur'an is only considered to be the Qur'an if it is in its original Arabic. Any translation of the word, which may be helpful as a tool to spread the message, is nevertheless not considered to be the Qur'an. The only problem is that Christianity has made enormous strides in the last six hundred years. I say six hundred because Islam is six hundred years younger than Christianity and yet we expect this younger and more inflexible religion to adapt to our same level of human rights immediately. And it's only in the past fifty years that our freedom-loving America has made real changes in regards to women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc. And yet we want to foist these recent changes onto their world which is not necessarily ready to accept them.
Anyway to see these changes may I recommend the music video "Let's See How Far We've Come" by Matchbox 20. I know as a band they get a lot of ribbing, yet this music video is very political and gives me chills every time I watch it. It's a new era of hope and I think we would do well to remember FDR's immortal words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I feel a little like watching The West Wing or V for Vendetta or even playing Zelda--anything but working on my MLIS applications. I also have too many books to read. Scribbling the Cat, The Iceman Cometh, Love in the Time of Cholera and I really should read Little Altars Everywhere and The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood which my friend lent me forever ago but it's failed to catch my interest. If you've read it let me know if I should invest my time. I also need to see Frost/Nixon, Last Chance Harvey, and Gran Torino before they leave. And Revolutionary Road and The Wrestler come out this weekend. So I will soon be back at you with movie reviews and frivolous Oscar commentary. The SAGs are this weekend. Cheers!
Four very interesting things I read in this:
ReplyDelete1) I think your experience has either biased you or provided you insight--people will view it either way--regarding "a living spokesman for God" and the idea of one leader for faith.
2) I disagree with your statement that "Christianity has modernized." (Sub-point: It immediately follows criticism of "no god but God" which even for non-LDS Christians is still theological believed by the vast majority of Protestant Christians. That is, there are more who believe that to be true than do not believe there is only one God.) The only Protestant faith of which I am aware that recognized there are many paths to God, openly allows any race, women, and gays positions of leadership, sees the Bible as sometimes literal, sometimes figurative but leaves it up to individual interpretation without such statements as "That's not church doctrine" (which repeatedly hear from my LDS friends, although hands down I am told the exact same thing, so I don't know from where they are being taught concepts that are not church doctrine but which they generally all accept as true) is the Episcopal Church. There are small Protestant branches of non-denominational churches that set their own rules, but again, being non-denominational, they don't have a far-reaching effect. So ultimately, I am unsure of what you are thinking of when you say "modernized."
3) You begin by talking about Christianity and Muslim theology, then right after talking about the advances in Christian theology as compared to the youthful Muslim faith, you move to the term "America" and recognize its strides in civil rights and then go back to using the word "their" to refer to...Muslims? Or countries with a pre-dominate Muslim citizenship? Is America synonymous with Christianity? Is Christianity synonymous with modernity? Is Muslim synonymous with antiquity and literalism? I do agree that it is right to consider the the religious persuasion and traditions of a culture before expecting them to immediately understand, apply, accept, embrace something contradictory (antithetical?) than what they have none (and believe to be a matter of eternal damnation or eternal paradise).
4) Compelling, your reading of Rashomon as making the point of absolute truth. I will have to watch it again, but I recall reading it exactly the opposite, that our positions and experiences inform our vision and understanding of "truth."
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. I just wanted to clarify a few things.
ReplyDelete1) I am not necessarily in favor of a living prophet or pope or what-have-you. Just sometimes it is helpful though at other times it is also quite destructive.
2) I think Christianity has at the very least adapted to modern society, though it's possible that the advances of Western, Christian society have adapted to Christianity.
3) I find America to be overwhelmingly a Christian nation, possibly much more so than most of Europe. I was also discussing America's history of civil rights since I know more about that than other nations' histories.
4) I also read Rashomon as truth is relative and different for every person. In the post that was a little confusing.
Hah! I never see such lively and insightful comment go down on my blog. Not that anything I write inspires liveliness and insightfulness. In fact, really, ignore my blog altogether. Just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteYour comments on the fracture of the nation of Islam I thought were pretty accurate. It's strange, how they do call themselves the nation of Islam and yet they're no more unified than a group of first-graders after the same candy bar. Perhaps the greater strangeness - or maybe irony - is that Islam as a religion was established to eradicate the warring factions mindset of middle eastern people, and yet the warring factions remain and fight onward with a new shield behind which to hide. For all that they consider people of their faith one nation, there's a whole lot of civil war going on there. Of course, they simply are convinced that no one but their own faction is truly of the faith anyway. It seems as if all of Muhammad's efforts have gone to waste, ne?
I really do need to read Devil in the White City.