Quite the scene, from the then very agrarian country (which was part of the Russian Empire at the time this photo was taken. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Friday Farming: Finland, 1899
Quite the scene, from the then very agrarian country (which was part of the Russian Empire at the time this photo was taken. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.
Friday Farming. The basic unit.
"Forty acres and a mule". The basic agrarian unit in the American east in the 19th Century, and hence the unit that freed slaves were hoping to obtain, with the basic animal necessary to work the same.
"Three acres and a cow." The basic agrarian unit in the United Kingdom in the 19th Century and early 20th Century, and hence the slogan of land reformers and Distributists.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Today In Wyoming's History: After Appomattox. The Civil War's impact on Wyomi...
After Appomattox. The Civil War's impact on Wyoming.
Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming in the Civil War: I posted this item on our other blog, Lex Anteinternet, very recently for a variety of reasons: Lex Anteinternet: The Stars and Bars as ...
That's not where Wyoming's story with the Civil War ends, however. When the guns fell silent at Appomattox (which of course didn't really end the war everywhere), changes kept on coming. And indeed it was inevitable that they would, given the operation of Holscher's Fourth Law of History, War Changes Everything. So here we'll look at that part of the history of our state, which
again is a very significant one we've heretofore overlooked.
again is a very significant one we've heretofore overlooked.
More on the thread posted on Today In Wyoming's' History.
Redrawing the battle lines to fit modern sensibilities, and thereby doing violence to history.
I suppose I'm over-publishing on this topic, due to the recent controversy over South Carolina's continued flying of one of the Confederate battle flags (there were a variety of them). I've already posted on that immediately below.
On that topic, tonight on the national news I saw a man yelling at the reporter interviewing him when that reporter associated the Stars and Bars with the cause of slavery. He yelled back something to the effect that Southern solders "were never fighting for slavery".
Oh, yes they were.
Oh sure, a person can put any number of nuances on this. Drafted men, for example, fight (sometimes) because they were drafted. But at the end of the day, the argument that Southern soldiers didn't know that the war was about slavery are fooling themselves and dishonoring history. No matter what else the motives of individuals solders were, and no matter how hard, and even valiantly, they fought, they knew that if they one, slavery as an institution was going to be preserved, and that's what had taken their states into rebellion. Individual motives may have been, and likely often were, much more complicated than that, but that's the simple fact.
What's also the fact, however, is that there's a tremendous desire on the part of people to make combatants of the past, even the near past, fit their sensibilities. People don't like to think that people who fought really hard, and who had some admirable qualities, let alone people who are related them, fought for a bad cause, and knew it.
So, let's see how some examples of this work.
"The lost cause" has been a romantic Southern perception since some point during Reconstruction, when Southerners ceased confronting what they'd fought for and reimagined it. As they did so, something the opposite of what Americans did to their returning servicemen during the late 60s and early 70s occurred, as they began to imagine the cause as noble and every Southern soldier a hero. This stayed largely a Southern thing up until film entered the scene, and Birth of a Nation spread the concept everywhere. It's likely best expressed in Gone With the Wind, which no matter what else a person thinks of it, has a very racist and rosy view of the old South. It well expressed the concept that every slave was like Pork, Mammy or Prissy, and ever Southern soldier was Ashley. The slave holding South is presented as a romantic dream, and effectively. Heck, I like the film. But it doesn't express reality.
The reality of Southern secession was that the Southern slave holding states had such a hair trigger about slavery the election of Abraham Lincoln was too much for it to endure, simply because he expressed the intent not to let slavery spread. Southern legislatures went out of the Union, or tried to, on that point.
That doesn't mean every Union soldier was enlightened. But it should be noted that Union soldiers fought for the more philosophical point of preserving the Union. At one time, their service was hugely admired, but in recent years, somehow, the romance that surrounds the Southern cause is the one that tends to be remembered. That skews history. Sure, the individual motivations of Southern troops may be more complicated, but that's still a fact that can't 'be ignored.
It probably also shouldn't be ignored that a huge percentage of the Southern fighting force had deserted by the end of the war either, or that regions of the South were hostile to the Confederacy.
Which brings me to Italians during World War Two, truly.
For some reason, Italians, who actually did fight pretty hard in North Africa and in the Soviet Union (you didn't know that they fought with the Germans in the USSR, they did) are regarded as cowardly as they gave up when it became obvious that Mussolini wasn't worth fighting for.
Now, exactly what's wrong with that? That doesn't make them cowards, that makes them smart.
I don't know what that says about the German fighting man in World War Two, but whatever it is, it isn't admirable. But here too there are apologist who would excuse the German soldier.
German troops fought hard everywhere right to the bitter end, and they did so for an inescapably evil cause. That's not admirable, and I don't care if most of them were drafted. Most Italian soldiers were drafted too, and by 1943 they were giving up where they could, including their officers. Some German officers did rebel, but mot didn't, and most German troops fought on until late war. They shouldn't have. They shouldn't have fought for Hitler at all.
The Japanese have gotten more of a pass about World War Two than the Germans have on every level, and I do suppose that the fact that Japanese soldiers were largely ignorant of things elsewhere may provide a bit of an excuse for the barbarity that they engaged in, but only barely. And the occasional confusion of Japanese Medieval chivalry for later day Japanese "honor" is bunk. The Japanese were brutal during World War Two and the fact that they claimed to liberate other Asians and then acted brutally shows that they should have known better.
Speaking of chivalry, however, the recent trend to show the enemies of Medieval Christendom as primitive nobles and the forces of Medieval Christendom as baddies is also revisionism in need of a dope slap. Crusaders who went off to the Middle East weren't on a confused mission, they were repelling an invasion, and the Vikings weren't admirable in their pagan state.
Speaking of mounted troops (chivalry) another odd one has been the modern tendency to view all native combatants as committed against the United States in the 18th and 19th Century, or even against all European Americans. Many Indians view things this way themselves, but it doesn't reflect the complicated reality. Many tribes allied themselves with European Americans in various instances, sometime temporarily and sometimes not so. In the West an interesting example of this is the Shoshone, who were allies of the United States and who contributed combatants to campaigns of the 1870s. In recent years I've occasionally seen it claimed that the Shoshone were amongst the tribes that fought at Little Big Horn, in the Sioux camp. It's not impossible that some were there, but by and large the big Shoshone story for the 1876 campaign was the detail contributed to Crook's command against the Sioux. I'll note I'm not criticizing them for this, only noting it.
Speaking of mounted troops (chivalry) another odd one has been the modern tendency to view all native combatants as committed against the United States in the 18th and 19th Century, or even against all European Americans. Many Indians view things this way themselves, but it doesn't reflect the complicated reality. Many tribes allied themselves with European Americans in various instances, sometime temporarily and sometimes not so. In the West an interesting example of this is the Shoshone, who were allies of the United States and who contributed combatants to campaigns of the 1870s. In recent years I've occasionally seen it claimed that the Shoshone were amongst the tribes that fought at Little Big Horn, in the Sioux camp. It's not impossible that some were there, but by and large the big Shoshone story for the 1876 campaign was the detail contributed to Crook's command against the Sioux. I'll note I'm not criticizing them for this, only noting it.
Regarding the main point, the fact of the matter is that we admire those who fight for us bravely, and bravery is admirable. It's hard to accept that bravery for a bad cause is admirable, however. That doesn't mean that all bravery serves honor. Quite the opposite can be true. Redrawing the motives of combatants doesn't do history any favors, and it doesn't do justice of any kind to the combatants on any side in former wars either.
Old Picture of the Day: Processing Whale
Old Picture of the Day: Processing Whale: Today's picture shows a whale being processed after being killed. The picture was taken around 1940. I see a lot similarity betwee...
Old Picture of the Day: Whale Hunt
Old Picture of the Day: Whale Hunt: Today' picture is really sad and it shows the outcome as whaling became commercialized and was done for profit. This picture was t...
Old Picture of the Day: Whaling
Old Picture of the Day: Whaling: Welcome to whaling week here at OPOD. We will be looking at that now extinct career of hunting and processing whales. This picture was...
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming in the Civil War
Wyoming in the Civil War
I posted this item on our other blog, Lex Anteinternet, very recently for a variety of reasons:
Lex Anteinternet: The Stars and Bars as viewed from outside the Sout...:As everyone is well aware, there's been a controversy over the Confederate battle flag, the Stars and Bars, brought about by the recent
...
In doing this, it occurred to me to link this item over here, as I mentioned Wyoming's role in the Civil War in the post. . .
The rest can be read on our post on the Today In Wyoming's History blog.
The rest can be read on our post on the Today In Wyoming's History blog.
The Stars and Bars as viewed from outside the South.
As everyone is well aware, there's been a controversy over the Confederate battle flag, the Stars and Bars, brought about by the recent senseless racist murders in South Carolina. The Confederate battle flag flies on the statehouse lawn, where it has of course since the end of the Civil War.
Except it hasn't.
It's only been on that piece of ground, more or less, since 1961. The Stars and Bars started flying from the State House dome in 1961, in what was frankly an attempt at a poke in the eye at desegregation. It was since moved to the lawn in 2000 as it became increasingly controversial, and it now appears that it will be removed, finally, from the grounds entirely. It's long overdue. Indeed, it shouldn't have been there at any time post 1865.
Chances are that it had never been there prior to 1961. Contrary to common belief, the Stars and Bars is not the "Confederate Flag". That distinction belonged to another flag. Rather, the Stars and Bars was the Confederate battle jack. A flag flown by some, but not all, Confederate forces on the battlefield, principally because the first Confederate national flag (the CSA adopted three flags during the course of the war), was easily confused with Old Glory. By the war's end, the Stars and Bars had appeared as part of two Confederate national flags, but it was not, itself, ever the flag of the CSA nor even of the entire armed forces of the CSA.
The Stars and Bars, recalling Scotland's Cross of St. Andrew (with perhaps a shout out to one of the more independent Southern demographics at the time) is striking, and perhaps for that reason, it's the one that sticks in peoples minds and it's the one you see around today.
But why?
I know that the flag is cited as being part of Southern heritage and pride, but let's be frank. It was the flag of an army in full rebellion against the United States and that rebellion cannot be separated from slavery. Those today who would claim that the South was exercising a retained democratic right can only do so if the ignore the fact that a huge, largely native born Southern demographic, blacks, was kept in slavery and there's simply no excusing that. South Carolina is a good example, as the majority of residents of South Carolina in the 1860-1865 time frame were black. It's not like they were given the vote on succession.
For that matter, most Southern yeomen were fairly marginalized politically pre war as well, which helps explain why, during the course of the war, there ended up being more than a little resistance to the war effort. So much so, of course, that Virginia split in half.
Anyhow, the Stars and Bars, where it appears on public or private display, cannot help but offend. For anyone who is not a white Southerner, it's insulting to some degree. For blacks, how could it be taken otherwise? For South Carolinian's, for that matter, who are black, how could it not be. It only showed up on state grounds when South Carolina's legislature balked at desegregation. It was meant to send a message all right, and the choice of the battle jack sent one pretty clearly.
In recent years, the Confederate battle jack has been showing up a lot here. I saw it just this weekend at a camp site some people had set up out in the sticks. Their camp was flying the U.S. flag and the Stars and Bars, a real mixed message. That probably was intended to send sort of an in your face, Southern pride, message, but this isn't the South.
Indeed, the only Southern fighting men in this region of the country in the 1860 to 1865 time frame were "Galvanized Yankees" who had decided they'd take their chances with the Union as Indian fighters in order to get out of POW camps. They were probably pretty reluctant Federal soldiers, but their performance wasn't bad and there seems to have been no troubles in stationing them with men who'd volunteered to fight the CSA from Ohio and Kansas, but who ended up here instead.
I suppose the Stars and Bars, today, is intended by most who fly it to show pride in their region, and not to send a rebellious racist message. If so, some Southern states, South Carolina included, have really pretty state flags that don't feature the Confederate battle jack and which, in some cases, probably predate the CSA. Most Southerners during the war more closely identified with their states than with the CSA anyhow, and a person who is so state pride inclined ought to consider that. And it should also be considered that American blacks have a history in the South which is as long as any other demographic, save for Native Americans. They're story is just as much the South's as anyone else's. It'd do Southern pride more justice to consider that time frame that falls outside of the five years of the Civil War, or perhaps that twenty or so year period if we include the time leading up to the war and Reconstruction, and not focus so much on it.
Southerns of that era, we should note, did not. Figures such as James Longstreet didn't wallow in their former Southern military status but went on to work to rebuild as part of the nation. Longstreet, one of the most famous of Lee's Lieutenants, went on to become a Republican politician. Lee went on to be a college president and refused to march in step with his students. One former Confederate cavalry general went on to Congress and then back into the U.S. Army, as a volunteer, for the Spanish American War. Southerners only one generation removed from the war volunteered in droves to serve in the Spanish American War. Apparently they at least partially got over it. And with that, perhaps too its time for the Stars and Bars to go, or at least not to be flown in other regions of the country where the message definitely won't be seen as pride but rather something else.
Except it hasn't.
It's only been on that piece of ground, more or less, since 1961. The Stars and Bars started flying from the State House dome in 1961, in what was frankly an attempt at a poke in the eye at desegregation. It was since moved to the lawn in 2000 as it became increasingly controversial, and it now appears that it will be removed, finally, from the grounds entirely. It's long overdue. Indeed, it shouldn't have been there at any time post 1865.
Chances are that it had never been there prior to 1961. Contrary to common belief, the Stars and Bars is not the "Confederate Flag". That distinction belonged to another flag. Rather, the Stars and Bars was the Confederate battle jack. A flag flown by some, but not all, Confederate forces on the battlefield, principally because the first Confederate national flag (the CSA adopted three flags during the course of the war), was easily confused with Old Glory. By the war's end, the Stars and Bars had appeared as part of two Confederate national flags, but it was not, itself, ever the flag of the CSA nor even of the entire armed forces of the CSA.
The Stars and Bars, recalling Scotland's Cross of St. Andrew (with perhaps a shout out to one of the more independent Southern demographics at the time) is striking, and perhaps for that reason, it's the one that sticks in peoples minds and it's the one you see around today.
But why?
I know that the flag is cited as being part of Southern heritage and pride, but let's be frank. It was the flag of an army in full rebellion against the United States and that rebellion cannot be separated from slavery. Those today who would claim that the South was exercising a retained democratic right can only do so if the ignore the fact that a huge, largely native born Southern demographic, blacks, was kept in slavery and there's simply no excusing that. South Carolina is a good example, as the majority of residents of South Carolina in the 1860-1865 time frame were black. It's not like they were given the vote on succession.
For that matter, most Southern yeomen were fairly marginalized politically pre war as well, which helps explain why, during the course of the war, there ended up being more than a little resistance to the war effort. So much so, of course, that Virginia split in half.
Anyhow, the Stars and Bars, where it appears on public or private display, cannot help but offend. For anyone who is not a white Southerner, it's insulting to some degree. For blacks, how could it be taken otherwise? For South Carolinian's, for that matter, who are black, how could it not be. It only showed up on state grounds when South Carolina's legislature balked at desegregation. It was meant to send a message all right, and the choice of the battle jack sent one pretty clearly.
In recent years, the Confederate battle jack has been showing up a lot here. I saw it just this weekend at a camp site some people had set up out in the sticks. Their camp was flying the U.S. flag and the Stars and Bars, a real mixed message. That probably was intended to send sort of an in your face, Southern pride, message, but this isn't the South.
Indeed, the only Southern fighting men in this region of the country in the 1860 to 1865 time frame were "Galvanized Yankees" who had decided they'd take their chances with the Union as Indian fighters in order to get out of POW camps. They were probably pretty reluctant Federal soldiers, but their performance wasn't bad and there seems to have been no troubles in stationing them with men who'd volunteered to fight the CSA from Ohio and Kansas, but who ended up here instead.
I suppose the Stars and Bars, today, is intended by most who fly it to show pride in their region, and not to send a rebellious racist message. If so, some Southern states, South Carolina included, have really pretty state flags that don't feature the Confederate battle jack and which, in some cases, probably predate the CSA. Most Southerners during the war more closely identified with their states than with the CSA anyhow, and a person who is so state pride inclined ought to consider that. And it should also be considered that American blacks have a history in the South which is as long as any other demographic, save for Native Americans. They're story is just as much the South's as anyone else's. It'd do Southern pride more justice to consider that time frame that falls outside of the five years of the Civil War, or perhaps that twenty or so year period if we include the time leading up to the war and Reconstruction, and not focus so much on it.
Southerns of that era, we should note, did not. Figures such as James Longstreet didn't wallow in their former Southern military status but went on to work to rebuild as part of the nation. Longstreet, one of the most famous of Lee's Lieutenants, went on to become a Republican politician. Lee went on to be a college president and refused to march in step with his students. One former Confederate cavalry general went on to Congress and then back into the U.S. Army, as a volunteer, for the Spanish American War. Southerners only one generation removed from the war volunteered in droves to serve in the Spanish American War. Apparently they at least partially got over it. And with that, perhaps too its time for the Stars and Bars to go, or at least not to be flown in other regions of the country where the message definitely won't be seen as pride but rather something else.
Random Snippets: How to tell you are really out of the mainstream and too history minded.
"Adrian Peterson finding a new normal with Vikings" read the headline on the net.
And, having not had enough coffee I read that and thought to myself "well, Peterson could be a Norse name. . . but wait, we don't have vikings anymore. . . ."
It took me a few seconds to wake up and realize that, of course, Adrian Peterson is a football player with the Minnesota Vikings.
And, having not had enough coffee I read that and thought to myself "well, Peterson could be a Norse name. . . but wait, we don't have vikings anymore. . . ."
It took me a few seconds to wake up and realize that, of course, Adrian Peterson is a football player with the Minnesota Vikings.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Johnson County Courthouse, Buffalo Wyoming
Courthouses of the West: Johnson County Courthouse, Buffalo Wyoming:
Now no longer a courthouse, but it was at the time this photo was taken a couple of years ago. A new courthouse has come into service since that time. More details on Courthouses of the West, where this was originally posted.
Now no longer a courthouse, but it was at the time this photo was taken a couple of years ago. A new courthouse has come into service since that time. More details on Courthouses of the West, where this was originally posted.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
1870 to 1918: Jenny has passed away.
1870 to 1918: Jenny has passed away. Hello to all readers of Jenny’s blog. Tragically Jenny has passed away. She was following her passion, hiking in the Smoky Mountains, and evidently she had an accident. She was located in one of her favorite hiking areas, Porter’s Creek / Lester Prong.Very tragic news.
I really liked the 1870 to 1918 blog, and the author, Jenny, was a bit of a kindred spirit in some ways. This news is sad in the extreme. Our sincere condolences.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Friday, June 19, 2015
A Bicentennial. Waterloo
"Scotland Forever". A painting on the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo.
Just yesterday we passed the 200th anniversary of one of the most significant battles in modern history. They Battle of Waterloo.
At Waterloo, a coalition of European nations, defeated the forces of radical authoritarian French aggression in favor of the rule of law, and really, democracy in the long run, although it wouldn't have been seen that way at the time.
Not everything about this is perfect, if broken down into minute details, but basically it's correct. One of the high points of British history, and really one of the high points of modern history.
Orvis: Fly fishing on a budget?
I got an Orvis advertisement email that was captioned "Fly fishing on a budget?"
Oh, bar har har har!
Why yes, I am.
I really have to laugh at this. I love Orvis' stuff, although its price deters me from buying it as a rule, but I was fly fishing way before fly fishing was cool, and for the original reason. . . to catch fish. . .which I eat.
Yes, gasp! I view fishing the way the Indians did, heck the way stoneage man did, and the way generations of fishermen did before the gentrification and wussyification of things caused the PC fishing to be "catch and release". Oh, I'll release, but only if the fish is too small to eat or below the legal size limit. Otherwise, I'm eating the fish. Which is, no matter what a person might wish to fool themselves about, the point of fishing.
Now, I have nothing against the nice gear that Orvis offers, but not only am I fishing for primitive reasons (which is actually the reason that anyone fishes, no matter what they tell themselves) but I'm so low rent, that I look my primitive part. I don't even own waders. Not because I'm opposed to waders, but rather because as a short man who was a short boy I never was able to own a pair in a size that looked like it would fit, and now I'm acclimated to simply wading in while wearing old Army tropical combat boots.
Indeed, when I'm found on the trout streams (which isn't nearly enough), I'm typically found wearing blue jeans, a work shirt, a M1911 campaign hat (that doubles as my hunting hat) and my tropical combat boots. Last year we updgraded to new fly poles and retired the really old ones that we were still using, which had been my fathers (and one of which is still pretty nice), but we didn't go high dollar by any means. Still, the new poles are really nice.
It's funny, however, how we'll actually get some odd looks from the fisherman on the Platte who are clearly higher rent than we are. Indeed now people charter fishing guides and even fly in to fish here. I guess seeing the rude primitives on the Platte sort of unsettles them and they don't like it. Nonetheless, I suspect we're closer to the original and remaining core of the sport, and perhaps they should, in looking at us, look back in time, and back into the reason that people do this.
Jeeping the Mile
Jeeping the Mile
I love my 1997 Jeep TJ.
I wasn't too sure I'd be able to say that when I bought it. I've owned Jeeps twice before. Both prior times I was enthusiastic about my Jeep, but my ardor cooled over time. This time it hasn't.
To be fair to those prior Jeeps, they were far from new. The first one was a 1958 M38A1, which I bought in 1978 when I was fifteen years old, and it was 20 years old. Now, my current Jeep is nearly that old, but vehicles built in the 1950s just didn't have the staying power that ones built now do. My second Jeep was purchased from a dear friend who was moving back east, and was a 1946 CJ2A. It was a great Jeep, but any vehicle built that long ago turns the owner into a full time mechanic, and I just didn't have the time or the money to keep it going back then. And, also, it was really tiny. The 97 TJ isn't huge, but it's big compared to the 1946 CJ2A.
But more than anything, everything good about Jeeps has been improved in the series that have come out in the 1990s. Fanatic fans of the CJ5 aside, the YJ and the TJ are much better, and no doubt the ones they make now are better yet.
This one reminds me a lot of the M151A1s I drove while in the National Guard, except it isn't nearly as hideously dangerous as those Jeeps were. And again, this Jeep is simply better, even than the M151. The 6-cylinder engine is great, and the wider wheelbase is nice.
I can't believe the Army doesn't use these anymore.
I love my 1997 Jeep TJ.
I wasn't too sure I'd be able to say that when I bought it. I've owned Jeeps twice before. Both prior times I was enthusiastic about my Jeep, but my ardor cooled over time. This time it hasn't.
To be fair to those prior Jeeps, they were far from new. The first one was a 1958 M38A1, which I bought in 1978 when I was fifteen years old, and it was 20 years old. Now, my current Jeep is nearly that old, but vehicles built in the 1950s just didn't have the staying power that ones built now do. My second Jeep was purchased from a dear friend who was moving back east, and was a 1946 CJ2A. It was a great Jeep, but any vehicle built that long ago turns the owner into a full time mechanic, and I just didn't have the time or the money to keep it going back then. And, also, it was really tiny. The 97 TJ isn't huge, but it's big compared to the 1946 CJ2A.
But more than anything, everything good about Jeeps has been improved in the series that have come out in the 1990s. Fanatic fans of the CJ5 aside, the YJ and the TJ are much better, and no doubt the ones they make now are better yet.
This one reminds me a lot of the M151A1s I drove while in the National Guard, except it isn't nearly as hideously dangerous as those Jeeps were. And again, this Jeep is simply better, even than the M151. The 6-cylinder engine is great, and the wider wheelbase is nice.
I can't believe the Army doesn't use these anymore.
Lex Anteinternet: Let the whining commence
When I published this a few days ago. . .
One thing that should not be missed about the encyclical is that it's probably the single most widely noticed essay on the environment that has ever existed. Other environmental works have drawn widespread attention, Silent Spring comes to mind, but this is the first pronouncement by a single human being that's drawn this sort of attention. It isn't as if prior global figures haven't spoken on environmental topics. Al Gore did, of course. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has as well. In terms of religious figures, Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamo famously has as wells, and for years.
But of these figures, perhaps only Gore drew really widespread attention. The Dutch Queen's statements drew notice in Europe, but only briefly, and I dare to suspect that most Americans associated the world "Queen" only with the name "Elizabeth". The Metropolitan's comments did draw global notice, but really only the sort of audience that subscribes to First Things or The New Republic. The Pope, however, proves to be impossible for anyone to ignore. It's an answer, once again, to Stalin's old question, "how many divisions does the Pope have"? Well, quite a lot, it would seem.
So, not surprisingly, the encyclical is drawing praise and condemnation. Perhaps somewhat ironically, and again, perhaps very much in its favor, some of the praise its drawing comes form quarters that desperately ignore or are even hostile to the Pope's Catholic faith otherwise, and whom are probably self consciously squeamish about seeing the mantle of conservationism retrieved from a species of pagan environmentalism, but whom are praising it none the less. And some of those condemning it are squirming in their seats as they otherwise would normally be fully behind elements of Catholic social conservatism.
All this is a good thing, as it refocuses this topic where it ought to be. In human terms, not in pagan terms, and neither from the right or the left.
Now, I haven't read the entire document by any means. Its very long. But one quote here should stand out:
And the Pope then goes on to criticize both the pagan nature of radical environmentalism and the tunnel vision nature of those who focus only on technology and the generation of economic capital.
In this, the Pope, it seems to me, has taken up the cause of Rerum Novarum and set it out in modern economic terms. Probably the only world leader who can do so, he's answering the question posed by Wendell Berry in What Are People For? and is reminding us that life is for the living, and a decent living, not just for the generation of work. It is essentially, it seems to me, a document drafted in the spirit of the Distributist really, which of course makes sense as Rerum Novarum gave rise to that movement.
All the furor aside, and whether or not a person agrees with the science in the document, this is something that should cause people to think again about what people are for, and what sort of world those people get to live in. That shouldn't be provoking cries from industry (and it really isn't), nor should it be provoking rejoicing in liberal camps who would otherwise ignore nearly everything that Pope Francis stands for. By coming in from the middle as he has, he's really come from where most people instinctively live, and hopefully taken these topics out of the hard core left and right partisan camps where they seem to be residing these days.
the new Papal Encyclical on the environment hadn't even been released yet, but was already drawing controversy. Now that Laudato Si is out, it really is.Lex Anteinternet: Let the whining commence: Pope Francis is releasing an encyclical on the environment. People have been complaining about it for nearly a year. The encyclical, w...
One thing that should not be missed about the encyclical is that it's probably the single most widely noticed essay on the environment that has ever existed. Other environmental works have drawn widespread attention, Silent Spring comes to mind, but this is the first pronouncement by a single human being that's drawn this sort of attention. It isn't as if prior global figures haven't spoken on environmental topics. Al Gore did, of course. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands has as well. In terms of religious figures, Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamo famously has as wells, and for years.
But of these figures, perhaps only Gore drew really widespread attention. The Dutch Queen's statements drew notice in Europe, but only briefly, and I dare to suspect that most Americans associated the world "Queen" only with the name "Elizabeth". The Metropolitan's comments did draw global notice, but really only the sort of audience that subscribes to First Things or The New Republic. The Pope, however, proves to be impossible for anyone to ignore. It's an answer, once again, to Stalin's old question, "how many divisions does the Pope have"? Well, quite a lot, it would seem.
So, not surprisingly, the encyclical is drawing praise and condemnation. Perhaps somewhat ironically, and again, perhaps very much in its favor, some of the praise its drawing comes form quarters that desperately ignore or are even hostile to the Pope's Catholic faith otherwise, and whom are probably self consciously squeamish about seeing the mantle of conservationism retrieved from a species of pagan environmentalism, but whom are praising it none the less. And some of those condemning it are squirming in their seats as they otherwise would normally be fully behind elements of Catholic social conservatism.
All this is a good thing, as it refocuses this topic where it ought to be. In human terms, not in pagan terms, and neither from the right or the left.
Now, I haven't read the entire document by any means. Its very long. But one quote here should stand out:
The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.Agree with the Pope on climate change or not (and only a portion of the document is on that topic), this is true.
And the Pope then goes on to criticize both the pagan nature of radical environmentalism and the tunnel vision nature of those who focus only on technology and the generation of economic capital.
In this, the Pope, it seems to me, has taken up the cause of Rerum Novarum and set it out in modern economic terms. Probably the only world leader who can do so, he's answering the question posed by Wendell Berry in What Are People For? and is reminding us that life is for the living, and a decent living, not just for the generation of work. It is essentially, it seems to me, a document drafted in the spirit of the Distributist really, which of course makes sense as Rerum Novarum gave rise to that movement.
All the furor aside, and whether or not a person agrees with the science in the document, this is something that should cause people to think again about what people are for, and what sort of world those people get to live in. That shouldn't be provoking cries from industry (and it really isn't), nor should it be provoking rejoicing in liberal camps who would otherwise ignore nearly everything that Pope Francis stands for. By coming in from the middle as he has, he's really come from where most people instinctively live, and hopefully taken these topics out of the hard core left and right partisan camps where they seem to be residing these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)