About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

We Didn't Start The Fire

And Also: I recently read a short book on nonviolence and the history of violence in the world. It was not really written well, but its message holds true -- non-violence (more active than pacifism; some say "ahimsa") is deemed unrealistic, but violence is insane. Hanging on to the mixed justice of WWII just doesn't carry the weight. Absolutism might be hard, but the general trend is less so, I think. Prince of peace, anyone?


[W]e have been moving toward a dangerous polarization of blocs, in which whites do not hear blacks, doves do not talk to hawks, and neither facts nor ideas are communicated. Perhaps we are using our mass media to communication conclusions and epithets rather than information and ideas. Perhaps the defects lie in the poor quality of our journalism and of our advocacy. But I suggest that a more basic inadequacy is involved other than skill deficiencies of newsmen, educators, politicians and lawyers.

-- Introduction to The Price of Liberty, edited by Alan Reitman

The "basic inadequacy" suggested in the introduction to this collection of essays lies in failure to truly understand and carry out the definition and demands of self-government, thus it being impossible to carry out our roles (both as individuals and our institutions) as citizens in a productive way. I summarize, but the principle and warning is up to date. Concern about the MSM, the failure to be able to talk in a productive way based on reasoned thought and so forth is often discussed on blogs and so forth, including in Al Gore's new book.

The quote however is not from one of those works. It comes from a collection of essays published in 1968. As Billy Joel sung, "we didn't start the fire." We need not ignore the past and the ongoing nature of current problems to keep a perspective about them, including how they are particularly troubling in certain ways. Perspective takes things like that into consideration without "nothing new here, the past was just as bad" nihilism. Nor, should we ignore the past, taking current problems in a vacuum. Both are bad. There is a reason we still read works from times that make 1968 appear like yesterday. Certain principles and truths do not disappear, they just show up in different and sometimes surprising ways.

This is both comforting and aggravating, sometimes in equal measure. BTW, I cited the book in the past ... good little find in a used bookstore.