Check for web archive captures
Untitled
By farrind on 2009-10-17 22:37:37
A couple of weeks back I had a very interesting meeting over lunch. Several Chinese nationals work at my office (meaning
Chinese citizens who are here legally). I went down to our small break room, and shared it with one woman I had not met.
She made room at the table, introduced herself, as coming from China, and put down what she was reading, and we began to
get acquainted. She had been looking over a book containing some future job prospects but as she shut it, our conversation
wandered into looking for future jobs. She mentioned she had picked up talk of higher unemployment in this country lately,
and our talk took some different turns and twists based on that. We found ourselves talking about the recent troubles: with
credit, problems originating with the market for mortgages... and lest you think this posting is wandering into that territory,
hang on. I'm not posting here on the economic situation. I'll be leading to something, however, that came from this
conversation, and if you have some patience with this preliminary story, you will very likely find it leading to a good point.
So you are encouraged to hang on! This was just a first conversation but an honest tone was set when she said “I do not
know history but I heard there has been a time before with lots of unemployment....”. And I gave her a short version of the
story of the US Great depression. Such as I know it! I have no claim as a student of our 20th century history, but I could at
least tell her an outline. She listened with such attention...... this was a woman in her early twenties, whom really couldn't be
expected to have all that much historical knowledge, and it was clearly new to her, this phase of the history of the US. (Here
is a link to help those readers who are inclined get some background too. Wikipedia also gives the New Deal its own article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the United _States J didn't have all that long for lunch, but it was
something I thought back to many times. A talk with someone who had really NO background on this chapter of our
history... She couldn't have heard about this from her parents, although mostly, I had heard about the depression from my
parents. In fact, I'm middle aged now, and see them rarely, but offhand at least four or five things about that economic period
had deeply affected my mother, and possibly my dad. And can you come up with anyone you know (over 70, of course) who
has expressions, or even attitudes, leftover from those tough economic times? Well, as promised, this is not mainly about
any depression, recession or any such thing. This ties in to earlier parts of the Blog in the following way: My lunch
companion, like nearly all persons, was shaped by her society. All the events, stories, books, niches for different members,
and myths..and more, all of these, collectively, yet somewhat unseenly work their effects on nearly all those in her society.
So her views of our unemployment numbers, the present “shakiness” of credit (and even her choice of where to apply for
jobs) are influenced by earlier events that are part of her society and of her group. But what if the theme society members
are forming and absorbing attitudes on is not banking and the economy, but another institution, or thing which humans
dabble in. What if that theme is the ways violence and war come to be used? Raising this question, I eventually tried to state
what's the view in the US of how we use war: the way violence can be seen as acceptable. And even for a blog, this is too
general — it's not the view of single individuals, but what our rules, our armed forces, and other sectors of America display as
an underlying attitude. Here is its basic statement: As a society, we will at times pull back from working at ways of solving
problems that rule out violence. Our society at this time sees it as impossible to succeed in certain international disputes
without killing. I realize my statement lacks eloquence and logic. There are many writers who have said this very thing (and
many whom it would be better for you to read). Yet it's all I can do for now, and it comes out clearly -or, that at least is my
powerful hope!. And as a statement, it allows you to turn it on its head: could there possibly be a society whose tool kit for
working out difficulties, for fighting leaves out force and violence? If you're still with me, then I ask you, for a little while,
to let that last question be answered “Yes”. So let's entertain this next (crucial) question: if we had a long stretch of shared
history which had no violence, no bloodshed, would this influence the willingness of a couple of generations living with this
to turn to violent means to solve...anything? What kind of approach would be brought out, nurtured in those who shared
such a peaceful history? The nation that has the largest population within our continent- yes, the United States- has never
had many, many years of peaceful history. Nor has this nation stuck with persistence to the forswearing of violence of one
nation against another. But I can't help making the comparison and I hope, readers, that you see the sort of metaphor being
put together here. I'm comparing the view my lunchtime friend has of money options and woes and how she obtained that
view, with views of peoples, of societies of force as an acceptable tool, and the contrasting view of peace as...well, as
possible. The effects of the black marks left by the 1929 stock market crash on Americans have no parallel in Chinese
citizens. To really summarize this comparison: If a nation lacked a history of the use of violence, would her citizens come to
view war very differently? It kind of seems like a simple idea, and I'd be first to admit it's a far from perfect comparison.
With mankind's long history of war, and of the uses of group violence this idea has not gotten as far as I'd expect. And I
know that multiple things contribute to how such an idea gets pushed aside- or, argued down. Some of my expectations here
come from what you could call my naiveness. Another factor pushing this idea out of discussion could be called human
defensiveness. (Chime in, if you are picking up what I mean here- please). Though my statements up above aren't written
beautifully, and though there are subtleties to this point, I do hope this starts a thoughtful discussion. Here are a couple of
pointers, though, made in an attempt toward discussion that's meaningful. Most of you would agree, over the centuries we
humans have had war after war, with miles of words spoken/written to assign the blame to one side or another. But key to
the idea expressed above is leaving out who is “at blame”. Maybe one way to keep that from clouding and tainting our
discussion is to be sure your remarks draw on at least two (or more) wars. (This is going over the top, but one recent conflict
seems by its uniqueness and by other features to ask to be left off of dialog about this point entirely. Can you guess the one
that “asks” this of me? But how can I make a certain war “taboo”- that's over the top in my book.) All the conflicts you draw
from should illustrate the same general point; at least I think that would make it a more productive discussion! This has said
a mouthful, and I want to see if I'm asking too much to have this comparison be taken into your thoughts for a few weeks, or
a month or two. Okay, I look forward to the replies and comments... that's enough from me for now. Have a very interesting,
grand week! farrind
