Handgun Culture
Bob Costas fired off a lecture during prime-time NBC coverage of the NFL that outraged some political commentators and fans. The speech was in response to a murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher, 25, who killed Kasandra Perkins, 22, the mother of his infant daughter, before kneeling, making the sign of the cross, and fatally shooting himself in the head outside of the Chiefs’ practice facility on Saturday, December 1.
Costas, the “voice of the Olympics,” is known for his melodramatic life-lessons commentaries following major sporting events. But this time Costas, behind the mike for a special halftime commentary, established his bona fides by disparaging those who revel in cliché—“Something like ‘this really puts it all in perspective.’ Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life, since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games.”
Here’s the ugly reality: Illegitimacy is rampant among NFL players, professional athletes in general, and the American public as a whole. The same goes for cohabitation (shackin’ up). Illegal in all states in 1970, cohabitation is now practiced by well over 60 percent of the U.S. population, at some point in their lives. Indeed, says the journal Vital Health Statistics, “cohabitation is increasingly becoming the first coresidential union formed among young adults.”
What’s the big deal, you ask? Just this: If you are a woman who is shacking up with your man (instead of tying the knot), you are twice as likely to be physically abused by him. Or, as the Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire puts it, “the overall rate of violence for cohabiting couples is twice as high as for married couples.” Conversely, as the Journal of Family Violence reports, “The lowest rate [of domestic violence] was found among married couples (19 percent).”
And it gets worse, because, the Family Violence Research Program adds, when it comes to cohabiting couples, “the overall rate for ‘severe’ violence is nearly five times as high.” They are also far more likely to struggle with alcohol and drug addictions.
As if we needed more, researcher Brad Wilcox tells the New York Times, the data “suggests that cohabitation about doubles a child’s risk of negative outcomes like poor school performance, psychological problems, and delinquency/drug use.”
Friends say that, in addition to the trauma of multiple concussions, Jovan Belcher was addicted to narcotics and booze. Belcher and Perkins had been living together (cohabiting), conceived a child, broke up, then reunited, residing in Belcher’s upscale house on Crysler Avenue along with Belcher’s mother.
On their last night on earth, the couple had been apart: He, partying in the Power and Light district in KC; she, attending a Trey Songz concert, reportedly her “first night out after having her baby,” enjoying such hits as “Say Aah” and “Panty Wetter.” Police say that their three-month-old was apparently in the care of Belcher’s mother.
Police reports also indicate that Belcher slept at a(nother) “girlfriend’s” apartment, a fact they can testify to, since they found him drunk in his Bentley outside the building at 2:30 a.m. and told him to go inside. Returning home at 6:30 a.m., Belcher accused Perkins of cheating on him with Trey Songz. The couple argued, and, according to Belcher’s mother, the last words she heard her son say to the mother of his child were “You can’t talk to me like that!” He emptied his entire clip into her.
Within the hour, a visibly remorseful Belcher would end his life in front of his coach, as police approached.
Those studies about cohabitation are not disputed: Dozens more, from a variety of university and domestic-violence researchers, concur. Nonetheless, it takes real courage to call a spade a spade, to take a stand on national television and, in the wake of such a horribly violent crime, denounce the culture of cohabitation. At the very least it would mean risking one’s street cred with NFL athletes, who might not be so eager to do the next exclusive sit-down with NBC’s premier sports-talker.
So instead Bob Costas mounted the pulpit and preached on “handgun violence.” In so doing, he sanctimoniously cited at length an article by FOX Sports analyst Jason Whitlock, who has since distinguished himself by referring to the NRA as the KKK.
“How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn’t protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?” asks an incredulous Whitlock and a righteous Costas. “Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy.”
Unfortunately, it’s the cohabitation culture that translates into tragedy. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Bob Costas or NBC to take that up.
—Aaron D. Wolf
This article was first published in the January 2013 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
An excellent article.
I do believe that cohabitation is wrong but I think the difference in violence between cohabiting couples and married couples is mainly due to who is likely to cohabitate and who is likely to get married.
Also, you'll never hear NBC talk about Negro culture, and that group's propensity for violence is higher, handgun or not.
Svar is correct in identifying a missing variable in the statistics.
Bob Costas never graduated from the sports program at Syracuse, but he got an honorary degree, so he is Dr. Costas the same as I am who has an earned Ph.D. from that fine university. Fifteen members of my family, going back to my Grandfather Willson, have earned distinction at Syracuse. Now the glib Bobby, who grew up in a half Greek family in a city where the only guns he ever saw were in the hands of people of darker completion than he, blames the nonsense on guns. He should remember his fellow Greek Melina Mercouri, who said, "Never on Sunday."
"He should remember his fellow Greek Melina Mercouri, who said, "Never on Sunday.""
Or his fellow Greek Taki, who speaks the un-PC truth about race and crime.
"Belcher and Perkins had been living together (cohabiting), conceived a child, broke up"
Don't leave out that Perkins was just as likely to have cuckolded the breadwinner--another downside of cohabiting.
The statement attributed to Mr. Whitlock and Costas, namely "the right to bear arms doesn’t protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons" is either an utter capitulation to the illegitimate power of the centralized state or the voice of that state implying that all resistance is futile. Meanwhile, that state continues to be an active, although not the only, force in undermining the marriage with welfare, easy divorce and laws of equality and social justice. Thus, the elites who animate the American version of the Hobbesian state kill two birds with one stone: the family which they despise, particularly in its Christian idiom, and the "gun culture" which would be the last means of resistance to the ultimate Hobbesian overreach.
ditto; missing variable: plus, sex is normal.
cohabitation ought to be reserved for marriage.
that's the 'event' For the kids and the pair generating them.
Remember the progeny, they're the why of 'marriage'. Unless the tandem getting hitched are kids, emotionally immature. Imperfect world, got to with what we've got.
That statement also indicates a certain degree of social amnesia. Namely, that a bunch of illiterate poppy pushers have done a pretty good job of humbling the stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons. Admittedly, it did come at a price.
It also seems to ignore the fact that the most terrifying of those weapons are designed for use against the population from which the current regime enjoys the most support: dense urban conformists.
Also, while it may not occur to the average sports fanatic, these things require significant a maintenance and supply system, spread across states and regions, that assumes a certain level of social and infrastructural harmony to function.
Maybe someday a clever mind will design a weapon that actually works like the ones in first-person shooter video games. Then we'll all be in trouble.
I'm sorry (not really) that, by putting in that teaser about the "elephant in the room," I raised hopes that the piece was about "Negro culture." Blaming Jovan Belcher's murder of his baby mama on "Negro culture"—even in part—is just boring. Did some connection to a black-gangsta-urban-turned-suburban-hip-hop-nine-slinging identity contribute to this sad and disgusting situation? Of course it did. Which is why Bob Costas himself mentioned it repeatedly in interviews.
It's oh-so-easy to toss around vague and vacuous terms like "Negro culture" and laud those who have the balls to speak freely and generally about race and crime statistics. But I find it curious that white folks, who have their own problems with immorality, cohabitation, and violence toward the weaker vessels are so quick to change the subject. The manifold problems of The Other are so much easier to point out.
Black culture also expects, and respects, stronger gender roles in relationships. It might be that black folks are therefore more averse to a "family" law system that distorts gender roles, and in fact is designed to break couples apart and punish husbands and fathers. That law code is the result of white culture--pushy feminist broads, to be exact.
Google "David Letterman Restraining Order" for a prime example of this idiocy in action. Letterman was able to deal with his situation easily thanks to his team of high-priced lawyers. But a man without his own attorney on retainer and who is actually married and then falsely accused of domestic battery or "harassment" will quickly find his life and public reputation ruined with a capital R-U-I-N. And n some states the woman herself is unable to end the process or drop the charges. The feminists from 1974 or whenever have done the thinking for her.
Black men are much more sensitive to cultural emasculation. Black woman have greater respect for traditional masculine roles, i.e. men who act like men. There is no incentive for them to leave their cultural milieu and enter into a legal institution that is openly hostile to those ideas, and indeed often punishes couples who attempt to fulfill them.
The reality is that white men are much more likely to be brow-beat, hen-pecked and apron-strung, and more likely to put up with it all and ask for more. That is evidenced by the tolerance shown for the outright perversions of jurisprudence which are almost universally recognized in American family law codes and courts.
Aaron,
Thank you for the excellent reflection. It was the first article I read in the recent issue of Chronicles and quite good this second time too. Our age is adept at searching out material causes for things but quite blind to the rest. Guns, genetic differences, taxes, home starts, school graduation rates, and new laws for old sins as described by Bryan C above. A lot of traditional Catholics have been given the ruins of old churches and their delapidated buildings of old schools, parish halls, etc. right in these neighborhoods where killings,robbery, rapes and tricks of the narcotics trade are the defining themes of daily life. When I was a young man I thought it was simply our corrupt Bishops way of saying, "You want the old Latin Mass, ok, I will give it to you." But looking back on it, I think it was a great grace, exactly where we belong in these times and the type of parish we deserve given our tolerance for the prolonged mocking of our God and the deep apostasy of our own people.
It is a breath of fresh air to hear an old pipe smoking Lutheran like yourself musing the truth about those "other causes" that were once as obvious and obscure as the Sun itself. God Bless and Happy New Year to all.
Ah, but it IS a matter of "culture," whatever label we put on it. Here's the facts. No culture, in the history of the recorded world, has survived after achieving a birth rate of about 30% or so without benefit of some kind of stable union. We now have almost two-thirds of black girls having babies by the age of sixteen, and even more hispanic girls going the same route. When I was born in 1940, black births outside of marriage were no more significant than white, and latin rates were even lower. And when you consider the number of our babies that we slaughter before birth, well.....
BryanC. I am surprised to find on this sophisticated site hints of the old hack Republican boilerplate about welfare causing illegitimacy and family breakdown. This has no reality outside of the liberal dream world of endless excuses for bad behaviour and the Republican false reality that money is the root of everything. Government welfare cannot in itself cause women to be promiscuous and men to be brutally indifferent to their children. Think about it. The effects might be expected to be the opposite.
Mr. Wilson, welfare is at the least of it. A man who enters today the institution of marriage, such as it is, risks direct personal injury to his freedom, honor and reputation at the hands of a spoiled, vain and capricious 21st-century fox-gone-shrewish.
I'm not making excuses for men who simply refuse to keep their pants zipped, such as Bill Clinton or Tony Weiner. But as a young guy who would like to see conservative values actually survive and retain some public respect for the remainder of my lifetime, I am blaming white men such as Bill Clinton and Tony Weiner, who either stood by or actively aided and abetted the screeching feminist shrews of the last fifty years in creating a matriarchal culture that has descended into outright, pervasive misandry. They share just as much or more of the blame as "negro culture."
You cannot simply ignore the fact that there are direct incentives for any modern man not to marry, and serious disincentives to marry. In a few years, after the inevitable Supreme Court judicial fiat that we all know is surely coming, people who see the wedding ring on my finger won't know if it signifies devotion to my wife or my "husband!"
This shameful cultural climate can hardly be blamed on "negro culture." It is the fault of (overwhelmingly white) hard-left ideologues, feminists and homosexuals, who have won the culture wars while misguided elder traditionalists lost it for my generation. And part of the left's strategy for winning was to cry "racism!" at every opportunity, an accusation that, for for a young person living in the real world, can be a little difficult to refute while ensconced in a camp preoccupied with sitting around lamenting rap music and "negro culture."
"The wages of sin is death." It's really that simple.
The only remedy is repentance.
BryanC. I agree that the moral breakdown among young white people is a product of the liberal regime. There are now millions of men and women in their 20s and 30s who are unable to secure adequate employment to found a home and carry on a family, something which has never before been the case in "the Land of Opportunity." We are witnessing nothing less than the proletarianisation of the white lower, middle, and even upper middle classes, as the national product is diverted to the super-rich and favoured minorities. This is certain social death. Wise people said 50 years ago that racial integration would result in the moral deterioration of the less sturdy portion of the white population. We see that before us.
I part with you, however, in blaming feminism. Feminism does not cause men's failures. Men's failures cause feminism.
America is perishing of pseudo-intellectualism. Shallow learning and sentimentality trump common sense and traditional wisdom every time.
I do not wish to oversubscribe to the effectiveness of the Frankfurt School as the vanguard and shock troops of the Lukacs/Gramsci corps of cultural Marxism in promoting a certain class of evil in the academy and through the academy into the wider culture; nevertheless the members thereof were able to deploy their Critical Theory as a weapons system and Freud's polymorphous perversity as a weapon very effectively.
I attend churches which describe themselves as conservative, fundamentalist and evangelical in which hell fire and brimstone are regularly preached; yet, I have heard no more than one or two very timid sermons over that last twenty years against unbridled divorce or against cohabitation. Too many of the "tithing units" fall into one or both of those categories. To preach against such would mean a loss of membership and income; a split in the church; or the tarring and feathering of the pastor. An appeal to "the peace of Christ" is the veil thrown over this sin. The vehemence of sermons against "gay marriage" is directly proportional to the silence of the pulpit on the aforementioned matters. Once gays get into "conservative" churches and gain influence, the vehemence on that sin will turn to silence.
I'm a young person too, but I'm not prissy enough to care about charges of "raaaaaaycism". What, to point out an aspect of racial reality is "racism"? Give me a break.
You can blame whites, men, white men, or grey aliens for this sort of deal but ultimately the actions of blacks are theirs and theirs alone. Yes, I acknowledge that you are right about how whites, especially white men have altered the cultural and social landscape. But does that mean that white men are responsible, culpable, or at fault?
And of course, whites have their problems. Every race, every ethnicity, and every folk does. We're all descended from Adam and Eve and the mark of Original Sin is upon all men. But we're talking about Jovan Belcher not Tim Tebow or Aaron Rodgers.
Ultimately, saying "you too!" is not a good refutation of the point I made.
Also, what is wrong with criticizing rap "music"? Does it make me racist to find it unappealing?
"Wise people said 50 years ago that racial integration would result in the moral deterioration of the less sturdy portion of the white population. We see that before us."
I agree that the less sturdy portion of the white population has deteriorated morally. Why exactly did racial integration cause this? Also, do you mean forced racial integration or the normal amount of social mixing between racial groups that occurs?
To be honest, I believe that forced integration is as wrong as forced segregation.
Perhaps this is a bit off topic, but with some of the talk on feminism and what may or may not contribute to the death spiral of culture and masculine responsibility, I say that an issue of Chronicles devoted to how to raise girls to be women (similar to the issue on how to raise boys a few months ago) would be welcome. Myself being the Father of two girls, I find advice on how to raise boys and what books they should read easier to come by than recommendations for the fairer sex.
Whether it takes a good man to make a good woman or vice versa, I'd prefer to have all bases covered.
Since I wouldn't know much about raising children, not being a father or anything, I will tell you that I have seen firsthand the effects of absent and abusive fathers. Regardless of what feminists say, leadership is the essence of men, and even when a father is absent or henpecked or abusive, he is still leading. He's just not leading his women and children to the right place.
Kids, love'ya, i love me too it's normal. The north won't nuke us which is why dumbo Lincoln wouldn't permit separation, figuring it would instead be endless war on the continent, after the separation. No? Regardless, B.O. is cool.
Besides kids it's another world. not immediately, but soon. http://www.keshefoundation.org
Way it is. Love it.
BryanC makes good sense. Thank you for a breath of fresh air, good sir. However, do not retreat too much from the sound idea that a people wholly dependant on government, as we are, can be expected, very predictably, to abandon the sometimes overly restrictive refuge of traditional family, church and community. It is inconvenient and uncomfortable to deal responsibly with crazy old uncle Silas or deal with real people in close proximity to their unpleasant problems. Families have bad breath, irritating habits and they borrow money sometimes. Sick family members smell and changing diapers was never fun. Free living is fun and easy, behaving responsibly and honorably is difficult. Why would we not defer to the government when so many agencies exist to serve our needs and frivolous wants? With each succeeding generation, the rabble grows more needy and the government becomes more providential. We have government, we don't need God or family. Those wise leaders in Washington call it doing the people's business. So true. Like a baby, growing ever more attached to the teat, we are modern Americans. At a certain point, now long past, that teat grows on nothing but organizational inertia. Certainly, why would anyone put up with restrictions upon their will when the government is there to please us? Or, in any event, enough of 'us' to make it politically certain. Yes, it is the feminists, leftists, colored and the whites. Republican and Democrat. It is also the returning soldiers of WW2 who were granted free college passes. It is veterans and defense workers. It is teachers, college professors and bankers. It's everyone. However, as you correctly point out, some are not as equal as some others in this wonderfully dependant culture. In this case, white males over the age of 39 with no disabilities are the lessor class. The divorced among them being perpetual debtors bound into servitude. To express it politely and very succinctly. The ironic part about all this is that nobody is happy. Feminists are dissatisfied and the colored seethe with resentment. Curiously, they find no solace in their anger and hatred. Children, for whom all manner of pampered tyranny is justified, are less able, less educated and less cared for than ever. And these idiot children will produce ever more idiotic and ever more dependant offspring. And of course, those who pine for the days of yore, when men wore powdered wigs and the world made perfect sense, will never be happy. Nor should they be, why should they be happy?
What was the topic again, cultural decline? OK, so a handgun is a tool, like a shovel only a little bit faster, right? Like any tool, it can be misused. That's what government programs are, they are tools which can be misused. Just as guns don't force us to commit murder, government programs don't make us helpless dependents. So, it's sort of true that welfare doesn't cause immorality. But, it helps to make it easier. At this point, it's certain that we live in a government dependence culture which has displaced the traditional values and institutions preferred by most here. As for handguns, Bob Costas is correct, nobody should be allowed to have one. Or a shovel. Or a car. Not in this country. That's what we have the government for, to take care of us. Just ask the feminists and all the rest of that 95% minority bunch. As for me, I'm patiently waiting for the government to open the door of milk and honey to me. But, they keep telling me to come back another day, fill out another form or try another door. It's a familiar theme, somehow. Well, one day perhaps...
W: sounds like you are waiting for "you case to come up" and patiently " waiting for a rebirth of wonder" , all the while " leading a quiet life in Mike"s Place...watching the pinball addicts"... dreaming of the isle of manisfree "besides the crystal fountains", where there ain't no fools, no short-handled tools and handouts grow on bushes. One day perhaps I'll see you there in the Big Rock Candy Mountains.
I'm serious here's an answer. Every man should stand and say (or write) publically: It's my fault.
That's the essence of male responsibility.
Period.
In individual cases, the correlation between cohabitation and incidents of domestic violence is probably, as Svar pointed out earlier in this thread, best explained by a pattern of causation whereupon personalities inclined to the one are also inclined to the other. Even then, however, young girls and their parents can and should understand this correlation as a warning of the dangers of frequenting a man who is too willing to cohabitate quickly. In the same vein, men should be aware that women who throw themselves out there too easily are often either 1. entirely lacking in self-respect and emotional stability, or 2. utter nymphomaniacs who sadistically relish shattering the hearts of the dimwits who fall for them.
On a larger scale, of course, a more direct causal link can be found between absent fathers and delinquent behavior, the former mostly caused by illegitimacy, which in turn is often a direct result of cohabitation. Illegitimacy thus breeds further cohabitation and illegitimacy, and likewise further delinquency. The moral and social dynamics of this situation are highly complex and economics do factor into the picture. If it is true that men are responsible for feminism, as we have often discussed on these pages, it is not true that each individual male is responsible, as Michael Yurick's hopefully caricatural quip suggests. More ominously, the individual victims of feminism are not always themselves responsible, unless one wishes to argue that a man who had everything taken in court should have paid more attention to the background of the woman he married. I suppose that is often the case, but not always.
Christopher Dawson pointed out in 1934 that our social and economic structure, coupled with the availability of contraceptives, provided all the incentive necessary for delaying or foregoing marriage, fornication, adultery, homosexuality and so forth and that all that was guarding the preeminence of the patriarchal family and preventing widespread illegitimacy was the moral (I would add legal) stigma attached to the aforementioned behaviors. Indeed, by the time no-fault divorce was repealed, it had gotten to the point where couples would stage faultive acts as a pretext for obtaining a divorce. As bad as the effects of new laws and conventions may be, we can scarcely argue that they are worse than the society they are designed for.
Some have used this state of affairs as a pretext for dismissing Christian sexual and familial ethics as, even if good and desirable in the literary sense, irrelevant or poorly adapted to the conditions of modern urban life. On the contrary, however, an honest individual who surveys modern patterns of economic development and environmental devastation, not to mention psychopathology and suicide rates, can only conclude that it is, rather, modern urban life which is deeply ill-adapted to the natural needs of the human organism, both individually and collectively.
To posit so much frightens even the most rabid reactionaries, who fear the logical conclusion is that we must all abandon our cherished comforts and conveniences - and I am not referring to iPhones and Benzes even, but truly salutary things such as cleaning and washing equipment, heat, high-speed transit to visit loved ones, medications that are not (usually) poisonous, and so forth - and resign ourselves to a more Menonite-like pattern of living. For my part, I do not believe that that is the appropriate solution (not the least because it would be highly difficult to safeguard against our children being sucked away by the temptations of the Outer Realm), but I do believe that decent people nowadays need to be savvy and almost cynical about the cosmopolitan whirlwind we must participate in if we are not to be swept up by the glitz, damned to have our own lines extinct within one to four generations of bad living.
Black culture also expects, and respects, stronger gender roles in relationships. It might be that black folks are therefore more averse to a "family" law system that distorts gender roles, and in fact is designed to break couples apart and punish husbands and fathers... Black men are much more sensitive to cultural emasculation. Black woman have greater respect for traditional masculine roles, i.e. men who act like men.
One caveat: it is safe to assume that the vast majority of the people posting here are not themselves black, and I suspect many of us have had relatively few long-term close acquaintanceships and/or friendships with black people. For my part, I have had only two: one is American-born, of Afro-Caribbean parentage and married to a white French caterer-by-trade; the other is a Cameroonian sci-fi fan who is a French permanent resident and lives in the U.S. of A..
In other words, keep in mind that there is always a danger in making abstract generalizations, and that it is particularly easy to do so when it comes to voyeuristic psychoanalysis of a group to which one does not belong or has little relevant experience.
THAT SAID...
What I do know is that individuals are responsible for their actions and yet, almost paradoxically, most people are sheep. In America, these days, the only "black cadre" with street credibility who is calling blacks to heel for the behavior of many among them is Bill Cosby. In the minds of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and yes, Barack Obama, black delinquency statistics are the result of white racism. The grand, amusing irony of the contemporary culture of victimhood is that it is often perps who are glorified and victims who are blamed or at best, as is the case of black victims of the black criminals the aforementioned "leaders" fail to denounce, brushed aside.
Conservative Republican talking points about a return to "individual responsibility" are usually not well-conceived and tend to confuse the picture further. The role of institutions is to protect the society AT LARGE from harm, not to ensure the individual happiness of each member. Individuals are responsible for other individuals. Chalk it up to another crisis of modern society, where roles and places are distorted and shattered, but the various spheres and levels of responsibility have become completely unintelligible, and individuals are unwilling or unable to work with "what they are given" on a small scale to better their lot. (Television has played an important role here in distorting our ideas about what "The Real World" is like. If there were any such thing as right-wing terrorism, as the paranoid hipster idiots want us to believe, MTV would have been bombed out of existence long ago.)
Poor old Chris Dawson. He was not half as honest as Mr. Belloc in answering for his faith but at least more honest than Father Neuhouse and that ilk, who sold out for a little, tiny, penthouse, a big screen T.V. and life in the Big Apple. At todays prices, that isn't even a full "thirty pieces of silver !!
Mr. Moses, as you said: "On the contrary, however, an honest individual who surveys modern patterns of economic development and environmental devastation, not to mention psychopathology and suicide rates, can only conclude that it is, rather, modern urban life which is deeply ill-adapted to the natural needs of the human organism, both individually and collectively.
To posit so much frightens even the most rabid reactionaries, who fear the logical conclusion is that we must all abandon our cherished comforts and conveniences - and I am not referring to iPhones and Benzes even, but truly salutary things such as cleaning and washing equipment, heat, high-speed transit to visit loved ones, medications that are not (usually) poisonous, and so forth - and resign ourselves to a more Menonite-like pattern of living."
If I understand you correctly, I think many deep down fear that ANY critique of "modern urban life" leads to a mandated return to the perceived "primitive-ness" of the Mennonite, where it is believed we'll all be required to hitch up the mules to the plow or, worse, scratch in the dirt with pointy sticks in order to make a living (not to mention women having to boil wash water over a fire, or return to the wood stove for cooking). Unfortunately - and not surprisingly - these extremes of total modernity and "progress" on the one hand and the perceived good-o'l-days on the other obscure some of the true moral issues here.
First, it has to be acknowledged that much of our modern urban life is only made possible through "externalizing costs", based upon an ever-increasing tyranny of our mercantilist political and corporate elites. We are fooled into thinking that the exploitation of the earth and of human beings, though we may not wish to see it, can and must continue. After all, this is the American Way, and we are the City on the Hill. As usual, all too many of us tend to ignore our past and assume we are so very much more enlightened than our ancestors and that conditions as the US has known them since roughly the post-WW II years can be maintained. Absolute, virtually religious, faith in, again, progress and the ability of science and technology to solve any problem are key here. There are no limits and it is next door to evil itself to assert any such viewpoint. Reality be damned!
When one of my first reactions to this critique is one of fearing the loss of my conveniences and "American way of life" I'd better stop, pray, and think. This is a fallen world, and we'll never see its complete redemption until the Lord returns, but we should seek in our own lives and as a culture to love our neighbors as ourselves and allow God to work in and through us in order to have His will here ". . . on earth as it is in heaven (This, by the way, is as close to "immanentizing the eschaton" as I wish to venture! No Babel for me!)." Therefore, if my lifestyle necessitates the victimization of my neighbor, then I should seek to do what is necessary in order to stop it, even if it means "scratching in the dirt with pointy sticks." No, I don't believe any such extreme is either necessary or desirable, but some clear and primarily moral as opposed to merely pragmatic thinking, as you indicate, is definitely in order!
You are exactly correct r.a. Except, you say it so much better. Hope to see more of your writing, it's a real pleasure.
Mr. Smith, I think we are well on the same page. To understand just how divorced we are from the past, not only in memory but in patterns of ordinary living, consider that 250 years ago, Louis-Joseph de Montcalm and his wife produced ten legitimate children, only five of whom survived to adulthood. They were not poor, sickly outcasts, but wealthy, intelligent and militarily fit members of the high French aristocracy!
Mr. Smith, I'm not sure how the conversation turned to modern technology, but that doesn't matter. Your references to Babel and to our collective ignorance about historical wisdom are very good points, worth restating. Yes, not much can be expected from people who have no grounding in biblical wisdom. Not much can be expected from those who never read Shakespeare or Milton. No wisdom will penetrate the minds of those with zero knowledge about Greek and Roman thought. Heck, how many people even read Mark Twain anymore? Hasn't he been banned yet anyway? It is true that modern man, in his extreme ignorance, looks at the world like it's a brand new thing every day. For him, it is. And, as you indicate, the advance of technology is what passes for human progress. The newest gadget is what is important because it will make everything better. Have a cell phone? Not good enough, now we have cell phones that play games, talk back to your car, make appointments, play music and movies and who knows what else? Does this improve communication? I don't think so. Tweeter or twitter is a fine example of the modern version of Babel. It is, quite literally, just that. I have a niece, probably you know someone like her, who twits many thousands of times a month. Her every waking breath, clothing choice, quick meal and vacant thought is instantly transmitted to her many thousands of closest friends. Is this communication? If it is, I do not want it. So yes, technology can enable unhelpful activities. However, it is not the fault of the technology, it is the fault of the people who float around in a brand new world every time they open their eyes in the morning. They have no grounding, no tradition rooted in old wisdom, no understanding of history and that is why so many are chasing their tails trying to 'find themselves'. How can you understand anything when your understanding of self is so severely stunted? Finding yourself indeed. It is very funny you know, taking trips and going on vacation to find yourself. Their fashion magazines instruct them to spend more time with themselves. You laugh but it's true, I scan the latest drivel while in the check out line at the grocery store. And I make fun of the articles out loud. But, that's enough about me. Instinctively, the lost souls know they are missing something, but they don't have a map or any clue where to get one. They have forgotten the past, for them, it doesn't even exist. OK, I'm done ranting, carry on.
r.a.schulz,
Ms. Taqiyya writes about you: "Hope to see more of your writing, it's a real pleasure."
I concur and would enjoy that also. I want you to know that one of my resolutions for this New Year is to be less of a jerk to my friends in the coming year as I was this past year. ( Enemies will need to wait their turn in the years ahead) My intention ( so far so good for this year) is to begin each day with a morning offering and the morning offering with an acclamation: " Good morning God, this is Robert, your big Jerk , help me to be less of one today. Such a resolution inspired me to apologise to you for being such a jerk this past year. My best to you and yours.
Mr. Reavis: I am truly moved by your kind words and resolve to imitate your intention. We especially, knowing what we ought to believe, ought to desire and ought to to do, yet fall far short, have need along the journey to erect many an Ebenezer. Pray He strengthens our resolve and my best also, to you and yours.
You are cruel. But, that is OK, conservatives are losing. No, that's not right...
Do I need to say it out loud? Negroes (colored) matter? Yes, of course they do. But, to blame them for western decline? Shame on you. Might as well blame the Dutch and the Jew and the Irish and the English and the German and the Italian. Well, come to think on it, I guess I will. Sort of.
What was we talking about? Danged dutch beer gets me every time...