Unpatriotic Pacifist

When I was a kid, I was a pretty typical Reagan-era patriot. It helped that I was born in Boston and would occasionally visit there with my parents as well as being a history buff. I wanted to somehow be fighting for the right side of history and I enthusiastically joined in Revolutionary War reenactments in summer camp. I never thought about ending up dead or wounded. That was for the other side, the losers, the oppressive British. But part of growing up in Morning in America was knowing that we could be blown away at any time by nuclear weapons. That stayed with me, even as we segued into Bush I and the New World Order. I was heavily influenced by friend Kathy at the time, who was one of the few liberals in Indianapolis, who convinced me that nuclear war was not only a Very Bad Thing, but a Very Imminent Thing. That's how I ended up on my first march.

Also as part of my education, I learned about Marting Luther King Jr., as there was a huge stink about making his birthday a national holiday. I also watched Richard Attenborough's Gandhi as taped off T.V. at an impressionable age. Since getting in fights with boys was a fairly common occurance with me, I got told that hitting was not a way to solve problems, and I had a habit of believing what I was told, even if I still to this day believe that most of the boys I fought probably went on to fine careers in tony universities and date rape.

So, how is this relative to the price of beans in Burma? What particular education won out? Well, I consider myself a journeyman pacifist. I haven't read all the good tracts, but I have a few theories. If peaceful action is taken at the right time (earlier is better), war is unnecessary. War is never inevitable. Force is never "the only language they understand." It is just as bad to kill as it is to die, if not worse. While there are some people who may seem to deserve death (and I tend to put rapists in that catagory when I'm feeling angry about oh, say, anything), it is not up to we humans to deal it out. Two wrongs do not make a right, and that includes personal as well as organized violence. I have a long way to go before I can put all my theories into action, mostly because I have to fight the messages I recieved when I was younger and the violent urges that everyone carries around. I think that violence resides in all human beings, but that doesn't mean we should give into it. Western Civilization and Christianity has been trying for millenia to control sexual urges, which we all have as well, and I think it would be a whole lot more productive to worry about the violence.

Speaking of which, now we get to the unpatriotic part, the part for which everyone fron Ann Coulter to Joe Klein decrys me as a traitorous satanist, or something. I think that if we really support our troops in this Iraqi debacle, we bring them home, pronto. We work harder at intervening peacefully earlier in geopolitical squabbles so that people don't think we need to send in the Green Machine. Do we thank them for their service, as all the warmongers tell us to do? No, because they aren't really sereving the American public, just the oedipal urges of Bush II. We do love them, tell them we know that under the contract they signed they had to go, and that's not entirely their fault and we love them anyway. I don't think they should have signed such a contract, but I was also doing plenty of things at eighteen that I would regret later too, and I didn't have to worry about paying for college or supporting myself. So we honor those who had no choice, and the memories of those who no longer have choices to make, by not letting this happen again. We tell our children that violence is not how we solve problems, whether with fists or Kalashnikovs. And we model that behavior. We come up with other ways of dealing with aggression and violence. I have to admit I'm not sure of all the options, but like I said, I haven't read all the books. We educate ourselves on current events, try to intervene peacefully before things get out of control. We honor the memory of MLK by teaching his ideals and tactics to everyone, not just those in the United States. This does not happen overnight, of course. But perhaps if we get started now, no one will again feel the need to try to cancel someone else's charter on this earth, or marshal armies for payback. There will always be sociopaths, but the many can prevail against the few, however well-armed. I consider myself a cynic, but I believe it can be done, because it has been done. So honor your veterans: work against violence in all its forms.

Theater is King

I haven't posted in while in part because my phone service went out again for nearly a week and also, I have been storing up my sleep. See, I decided my life wasn't insane enough (and really, it wasn't) and got a gig as a stage manager for a rather big show. St. Buffy pray for me, I may have bitten off more than I can chew. It's a big theater, a ten-member cast, and I'm scared to death. You get the idea. Anyway, Idon't know how much I'll be posting this summer, since I won't be getting much sleep or free time once this gets into gear.

On a tangentially related topic, I went and saw the Signal Ensemble's production of Hamlet this past weekend. The only sorta-complaint I can make is that they sometimes talked like auctioneers to get through the massive script. This kept the run time down to a merciful three and a half hours for a minimally cut text. None of this is what got a bee in my bonnet. Signal Ensemble has enough money to use the Footlights program. Basically, this is a slickly produced minimag that has little articles on theater and related topics along with the usual program fare to keep the groundlings occupied while waiting for the show to start or resume. Anyway, there was an article asking various practioners which of the performing arts was the best, theater, music, or dance? I confess, I did not read it, and here's why: it's a stupid question. People who are not in the arts seem to love pitting artists against each other on who gets primacy. And artists are dumb enough to fall for it every time. I saw it in high school especially, and that's also the last time I gave it any serious thought. Because my sister got into music early and my parents supported her, I got told all my childhood that music was the best of all the arts. This got me very resentful, since my talents did not lie in music, but in literature and theater. It took me a while to be able to articulate those feelings, and that led to my disgust with the question of what's king of the arts. I don't think any of them is any better than any of the others. It's whatever floats your boat. I write okay. I couldn't dance if you shot at my feet. That doesn't mean that dance isn't a valid form of expression or any less of an art form. I just can't do it. I may not get a real thrill from watching dance (though I often do), but that has nothing to do with artistry or some artificial hierarchy. One thing I've learned through my sojurn post college is that everyone experiences the world differently. So go with what speaks to you. Anyone who holds his art form higher than any other is an insecure asshole who really needs to make himself feel better by putting others down. And anyone who gets drawn into such a foolish argument as who's king of the mountain doesn't have the brains given a gnat.