Monuments, Statues, and Other Silly Things...

This weekend our family took a quick roadtrip that included Coronodo Heights, just north of Lindsborg, KS.  Here's the backstory: in 1541, Coronado was looking for his cities of gold, and legend has it that as he climbed this little hill on the Kansas prairie he looked out and said to his friends, "Screw it, boys...it's time to go home."  Almost four centuries later some transplanted Swedish scholars at the college in Lindsborg found a piece of Spanish armor on top of this hill and declared that this was where Coronado had made his fateful decision.  Thus they dedicated the place to the principle of "Give Up...It's Good For You!" and built something of a castle monument on top of it that looks out over the prairie...thus the name Coronado Heights.  Likely there's very little to substantiate the claims that Coronado made his decision on this hill.  But it makes for a nice story and it allows tourists like me to to go up on this hill and recount some kind of vision of history, no matter how true or incomplete it may be.

I got to thinking about this today, in light of the marches and counter-marches and general forms of hand-wringing that seems to have consumed our country in recent weeks.  Basically all over the south (and elsewhere) cities are bowing to pressure to remove statues that stand to honor the 'heroes' of the Confederacy, men like Robert E Lee or Stonewall Jackson.  Many white southerners are very upset and have had their feelings hurt about this, claiming that this is simply whining on the part of people who don't want their own feelings hurt, that we shouldn't be 'erasing history' after all these years  Proponents of taking down these statues claim on the other hand that these statues should never have been built, as they give public honor to those who rebelled against our country and supported a slave system that is immoral.

I've come to the firm belief that, while some people are overly sensitive about all things and this can turn into a slippery slope that would even take down Jefferson, Washington, and other slave-owning leaders who fall out of favor of history, it's a good thing to take down these statues.  What clinched it for me was reading about how many of these statues were erected.  Most were built in the 1910s and 1920s during a time in which the Ku Klux Klan was on the march in this country; Woodrow Wilson and other leading politicians were openly anti-negro (Wilson closed off much of government employment to blacks, for instance) and the impending death of the last Confederate war veterans prompted many who fondly remembered 'the good 'ol days' to build these statues as a memorial to the 'lost cause'.  It was not only not politically incorrect to publicly proclaim white superiority, it was almost expected and even demanded.  And so, with claims that restoring Southern Heritage was vital, these statues of heroic Confederate war heroes, always in military pose and dress, were erected.

Needless to say, blacks and other minorities did not have a say at this time...indeed, they were politically powerless to stop the building of statues.  To do so would have meant great danger and even lynching...remember, Jim Crow laws were at their height during this time, and approved of people in the highest of offices in our country.  And so these statues were erected, and have now stood for almost a hundred years.

But of course now we live in a different age.  Racism is no longer openly accepted by most, and the rise of 'alt-right' Klansmen and Nazis brings about universal condemnation (except by the President, but that's another post).  Many who still support these statues are by no means racist...they genuinely do feel that this is a part of their heritage that outsiders do not understand, and they feel that they are being singled out for ridicule and contempt.  They are correct in saying that race is not only a southern problem, but a national one...indeed, many northern cities such as Chicago and Boston have faced equally challenging racial issues over the years and often have a shameful history of their own.

Yet simply crying 'Heritage!' is no longer good enough.  The heritage that is being supported is naive at best and immoral at worst, because it's a form of heritage that looks back to a time in which 'blacks knew their place', a time in which southern values openly tolerated belittlement and hatred of certain people simply because of their skin color and ancestry.  How on earth these things could have been considered Christian continues to amaze me; and the fact that many people still defending these things claim Jesus as Lord shows me that this blind spot is still very real.  Shouldn't Christians want to break down walls of hostility rather than build them up?  Shouldn't followers of Jesus Christ look to the good of others instead of their own in all things?  Yet in this instance Christians have fallen woefully short of living out their faith.

I wonder what would happen if revisionist history came to inspect Coronado Heights.  Again, there's very little real evidence that this hill is anything more than an interesting geological spot on an otherwise flat landscape.  But what if Native American groups decided that Coronado was a villain and a thief, would we need to change the name of that hill?  Would the good people of Lindsborg fight valiantly to keep that name and claim that it's about heritage?

Honestly, I doubt anybody would care that much.   5 centuries in the past is a long time, and nobody has a vested interest in keeping Coronado's name alive; remember, the people who wanted to lift up Coronado were Swedes, not Spanish.  But I'm sure that somebody would fight to the end as a matter of their self-identity, and spout all kinds of foolishness and falsehood to keep the spirit of Coronado's 'heritage' alive.  Maybe they would even claim the economic argument, that this place brings about tourism and jobs and other forms of what has become the conservative religion.  Rather than realize that true history is dependent upon actual scholarship and truth, creating symbols that have nothing to do with reality seems to be the way many want to live out their history.  People will always have a way of getting worked up about the dumbest of things.

Christian Nation: A Novel

Last week my brother told me about a novel he had read recently called Christian Nation.  It's a book that is a 'what-if' account that assumes John McCain won the presidential election in 2008 and dropped dead two months after the inauguration, leaving Sarah Palin to became president.  It's written from a liberal perspective that is terrified of the religious right, and is a word of warning about what would happen if the aims of the extreme religious right (personified by a dominion/reconstructionist ideology) gain credence in this country.  I'm about halfway through the book, and though it's not the best book I've read, it is certainly something to pique one's attention.  As a Christian sometimes I lament the fact that we are increasingly a wicked nation, but yet I also lament where conservatism has gone.  I've drifted from my 1990s Rush Limbaugh conservatism into what I think is the sensible center, but sadly nobody looks to centrists anymore...both parties are too busy running so far to the far left or far right that the silent majority of those of us in the middle have been left without a political home.

I think there are two major problems with the premise laid out by Frederic Rich, the author.  First, the novel paints a tea party movement that is swallowed up by the Christian right, when in fact I think that the Christian right has been swallowed up by the tea party movement.  When the Christian right really started getting involved in politics several decades ago they found it necessary to align themselves with others who might be sympathetic to their POVs and would give them a foothold into the corridors of power.  Their aims might have been good as they sought to promote morality and defend life, but in fact they have been co-opted to the point that their message could hardly be considered Christian at all anymore.  When Christians of a particular bent are demanding unlimited gun rights, intervention into foreign conflicts, abolishing education programs, and incarcerating people at alarming rates, it's hard to think of them as truly being guided by Biblical Christianity.  Maybe they think they are promoting the Kingdom of God, but rather they are more hell-bent on promoting worldly values than they would ever care to admit.  Biblical illiteracy may well be part of the problem...they've gotten so far away from what the Bible actually says that they can be deluded into thinking that second amendment rights are found in the gospel.  (This is an argument I actually heard a Christian make recently; it centered on Jesus telling his disciples on the night he was betrayed to take two swords with them.  No, really.)

The truth is that the right wing of American politics is far more concerned with a pseudo-libertarian agenda than they are with Christianity.  Sure, they may throw Christians a bone once in awhile on abortion or gay marriage, but modern conservatism is concerned with two things: 1)LOWER (or better yet eliminate) MY TAXES and 2)CURB (or better yet neuter) GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS.  Everything else bows at the altar of these two points.  The pursuit of money and what it can do for those in power, even the promotion of America First and our military might, guides the agenda of these right wingers.  Whether it's right-to-work legislation, NAFTA, or overturning environmental regulations, what really matters is the bottom line...will it make the rich even more money?  The Christian right, having forgotten about the prophets of the Scripture and their warnings about those who would build paneled houses while others starve, have bought into this agenda and made it their own.  Christ may be spoken about sometimes, but in truth this is only a minor portion of the far right agenda.

A second problem with the novel, and perhaps more fundamental to why 'it can't happen here' (or at least not in the way it thinks) is that all evangelical Christians are portrayed with a broad brush.  In the novel all evangelicals are reconstructionists, demanding a right-wing Christian America in which gays and Muslims and abortionists are all shown the door or shot, their choice.  Truth is, this is a caricature that simply does not hold water.  While there are fringes of Christianity that have bought into this agenda, it has become interesting that evangelicalism is becoming a much more broad place.  Writers like Tony Campolo and Jim Wallis and countless others have been having a big impact on the conversation, taking Christians back to issues like social justice and love for one's neighbors.  While some Christians make it hard for the rest of us to tell of the grace of Jesus Christ (and indeed, introlerant bigotism has become the common public perception many people have of Christianity as shown by books like UnChristian, which surveys those who believe that Christianity is a homophobic and intolerant and angry group of whiteys), there are many others looking to dispel that perception.

Most of my friends come from what could broadly be called 'evangelical' in their worldview, but with a few exceptions most have little or nothing to do with the reality of demanding forcibly a 'Christian' nation.  Yes, they are bugged by gay marriage and abortion and similar issues, but most of them simply want to serve God the best way they can.  Most of them can see through the false veneer of the lunatics, and like me are appalled at the extremes in both directions.  This is why McCain ultimately lost the election.  While many were nervous about electing a black man with a Muslim name, most of us were far more terrified at the prospect of a President Palin, she being recognized for the nincompoop she was by even sensible conservative voters.  Yes, maybe we wanted a president that was a bit more white a bit more conservative, but we at minimum we wanted somebody who could string two sentences together.  Obama may not have been perfect (and ultimately he has been mediocre), but we dodged a bullet by not having Sarah Palin be a heartbeat away from the presidency, a bullet that was far wider than the author of this book would have us believe.

In the end, it's an interesting book, and one I've enjoyed reading.  But it's just fiction, and Lord willing will remain that way.

Santa's pipe

Last night my son asked me to read him 'Twas the Night Before Christmas' in all its picture-book glory.  About halfway through his eyes lit up:  "Santa's smoking a pipe?"  There is was, the next three pages in all its glory...'ol Saint Nick puffing away.  It doesn't matter if it's tobacco, marijuana, peyote...Santa Claus smokes.  And through the entire story, this was the only thing that Jacob made comment about, except for another picture of the reindeer flying away that he really liked.

Of course it's an old book, an old story.  But this got me to thinking about how we have somehow expunged dear old Santa's nasty lung-destroying habit of smoking in the years since this book was published.  Yes, Santa still has issues with his weight (i.e., he's fat), and the fact that he wears a red suit and loves the little children is something that causes us today to pause.  But smoking?  No way...we surely don't want to expose our children to that.  And so we've re-written history to smooth over some of the rough edges about the old man.

Revisionist history happens all over the place.  Albert Spalding spent much of his life perpetuating the myth that baseball (which had nothing to do with cricket, rounders, or any other fay 'English' game, he championed) was invented by a future Civil War general in the village of Cooperstown, NY to the point that this is now where the game's hall of fame is located.  James Loewen has written several powerful books about history has been distorted time and again in the name of ideological purity: we teach our children history that is designed to make them good patriots rather than informed citizens, and former confederates put up Civil War monuments all over the south (and some of the north, too) to glorify the Cause.

Sometimes it happens in not-so-ancient history.  That Barack Obama admitted that some of the foreign policy of his predecessors was wrong and needed to be repudiated was turned into the historical fiction of an 'apology tour' by his critics who were more interested in setting a future agenda than they were recognizing the mistakes of the past.  History is not just written by the winners, but also the whiners.

And so this leads us to today, December 21, 2012.  Supposedly this was the day that the world was going to end, according to the Mayan calendar.  Or at least this is what we've been told again and again and again. Still have about thirteen hours left here in the central standard time zone, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why is it that so many people are freaking out about this (about 10% of people worldwide, so I've heard)?  Because they are historically naive, and they can't tell the difference between truth and agenda.  Whether it's media seeking to sell newspapers (or, more likely, attract eyeballs on the internet) by irresponsible reporting, or the diminishing John Cusack seeking to sell a movie by a convoluted idea, some people will believe just about anything, no matter how foolish, no matter how stupid.  They believe this because they don't dig into the thorny issues of history.  They'd rather believe a linear history with a good moral principle than try to juggle the ambiguity that most history presents.  And so they believe that the world will end today, that baseball was invented by Doubleday, or that the Civil War was about everything else besides slavery.

It's not just that those who don't learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat it...it's that people too lazy to go and look past the hijacking of history will continue to believe myths in the future.