“Unreasoning prejudices are bred out of the continual living in the past.”
—Prentice Mulford, author and philosopher
Muhammad ibn Abdallah was the founder of Islam. He defined the teachings; defeated the powerful religious and secular leaders seeking to eradicate his followers; ultimately, brought religious peace to both Moslems and non-Moslems. Upon his death in 632CE, a contest arose over the selection of his successor. Moslem elders picked Abu Bakr to lead the movement by election; Ali ibn Abi Talib – Muhammad’s son-in-law and cousin – claimed the position by family succession. Unable to resolve their differences, Moslems split into two camps: Sunni (Bakr) and Shia (Talib). 1400 years later, the division, and the arguments for supremacy, continue – oftentimes violently. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.
In 1533, England’s King Henry VIII sought to divorce his first wife Catherine in order to marry Anne Boleyn, but Pope Clement VII refused to grant the annulment required by Catholic law. Henry married Anne anyway, triggering his excommunication by Clement. In retaliation, Henry named himself as head of the Church in England. He appropriated the property and wealth of the Catholic hierarchy into his new Protestant church (Anglican), while the population divided itself into Catholic minority and Anglican majority constituencies. 500 years later, division and certain prejudicial limitations toward Catholic continue (particularly as regards the monarchy), with tensions remaining very high in Northern Ireland. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.
In 1619, the first African slaves were brought to the English colonies. As a slave, one’s conditions were totally controlled: inescapably tied to their owner; no say in their future; no privileges of ownership, wealth, income, or economic opportunity; no bond of family; no legal standing; considered “property” to be used, bought, and sold at the sole discretion of one’s owner. It was a control held in place through violence, both threatened and all too real, as well as by the legal systems. 150 years ago, America’s most deadly war supposedly ended slavery, yet it also created years of White Americans – overtly and/or covertly – continually blaming and punishing Black Americans for the war’s outcomes. 400 years after that first slave arrived, Americans are still grappling with how to permanently end racial discrimination and violence. Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.
This is a consistent pattern being repeated in our modern times. In 1947, British India was partitioned into two parts: “India” became an independent Hindu-majority nation, while a newly-created “Pakistan” was made home for Moslems. Millions of people were moved – some forcibly – to enforce this religious demarcation. Political disputes, often marked by violence, have continued ever since. A similar story occurred in 1948 when the United Nations carved out an area in Palestine and designated it as “Israel,” a new Jewish-majority state. Israel, and the Palestinians/Moslems who surround it, have since been in perpetual animosity – often erupting in violence. After 75 years of continuous dispute, will we still be talking about these (and other such) fracturings 200 years from now? Essentially, it was/is a fight over power.
What these examples demonstrate is how the development of human cultures and relationships is often bound up within, and shaped by, long-term historical moments. Decisions are made; events follow; perspectives are shaped; human relationships are resultantly defined – often as “winners” versus “losers”; institutions are created to give substance to those definitions. Over time, that substance (including hate and prejudice) takes on a life energy of its own – “The Culture.” It defends itself, enlarges its scope, exercises its power, entrenches itself into the very fabric of the community. It becomes the community. This culture is reinforced and perpetuated by passing itself down generation thru generations. Over hundreds of years, a society functions as it does based upon old decisions and actions often long since forgotten. We observe the established rules simply because they are “the rules,” whose reasons are very likely irrelevant to current times.
Continuing to fight old battles long past cannot change our present. We merely change the setting or the players, perhaps temporarily drive the conflict under the radar, or hold the stage for never-ending violence and upheaval. It creates back and forth winners and losers, carried out by deliberate acts of prejudice and discrimination, economic supremacy, or at times, outright warfare. Insane? Yes. Yet even against such intransigent hurdles, Civilization surprisingly continues to make incremental progress toward a more just and connected world.
It is important to know the histories, both our own and others. There is much to learn about what worked, what did not, and how we got to where we are. But when we seek to avenge history long gone, we are living backwards, perpetuating other people’s fights, living lives of people long dead rather than our own. We do so at the cost of giving away life’s opportunities, no matter how noble we may enshrine “our cause.” We give away the opportunity to simply start fresh today with what is, what can be, what makes true sense, what is “right” in simple human terms, without the old baggage. We need to know our past, but not (re-)live our past. A conversation based upon a centuries-old foundation will most likely lead to maintaining the status quo, reinforced by hundreds/thousands of years of self-righteous finger-pointing and repetition. A conversation that instead begins with today has the potential to lead to lives generously and properly fulfilled. It begs the question: Whose life do we seek to live?
“While seeking revenge, dig two graves – one for yourself.” —Douglas Horton, clergyman and ecumenicalist
© 2021
Randy Bell https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com
2 comments:
Really appreciated this one.
It is all about power, isn’t it? And, ultimately, to what end?
Post a Comment