Index 
Morality History War
Violence in the “Empire of Freedom”: One of the publically proclaimed policy of US foreign policy is “stability”, so world commerce can proceed smoothly, and current power regimes remain secure, and probably other reasons, but “stability” What hypocrisy! The US is the very engine of instability in the world, at least the most vocal herald. Today’s editorial in the Sun Times decried “pop culture violence” and suggested it probably contributes to the “corruption of youthful minds” (remember Socrates sin?). The editorial noted “even adults might be affects by pop culture, at least its violent aspects. As if we are immune to the incessant pounding messages, violence but one of them, mostly moral as the violence issue or “buy this” because it will make you “whole”. The corruption according to the editorial is that “images” of violence inure us, so we do nothing about the deplorable gun violence that haunts us a nation. Perhaps I agree, but not that images might affect thought and morality thus action; it’s certain they do. But to know whether I agree or not that violence is deplorable, I need the author of the editorial anyone who agrees to answer a question. Is “gun violence” represented by the 43% of the world’s spending on “defense”, an euphemism for technology that has as its sole purpose killing as many of the “enemy” as possible while taking fewest casualties as possible also “deplorable gun violence”? Some would say systematic killing of civilians in Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki was as deplorable as the killing Jews by the Nazis. Some others might say we lost our way. I say we continue our way, our evangelical way, our We Are Right way since human history began (even native Americans before European’s arrived in the late 1500’s, my ancestors are native Americans shortly after that, Mayflower Pilgrims and “others”). Others say we found our way in the wars we have continually fought, our way to “freedom, King Philips War to WW II”, the last “Great War” and continuing today in Iraq and Afghanistan. WE ARE EMPIRE Inheriting “Civilizing Influence” from the Roman, moral certitude from the medieval church, weapons from science of the enlightenment, and global hegemony since WW II (except for those pesky Russians, and now godless Chinese). We started out that way and continue that way. The “Empire of Freedom” as Jefferson put it in 1780. We started with new “unclaimed” land where we could secure the borders of our “empire of thought”. One of my 8th great grandfathers, William Bartholomew II voted to banish another of my 8th great grandfathers, Roger Williams from the “empire of ‘free’ thought”, free as long as you respect our authority as community over your individual thoughts. That occurred in Salem MA before MA was even a concept. Roger established an alternative “empire of free thought” in the wilderness of Rhode Island. Of course the “Indians” (misnamed – "but who cares what we call them, there just savages”) didn’t think it was the “wilderness”, it was “heaven” to them. But to the “settlers” the savages didn’t really matter until they accepted Christ and European morality, perhaps not even then. Oh yes, cordial trade and thanksgivings; but “they” didn’t have “guns” so we could take whatever land we need for our “empire of freedom” or rather our version of “empire of heaven”. The very first act of any settlement was to organize a militia; the “barbarians” are always at the gates of “empire”, as they were in Roman times. From the very first, barbarians always lurk within, like Roger Williams. Banishment is no longer the “violent” option on freedom, but our prison are full and we have more “prisoners” than any “empire” in history, more than any nation now. All forced punishment at the point of gun or end of fist is “violence”, whether imprisonment, or death by either conscription or punishment. But they say, violence is the last resort to protect the empire. Violence is an honorable tradition if you put on a uniform, but repugnant for civilians. Those with uniforms act on behalf of the “community”, “people”, or “Queen”. What better way for a citizen to become honorable than to serve the Queen with his or her life? Unless you believe or think such military “gun violence” is also deplorable I cannot agree that with your implication that we should stop or at least attempt to stem the “deplorable real-life violence that haunts us a nation” | During the last presidential election on candidate proposed increasing the 43% of the world’s budget on “defense”, the other agreed, but said we can’t afford it with other “needs” considered. And both called for leaders of local communities to spend more on “uniformed” (perhaps undercover) police to, “stem the violence in our streets”. Then the “Indians” did get guns. To defend our empire of freedom (our way), we had to put aside petty differences, at least those standing in the way of “community” and join together in militias, thus was the empire of Massachusetts born out of King Phillips War. The “Indians” never had a chance against the Norman-Saxon combination: out they went from the coast, banished farther to the inlands, to “savage country”. The “barbarians” are always at gates of empires. Virginia grew too, but not as a new “empire of freedom” but an extension of the old “empire of freedom” the King who embodies and protects your “freedom”. The Spanish Franciscan priests and military governors and their “Indian” slaves were already well-established as far north as Santa Fe, NM and San Clemente, CA. Those settlements were the farthest flung tendrils from Visigothic immigration centers far to the south where the brutal Spanish empire overwhelmed by deceit and metal the brutal Aztec and Incan empires. The culture of those tendrils survives today, nearly overwhelmed by the MA-VA culture. Some say the latest wave of immigration is Montezuma’s revenge, others his resurrection, others his absorption in MA-VA culture. During the late 1600’s and early 1700’s my MA-VA ancestors spread along the coast. My Dutch ancestors joined the “empire of freedom”, settling in NY and PA, militia’s first you know, barbarians at the gates. By the mid 1700’s the MA and VA “empires of freedom” began bumping into each other, at least along the rapidly developing “Piedmont” in the south and east of the Appalachians and Adirondacks in the north. The Appalachians were Cherokee savages, but safely outside the gates. In the south farmers were the rich and powerful, in the north those and merchants. As they bumped into each other, they realized if they joined their “empires of freedom” they could throw of the yolk of the Kings “empire of freedom”, so they did. Many of my ancestors fought in that “war of freedom” several died, all heroes according the the DAR to which my mother belonged. The West, then the West. Ever westward. Massachusetts and Rhode Island to western New York, Philadelphia to Kentucky, North Carolina through Cumberland Gap to Kentucky. Daniel Boone a distant in-law established Boonesborough KY in 1775 at about this the time other colonists were fighting the British. By the end of the 18th century a few bold ones like Daniel moved all the way the great river that rends are great land in two, the Mississippi. The Cajuns (loyalist French Canadians expelled from Acadia by the British early in the French and Indian War which resulted in the French being kicked out of North America) began settling the mouth of the river in the mid 1760’s. Though French, the Acadians also came to the “new world” to join the “empire of freedom” [Words are such wonderful liberators and enslavers of thought]. They continued going to the west, spilling along the west flowing rivers into Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and around the Appalachians to the south. Many of my ancestors took part in this great migration west. The Eire canal was a great symbol of this migration, connecting navigable waterways of the Great Lakes and Atlantic Ocean. My Barber ancestor came by wagon from Rhode Island to western New York (Java Village) in 1823, the year the canal opened to western New York. Westward ever, where the true “empire of freedom” lies. Sutter’s mill and other miners extended the empire across the plains, mountains, and deserts to California. Then the Civil War ripped the nation apart (and we say politics are more polarized now than in all the nation’s history) and the “empire of freedom” was replaced by the “empire of union”. The good hearts and souls and in “union” opposed the great evil of slavery. We “unionists” won’t even allow them (at the point of a gun) pursue their own “empire of freedom”. It is about this time the Sinnocks join the quest for “freedom”. In the 1830’s two teenage brothers, Sam first then a year later George Sinnock landed in New York. Within a year they worked their way west to the Mississippi River, Sam settling on the west side, George on the east, both close to Quincy, a major port on the river. Perhaps they were sent as scouts for the family, but more likely they were adventurous boys with “travel lust”, perhaps escaping hard family times in England. In either case their whole family joined them; Samuel Sinnock and Mary Lindfield their parents, five siblings, and one in-law, migrating from Hailsham, Sussex to Payson, Illinois, 5 miles from Quincy. Quincy was an attractive destination for immigrants from Germany, Austria, and Hungary. After the short interruption of the Civil War, the migration west continued, first wiping out the Indians on the plains and mountains. Between the war and 1906 my ancestors migrated west from Missouri to New Mexico, Illinois to Montana, Michigan to Washington-Oregon, England and Illinois to California. We as a nation fought a couple of skirmishes with Mexico, but remained focused inward. The land was not full. Remember Roger Williams – the barbarians also lurk within. Was not the “gun violence” called for to end slavery and advance the real “empire of freedom”, the union of America. | By about 1900 is was full. At least every square inch of land was “owned” by individuals or governments. Full-up! Unless you wanted to freeze you ass off in Alaska or die of thirst in Nevada (and they are now also “full-up”). “There is nowhere left to go to turn the soil, feed my family, and whip my wife and children when they misbehave. The empire of freedom now has closed borders, legally as well as figuratively. By 1900 the “barbarians” the “Indians” have been totally neutralized, and we have “Indian Schools” to wrest the children from their barbarian ways of their parents and teach them “civilized” behavior needed to get along in the empire of freedom. Our border with Canada is secure and we taught Mexico a lesson they learned well, so the southern border is secure as well. So we looked around and saw no “barbarians at the gate. So where do we fight to protect are freedoms?” Hmmmm, maybe that evil Kaiser, great champion of socialism that he is? We found ourselves powerful enough to join the big leagues, and we did, WW I. We brought our army home and celebrated our victory (boy did that feel good). Getting tipsy with the drink of power, we became “Americans in the world”, rather than “Free men in America”. Because the land was “full-up” we needed somewhere else to expand the empire of freedom, which morphed into the “empire of the good”. The way was to create more “property” into which we could expand, spreading our “goods” of the triumvirate: freedom, democracy, and capitalism. We helped stop the Kaiser, for good and created intellectual property, for good. Ideas could now be “owned” and traded as any other property, enforced by punishments, all for the empire of freedom, the “empire of good” for ALL humanity. Then Depression: during which Hobbes replaced Rousseau. “Man free unregulated” is a greedy, violent, selfish thing. But the energy of that greed, violence, and selfishness can harnessed by careful regulation to the greater “good of society”. So man’s sin must be leashed to the wagon that pulls the cart of society, else chaos ensues: misery, suffering, death, rich using poor, strong using weak. Hitler, strong using weak as slaves and booty. We just CAN’T allow that to go on. Another barbarian at the gate, not a territory gate, but a moral gate. With nowhere left to banish Roger (Hilter), we must kill him, lest he corrupt the minds of our youth, as Socrates did long ago, as my 9th great grandfather William Bartholomew did to my 9th great grandfather Roger Williams. As "America" did to Hitler, Sadaam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and recently an Iranian General. And we are now doing it to freedom loving Muslims in the remotest mountain valley in the world in Afghanistan (Buddhist kill Muslims in Burma). Muslims beat their wives and are evil. Are you sure violence is so deplorable? Especially if used to protect the rights of people? Rights as declared by Germanic people, Germanic Christian people, Germanic Roman Catholic Christian people? I returned to the paper after these, WOW, four hours and 10 handwritten journal pages. On the facing page of the editorial that set me off on my brief history, Jesse Jackson writes, “Silence undermines security and betrays the possibility of freedom” which I paraphrase, "Freedom is Security” and add “and double-speak reigns”. The empire of “love and compassion” requires us, according to Jesse, to “snitch” on our neighbors. A very deep thought, Jesse, but, I suggest, dead wrong, as I would think you as Christian would also, a minister no less. ISTMRN that you and many others believe our declaration of independence says, “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.” The “rights” being secured by governments? Those “inalienable” rights endowed by our creator. But if they are “inalienable”, why is a government needed to secure them? How can a government secure them except by passing laws to restrict freedom of some to enhance perhaps more? Double-speak for political gain precedes Orwell. This idea of governments replacing God as the securer of people’s rights has led the assault of “civil morality” rather succesffuly against “religious morality”. I believe this civil morality, its freedom, democracy and human rights has resulted in more concentration of wealth and its necessary accompaniments slavery and poverty beyond the wildest dreams of Emperors, Ayotollahs or Popes. I am reminded of Marshall McLuhan: “The medium is the message” Thus back to the original question for the day, "Yes, we love violence!" Gender Rights: Topic for another day, we men and some women also love the idea of sex with a young voluptuous woman of breeding age. This topic is also often associated with the tendency to violence and so must be eliminated or redirected to community purposes. Perhaps leering is men’s original sin? What’s yours, woman? |