Monthly Archives: October 2021

What Bothers Me About History

Not everyone in power or seeking power is doing so out of greed or mania. There are those sincere and oppressed ones who fight for rights, who struggle for justice, who plead for peace. I have no quarrel with their place in the narrative of human civilization, that thing which we call “history.” But, almost exclusively, the history we have preached to us in our schools is written by those who seek to clothe themselves as the oppressed for their own greed and aggrandizement – or by those who simply need a good story to justify their lofty perch and keep the rest of humanity in its place. History then becomes a justification for inequality, injustice, and wars in the hands of that lot.

We become comfortable in our national myths and, in that comfort, fail to question the inequality around us. True history should never reassure us, except when it advances the standards of the nation towards true equality. For the record, true equality has nothing to do with a group or class that is in power or which enjoys social and economic privileges making demands to preserve those powers and privileges. History shows us that, in fact, we are most at risk of inequality, injustice, and war when groups holding powers and privileges cast themselves as victims in their mythology. They cast themselves as victims so that they might justify murder to get gain.

The true history of World War Two has more in common with Catch-22, with all its insanity and brutality than it does with the high school history book. The American Army did not move as a band of green-clad angels across the face of Europe, cleansing it of evil. It moved as any army would, with increasingly frequent incidents of discipline breaches as the war deepened. American bombs fell on babies, American soldiers raped children, American interests excused Nazis from their crimes. As a nation, we have to own that. We have to own that our armies were racially segregated – an extension of the brutality in our home country – and that many of the richest men in America made themselves richer by trading with the enemy regimes.

American politicians refused to disrupt the flow of victims to the Nazi murder camps, claiming that they didn’t want to be accused of making the war all about the Jews. Well, why not make the war for such a purpose, unless one was himself somehow prejudiced against Jews? And those same politicians, as a body, made it all but impossible to truly go after their rich supporters who profited from sending American resources to Nazi Germany, by way of loopholes in neutral nations. As a body, they also stood against the moves to end racial segregation and discrimination for many years before, during, and after that war. Yet, we call them “The Greatest Generation” in a fit of nauseating myth-making.

Don’t misunderstand me – the Germans, Russians, French, Japanese, Chinese, British, Polish, Czech, Romanian, Yugoslavian, Greek, Ukrainian – the list of nations too long to enumerate fully – they have their national crimes to atone for, as well. The truest victims of wars are the civilians. And even in their numbers are those who collaborated with evil, making them into criminals. It’s easier to think of a human as a victim, so we can lazily accept any excuse that comes to us so that we don’t have to comprehend the enormity of our collective wretchedness.

A statement such as “World War Two in Europe ended on VE Day” is ludicrous. The fighting between men wearing uniforms came quickly to an end, it is true, but the violence directed towards prisoners of war and civilian populations did not suddenly abate. Jews who survived an attempt to return to Poland spoke of how it was safer for them in the chaos of Germany than in their former homelands. The Slovak government forcefully and violently ejected hundreds of thousands of Hungarians from their lands, somehow managing to claim victimhood when their nation had joined with the German cause even before the formal war started. Many of the millions of Germans being driven from Eastern Europe cursed the Poles for starting the war, clinging to an idea of victimhood that allowed them to ignore the complicated, gory reality. The Poles themselves were exterminating Ukrainians in their nation – but lest we pity Ukrainians too much, let us remember that during the war, pro-Nazi Ukrainian groups were exterminating Poles.

But, ah! Am I not myself guilty of a historical felony? Did I not just now assign collective guilt to entire nations? Am I not perpetrating lies by my over-generous labels?

Not all American soldiers were rapists or sadists, but the number of incidents that we know about shows that a disturbingly significant percentage of the American soldiery was, in fact, engaged in horrors visited upon non-combatants.

Not all Germans supported Hitler or were antisemitic. But enough were of that description to empower the Nazi regime to execute its horrors.

Not all Poles were bent upon killing or driving out Jews, Ukrainians, and Germans, but enough were to empower their postwar regime to do just that. And so on.

… and so on. Were I to catalog everything, I would exhaust myself before drawing to completion. And that is just from the Second World War, with no consideration for the organized murders before and since.

It is in the national mythos that we find the illusion of justification for inequality, injustice, and war. When we accept the details that deconstruct our myths, we place ourselves on a path towards accepting the changes necessary to bring about true equality, justice, and peace.

Our Most Important Assets Are…

Frequently, I hear “our employees” as the closer for that sentence. Nice sentiment, but is it backed up by evidence? When we do a risk assessment, we consider our assets and what it would cost us if they were not available, if they had to be replaced.

I’ve seen firewalls and encryption and digital loss prevention systems put in place around databases, source code, and trade secrets. I have yet to see a company that has proactively made similar protective efforts around its employees. Given the efforts some go to in order to hire those same employees in the first place, I find such a lack of protections ironic.

After all, if a company is willing to offer better benefits, higher pay, and better working conditions than another company in order to attract talented employees, it is definitely showing a value for those employees at the time of hiring. But that value seems to be discounted almost immediately through HR practices that limit bonuses and vacation in the first year of work, annual compensation rules that limit increases in pay, and management choices to restrict lateral moves within the company. These are endemic, even at companies that think they don’t have these problems.

So, the employee stays with the company for a while and then notices other firms dangling bigger and better opportunities. If a person asks for a raise, however, such requests are frequently met with denial or stalling tactics. The current employer basically encourages its employees to actively seek out better opportunities, secure them, and then come forward with an offer letter and a notice of departure. Only then do the negotiations start in earnest, in the hopes that a matching counter-offer is sufficient to retain the person who already made a decision to leave and found a place to go to.

If a person could actually go to a manager, talk about dissatisfaction with current conditions, and then walk out with those conditions addressed to the point where the person won’t bother to look for a better place to be – including the possibility of an out-of-cycle pay increase, then, yes, that is a place where the greatest assets are the employees.

Otherwise, may we please ask that people no longer say “our greatest assets are our employees”? The greatest assets are the ones where investments are made to keep them from walking out the door.

10 October 2021, 9:32 AM

Love, true love, is oneness with God and all the other elements and souls that are at one with God.

Love, true love, is forming a bond with another person that transcends time-space: it is to make the connection with that person something that is at one with the force or forces that bound and define the universe as we know it. It is to make a bond that transcends time-space, even though we cannot fully conceive what that very arrangement implies for eternity, other than a state of oneness.

The Prodigal Son and The Book of Alma

In the early middle chapters of The Book of Alma, there is an account of Nephites who, full of grief over how they used to persecute the faithful, have renounced their royal lineage and dedicated themselves to a life of preaching. This life of preaching is directed towards the enemies of the Nephites, the Lamanites. These four repentant missionaries are ridiculed for thinking that they could convert the Lamanites. They record that others said it would be better to kill the Lamanites than to try to talk to them. It is clear that the enmity between the peoples is not a one-sided affair.

The four missionaries, against the expectations of their peers, are successful in converting a substantial number of Lamanites to their belief. Other Lamanites oppose that conversion and threaten to destroy the convert population. The converts in their thousands seek refuge among the Nephites. The Nephite leadership grants them a portion of their lands and welcomes in the fellow-believers. In a sense, the prodigals have returned after many generations.

Like in the parable of The Prodigal Son, there is resentment. While not directly connected in the narrative of The Book of Mormon, it’s just after the arrival of the converts – who are not asked to change or assimilate in any way – that we see records of parts of the Nephite population cracking along tribal and social lines.

Unasked in the narrative are the questions that these groups must have had – why are these enemies suddenly granted lands? What about the rest of the tribal groups that have been loyal all these years? Do we trust these converts? Is it wise to have such people, so recently enemies, given a place of trust in our nation?

Consider a statistic from after the Second World War. The Allies surveyed the German population about their attitudes toward Jews and racism in general. The survey came back with 12% of the population expressing extreme antisemitic attitudes, 18% of the population expressing strong antisemitic attitudes, and another 21% of the population showing as not particularly antisemitic, but generally bigoted in their attitudes towards other ethnic and cultural groups – racists, in a word.

An important key in the narrative of The Book of Mormon is how the convert population, who demonstrated complete pacifism and accepted death rather than lift a weapon, continues to show that pacifism after they have emigrated to Nephite lands. That implies that, among the Nephites, they faced attacks and chose to submit to violence rather than become part of it. And who would those attackers be? The Nephites who refused to shed their hatred – the Nephites who refused to forgive.

This refusal to forgive then goes beyond acts of violence directed at the immigrants. The Nephite confederation itself begins to split. In the hundreds of years of enmity portrayed in The Book of Mormon, given the “kill them all” attitude expressed openly among the Nephites, it should not be a surprise that a sudden embrace of these Lamanite converts should lead to rifts in the Nephite population. One group, the Zoramites, portray themselves as victims and defect to the Lamanite tribes. Another group, the king-men, refuse to accept the legitimate government of the people and seek to create their own political structure with them at the top. Both the king-men and the Zoramites are hostile to individuals portrayed as loyal and faithful to the Nephite church, so it stands to reason that they are just as hostile, if not more so, to the Lamanite converts. If their attitudes were as hardened as those of the postwar Germans, this is no stretch of the imagination.

The parable of The Prodigal Son is as much about groups of people as it is about individuals. When enemies reconcile, we cannot allow ourselves to refuse to join in the reconciliation, at risk of becoming enemies ourselves. A prosperous group that paints itself as a group of victims when a less-fortunate population is taken in is a group that itself is making an enmity towards God, for God is Love.

The risk of any period of extremism and rivalry is that the feelings run so deep that reconciliation is impossible. Both sides of the rivalry are then doomed to destruction as they make mutual war on their common enemies, those who have shed the rivalry and who have found a way to forgive.