a new covenant with nature…

Tuesday, March 12th, 2013
God gives the spark of life to Adam

Adam and God ©Michaelangelo

It is no surprise that human rights as a formal system, as legislation, should have arisen from the two cataclysms of ‘civil war’ that the Europeans brought upon themselves, and into which they drew so much of the rest of the world. As a way of trying to avoid descent into the horrors of the Rape of Nanking, of the Eastern Front, and of the Holocaust, it is essential, that at the heart of our politics, we should enshrine a reverence for human beings.

No doubt one reason why some regimes resist Western attempts to make them adopt human rights legislation is because they wish to continue abusing, with impunity, the people they have power over. China, for example, has long resisted pressure from the West to ‘improve their human rights record’. Governments in Africa, to whom the West offers loans with human rights conditions attached, are turning for help to China, who is only too happy to provide this aid without such pre-conditions. Of course human rights are not the only strings attached when you deal with the West, there are also economic conditions – such as the opening up of a country to the ‘free market’ – as well as all manner of other political demands. Not that any of this is new: the West now offers what once it imposed, when it had the power to do so. Colonial ‘development’ was explained to the ‘natives’ as being in their best interest. Importantly, those economic and political interventions of the West went hand in glove with a proselytising morality: Christianity and Christian values.

Christianity was at the heart of the European imperial project. It was there with shackles and burning when the Spanish ravaged the Americas; it was there with the missionaries that penetrated various ‘dark continents’. It seems to me that this was not a different project, but an earlier form of the modern one: for it is accepted that ‘human rights’ are a refined and ‘de-god-ed’ evolution of Christian values. As such, it is possible to see Chinese resistance today to American diplomats trying to attach human rights conditions to a trade agreement, as a continuation of the earlier attempts to force China to open herself up to missionaries, as she was forced, by gunboats, to open herself up to trade.

Here we see the problem I believe is inherent in Western human rights: their genesis in Christianity. If human rights occupies the same space in Western hearts that was once occupied by Christianity, is it surprising that people of different faiths, of cultures that did not evolve with Christianity, should resist this imposition? That we in the West do not recognize this link allows us to be as blind in our conviction of the superior morality of our position, as we were when we destroyed and enslaved the Aztecs, while all the time convinced that we were doing them a favour – after all, were we not saving their souls? Thus, the functional goal of attempting to stop holocausts, can be lost in this natural human resistance to our zealotry.

But even this is not my primary concern. Rather it is that I believe that there is a profound error at the very heart of Christianity, one that is so deeply embedded at the very beginning of the Bible that its effects permeate Judaism and Christianity: namely that man is made in God’s image and that His creation was put here for our use. This, it seems to me, is the fatal flip side of human rights: the primacy of humanity and our divinely ordained dominion over all other living things and the planet Earth itself – the Universe even. This flip side is evident in everything the West does – it contaminates our culture on every level – and as our culture has become the global culture, this error seems destined to become the birthright of humanity. The hubris that we see demonstrated all around us, is built into Western culture at its most inner, Christian core. It informed, and informs, the path of history from industrial revolutions, to the colonisation of North America, and the imperialisms of the West. It profoundly determines the way we live now. The whole economic drive that we are using to destroy the planet and to exterminate the wondrous variety of ecosystems and living beings on it, is informed by that central understanding that we are made in the image of god, and that that god has made the world for us to use as we wish. It does not matter that so many of us in the West have lost our faith, for we still hold that covenant between us and creation to be true.

So I say that we need a new covenant with Nature, one that is guided by what science is teaching us about the true nature of the world and our place in it. Once we see that we have no such human right to exert dominion as we do, then perhaps we can stop this wilful destruction, and so save the world and ourselves, from ourselves…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments Yet

competition versus brotherhood…

Tuesday, February 5th, 2013
Napoleon crowned with a laurel wreath © Ingres

Napoleon crowned with a laurel wreath © Ingres

A mania for competition so possesses our societies that it is hard to imagine any other way of being, and yet I think it is critical that we free ourselves from its grip.

In the West, the Christian churches, from long habit, had an explanation for everything. Alas, with the rise of science, these churches chose to cling to Old Testament ‘certainties’, with the result that, when the cosmology of ‘Creation’ was overturned, the New Testament began to sink with it.

In Western civilisation, only the peace-making teachings of Jesus Christ were strong enough to stand up against that other hoary tradition: constant conflict. The wolf-eat-dog mentality of the Roman Republic, for example, devoured the western half of the ‘ancient world’, and was only, by the Empire’s adoption of Christianity, moderately tamed. The sporting competitions at Olympia, that were really the internecine warfare between the Greek city states in a ‘gentler’ form, crowned their winners with wreaths; their Roman conquerors wore laurel wreaths as a sign of military victory. This vertical dimension in human affairs, that raises the winner above the loser, is also the basis of hierarchies of power; the ruler sitting enthroned in triumph above the ruled. It was Christ (and the other great prophets) who preached a levelling horizontal dimension: the brotherhood each man should feel for another.

Our tendency towards hierarchy is balanced by another for fairness and equality: though we are individuals, we are also social animals. It was Darwin who administered the deepest wound to Christianity. His ‘survival of the fittest’ dethroned Man from the centre of Creation; as Copernicus had dislodged the Earth from the centre of the Universe. The brotherhood of Man was reduced to individuals struggling against each other – a process of atomisation that culminated in Dawkins ‘selfish gene’. With fateful timing, On the Origin of Species arrived even as the Industrial Revolution was tearing society apart. Evolution ‘proved’ that we were all in desperate competition with each other: man against man – and, by analogy, tribe against tribe, nation against nation. This process of ‘individualisation’ was termed ‘progress’, itself a survival of Christianity’s linear time: creation, salvation, judgement, (as is another survival: the pernicious belief that God gave us the world for our use). Other societies, the Asian East for example, whose achievements of peace and beliefs in cyclical time were dismissed as ‘stagnation’, were shattered by our Western ‘progress’. Our civilisation conquered using the results of our relentless competition: weapons and industrialisation. All these factors coalesced with ever greater fury into the maelstrom of wars that we sucked the rest of the world into. Hitler’s creed, however crooked, was rooted in what had gone before.

So here we are today in a world that is still dominated by our Western ‘progress’. Socialism, the inheritor of Christ’s horizontal, levelling doctrine, is everywhere in retreat. Capitalism, in spite of all its failures, rules triumphant. And what is this ‘capitalism’ if not competition – endless, unrelenting competition? And what is competition but warfare writ small. Even in the modest arena of a football ground is it hard to see the game as being a ‘little war’?

Competition, whatever mask it wears, is the deadly foe of universal brotherhood. It is the vertical dimension in human affairs that sorts people into winners and losers. If we are determined to define our existence along this axis, then we should hardly be surprised that the gap between rich and poor is everywhere widening. We should hardly be surprised that we are all in a race against each other, a race that, when it doesn’t actually spill blood, rips our planet to pieces to feed its insatiable appetite for ‘progress’. We all know that we are on a trajectory to disaster, but even now our politicians are urging us to ‘grow’ our economies at ever greater speed.

For now at least religion’s credibility is spent. When it fights science with explanations of the world a thousand years old, it is going to lose. When it turns to violence, it loses. All the old forms of universal brotherhood have lost their power. We can hope that, through the internet, new forms are rising. But in the meantime, let us at least bear down on ‘competition’ – for in all its guises it is destructive to the world and to ourselves…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments »

a bite of the cherry…

Monday, November 26th, 2012
policeman in front of a picture of Mao...

China resurgent © Carlos Barria/Reuters

It seems that those of us who live in the West may need to get used to the fact that our economies are not going to return to constant growth. The belief that things are going to always continue to get better – at least in the sense of a constantly growing GDP – has always been a fantasy: constant growth of the kind we’ve experienced, that consists of consuming the Earth’s resources, presupposes that these are limitless. Since they are not, then it is hard to see how traditional economic growth could continue for ever.

Of course it’s difficult to give something up when you’ve had it there all your life. Nevertheless, I’m not going to cry over the difficulties that are overtaking us because things as they were depended quite a bit on selfishness. While our standards of (material) life have been constantly improving for decades, not everyone else on the planet was so fortunate. Not only were their lives not improving, but often that lack of improvement had something to do with our improving lives – I could make various arguments to support this stance, if such are needed. There are many direct links between us being up, and others being down. How much, for example, has our recent prosperity depended on people working in sweatshops for a pittance? Make as many arguments as you like about how we helped raise these poor people up from poverty – I will maintain that they have done this for themselves, and that we have been content to profit from these people being prepared (or forced) to live and work in conditions that we wouldn’t even contemplate for ourselves. What I don’t imagine can be argued is that we now have any justification in complaining that they’ve ‘taken all our jobs’; or that we have any right to feel aggrieved at what the consequences may be for us now that they are beginning to demand a standard of living closer to our own – whether this will come at the cost of dangerous carbon emissions, of a loss of power on our part, or of a permanent ending of a constant increase in our GDP.

So, I feel that we should accept this change in our prospects with good grace. We are at the end of a half-millennium during which we in the West have greatly enriched ourselves at the cost of just about everyone else on this planet. Western Europeans went to the Far East in search of things the people there had that we wanted some of. When we reached India and China, we found them fabulously sophisticated and wealthy. Through accidents of history too numerous for me to go into here, we had the whip hand on these civilizations more prosperous than we were. Now they are finally recovering, and rising back to somewhere nearer where they were – and had been for centuries – relative to us. Economic projections suggest that this will be achieved in a vastly wealthier world. Personally, I doubt this scenario – for all kinds of reasons; not least that, when it comes to natural resources, we have already picked all the low hanging fruit. What remains is unlikely to be enough to bring everyone up to the standard of living we currently enjoy in the West. More pressing would seem to be the threat of global warming that is likely to change the rules of the game entirely. Still, whatever comes, I for one am going to watch with some satisfaction as the rest of humanity achieves something like the life I have been privileged to live this far…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments Yet

9/11 in a Mexican jungle…

Sunday, September 11th, 2011

On the 11th of September 2001, we returned from a miraculous day wandering, eventually barefoot, through a jungle in the Mexican Yucatan, led by a Mayan girl to waterfalls that tumbled down steps gouged into smooth bowls in the soft limestone. Between the trees enormous blue crabs scuttled. At last, exhilarated, we found ourselves in the girl’s hut, a circular house with a palm frond roof and an earth floor and, bizarrely, satellite TV. As I politely handled bracelets and necklaces the girl and her mother had made, bright seeds and pods strung on wire, I was distracted by an image of furious violence on the screen; a skyscraper being pierced by an aircraft blossoming a fireball and smoke. I thought it was something from a James Bond film that I had not seen before. But my partner seemed alarmed and something about it did not look like a film.

As we were driven back to the hotel we had left the day before, we talked about this incredible thing we had seen, having learned from the driver that it was an attack on New York. We picked up a hitchhiker, a man in his fifties, an American. We asked him if he’d heard the news. He told us that he had, and that two of his children were in the towers.

Back in the hotel we located a TV in a corner of a lounge. We turned it to CNN and watched the news, trying to make sense of what was happening. Other guests, a Mexican family, asked for the sound to be turned down because it was disturbing their game of cards.

Over the next few days we exchanged emails with our family and friends back home. Amidst the calm and the heat of the Yucatan, hysteria and fear poured at us from those communications. American airspace had been closed down and the airplanes of the carrier that had brought us to Mexico were grounded. We talked about whether we should try to get home; whether we would even be able to get home. None of it felt real.

We decided to continue our holiday, daily hearing more from the UK of the terror and fear there. Around us everything was serene. A Mayan woman described in the guidebooks the tourists carried, a woman who stood in a particular square holding a bright parasol, took us, with others, into the homes of local people, poor people. People who, having little, had crates of Pepsi that they used as a sacramental fluid in their religious rituals. Our guide had the demeanour of a saint as she told us about the lives of her people, and of the terrible civil war that had recently ravaged their land. Afterwards, we asked her if she had heard of the attack in New York. She had. I asked her what she thought of it. She said she was sorry for the loss of life, but that the Americans had brought her people a lot of harm, and to so many others in Latin America. She felt that this was something they had coming. What they were suffering now others, vastly more than had died in New York, had suffered. She asked me: Why is their suffering more important than that of these other people? She said that she hoped it would make the Americans open their hearts to others, to use their power more responsibly, to be kinder…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
3 Comments »

Ming vases…

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

Wen Zhengming painting

Philosopher by a Waterfall by Wen Zhengming

Even in childhood I was baffled as to why oil paintings sold in auction houses for countless millions, while equally exquisite works of art from other cultures seemed lucky if they fetched thousands. One exception is the ubiquitous ‘Ming vase’… examples of which appear in everything from Tin Tin to baroque palaces across Europe. Another is ancient artefacts, though these again seem to be valued less for their aesthetic qualities than for how close they fall to the traditionally accepted path of ancestry of Western culture.

Surely, what this is all about is some kind of bigotry… There are schools of painting in China, for example, that are as sophisticated, as accomplished, as those in Europe, and yet – though most will have heard of Van Gogh or Rembrandt – who among us can name any Chinese painters?

The strange anomaly of the Ming vase perhaps only helps to further make this point. Chinese porcelain as an object of admiration and desire dates from a time when Europe was somewhat in awe of China – and it seems to me that human beings, when they respect others – and nothing breeds respect quite like perceiving that the other appears to be rich and successful – that they also respect their art; what is art after all but an incarnation of a people’s soul…?

Well it seems that as the ‘developing’ world becomes richer, people there become interested in reclaiming their heritage. Nothing draws attention to something quite as much as someone paying a lot of money for it. No doubt Western art critics will now begin to ‘discover’ this other art and their reappraisal will see it slowly raised to a comparable status with Western art.

About time is what I say!

(I have made a resonant point about ‘manners’ in an earlier post.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments Yet