Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

I love Jane Austen. Her Pride and Prejudice is one of my favorites. I can't say I loved Northanger Abbey.

It's fairly typical Austen: love-sick girls, balls, fancy parties, rich and upper middle class tension, marriage as a vocation, etc. Although I don't think Austen can be boiled down to all that and her themes are generally much deeper, this book only seemed to have the elements without the themes. 

Maybe I'm missing something. 

Young Catherine Morland has few prospects in her home town. When asked by a wealthy couple to join them in a six-week trip to Bath, she jumps at the chance. Initially failing to establish much of a social life, she eventually falls in with a group of young people in the Thorp family who promise excitement. They turn out to be false friends and almost lead to her undoing, Thankfully, another family is there in the background to swoop in and rescue poor Catherine from the clutches of this shallow group. 

Despite Catherine's immaturity and grand romantic dreams, she is welcomed by the Tilneys and invited to join them at their home, Northanger Abbey. Catherine is enraptured at the thought of spending time in an old Abbey, with it's promise of ghosts and intrigue. She is disappointed to discover an ordinary, loving family. She almost loses all of them when the Thorp family's misdeeds link unfavorably back to Catherine. But good wins out. Catherine marries Henry Tilney and his sister Eleanor becomes Catherine's new sister. 

The book is full of exaggerated characters and scenes. I know Austen was trying to make a parody of the day's gothic novels, but not having that context, just made it seem like a bad romance. I wouldn't say it's a "must read." Perhaps that reflects poorly on me. 

 

Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng

Our book club decided to read Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng. I had read a biography of Mao years ago, and so had some familiarity with this time in Chinese history, but this account was such a different perspective, it was well worth reading. 

Nien Cheng is a widow who worked for Shell in China after her husband passed away. Although initially excited about the changes the Communists promised, that hope soon gave way to reality. Caught up in the Cultural Revolution, her life was completely destroyed. She was imprisoned, tortured, her daughter murdered, and yet eventually she was vindicated. Her only crime... well that't the thing. She never committed a crime. Her existence as a relatively wealthy Chinese was her crime. Refusing to "confess" and so reduce her punishment, Cheng stood bravely when almost none of her peers resisted the enormous pressure. 

What I loved most about the book was the insight into human nature. Government officials and common people could so easily go along with the the party line, no matter that it shifted constantly in contradictory ways. All that mattered was self-preservation. While it's certainly discouraging to see the lengths people will go to delude themselves, it's also refreshing to see truth so graphically displayed. Humans are fallen and sinful and will bask in lies if lies will promise safety. We know that eventually truth wins out and the safety offered is a chimera, but in the meantime, humans will love the dark if the dark promises one more day. Unsurprisingly, Cheng is a Christian, so she had the hope of another world and a rock on which to stand. Although she only mentions her faith from time to time, I can't help but believe that was the difference between her and those who folded under the pressure. 

Even today, I'm reminded that Christians have not been given a spirit of fear. We are to stand, safe in the knowledge that truth will prevail and this is not our home. Unfortunately, that time on earth may not always be pleasant and may even be painful. But the story does not end there.

Blood Brothers by Elias Chacour

 

We read Blood Brothers by Elias Chacour as part of our Book Club. It's not one I would necessarily have chosen. 

That being said, I'm glad I read it. I have friends who take the Palestinian and Palestinian Christian side against the Israeli Jews often and this is the kind of story they refer to as the basis for their support. 

The story begins with an edenic childhood in Palestine interrupted one day be evil Zionist who take the land and refuse to let the townspeople back in. No reason is given other than the Zionists are evil. 

Chacour takes pains to point out that growing up he was always taught to love and respect the Jews as "blood brothers" to the Palestinian Christians, and he is careful to distinguish the Jews from the Zionist.

The families are largely thrown to the wind as refugees in nearby towns. Despite attempts to return or to exist peacefully with the Zionists, they are never allowed back in. 

Finally, Chacour is sent to a boarding school and eventually to seminary. His first job is in a desperately poor town with a history of internal division. The best part of this story is when he locks the congregants in the church and demands reconciliation. From this he gets the idea that he can reconcile Jews and Palestinians through peaceful protests and demonstrations. 

This becomes his main focus, especially later in life. 

The biggest disappointment in the book is that the Jews are treated as cartoon characters and despite the distinction between them and the Zionists, it's not clear there is a distinction. The Jews are only portrayed as hateful and irrational, although some are willing to see reason and lay down their hatred. Terrorism is almost never mentioned except as extremely rare occurrences by those who were not raised in the loving bosom Chacour experienced. And for his peers acting violently, he dismisses that with a "what do you expect" attitude. 

Elias Chacour seems to be a genuine Christian with a genuine commitment to the Gospel, but I think he is still blinded by Palestinian identity. He sees the Jews as usurpers. Life was perfect before the evil Jews invaded. If they had just stayed a tiny minority and let the Palestinians continue in their ways, there would be no conflict today. This narrative ignores the large events taking place outside his tiny town. He has his limited perspective and it seems like he is unable to provide a larger view.

One thing that I noticed time and again was that although it appeared the things I could research were factually correct, his take on them is sometimes misleading. His story about his village is true. In fact another village experienced the same thing. However those two villages stand out as aberrations and are frequently mentioned in the horrors of Israel. He makes it sound like his small village is one of myriad villages experiencing the same thing. And he never hints at any kind of reason for the takeover of his village besides pure evil. I have no idea if the Israelis saw some sort of strategic purpose in taking the villages. I assume some kind of reason was behind it, even if not communicated to the people. That is not to justify it, but these kinds of horrible things happen in areas under distress. Hundreds of innocent German towns were bombed by the Allies in WWII. Life in a war zone is awful. 

Other stories he told put the worst spin on controversial events. I researched a couple and the general thinking seems to be it could have happened that way, but no one knows. For example, he accuses the Jews of terrorizing Iranian Jews so that they would immigrate to Israel. Some pointed out that this was a story floated by Iran, but it makes no sense from an Israeli perspective. They were already struggling with the immigrants pouring into the country. Chacour's ability to take one side in an argument, as long as it makes the Jews look evil, certainly damages his credibility. 

The reason I'm glad I read this is so that I could see what those who defend the Palestinians see. If this is the best evidence for the maltreatment at the hands of the Israelis, I remain unconvinced. 

Acting White by Stuart Buck

I heard about Acting White by Stuart Buck a long time ago and always wanted to get around to reading it. It's worth a read. It's interesting, I would not say it was earth-shattering. Mostly it was just heart-breaking.

Buck traces the phenomenon to desperation in the 50s and 60s. "Black schoolchildren, now dispersed into formerly all-white schools, suddenly had to deal with unfriendly classmates on a day-to-day basis. School was no longer a place where black children could avoid interacting with racist people." (p. 4) Therefore, in order to maintain solidarity with their few black classmates, smart black students learned to slow down and regress in their grades lest they be accused of siding up to the enemy and "acting white." 

While this theory sounds plausible on its face, Buck spends most of the book documenting its existence. Early on he states, "The evidence supporting the 'acting white' these is fairly robust: We have over a dozen scholarly studies from the 1970s to 2008 confining that the 'acting white phenomenon does happen, while the studies that are supposed to disprove the 'acting white' are fewer and less reliable." (p. 25) Apparently there has been backlash to this theory contending that it seems to have as its premise that black students don't care about academic achievement. That the gap between black and white students is more properly, in fact, only, explained by the presence of racism, not by social choices students make. 

While Buck does not discount other explanation of the black/white academic gap, he plainly states, "We know that there is a large achievement gap that does not fully disappear even when you look at the most advantaged and wealthy black students being taught by good teachers in good schools. We know that 'acting white' exists to some extent. And we know the peers have a strong effect on how adolescents behave, both in school and elsewhere." (p. 40) Therefore Buck sets out to prove its existence, determine just how large the effect is, and where it came from. 

Buck does extensive research into black attitudes towards education prior to legal desecration and fails to find even one example of the accusation of "acting white" when a black student succeeds. In fact it was the contrary. Black people, having been deprived so long of good education with slavery and Jim Crow, actually placed a very high value on education. The smartest students tended to be the most popular. Teacher and Principals were highly respected. In fact, scholars "are careful to note that [while] they do not romanticize segregation itself, they point out that there were many black segregated schools that offered a good education, that made black children feel at home, and that encouraged black children to pursue education with passion." (p. 56) No one argues that we should return to segregation, however, it appears that under that system, blacks were able to create some well-run, tight-knit schools that served the community well. In fact, some of these school offered Classical Education of the type offered to the Founding Fathers. And many black families and students sought out that kind of rigorous education.

With official desegregation policies in place, "black schools all across America were closed or drastically redesigned... As a result, the safe and sheltering environment of black schools—once the center of the black community—disappeared. In their place was the integrated school, which was more unfriendly to black students, and less likely to feature black role models of academic success. As a result, black students become alienated from the world of school. The began to think of the school as a 'white' institution." (p. 74) This is a heart-breaking tragedy in which well-meaning policies were put in place with disastrous affects. Black students were ripped from their safe, nurturing school, full of loving teachers, mentors, and supporters, to a place where rabid racists make it more than clear that the students were not welcome and didn't belong. Is it any wonder that black students believed what they were being told? These black students largely did not feel part of the new schools, where they no longer felt at home, and began to withdraw into themselves.

Unfortunately desegregation was put into place in a fashion almost designed to hurt black students, parents, teachers, and principals. While some areas postponed it as long as possible, they would occasionally build brand new black schools to show that separate could, in fact, be equal. These new schools were a source of pride and community to the blacks they served. Yet when finally forced to integrate, no whites wanted to attend a black school. The integration only went one direction. Some of the brand new schools were demolished or decommissioned. The black teachers and principals were often fired. Few white schools wanted or needed the black teachers. And while sometimes there was an effort to include black principals in the new system, often they were passed over and demoted over time. The black students were sent to multiple schools, well outside of their neighborhoods in many cases. Seeing few familiar faces, and facing daily harassment from teachers as well as students, the ostracized new students had to stick together. It was social survival. Black role models, mentors, and counselors simply disappeared. 

From the white teachers and administrators perspective, they had a very hard needle to thread. The fact was that often the black schools were inferior. Understandably, the black students often arrived on campus behind their peers. Black schools often did not receive quality materials or the best teachers. Their buildings were often dilapidated. They simply did not have the resources the white schools had. When the black students arrived, significantly behind, they were grouped into remedial classes. This painted a stark picture of what the white parents and educators feared. The blacks couldn't keep up. If a black student happened to be particularly bright and was able to compete at a high level, she would often be one of only one or two black students in the class. This further stigmatized and isolated the student, who felt cut off from everything familiar. A teacher who may have been sympathetic to the new black students could also compound the problem by patronizing the black students and fail to hold them to the same high standards to which she held the others. 

One black educator remarked, "Black kids are not hungry now... They don't hunger and thirst for education. And the reason they don't hunger is because nobody tells them that they need to hunger and thirst for education. Once they went into the integrated situation there was no one pushing them." (p. 111)

Furthermore, discipline became an issue. If a black student was punished for misbehaving, the student could always point to racism as the cause. In an all black school, parents backed up teachers and administrators because they knew them and they knew the school was doing what was best for their child. In the integrated schools, this trust was destroyed. It hardly mattered if the black student was actually guilty, too often racism played a role in discipline and having that as an easy excuse affected both blacks and whites. 

The heart of Buck's book is stories told by those that lived it. One woman said, "In our segregated neighborhoods and schools we didn't feel deprived, we didn't even know that we lacked self-esteem, we were happy and secure in our all-black neighborhoods and our all-black schools. We felt that we belonged, hell, we did belong. There was no fear of trying to join the band or the drill team, or of trying out for cheerleader." (p. 129) Story after story tells the same narrative. Desegregation introduced a destabilizing effect on black students that reverberates until today. Although Buck makes clear that he not arguing for a return to segregation, the people he talks to express a painful nostalgia for a time gone by when black communities experienced real pride in their educational achievements. For many of these students, being black became a burden. For the first time, they didn't look like their classmates, teachers, and administrators. Being black became an important identity. Acting in a way, that is "acting white," directly undercut this new identity. In heart-breaking story after heart-breaking story adults recall a lost world full of high hopes and dashed dreams. 

The critics of Buck's theory believe that it cannot be true. If black students intentionally forgo educational opportunities, that would indicate an inexcusable form of stupidity. However, Buck shows repeatedly that it is not stupidity that causes a student to fear the "acting white" label. It is a form of rational self-preservation. However, despite schools returning to largely segregated schools with the end of forced segregation, the attitude has been born and bred and remains in the water, so to speak. Gifted black students have internalized the idea that to act in a way different from the majority of their peers is to reject their peers and have their peers in turn reject them. That is simply too high a hurdle for most students. In fact, the more the black community feels beleaguered and oppressed, but more important it becomes to stick together. Therefore any outlier has to be punished with social ostracism a the least. 

Buck finishes up with the most unsatisfying part of the book: What Can Be Done. Honestly, he offers a feeble "not much." He believes sex-segregated schooling might help. Possibly competition between schools instead of individual grades. These would help for more community within the school leading the black identity to take on a less pronounced role. No matter what, it's a mess and we are currently heading in the wrong direction. 

Strength to Love by Martin Luther King Jr.

 

I have to be honest, when our Book Club decided to read Strength to Love by Martin Luther King Jr., I was not excited. The world was full of BLM protests and I was frankly tired of being told how racist America and all white people are. I don't believe that, and I was hesitant to read anything that might reinforce the narrative. Not that I don't love MLK and the vision he had for America, but I had some notion that King had moved further to the Left later in his life, and I wasn't sure what to expect. 

Fortunately the book was like cool waters in a desert. Any thoughts that King was not authentically Christian can be firmly laid to rest by this book. It's a collection of sermons, that while centered around race, never get far from Scripture and the work of Christ. 

"A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart"

King starts off the book with the admonition that, "There is little hope for us until we become tough-minded enough to break loose from the shackle of prejudice, half-truths, and downright ignorance. The shape of the world today does not permit us the luxury of softmindedness." (p. 17) Amen. Someone tell that to the Twitterverse. Those with hard hearts "[see] people...as mere objects or as impersonal cogs in an ever-turning wheel." (p. 17) This idea of "not being seen" as fully human permeates the book and I believe is the root of our current agitations. And in words so directly relevant to our riot-torn cities today he states, "Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by creating many more social problems than it solves never brings permanent peace. I am convinced that if we succumb to the temptation to use violence in our struggle for freedom, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate sight of bitterness, and our chief legacy to them will be a never-ending reign of chaos." (p. 18) Truer words...

"Transformed Nonconformist"

In addressing those who blindly conform to societal, racialists norms, King cites no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." (p. 24) Americans must be free to think independently or "move within the shadows of fascism." (p. 24) Yet the nonconformist must conform himself to the ways of a holy God. "Only through an inner spiritual transformation do we gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit... [We] recognizes that social change will not come overnight, yet [we] work as though it is an imminent possibility." (p. 27) This is the voice we need crying in our wilderness. 

"On Being a Good Neighbor"

Using the parable of The Good Samaritan, King notes that the tale involved a kind of blindness. "The real tragedy of such narrow provincialism is that we see people as entities or merely as things. Too seldom do we see people in their true humanness... We fail to think of them as fellow human beings made from the same basic stuff as we, molded in the same divine image." Again that theme of seeing people as people, not as statistics or merely identity categories. King points out that the two men who passed by the broken man each worried what helping him would do to themselves; the Good Samaritan reversed the concern and asked, "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?" (p. 34) King calls this "dangerous altruism. King differentiates True Altruism from Pity. "Pity may represent little more than the impersonal concern which prompts the writing of a check." (p. 35) Dangerous altruism demands our soul. Pity focuses on "humanity;" sympathy focuses on the particular hurting human "who lies at life's roadside." (p. 35) "Instead of seeking to do something with the African..., we have too often sought only to do something for them. An expression of pity devoid of genuine sympathy, leads to a new form of paternalism which no self-respecting person can accept." (p. 36) This the breath of fresh air that I needed. I wanted to yell, "YES!"

"Love in Action"

King repeatedly returns to Jesus as his model. The Cross affirms a higher law. Evil cannot be repaid with evil. Only love overcomes evil. "What a magnificent lesson! Generations will rise and fall; men will continue to worship the god of revenge and bow before the altar of retaliation; but ever and again this noble lesson of Calvary will be a nagging reminder that only good can drive out evil and only love can conquer hate." (p. 42) This is lesson we need to learn anew. Jesus knew those who persecuted him were blind, "They know not what they do." Until both our hearts and and our heads can recognize the truth that only goodness overcomes evil, we will continue to spiral in harming each other. 

"Loving Your Enemies"

For those that would denigrate this call of Christ as too difficult or weak and cowardly, King states, "Far from being the pious injunction of a Utopian dreamer, the command to love one's enemy is an absolute necessity for our survival...Jesus is not an impractical idealist: he is the practical realist...When Jesus said 'Love your enemy,' he was not unmindful of its stringent qualities. Yet he meant every word of it. Our responsibility as Christians is to discover the meaning of this command and seek passionately to live it out in our daily lives." (p. 49-50) Nothing other than a total surrender to the Lordship of Christ will effect this kind of response to injustice. "We must love our enemies, because only by loving them can we know God and experience the beauty of his holiness." (p. 55)

"Shattered Dreams"

King is clear that the kind of response he is calling for is only possible for the Christian. It is only the love of God pouring through his own that can see injustice as an opportunity to embrace one's enemies. "The Christian faith makes it possible for us nobly to accept that which cannot be changed, to meet disappointments and sorrow with an inner poise, and to absorb the most intense pain without abandoning our sense of hope for we know, as Paul testified, in life or in death,... 'that all thing work together for good to them that love God, to them without are called according to his purpose.'" (p. 96)

"How Should a Christian View Communism?"

My doubts about King moving further Left and towards Communism were put to rest by this essay. "Let me state clearly the basic premise of this sermon: Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. A true Christian cannot be a true Communist, for the two philosophies are antithetical and all the diabetics of the logicians cannot reconcile them." (p. 97-98) King flatly rejects the tenet of Communism which believes that the ends justify the means. A Christian simply cannot use that thinking. "Destructive means cannot bring constructive ends, because the means represent the-ideal-in-the-making and the-ends-in-progress. Immoral means cannot bring moral ends, for the ends are pre-existent in the means." (p. 99) This line of reasoning directly contradicts those that say they need to tear down American society so they can rebuild another, more just society. The destructive means BECOMES the end. It cannot be otherwise. However, King attributes the rise of Communism to the failure of the Church to uphold the values it supposedly embodies. The Church failed to speak out about racism and destructive colonialism. "The judgment of God is upon the church. The church has a schism in its own soul that it must close." (p. 103) He sees the fire burning in the hearts of Communists as a direct rebuke to Christians. Had we that same fire burning in our hearts, Communism would not be capturing so many around the world. 

"Our God is Able"

In a stirring admonition to do the hard work Christ calls us to, King states, "In our sometimes difficult and often lonesome walk up freedom's road, we do not walk alone. God walks with us. He has placed within the very structure of this universe certain absolute moral laws. We can neither defy nor break them. If we disobey them, they will break us. The forces of evil may temporarily conquer truth, but truth will ultimately conquer its conqueror. Our God is able." (p. 111) Hallelujah!

"The Answer to a Perplexing Question" 

Since the disciples asked Jesus why they were unable to cast out a demon, man has been asking why we cannot cast out evil. Men have tried to do it in their own efforts, but King reminds us that, "Man, by his own power can never cast evil from the world. The humanist's hope is an illusion, based on too great an optimism concerning the inherent goodness of human nature." (p. 129) Neither can we simply wait for God to drive it out in his own good time. "God, who gave us minds for thinking and bodies for working, would defeat his own purpose if he permitted us to obtain through prayer what may come through work and intelligence. Prayer is a marvelous and necessary supplement of our feeble efforts, but it is a dangerous substitute." (p. 131) We see echoes of his frustration with those that would wait on the Lord for end of segregation in King's haunting "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." "The belief that God will do everything for us is as untenable as the belief that man can do everything for himself. It, too, is based on a lack of faith. We must learn that to expect God to do everything while we do nothing is not faith, but superstition." (p.133) The answer is to unite God and man in "one marvelous unity of purpose through an overflowing love as the free gift of himself on the part of God and by perfect obedience and receptivity on the part of man..." (p. 133) Man, channeling the perfect love of God, can change the world. "Racial justice, a genuine possibility in our nation and in the world, will come neither by our frail and often misguided efforts nor by God imposing his will on wayward men, but when enough people open their lives to God and allow him to put his triumphant, divine energy into their souls. Our age-old and noble dream of a world of peace may yet become a reality, but it will come neither by man working alone nor by God destroying the wicked schemes of men, but when men so open their lives to God that he may fill them with love, mutual respect, understanding, and goodwill." (p. 134-135) This is exactly what we need. We need Jesus!

It's impossible to state how much this book resonated with me. As a fellow believer, it seemed like the Holy Spirit was testifying with his spirit and we were in complete agreement. My only sadness is that this message went forth almost 60 years ago and we failed to listen to it. How long will we continue to ignore the only thing that can cause actual racial justice: the love of Christ channeled through his children. 

The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis is brilliant when he uses his fiction to embody Truth. The Great Divorce details the myriad ways those who reject Christ construct their own personal hells and why they would do so. Lewis makes clear at the beginning his disdain for universalism, or that all roads lead to Heaven. In fact life's paths are not a circle leading inexorably to Heaven, but are a tree, leading further away from the Good, unless set back on the right path. "But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself." (p. IX)

The story begins with the narrator in gray town, confused about where he is and what is happening. He soon finds himself on a bus with several disagreeable people on the way to, well he's not exactly sure. After traveling up for some time,  they finally alight in a beautiful, green country. "Then, suddenly we were at rest. Everyone had jumped up. Curses, taunts, blows, a filth of vituperation, came to my ears as my fellow-passengers struggled to get out." (p. 19)

As he journeys into the unknown country, he is able to observe the interactions of his fellow passengers with the residents of this heavenly land. It soon becomes clear that the passengers are ghost-like, ethereal and unable to handle the reality of the new place. Simply walking on the grass is painful as the blades pierce the airy feet. Lewis uses these various encounters to point out the myriad ways in which we prefer our sin (and hell) to the promise of life, if life means letting go. 

We first meet a "Big Man" or Big Ghost as the case may be. He has lived a good life, under his own strength, and he is surprised to meet a Solid person whom he knew in life to be a murderer. Of course this makes no sense, that a "good man" should be living "down there" in Grey Town, while a murderer lives in paradise. After demanding the same rights as the solid, Len, he is told, "Oh no. It's not so bad as that. I haven't got my rights, or I should not be here. You will not get yours either. You'll get something far better. Never fear." (p. 28) Of course this kind of nonsense makes no dent on the Big Ghost.

Next we overhear a modern, religious fellow who meets a shining spirit who apparently "became rather narrow-minded towards the end of [his] life." (p. 34) The heavenly guide tries in vain to convince his friend that his liberal beliefs were wrong, and not even honestly attained. They came as a result of "writing the kind of essays that got good cards and saying the kind of thing that won applause." (p. 37) But the intellectual simply cannot bring himself to believe that there are any definitive answers in regards to spiritual questions, despite the evidence right in front of him. For him the mental aerobics overwhelmed any desire to discover truth. Yet he declares it a "stimulating and provocative" conversation, and says good-bye. (p. 44)

While heading off to explore more, the narrator sees a ghost, who came determined to plunder the heavenly riches so as to make a killing back in Grey Town, try to steal a golden apple. The ghost's lack of gravitas, and the sheer reality of the apple combine to make the task impossible. Yet he will not desist. The last we see of him shows him bracing himself anew for the agony and continuing on. 

We next run into a "Hard-Bitten Ghost." This man see through everything. It's all a scam. There's nothing truly new or interesting. He even dismisses Heaven. "That's their little joke, you see. First of all tantalize you with ground you can't walk on and water you can't drink and then drill you full of holes [with rain]. But they won't catch me that way." (p. 56) Soon, he too goes off, presumably towards the bus and a return trip to Gray Town. 

Soon, we encounter a female Ghost, running as best as she is able, from a Spirit. Although the Spirit assures her that the pain will dramatically lessen the further into the country they go, towards the mountain, the woman will have none of it. She simply cannot bare to be seen in the state she is in. Her vanity will not allow it. "'Friend,' said the Sprit, 'Could you, only fora moment, fix your mind on something not yourself?'" Apparently she cannot. 

Deep in confusion, our narrator meets George MacDonald, the Scottish author and minister. He promises to answer the questions and provide some clarity on what we are witnessing. He explains that we are watching the damned on holiday. They are given an opportunity to make a different choice. Should they relinquish their sin, they can stay in the heavenly abode. Sadly, few choose to do so. To our narrator's ears, this sounds heretical. Yet, as MacDonald tells it, the choice to stay or go only confirms a choice already made. For those that return to hell, their life, even on Earth, was always Hell. For those who choose to stay here in the heavenly foyer, "The Valley of the Shadow of Life," and move towards Heaven itself, all of life will have been Heaven, including the time spent in Gray Town. Now quite confused, our man asks, "'Well sir,' I said, 'That also needs explaining. What do they choose, these souls who go back (I have yet seen no others)? And how can they choose it?'" (p. 71) It is at this point that we learn, "There is always something they insist on keeping even at the price of misery. There is always something they prefer to joy... There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom god says in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell choose it." (p. 71) Suddenly the narrator realizes how the Ghosts, not only do not want to live in Heaven, they want to bring Hell into Heaven. Conscious of their own decay, they sought to spread it and destroy whatever good they believed they could not have. He watched them "spit and giver out in one ecstasy of hatred their envy and (what is harder to understand) their contempt, of joy. They voyage seemed to them a small price to pay if once, only once, within sight of the at eternal dawn, they could tell the prigs, the toffs, the sanctimonious humbugs, the snobs, the 'haves', what they thought of them." (p. 82)

At the end of this conversation, the ghost of a famous artist appears. He, too, will return to Grey Town. The thought of giving up his fame and reputation is simply too much. Never mind that he is "already completely forgotten on Earth." (p. 87)

Suddenly another conversation resounds and we are shown a woman arguing with her mother-in-law. Apparently in life, her husband, Robert, had failed to live up to her ever expanding expectations. Despite all her hard work and nagging, she completely failed to make much of the man. Even worse, she was shown no gratitude. Eventually alighting on the perfect plan, take Robert away somewhere and finally make a man of him, she rages, "'I want Robert. What right have you to keep him from me? I hate you. How can I pay him out if you won't let me have him.'" (p. 95) Having towered up "like a dying candle flame" she snaps suddenly and is no more. (p. 95)

Next we encounter a most painful meeting. A woman has met her brother, but is disappointed that it is not her son sent to greet her. Her son died at a young age, and she is distraught at the separation. Unfortunately her love had consumed her. "The instinct was uncontrolled and fierce and monomaniac... The only remedy was to take away its object. It was a case for surgery." (p. 100) This mother's sin was her all-consuming identification as a mother. Ultimately her love was too small. She could not truly love her son because she could not truly love anyone. 

As they walk on, they encounter a Ghost with a lizard on his shoulder. Unfortunately the foul-mouthed creature won't keep quiet and it's clear he won't do in this heavenly place. Therefore the Ghost has decided to return home. At that moment a flaming Spirit appears offering to kill the lizard. There ensues a struggle as the Ghost begs the angel to deal with the beast in a more humane manner. Finally, there is an agreement to kill the thing. The pain of the flames sear the Ghost, but soon both he, and the lizard are reborn: He as a Solid person and the lizard as a beautiful stallion. Together they gallop off to the mountain. An epiphany ensues as our narrator realizes that if any of the Ghosts will but submit that which is holding them back, it will be reborn as something beautiful. 

Hearing a river, the two proceed towards that and find themselves in the middle of a grand procession. Clearly a person of grand importance is being escorted through the land. Almost unknown on Earth, Sarah Smith of Golders Green has attained particular glory in this celestial land. She, however, is coming to meet her Ghostly husband. We are first introduced to a giant Tragedian with a tiny man on a string. However, it soon becomes clear that it is the dwarf keeping the giant on a chain. The giant is, in fact, a type of ventriloquist's dummy, a facade created to impress. Sarah Smith implores the little man to let it go, to be his real self. Unfortunately he cannot let go of his sense of victimhood and betrayal. He simply MUST demand pity. Sarah begs him, "Stop it. Stop it at once...[Stop] using other people's pity, in the wrong way. We have all done it a bit on earth, you know. Pity was meant to be a spur that drives joy to the help misery. But it can be used the wrong way round. It can be used for a kind of blackmailing. Those who choose misery can hold joy up to ransom, by pity." (p. 131)

After the pair, consumed by their misery, simply disappear, Sarah continues on her merry path. This discordant note strikes our man as somehow wrong. 

'Is it really tolerable that she should be untouched by his misery, even his self-made misery?'

'Would ye rather he still had the power of tormenting her? He did it many a day and many a year in their earthly life.'

'Well, no. I suppose I don't want that.'

'What then?'

'I hardly know, Sir. What some people say on Earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved.'

'Ye see it does not.'

'I feel in a way that it ought to.'

'That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it.'

'What?'

'The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven.' 

'I don't know what I want, Sir.' 

'Son, son, it must be one way or the other. Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for every dn ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye'll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye'll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.' (p. 135)

Wondering why the Spirits couldn't venture to Grey Town to make their case, MacDonald explains that they are too large and would never fit. This confuses our author until MacDonald leads him to a tiny crevice in the ground. That, he explains, is where you will find Hell. Astonished at the thought of this, the narrator details the long journey it took to arrive in Heaven. Apparently the entire journey was simply becoming big enough to experience it. But it felt infinite. "And yet all loneliness, angers, hatreds, envies and etchings that it contains, if rolled into a single experience and put into the scale against the least moment of the joy that is felt by the least in Heaven, would have no weight that could be registered at all." (p. 138) For the damned are not just tiny, they are less than nothing, so shut up as they are. "Only the Greatest of all can make Himself small enough to enter Hell." (p. 139)

This book is such a joy to read. It encapsulates so much theology and so much mystery in a way that it easy to read and yet plummets the depth of thought. It convicted me as I declare my self-centered love and demand the pity of others. I cannot wait to tell C.S. Lewis, face-to-face, of the joy his little book brought me. 

Mathematics for Human Flourishing by Francis Su

 

The school where I teach asked the teachers to read Mathematics for Human Flourishing by Francis Su over the summer and come prepared to discuss it at the beginning of the school year. Contrary to popular belief, the summer can be a   very busy time for teachers. We have much to do to prepare for the upcoming year and this summer was certainly no exception. 

I was finally able to sneak it in at the end of summer (while floating in my pool of course). I'm glad I did. It's a wonderful and inspiring read. At one time in my life (high school) I enjoyed math and was pretty good at it. College cured me of that. However, this book helped rekindle the joy I used to feel playing with numbers and unlocking their secrets. 

Su begins the book with a correspondence from a prison inmate, Christopher Jackson, who has discovered a love of mathematics. He reached out to Su to gain insight and share in their mutual love of mathematics. The conceit works as Su repeatedly returns to the letters and we are updated with the prisoner's progress, both legally and mathematically. 

Su also intersperses small math puzzles. This call for a pause now and again to really get down to the business of thinking and pondering patterns. Between the letters, the puzzles, and Su's conversational tone, the book is actually light and easy, and wonderfully refreshing despite it's intimidating subject matter. It reminds me a bit of Auguste Gusteau, the renowned and extremely talented chef from the movie Ratatouille, who wrote the bestseller "Anyone Can Cook". Su believes anyone can love mathematics. 

The beauty of Su's book begins in the table of contents. Each chapter is dedicated to a virtue embodied in the study of mathematics: "flourishing," "exploration," "meaning," "play," "beauty," "permanence," "truth," "struggle," "power," "justice," "freedom," "community," and, of course, "love."

In "flourishing," Su begins with the proposition that, "Every being cries out silently to be read differently." (p.2) By this he means that humans want to be understood and "read." Seen. Appreciated. Su makes the radical claim the mathematics leads to the flourishing necessary for humans to be truly understood. "Human flourishing refers to a wholeness—of being and doing, of realizing one's potential and helping others do the same, of acting with honor and treating others with dignity, of living with integrity even in challenging circumstances...The well-lived life is a life of human flourishing." (p. 10) Su believes that math can build aspects of our character and habits of mind that allow us to live lives as fully-formed humans, truly enjoying what life has to offer.

Chapter 2, "exploration," describes "mathematical exploration [as] very much like space exploration, but of a different kind of space—a space of ideas." (p. 22) Like exploring the physical world, mathematicians don't know where they will end up when they start out. They test theories, become "captivated by mystery,  motivated by questions, undeterred by setbacks." (p. 23) Exploration further cultivates imagination and the "expectation of enchantment." (p. 29) Su reminds us that anyone "born with the human capacities to inquire and to reason" can be an explorer. (p. 31) He urges the reader to dream, knowing "imaginative, creative, and unexpected enchantments await." (p. 31)

Next Su describes the way in which mathematics inculcates "meaning." Just as words develop over time and gain an inherent richness, number, which are very abstract, can grow richer with use. Searching for meaning in any context builds other virtues: story-telling, thinking abstractly, persistence, and contemplation. Su summarizes the main idea of the chapter with, "Mathematics is the science of patterns and the art of engaging the meaning of those patterns." (p. 44)

In chapter 4, "play," Su does the seeming impossible and seeks to describe math as a playground. His lighthearted and optimistic tone to this part makes a chapter called, "play" seem almost credulous. Su describes "play" as fun, voluntary, meaningful, structured freedom, exploration, and imagination. For Su, mathematics, done properly, can embody all these characteristics. "Play" in math begins with pattern exploration and used inductive reasoning in reaching conclusions. But math requires the student to then move into deductive reasoning, which can include proof by contradiction or proof by induction. Which should, ideally, lead to more questions to explore. Math play can lead to virtues like hopefulness, curiosity, and concentration, as well as confidence. 

Su moves on to describe the "beauty" found in math. Mathematical beauty manifests itself in four ways. The first is sensory beauty. This is the kind of beautiful patterns that can been experienced with the senses like ripples in the sand or fractal patterns in nature. The second kind is wondrous beauty. This is the awe felt at the idea expressed within mathematics, like E = mc2. Even the idea of mathematical constants, like the speed of light, can inspire this kind of wondrous awe. Next is insightful beauty. This involves communication and refers to simple, insightful proofs that are simply beautiful to hear and read. Finally, there is transcendent beauty. "Transcendent beauty arises when one moves from the beauty of a specific object, idea, or reasoning to a greater truth of some kind—perhaps an insight that reveals its deep significance, or a deep connection to there known ideas." (p. 79) This kind of beauty sees math as speaking directly into what it means to be human.

Math also teaches "permanence." Humans naturally seek the permanent things, and math, by its very nature involves permanence. Whether it is in constants, or invariants, math continuously reminds us that some things never change. Math gives humans fixed points. Humans "seek permanence because it is a refuge, a yardstick, and a foothold. But that does not fully capture why this is such a deeply embedded human longing." (p. 97) Su believes all of this is actually a desire to answer the question, "Who can I trust?" "Trust is at the heart of a desire for permanence." (p. 97)

One of the deepest desires humans have is for "truth." In fact, only oppressive societies seek to suppress the truth. It is necessary for human flourishing. Su defines truth as a statement that aligns with reality. He sidesteps all the philosophical questions about "reality" and sticks to a common sense definition. Math completely fails if its answers are not true. In fact, the common refrain, "Check your work." is a bane too many a student. But if we are taught to appreciate the beauty of truth and therefore the beauty of deeply questioning mathematical solutions to discover if they do, in fact, comport with reality, we can learn to appreciate the truth embodied in mathematics. As mathematicians engage in "the quest for deep knowledge and deep investigation," other virtues are built, among them the thirst for knowledge and circumspection, and intellectual humility. 

Anyone who has ever studied math knows it also invariably involves "struggle." However, struggles are a necessary component of what it means to be human. We struggle through suffering, to achieve, and to grow. And if humans are to flourish, we must grow, therefore we must struggle. Su makes the point that while many may be tempted to cheat and bypass the struggle, working through a difficult problem can have fantastic ramifications for human flourishing. 

Math gives students a sense of power as they learn "unlock and expand" the innate capacity for reason (p. 129). We gain power over things, power to direct or influence, power to make stuff, and power to make sense. While power can be used for ill, math opens up the possibilities of "creative power" which can amplify the power to do good. We can amplify others' ability to make more stuff and make more sense. Creative power leads to  a "humble, sacrificial, encouraging character with a heart of service and a resolve to unleash creativity in others." (p. 143) All from diving deeply into mathematics.

Justice is better served with a study of mathematics. Su describes two kinds of justice: primary justice and rectifying justice. The first seeks to make right relationships. The second is needed when the first fails. "Rectifying justice is spotting something wrong and trying to make it right." (p. 150) This is right up the alley of a mathematician. Unfortunately Su describes myriad ways that the study of math has been unjust. Often people are thought incapable of succeeding because they do not meet a predetermined stereotype of someone who is "good at math." The field is ripe for rectifying justice.

One of humanity's core values is freedom. According to Su, math provides five essential freedoms: the freedom of knowledge, the freedom to explore, the freedom of understanding, the freedom to imagine, and the freedom of welcome. (p. 167) The freedom of knowledge is best illustrated when a student realizes multiple ways of attacking a problem. Previously he knew only one way and didn't know what he didn't know. Math gave him freedom of knowledge. Freedom to explore occurs when a student realizes that he can play with numbers. That numbers can be relational and tell stories. Freedom of understanding means your mind is freed up for higher level thinking. Once you understand the basics, you can move on to weightier topics. Freedom of imagination is offered when students are exposed to wonderful and beautiful possibilities like fractals. Finally freedom of welcome is on offer when a students sees himself as part of a group of similar explorers. He can speak the language and enter the conversation. 

Another value supported by mathematics is community. For those that love math, that find joy in all things relating to math, the study and serious pursuit of mathematics forms a community of like-minded people. Contrary to the stereotype of the lone math geek, math is highly collaborative. However, by its very nature, even math communities can be harsh and competitive environments. Su envisions a hospitable math community, welcoming all comers, rejecting stereotypes and a narrow focus on achievement. He sees it as being made up of people like himself, who love math and just want to share that joy with other.

Finally, math can be a vehicle for the highest value of all, love. While mathematics can be a beautiful thing, it is not the ultimate thing. Su found himself struggling when he encountered a setback studying for his doctorate. Discouraged, he couldn't even muster up a desire to continue to pursue math. But in the meantime, he was tutoring undergraduates in math. This brought him back to the core, to the most important value, love. Not love of mathematics, or the use of mathematics to study love, but love for his fellow humans being expressed through and because of mathematics. "To love is to give the gift of play and exploration, to grow in a desire for truth and beauty, to bestow creative power on another human being by showing them mathematics. To love someone is to set them free, not just in their heart, soul, and strength, but also in their minds." (p. 206)

I would highly recommend this book. It was an easy and enjoyable read. The puzzles at the end and the stories of his correspondence with Christopher alone almost make it worth it. Francis Su is a wonderful story teller and he invites us to love what he loves for the sake of loving people. That is beautiful.

White Guilt by Shelby Steele

I had been wanting to read White Guilt by Shelby Steele for some time. The racial unrest of 2020 provided an opportunity for me to revisit this desire. 

I am so glad I read this book. Originally written in 2006, its thesis had aged well and therefore has the authority of truth. 

Steele argues that after whites acknowledged their horrific wrongs vis-a-vis treatment of black fellow citizens, an implicit agreement was made: in exchange for a chance to regain the moral authority lost, whites would work to level the playing field for blacks as well as the outcomes, while blacks need only wait for whites to serve them. This explosive concept, that white guilt motivates whites and indulges and infantilizes blacks, is so radically different from the current narrative that it shocks the conscious. Yet it hold up well as an explanation for our current situation. 

Steele weaves his own autobiography of growing up in segregated Chicago into the broader narrative of what went wrong. He saw first-hand his parents struggle in the non-violent protests of Martin Luther King, their stunning victory, the legal reforms, and the inability of many blacks to take their winnings and create successful lives for themselves. The rapidity of whites acknowledgement of their failure simply stunned blacks into a place of not exactly knowing what to do. After you have vanquished the foe, then what? Steele argues that is the time for blacks to take responsibility for their own lives and for whites to treat blacks as autonomous fellow citizens. 

The opposite happened. 

Steele is a perfect example. In college, after seeing his parents model famously succeed, he turned to radical black power movements. As he analyzes his inappropriate anger, he comes to the conclusion that blacks, fearful of the prospective of finally being able to live free, lashed out. "Anger is acted out by the oppressed only when real weakness is perceived in the oppressor. So anger is never automatic or even inevitable for the oppressed; it is chosen when weakness in the oppressor means it will be effective in winning freedom or justice or spoils of some kind. Anger in the oppressed is a response to perceived opportunity, not injustice. And expressions of anger escalate not with more injustice but with less injustice." (p. 21) It's too much; Freedom is overwhelming. Worried about not being able to succeed on their own merits, black decided to demand more and more from a guilty nation. When more did not prove enough, rage resulted. 

After college, Steele went to work administering the very plans he and his fellow blacks had demanded. It was this experience that convinced him that black success did not lie in whites' hands. You cannot give a person success. He must earn it. He noticed black rejected the help, instead preferring riots and destruction. He saw an almost direct correlation between the amount of white guilt and black's demands. The more white guilt, the less blacks demanded of themselves. This explains why so much of the protests centered on college campuses. The white guilt displayed by the university administration invited protests. 

Steele sums up his thesis: "Black America faced two options. We could seize on the great freedom we had just won in the civil rights victories and advance through education, skill development, and entrepreneurialism combined with an unbending assault on any continuing discrimination; or we could go after these things indirectly by pressuring the society that it wronged us into taking the lion's share of responsibility in resurrecting us. The new black militancy that exploded everywhere in the late 60s – and that came to the find a strategy for black advancement for the next four decades — grew out of black America‘s complete embrace of the latter option." (p. 58)

Steele tells a hypothetical and yet heart-breaking story of a young black boy. As a student, he is pardoned for poor grades. White racism after all explains his failure. His education is dumbed down and expectations on him plummet. Yet outside the schoolroom window is a basketball court. He knows his failure to prove his bona fides on the court will provoke ridicule and estrangement. Therefore, given the choice between homework or free throw practice, he knows where to put his efforts. He is expected to prove himself through his efforts on the court. He is not expected to prove himself through his efforts in the classroom. As an interesting aside, we can see that where blacks are given the least amounts of hand outs and the most expectation of meritocratic behavior, they will succeed in a dramatic fashion. The black community has proven time and again, that unleashed from white, debilitating "help" they are capable of amazing achievement.

"The greatest black problem in America today is freedom. All underdeveloped, formally oppressed groups first experience new freedom as a shock and humiliation because freedom shows them they’re underdevelopment and their inability to compete as equals. Freedom seems to confirm all the ugly stereotypes about the group – especially the charge of inferiority – and yet the group no longer has the excuse of oppression. Without oppression – and it must be acknowledged the blacks are no longer oppressed in America – the group itself becomes automatically responsible for its inferiority and non-competitiveness. So freedom not only comes as a humiliation but also as an overwhelming burden of responsibility. Thus, inevitably, there is a retreat from freedom." (p. 67)

With crushing accuracy, Steele states, "How could a people that has survived centuries of slavery and segregation — through ingenuity, imagination, and great courage — get this confused, this alienated from man’s most elemental power: responsibility? Because freedom scared the hell out of us – our first true fall, our first true loss of innocence – and because there was nothing less than a locomotive of white guilt coming our way and hungering to prop us up in our every illusion. White guilt has wanted nothing more than to confuse our relationship to responsibility, to have us feel responsibility as an injustice, a continuation of our oppression. It exploited our tear of freedom and precisely the same way that plantation owners once exploited our labor. Whites needed responsibility for our problems in order to gain their own moral authority and legitimacy. So they set about — once again – to exploit us, to encourage and even nurture our illusions, to steal responsibility from us, to take advantage of our backwardness just as slave traders had once done on the west coast of Africa. Suddenly, in the age of white guilt, we were gold again." (p. 69)

Steele analogizes his own coming of age as a teenager to the surrounding cultural circumstances. Like most teenagers, he rebelled against his parents. Although he believes that most rebellious children are secretly safe in the knowledge that their parents are actually right and actually know the best way forward, blacks "came of age" when the "parents" (whites) were actually wrong. When a teenager confronts an actually guilty parent, that will likely result in more teenaged rebellion. After all, by what moral authority does a guilty parent tell a youngster what to do? And not only does the guilt of the parent seem to absolve the child of any moral responsibility for his own life, when the guilty parent indulges the child's rage and entitlement mentality, the teenager will never learn to be responsible. In order to assuage their own guilt, whites were perfectly willing to indulge a recalcitrant black population. 

Not only did whites lose the moral authority granted them by the idea of white supremacy, whites lost the authority to promote any values that might be heralded by whites in general. "Whites also lost a degree of they authority to stand proudly for the values and ideas the had made the West a great civilization despite its many evils." (p. 109) Whites could not demand of blacks the same things they would demand of their own children. It seemed too white to demand responsibility and hard work. Even the Smithsonian has recently stated these timeless values that lead to successful people are vestiges of white supremacy. Therefore blacks were denied the very tools that would help them succeed. And when they failed, as many inevitably did, that was seen a further failure of whites to provide for blacks. Therefore the cycle of poverty began. Whites refused to provide blacks with the tools necessary for success and provided material resources instead. Blacks failed. Whites beat themselves up for their failure and provided more material resources and fewer tools. Not once did whites stop to think that maybe their "help" was actually hurting, because the "help" provided did double duty: it avoided "blaming the victim" and it assuaged white guilt. Win-win.

Yet it is not a win for blacks. It keeps them perpetually at the mercy of the very people said to be oppressing them. Never are blacks told to use their freedom to achieve their own success. Through the exploitation of, and desire to alleviate, white guilt, blacks are kept in a perpetually inferior condition. 

"So post 60s American liberalism preserves the old racist hierarchy of whites over blacks as virtue itself; and it grants all white who identify with it a new superiority. In effect, it says you are morally superior to other whites and intellectually superior to blacks. The white liberals reward is this feeling that because he is heir to the knowledge of the West, yet morally enlightened beyond the West's former bigotry, he is really a 'new man,' a better man than the world has seen before." (p. 148) This perfectly aligns with C.S. Lewis' observation, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

The tragedy of this new focus on alleviating white guilt produced an obsession with "disassociation." No longer could whites defend time-honored principles because these were now associated with racism. The "good" white must disassociate himself from all vestiges of the past no matter how proven or principled. We see this today in the tearing down of statues, even of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. We joke they are not sufficiently "woke." In reality, they represent a world of insufficient white guilt. They, in their own fallen and flawed ways, advocated principles, that however virtuous, are tainted by the vices of their spokesmen. Therefore the principles must be thrown out with the people. The more a white person "disassociates" from the past the more virtuous. The actual virtuosity of this "new man" is completely meaningless. 

What is Steele's recommendation now? He advocates the hard work of reclaiming timeless values for all men despite the taint given them by imperfect humans. He says we must see each other as individuals and not members of a group. We, in fact, must see each other, really see each other. For too long we have treated each other as means to an end. Whether it's more spoils or more virtue, we have used each other for our own gain. It must end. 

However, with the recent spate of racial unrest, the country is moving in exactly the opposite direction. When "Top CEOs Vow to Hire 1 million Black Americans" screams from the headlines, we can see we are treating humans as things to me manipulated. Objects to be moved around at the will of white Americans. 

Some, who agree with Steele, see hope for pushback against this mentality. Steele himself says it puts the Right in the enviable position of defending equality and liberty, easy sells. However, I think the forces that push fallen humans to "prove" they are good people apart from Jesus' sacrifice are simply too strong. As long as people can buy cheap grace by offering blacks crumbs, they will jump at the chance. The fact that it keeps blacks infantilized and will never end the "virtue" cycle is irrelevant. As long as whites can convince themselves that they are the good guys, they will continue to oppress and lord over blacks, in the name of helping. The impulses of racism remain. It is just dressed in fancier finery.

 

How We Love Our Kids by Milan & Kay Yerkovich

A friend had recommended this book after the original, How We Love had made such a difference in her marriage. This companion book on parenting, How We Love Our Kids by Milan & Kay Yerkovich, also helped in her relationship with her daughter.

It was an easy read, and well-worth reading. I would not say it changed anything in my life, but it did help me recognize my parenting pattern and the possible pitfalls. 

Milan and Kay Yerkovich have identified five styles of loving others: 

The Avoider

The Pleaser

The Vacillator

The Controller

The Victim

Each of these stem from what the parent, herself, was raised with as well as her own experiences. These styles in turn influence the behavior of the child. In many, if not most, cases, the Yerkovichs believe that problems that children are exhibiting are actually a reaction to one or more of the parenting styles. How we parent is rarely a conscientious choice, it is rather, the confluence of events that make us who we are as humans. However, the Yerkovichs believe we cannot end the story there, but must identify our personal style in order to address the resulting issues that arise between the parent and the child. 

Directly from the book:

AVOIDER ASSESSMENT 

• It seems my spouse has more emotional needs than I do. 

• What is upsetting to my spouse or kids seems like no big deal to me. 

• My childhood was fine, but I don't have many memories from my upbringing, let alone positive ones of receiving comfort. 

• I'm independent and self-reliant, and those are values I've worked to pass on to my kids. 

• I would rather work on a project alone than sit and have a long conversation with someone. 

• I've been told I don't show enough affection. 

• When something bad happens, I get over it and move on. 

• If a kid is upset, I reassure her with, “You're fine." 

• I tend to guard my space and feel annoyed when I'm required to spend a lot of time and attention on family matters. 

• I like to make decisions on my own. 

• When someone is very emotional, I find a way to escape, especially if they think I'm supposed to help. I don't like tears and lots of emotion. 

• In my family growing up, everyone pretty much did his own thing and kept to himself. 

• I have siblings with whom I have little or no contact today. 

• I have never felt particularly close to my parents. 

• Nothing gets me too bothered or upset. 

If you identified with this assessment, congratulations. You're that much closer to being a better parent. And you might want to thank your kids for helping you to grow and recognize yourself better. But let me assure you, avoiders have positive traits too. They raise responsible kids who are often extremely accomplished and uncommonly resourceful. You can learn to balance your focus on achievement as you expand your ability to connect emotionally. Your kids will benefit and so will you. 

PLEASER ASSESSMENT 

• I'm usually the giver in relationships. 

• I'm a peacemaker and peacekeeper. 

• I anticipate my spouse's needs and meet them. 

• Sometimes I'm dishonest to avoid conflict. 

• I fear making my spouse or kids upset or angry. 

• I tend to give in to get conflict over with. 

• I don't like to be alone. 

• It really upsets me if someone is mad at me. 

• When someone requests help, I usually say yes and get overcommitted. 

• I tried hard to win a critical or angry parent's approval. 

• Sometimes I get mad, but I don't show it, and I smile a lot. 

• I had a parent who never stood up for himself, but passively  accepted poor treatment.  

• When I sense others distancing, I try harder. 

• I'm on the cautious side; I definitely wouldn't call myself a  risk-taker. 

• I had an overprotective parent who worried a lot. 

• I crave reassurance and affirmation from others. 

VACILLATOR ASSESSMENT 

• No one has ever really understood what I need. 

• I fall in love instantly, and my relationships are initially intense and passionate, but they never last. 

• I always hope for great relationships, but everyone disappoints me. Some people try to make amends, but it's always too little, too late. 

• I'm a very passionate person, and I feel things more deeply than others. 

• I know far more about being a good parent than my spouse does. 

• I could describe many examples of how I've been hurt and disappointed, and I often feel unappreciated by my spouse and kids. I can always sense when others pull away from me. 

• I want far more connection than I have currently. 

• I love the feeling of making up after a fight. 

• When people hurt me long enough, I write them off. 

• If my spouse would pursue me more, things would be better. 

• I don't like to be alone, but sometimes having people around makes me worse. 

• My parent(s) still drive me crazy. 

• Sometimes I pick fights, and I'm really not sure why. 

• I make it obvious when I'm hurt, and it's only worse when no one asks what's wrong. 

• I'm always waiting for people to be available, and I wonder if they've forgotten me. 

• I'm convinced I have the ability to read people really well and quickly judge their motives and intentions before they even speak. 

CONTROLLER ASSESSMENT 

• Growing up, a parent or sibling threatened me, intimidated me, or was violent with me. 

• No one protected me when I was growing up; I was on my own for the most part. 

• My spouse and kids do things behind my back and that infuriates me. 

• I dislike authority and feel angry when others tell me what to do or ignore what I tell them to do. 

• I tend to use alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, or overspending to feel good. 

• My life has had its share of problems, so I'm under more stress than most people. 

• I try to control my temper, but it's hard not to let it out. 

• My spouse does things to make me jealous. 

• I know my family doesn't like me losing my temper, but they shouldn't make me so angry. 

• I have hit, slapped, or pushed my spouse or kids, or I have come close to it. 

• I've changed jobs frequently. 

• By the time I was a teenager, people knew not to mess with me. 

• I left home early, and some family members were afraid of me. 

• My spouse and kids don't listen when I ask them to do things. 

Controllers enter adulthood believing childhood is behind them, but therapists call these “unresolved issues” for good reason. Most chaotic adults don't want to touch their childhood memories with a ten-foot pole. And who can blame them? How do you begin to resolve the enormous amount of unresolved, unprocessed hurt and pain when there's little to no feeling left? It's all been stuffed down—all the powerlessness, fear, grief, and shame—and they're completely out of touch with what's now happening to their own children. 

And so the nightmare continues. 

If there is to be growth, hope, and real change, the controller needs someone with a lot of compassion, persistence, and courage. The kind they've never known, likely never even seen in real life. This is often the only way to get at the heart of the issue. If it takes the help of a spouse, a therapist, or a psychiatrist, the controller with the best chance is the one convinced he needs to compassionately face his past. 

VICTIM ASSESSMENT 

• People in my family struggled with outbursts of anger, violence, addictions, and abuse. 

• I try to keep my mate from knowing certain things, to prevent him from becoming angry. 

• I have been in and stayed in destructive relationships. 

• I get depressed and anxious, which makes it hard for me to cope as a parent. 

• I'm loyal even when others are probably exploiting me. 

• For most of my life, I've felt unworthy and unlovable. 

• Sometimes I'm far off, and I feel detached and disengaged. 

• Sometimes I find myself not paying attention to my children. 

• My parents had drug and alcohol problems. 

• One of my parents was abusive, the other passive. 

• Growing up, I functioned as the parent. 

• My spouse mistreats me, but I stay because it would be horrible to be alone. 

• I was physically, emotionally, or sexually abused during my childhood—or saw these things happen to other people. 

• I get nervous when things are calm, and I anxiously wait for the anger to come. 

• When my spouse is unkind to our children, I feel powerless to do anything about it. 

• Sometimes I feel life isn't worth living. 

• I don't let myself cry, because if I started, I'd never stop. 

If you see yourself or someone you know in this assessment, be encouraged. There's hope for recovery! Some of the nicest, most wonderful people in the world are victims, and we have met and known many such people. Incredibly sweet and compliant, there are few who try harder than the victim to do things right. 

While the Yerkovichs acknowledge that no one fits neatly into any single category, we all have styles to which we tend to default. For me personally, I think I fall most into the Avoider, with some Vacillator thrown in. This was helpful to me because I realized that there are things I am doing as a parent, that my children pick up on, and therefore respond in certain ways. By being an Avoider, it means the hard conversations never happen and so a child can feel misunderstood and unappreciated. 

I'm glad I read the book, but I think it would have been even more helpful when I first became a parent. 

All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque

I had a remarkable ambition to read All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque with my history class this year. Covid-19 and the resulting shift to online education pretty much nixed that dream.

However, I went on to read it for myself anyways, figuring, who knows, maybe we'll read it next time. Dream do die hard, don't they?

I'm glad I did. It's pretty much canonical in historical fiction. Told from the perspective of a German soldier in World War I, it forces those of us whose sympathies obviously lie on the other side in this conflagration to confront the reality of the hell of war. And it is hell. No one wins in this novel.

Our narrator is Paul Bäumer  a young, idealistic man who joins up, along with his pals, at the patriotic urgings of his teacher. Written in a haunting present tense that somehow enables the reader to simultaneously feel both part of the action and reflective, Remarque, through Bäumer, realistically describes the descent into inhumanity that characterized the War to End All Wars.

Bäumer begins his narrative in media Regan's, "We were at rest, five miles behind the front." And the action never stops. No explanations are proffered. The only introduction we are given is the names and a short bio of who, exactly, comprise the "we." But in fact, the "we" has already lost one member, obviously the one most reluctant to join. Although it seems clear pretty early on that Bäumer reproves Kantorek, the schoolmaster who impressed upon the young men their patriotic duty to enlist, for their current troubles, he assures us that, "Naturally we couldn't blame Kantorek for this. Where would the world be if it brought every man to book? There were thousands of Kantoreks, all of whom were convinced that they were acting for the best—in a way that cost them nothing.

"And that is why they let us down so badly." (p. 12)

And so begins the penetrating commentary on war masked in the narrative of one soldier's experience. At a minimum, Kantorek should be given his due for his ability to teach his pupil the art of insightful writing.

While most of the book is written in the present tense, occasionally, Bäumer reflects back to the past. In describing how it was that he and his fellow comrades had gotten to the point where they could callously debate the means by which they could abscond with the boots of their dying pal before both they and his body were shipped off, he slips into reminiscing about the necessary training that shaped them. "So we were put through every conceivable refinement of parade-ground soldiering till we often howled with rage. Many of us become ill through it; Wolf actually died of inflammation of the lung. But we would have felt ridiculous had we hauled down our colours. We became hard, suspicious, pitiless, vicious, tough—and that was good; for these attributes were just what we lacked. Had we gone into the trenches without this period of training most of us would certainly have gone mad." (p. 26)

Much of the book is spent going back and forth between the terror of fighting and the absurd situations into which war necessarily places its participants. Vividly describing the bathroom habits of men forced to make due with the lack of latrines, grippingly detailing the death-defying trek to secure a treasured bird to roast, nonchalantly depicting horrifying injuries sustained on the battlefield, Bäumer time and again disconcertingly jumps from the daily banality of war to the carnage and its consequences.

"Habit is the explanation of why we seem to forget things so quickly. Yesterday we were under fire, today we act the fool and go foraging through the countryside, tomorrow we go up to the trenches again. We forget nothing really, but so long as we have to stay here in the field, the front-line days, when they are past, sink down in us like a stone; they are too grievous for us to be able to reflect on them at once. If we did that, we should have been destroyed long ago. I soon found out this much:—terror can be endured so long as a man simply ducks;—but it kills, if a man thinks about it." (p. 138)

Remarque, however, will not allow the reader to duck. We are forced to confront the terror.

At one point, Bäumer almost succumbs to the thoughts he cannot think. He almost begins to see his enemy as a fellow human. He almost begins to see the absurdity of the fact that "a word of command might transform [the enemies] into our friends." (p. 194)

"I am frightened: I dare think this way no more. This way lies the abyss. It is not now the time but I will not lose these thoughts, I will keep them, shut them away until the war is ended. My heart beats fast: this is the aim, the great, the sole aim, that I have thought of in the trenches; that I have looked for as the only possibility of existence after this annihilation of all human feeling; this is the task that will make life afterward worthy of these hideous years." (p. 194)

Again, the reader must think these thought. The reader is not in the trenches.

In a conversation among the men, they wonder at the futility of it all, "But what I would like to know," says Albert, "is whether there would have been a war if the Kaiser had said No." (p. 203)

From there they wonder just exactly it means that one country offended another. Can a French mountain offend a German river. Obviously it means that one people have offended another. Yet one soldier claims to have never met a Frenchman before the war, and that most Frenchmen have never met a German. How can there be an offense? Perhaps wars start because leaders need a war now and then to bolster their legacy. It is clear that these lowly infantry could never hope to comprehend the complexities which lead to international conflagrations. Yet, "no war at all is better" seems unanswerable. (p. 203)

Time and again, Remarque returns to the theme of youth and the impact of the war on the psyche of this generation. Bäumer begins the story by remarking, "Kantorek would say that we stood on the threshold of life. And so it would seem. We had as yet taken no root. The war swept us away. For the others, the older men, it is but an interruption.They are able to think beyond it. We, however, have been gripped by it and do not know what the end may be. We only know that in some strange and melancholy way we have become a waste land." (p. 20)

Later, Bäumer and his friends begin to discuss the ramifications of the war on their generation. "Albert expresses it: 'The war has ruined us for everything.'

"He is right. We are not youth any longer. We don't want to take the world by storm. We are fleeing. We fly from ourselves. From our life. We were eighteen and had begun to love life and the world; and we had to shoot it to pieces. The first bomb, the first explosion, burst in our hearts. We are cut off from activity, from striving, from progress. We believe in such thinks no longer, we believe in the war." (p. 87-88)

Bäumer concludes, "I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how people are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another. I see that the keenest brains of the world invent weapons and words to make it yet more refined and enduring. And all men of my age, here and over there, throughout the whole world see these things; all my generation is experiencing these things with me. What would our fathers do if we suddenly stood up and came before them and proffered our account? What do they expect of us if a time ever comes when the war is over? Through the years our business has been killing;—it was our first calling in life. Our knowledge of life is limited to death. What will happen afterwards? And what shall come out of us?" (p. 264)

Indeed.

Rumpole and the Penge Bungalow Murders by John Mortimer

Desperately needing some light-hearted reading in the time of Covid-19 pandemic, our book club chose Rumpole and the Penge Bungalow Murders by John Mortimer. Apparently it is a series that has long tantalized readers with the mysterious "Penge Bungalow Murders." This book tells the story that seems to have begun it all.

Of course you don't need that background to enjoy the book, which I did. I actually listened to the audiobook which featured Benedict Cumberbatch. I think it must have been somewhat adapted from the book because it's more radio theater than an audiobook.

Regardless, I loved it. It was funny, in a dry, British, sort of way. Delightfully retrogressive, and so it takes us back to a relatively innocent and naive time.

While Rumpole is technically a lawyer, he also plays the role of detective when trying to make his client's defense. Therefore, there is always a twist only Rumpole has discovered.

Lots of fun and definitely worth a read.