Category Archives: Issue 18

The Pivotal Role of Natives and Blacks in the Conquest

Leave a reply

Nicole Moore Sanborn

The Eurocentric view of historians and Spaniards alike has turned the Conquest into a romanticized time period neglecting the importance of natives and Africans in battles and colonial establishment. The myth of the white man being the primary conquistadors is refuted through evidence of the Tlaxcalans, Huejotzincans, and Maya helpers as well as Juan Valiente and other unnamed blacks. The myth of the white man has been perpetuated for a variety of different reasons and served very specific purposes in colonial times. Reshaping our view of the Conquest and shifting away from a Eurocentric view of history is vital to developing a better understanding of the exchange.

The myth of the white man being the primary fighters and victors of the Conquest originated because the most widely read accounts of the conquest, especially the conquest of Mexico, create the visual of Europeans triumphing over natives, no matter the odds (Restall 45). The romantic image of a few Spanish conquistadors miraculously defeating many natives is imbedded into history through writings about the Capture of Atahuallpa, the Alamo, and other events (45). Restall also argues the myth of the white conquistador is “a corollary to the handful-of-adventurers image, and is thus equally central to the conquistadors’ own portrait of the Conquest” (45). The ideas perpetuated in widely read history books not only romanticize the Conquest as solely the fruits of the white conquistador, but also distort the truth.

Despite the overwhelming number of natives and blacks that aided the Spaniards, if their contributions are mentioned, it is in passing. Pedro de Cieza de Leon both ignored and revealed black roles in his writings (60). Spanish and native sources make references to the black presence in the Conquest (57). Alvarado only mentions native allies once in his two letters to Cortes during the 1524 invasion of Guatemala. The mention of five to six thousand “friendly Indians” is juxtaposed against the 250 Spaniards, thereby providing clear evidence against the idea of the Spaniards as the sole victors (45).

In the colonial period, the myth of the white conquistador served various roles for the Spaniards, specifically Eurocentric thinking, the goal of obtaining titles, and keeping natives and blacks in subordinate roles or as slaves. Restall mentions the Songs of the Aztecs, which spins the Conquest as a native civil war resulting in incomplete Spanish domination (46). Restall argues this view is not only an alternative to the “predictably hispanocentric perspective of the Spaniards,” but is also a view found frequently in native sources (46). The probanzas de merito the conquistadors wrote to the king were written with the goal of obtaining titles such as Admiral, and thus were focused specifically on the merits of the author. If authors had included anecdotes about the importance of the native and black allies, the king might become concerned about the lack of power and leverage the Spaniards had over the natives, and may even doubt a conquistador’s leadership, therefore not giving the desired titles. By nature, probanzas de merito were self-serving and Eurocentric, thereby ignoring key native allies. Third, Spaniards desired to keep natives and blacks as auxiliaries or slaves. Restall notes Spaniards “considered it great hardship to go without them [native or black auxiliaries]” (51). Black slaves of Spaniards functioned as domestic servants, assistants, and servants who were armed by necessity (54-55). Black slaves were also expected to fill marginal posts on the outskirts of the Spanish towns (62). As armed servants, blacks were expected to protect their masters. If forced to fight an onslaught of natives, black servants could earn their freedom through fighting and surviving (55). After earning freedom through fighting, these blacks were still expected to take on the aforementioned marginal posts on the outskirts of town. A majority of Africans brought to the Americas were brought as slaves, and as a result of both their subordinate status and the Eurocentric worldview of the Spaniards, their central role in the Conquest was consistently ignored (53).

While Tlaxcalans, Huejotzincans, and Maya allies were essential to Spanish victory, they simultaneously pursued interests of their own. Combined, these examples refute the myth of the white man and demonstrate the white man would have failed without these allies. Despite the expansion of the Aztec empire, a small city-state of Tlaxcala maintained independence and presented both a danger and opportunity for Cortes (46). If the Tlaxcalans had continued their initial hostilities toward Cortes, he would have been forced to retreat (46). Indeed, a small Tlaxcalan faction was in favor of developing an anti-Mexica alliance with Cortes, enabling the destruction of the Aztec empire and Tenochtitlan. The Tlaxcalans ensured vital native support for Cortes, while the achieving their goal of disabling the Aztec empire for freedom (46-47). The Huejotzincans, who assisted the Spaniards in the conquest, were not tools of Cortes’s strategy, but used the Spanish to pursue their own interests. Specifically, the Huejotzincans used Spanish presence to engage their rivals, the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans by overthrowing the empire in power and obtaining leverage against a rival city-state (48). Two major yet distinct Maya groups in Guatemala, the Cakchiquel and Quiche, were in a brutal civil war in the 1520s. The Spaniards not only used these groups as their own “allies” at various points in this civil war, but also used the groups against each other and against smaller Maya groups through exploiting regional politics and attempting (though ultimately unsuccessfully) to obtain control over the whole region (48).

Juan Valiente is an example of a successful black conquistador, and is therefore proof Spaniards and white men were not the only victors in the Conquest. Juan Valiente convinced his owner in 1533 to allow him to pursue conquistador status for four years as long as he brought his earnings back. Valiente fought in Guatemala, Peru, and later in Chile. By 1550, he had become a captain, horseman, earned an estate outside of Santiago, was granted an encomienda, and married. Before reporting back to his owner, he was killed by the Araucanians in 1553 (53-54). Valiente achieved a status as high as the Spanish conquistadors, but kept fighting instead of enjoying his new way of life, and as a result was killed in battle.

Two other instances of unnamed blacks demonstrate their vital role in the Conquest and act as proof the Spanish would not have survived without them. An African discovered fresh water in the Ecuadorian interior for a company led by Diego (Alvarado’s cousin) and another African saved Almagro’s life (60). Without these key yet unnamed participants, Diego’s entire company may have died and Almagro would not have reached the fame and recognition he has today due to an untimely death. Lastly, Restall does not mention this directly, but since black servants would fight to protect their masters, many were killed. Servants sacrificed themselves to the Conquest and for Spanish glory without being acknowledged. 

The aforementioned examples are a few of the recorded examples of native and black assistance in the Conquest. Many more unnamed allies assisted the Spaniards in their endeavors. Disabling the myth of the white man matters because it further reveals Eurocentrism in history and demonstrates the Conquest as we know it today is not the whole picture. Evidence of native and black allies also refutes the myth “a few great men” overthrew well-established empires. Without allies, the small groups of Spaniards would not have successfully gained power and overthrown the Aztecs, despite advanced weaponry. While recent scholarship is starting to convey the pivotal role natives and blacks played in the Conquest, the myth of the white conquistador and belief of whitewashed history still reigns supreme in many students’ minds.

Lebensunwerten Lebens

Leave a reply

Jared Emry

The Holocaust was a eugenics program that attempted to cleanse the Aryan race and society as a whole. Eugenics is the concept of breeding out traits considered to be inferior or the root of disease — societal, genetic, or otherwise. The use of eugenics through methods of sterilization and euthanasia became a solution to what was perceived by many to be a serious problem. Eugenics was incredibly popular in the world at the time. It was practiced throughout much of the western world in the form of sterilization. Hitler started the Nazi eugenics program only five months into the office of chancellor in 1933, and he began it as a sterilization campaign aimed at the mentally ill. The practice continued in some parts of the U.S. until at least the late ’60s. Starting with the mentally ill, the Holocaust spread to political dissidents, followed by certain races and homosexuals.  In this way, psychology was the primary tool used by the Nazis to justify and fuel the propaganda of the Holocaust.

The idea of Aryan domination first found a foothold in Alfred Ploetz’s The Efficiency of our Race and the Protection of the Weak. Ploetz originally argued the Jews were equal and indispensible, but revised his opinion after deciding Jews were too individualistic and lacked nationalism. Later, psychiatrist Alfred Hoche wrote Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, which spoke of euthanizing “life not worth living.” His idea was the mentally ill are merely shells of humans and they are massive burdens on society, financial and otherwise. Dr. Hoche even calculated the specific average financial cost of each mentally ill person’s burdens society per year (Cornwell 89). These calculation became central in Nazi propaganda. His work led to the euthanizing of mentally ill patients began, but the Nazis were forced to ban the practice because of public outrage. Despite the ban, most psychologists continued to kill their patients based on their beliefs in eugenics. Dr. Elizabeth Hecker was one such doctor who continued to kill her test subjects when she was through with them, she is even now still lauded as a pioneer of developmental psychology. Eventually, Alfred Hoche recanted after a close relative of his was disposed of.

The Holocaust started with the disposal of the mentally ill, but it moved past that. Prior to 1934, the Nazis had a neutral stance on homosexuality. Ernst Röhm, head of the SA, and many other officials were openly homosexual. Röhm was popular, became politically ambitious, and started to grow his own paramilitaries. Hitler and Himmler responded by filling the newspapers with rumors Röhm was working to stage a coup backed with planted evidence and used those rumors as a justification for a party purge. Himmler feared a conspiracy and thus the Holocaust grew to include the homosexuals (Oosterhuis 195). Despite that, homosexuals did not face the same severity of persecution as Nazi psychologists thought and proved homosexuals could be quarantined and rehabilitated. Again, the Nazis turned to the psychologists for justification. Mental illness is functionally definable as any culturally unacceptable deviancy or idiosyncrasy, and so with homosexuality considered to be a mental illness and also life not worth living. In this sense, the Holocaust never did move past the disposal of the mentally ill.

The Jews were next in 1935 and the justification was a little harder to reach. The breakthrough came when, “Erich Jaensch began organizing his biopsychological typology work around a notion of a superior ‘Northern integration type’ (the ‘J’ type), whose attributes he contrasted with an inferior ‘Jewish-liberal dissolution type’ (the ‘S’ type). The ‘S’ type — which he increasingly called the Gegentyp (‘anti-type’) — was described as intellectually rigid and abstract, yet with a tendency to become easily fragmented” (Harrington).

These results which purposefully aligned with the preexisting anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazi party were used as a justification and a source for anti-Semitic propaganda and the wholescale persecution of the Jews at the national level.

The corruption of science didn’t end with psychiatry.  The biologist Adolf Meyer-Abich gave a guest presentation at John Hopkins in 1933, where he showed a film depicting the Fuhrer principle in bacteria colonies. He failed to comprehend why the American scientists did not take the documentary seriously (Harrington 357). However, psychology fundamentally uses the culturally normative ideology as its basis for inquiry into both society and individual persons (Strous 8). Psychology, unlike the hard science, adopts an ideology and then builds evidence in support of that ideology rather than attempting an objective observation with analysis appropriate to the evidence. The field adopted the Nazi ideology as naturally as it adopts any ideology. In fact, it was in the Third Reich where psychology was first treated seriously by a governing authority and by a people as a whole with the Vordiplom Prüfung. The Vordiplom Prüfung, or the Diploma Examination Regulations, became the first professional qualification exam for psychology in 1940 making psychology a legitimate profession as it remains today. Even the modern qualification exams are nothing more than updates of Vordiplom Prüfung (Geuter 199).

The majority of psychologists intimately involved with the Holocaust would never see a second within the walls of a prison. Whether they had directly been involved with the killing or if they had merely claimed to have empirically proven scientific justification for the killing, they were given the most leniencies at the Nuremburg Trials. More psychologists and psychiatrists were prosecuted than any other group of professionals, but they were absolved of guilt because the courts believed the sterilization and euthanasia was legal. The majority of psychologists intimately involved simply chose to ignore their past, pretend nothing had happened, and repress their history (Oosterhuis). Dr. Elizabeth Hecker, who had maintained the first adolescent psychiatric clinic that tested and killed any children deemed delinquent or abnormal after being studied or experimented on, was never punished for her crimes. Instead, Dr. Hecker was elected an honorary member of the German Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Many others continue to be cited and quoted in modern medical articles without mention of the highly unethical and torturous nature of their studies (Langsdorff).

The evolution of psychology as a profession under the rule of the Third Reich and the aid it provided to the Third Reich is clearly demonstrated historically.  Psychologists provided Nazi Germany as a standard by which they could justify their worst atrocities, including the holocaust. The Nazis were given a position by which they could claim their opposition was both anti-science and a form of social disease requiring extermination. Any group they disliked could, and were, written off as antisocial and destroyed. But did this tendency to facilitate and organize the destruction of individuals with twisted scientific rationale end with the Third Reich?

Works Cited

Cornwell, John. Hitler’s Scientists: Science, War and the Devil’s Pact. New York: Viking, 2003.

Geuter, Ulfried. The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany. Cambridge: CUP.

Harrington, Anne. “Metaphoric Connections: Holistic Science in the Shadow of the Third Reich.” Social Research, 1995-07. 62:2.

Langsdorff, Maja. Die Geheimnisse um J. H. Schultz, Die Rolle des Autogenen Trainings und seines Begründers im Nationalsozialismus.

Oosterhuis, Harry. “Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany.” Journal of Contemporary History, 1997-04. 32:2, p. 187-205.

Strous, R.D., “Psychiatry during the Nazi era: ethical lessons for the modern professional.” Annals of General Psychiatry, 2007-02-27.

Overlooked Gems: Holland & Mount Vernon and Fairway (A Fairy Tale)

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

Intro: Packing Up and Moving On

With the creative freedom seemingly to do whatever they want, the Beach Boys in 1972 do something pretty unusual: pack up an entire recording studio and ship it to the Netherlands to make a new album in a new and familiar setting, giving us what feels almost like an ode to 19th-century Western America: Holland.  The album has nothing to do with its eponymous country, as far as I can tell, other than the time on the other side of the Atlantic moved many of the Boys to write about the land they left behind and other feelings of uncertainty and loss in this unusual time.  On one hand their creativity was unleashed; on the other hand, many old familiar faces were not around, especially Bruce Johnston and Brian Wilson.  Still, Holland is a remarkable album capturing the dynamism of the Beach Boys during an unusual era.

Holland Side One

Much has been said in several places about “Sail On, Sailor”: how it was originally not submitted to be on the album, how the production company rejected the album without a potential “hit” song (10 years into the Beach Boys’ career the studio still has control over their albums!), the resurrection and lyrical reworking of the song, et cetera.  It’s easy to imagine what the album would be like without this song — just start the album from track two.  Still, the song fits very well with the entire vibe of the album, and its connectivity to the album is so strong it feels strange thinking the album was intended to exist without it.  It sets the dominant mood of the album very well, making a nice up-tempo(ish) bookend with “Funky Pretty.”  “This is a mellow album with a lot of heart,” says this album.  “We’re on an adventure of mildly languorous enthusiasm.  An adventure of reflection.”  They are sailing, but this isn’t the Sloop John B.  They are all Huckleberry Finns rafting down the river.

“Steamboat” continues that aura perfectly well.  Instead of a raft, though, the medium of the languorous journey of reflection is now a steamboat chugging along at a moderate pace.  Instead of considering it too slow, as some apparently do, it’s better to embrace it as a call to patience, a call to slow your life down and enjoy what is happening in your life — and if you can’t enjoy what is happening in your life now, do what you can to fix that and get to a more enjoyable place of peace and tranquility.  This is a bit ironic, then, considering for Mark Twain the steamboat was an exciting symbol of maturity, progress, and change.  It was the opposite of Huck’s raft, yet here the Beach Boys equate them.

“California Saga” is an impressive, wistful look back at the land the Beach Boys have physically departed during this time.  “Big Sur” feels like the raft and/or steamboat has docked, and we are relaxing on the beach for a while, which makes sense, since Big Sur is a magnificent coastal site in California.  “The Beaks of Eagles” is a very evocative product of its time: this song definitely matches the way the Beach Boys look in the studio, especially Mike Love, whose spoken word voice is rather powerful in its sincerity and quietude.  It reminds me very much of the beginning of Centennial.  “California” is a sharp turn toward what could easily be mistaken for a goofy romp, with the almost honky-tonk sounds and unusual lyric.  Yet, it is a very intelligent tribute to California the way only someone who knows it and loves it could be — it’s like an inside joke but one that invites strangers to take part and learn about what is so wonderful about the subject matter.

Holland Side Two

Continuing this remarkable atmosphere of smooth sailing down the river, Carl Wilson’s fantastic “The Trader” is both a politically-driven artifact of its time and a transcendent piece of beautiful music enjoining us to get to a peaceful place and relax and listen to it and the world around us.  The first half of the song is very much a diatribe against Imperialism, possibly a diatribe against Columbus Day, but it, too, is very evocating of Centennial — that must be part of the reason I enjoyed listening to this album so much (to be taken both ways) this summer.  I should really watch Centennial again.  The second half is definitely one of my favorite parts of the album.  The quality of Carl Wilson’s voice around the “Eyes that see beyond tomorrow / Through to the time without hours / Passing the Eden of flowers / Reason to live” section is fantastic, both vocally and lyrically.  We are far away from the Beach Boys of the ’60s.  Getting to a quiet place where you can listen to this son is definitely a “reason to live.”

“Leaving This Town” shifts the mood again to a somber, sorrowful song about leaving more than just a town: “Sometimes it’s hard to make it through the day / Sometimes it’s hard to find my way / Sometimes it’s hard to notice the changing days / When your friends have all gone / Leaving this town for another one.”  It reminds me of both the end of summer before all of us going off to college for the first time, some leaving early, some of us not leaving at all.  Then, too, it reminds me of that bizarre last day of a college year: nothing feels quite so strange as walking around campus a few hours after graduation, when all your friends have packed up and driven off and all the halls and rooms of laughter and memories and shared moments are still and silent and empty.  This is a very powerful song, but despite its potential for melancholia the music, especially the near-funky bridge, refrains from succumbing to despair.  There is still optimism undergirding this song.  Perhaps we will all return to this town again someday, together — or, better yet, we will all be together again somewhere else better, sooner.  Additionally, this song is a great demonstration of the new life and musical talent Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar brought to the band for a little while.

Dennis Wilson’s second contribution to the album, along with “Steamboat,” is another beautifully quiet song “Only with You.”  It easily recalls “Make it Good” and “Cuddle Up” from Carl and the Passions — “So Tough,” but it’s possibly even better than those.  Dennis’s songs weren’t necessarily the most lyrically complicated, but genuine love and passion don’t need floridity and profundity.  The simplicity of these lyrics, the powerful yet restrained way Carl sings these words, and the sweet musical accompaniment make this a very enjoyable contribution to this album.  It is yet another variegated emotion on an excellent album that has been too often dismissed and neglected.

The album wraps up with Brian’s only new contribution, a laid back groove called “Funky Pretty” that mingles a bit of their Transcendental Meditation experiences with the album’s motif of lost love.  Neither an up-tempo rocking conclusion (which would, after all, feel out of place on this album), nor a slow ballad typically ending most generic pop-rock albums, “Funky Pretty” is its own groove, an unhurried ditty with unabashed humor, astrological linguistic rigmarole, and a sprinkling of wistful missing love.  Sometimes, if you don’t have enough words to make it to the end of the musical line, you just got to let the music carry you through.  The ending of the number is a treat, as many layers of vocals and voices imbricate in a positive, carousing manner.  It’s easy to imagine the Boys standing around the studio singing their different lyrics into their microphones, smiling and laughing while memories of “Barbara Ann” shenanigans flit about a much older, wiser, sadder, hairier group of top-notch musicians.

Mount Vernon and Fairway (A Fairy Tale)

This is an experience, that’s for sure.  It’s best to do what Brian says and listen to it in the dark.  Thanks to modern technology, we can listen to it in its entirety without having to flip over the record and break the mood halfway through.  It’s a remarkable version of how the Beach Boys came to be, as if told from a children’s fairy tale, and that’s the only thing I can say about it directly without spoiling any of it for you.  I can appreciate why the other Boys didn’t want to include this on Holland originally, especially as they were supposedly about moving forward and doing new things, finding new sounds (even if their subject matter was about the past and land they left, too), and Mount Vernon is wholly unlike where the rest of the band was going and what it was doing, but Carl made a good decision in including it as an EP, even if it furthered the rift between the Boys and Brian for a few more years.  Brian Wilson had a gift, and though it was damaged and delayed and possibly thwarted at times, he still managed to share a great deal of beauty with us in a comparatively short amount of time.  This is a gift from a genius to us all.

Outro: Maturing Beach Boys in the Tumultuous ’70s

This was a strange, exciting time for the Beach Boys collectively (not to ignore or belittle Brian’s issues at the time).  Carl is starting to come into his own, Dennis is blossoming as a real musician (if you don’t necessarily like his voice or the simplicity of his lyrics), Al is contributing even more intelligent numbers and growing as a lyricist, and the contributions of Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar prove the Beach Boys were not just a flash-in-the-pan ’60s-only one-trick-pony group.  Oh, yes: and Mike Love is still being Mike Love.  They could adapt to the times, grow as musicians, and be relevant and creative and worthwhile as ever.  In a time of change and uncertainty, the early ’70s-era Beach Boys responded with fresh, enjoyable music.  Go get a copy of Holland & Mount Vernon and Fairway (A Fairy Tale) today and enjoy them.

1984‘s Dark Future

Leave a reply

Alex Touchet

Published in 1949, George Orwell’s 1984 describes the futuristic and dystopian society of Oceania where the government maintains a totalitarian grip over the populous by way of omnipresent propaganda, ubiquitous surveillance, and a restrictive chokehold on any form of individualism.  The novel was published four years after the end of World War II, and was undeniably beyond its time.  Orwell comes across as practically prescient through his chilling depiction of totalitarian states that overwhelm the citizens who live within them.  It is logical to assume Orwell was, in the least, inspired by political and economic events taking place in and around Britain during the ’40s.

Thankfully, readers of Orwell do not have to rely upon conjecture to inform them of his novel’s original purpose; in fact, a letter Orwell sent in 1944 to a certain Noel Willmett detailed his personal stance on world politics at the time.  He focused specifically on his fear totalitarianism and “Fuhrer-worship” were consistently becoming more frequent throughout the world.  He also explained how he worried this rise of “emotional nationalism” and leader-worship could inevitably lead to major historical revisions.  He elaborated that “Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history.”  This theme is exemplified through 1984’s “Ministry of Truth,” the institution that essentially rewrites history so it accommodates whatever the government wishes to tell its naïve civilian population.  Orwell drove his point further with a numeric example he later utilized in his novel: “[Hitler] can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the Fuhrer wished it.”  This serves as a more personalized precursor to 1984’s analysis of individuality oppression.

Orwell also explained how he believed society was already on a downward slope toward a more totalitarian outlook.  He detailed two major reasons for this decline in the general interest in democratic principles in British society.  The first reason he gave was based upon the growing tendency toward indifference for political individualism in the younger generation of his time.  “Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a d*mn for this?”  He followed by saying a further problem with Britain’s social situation was how most of the intellectual community tended toward totalitarianism over individualistic values.  They would take Stalin, for example, over Hitler, disregarding the potential issues that would arise from such a decision.  “Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.”  Orwell connected this general disregard for the necessity for political protection of individuality with the argument Britain and the United States have not experienced totalitarianism yet, and therefore do not understand its ramifications.  It would be much easier to ignore the potential evils of policies such as public surveillance, Gestapo-like police, and the rewriting of history when they are all proposed in the name of homeland-defense or emotional nationalism.

An article by John Bennet describes how Orwell’s involvement in both the BBC and the Spanish Civil War shaped how he viewed the media.  The fact news reports of the war tended to bear little to no resemblance of the actual events to which they referred made Orwell very skeptical of the media’s overall validity.  Bennet also says Orwell partially based his “Ministry of Truth” off of BBC’s efforts during World War II.  “Orwell noted that the BBC put out false hate propaganda during World War II, and controlled history by censoring news about the genocidal Allied policy of leveling German cities by saturation bombing.”  This experience proved to be pivotal in how Orwell believed the control of the past to be integral to the control of the present and future.

Orwell’s many predictions were not restricted only to the 20th century; many of them are gradually becoming more obvious in modern society.  Even in the West, a fountainhead for individual political liberty, the things Orwell was so vigilant in warning the world about are becoming progressively more prevalent.  Bennet describes how even the seemingly far-reaching concept of what Orwell coined “newspeak” has already invaded western media.  “The corruption of language described in 1984 is widespread in the media today, with ‘newspeak’ terms such as democratic, socialist, fascist, war criminal, freedom fighter, racist and many other expressions being used in a deliberately deceptive, propagandistic way….”  Orwell understood the intrinsic reality of government and society so well his warnings apply in the modern day just as well as they did while Stalin was still alive.

George Orwell’s 1984 serves as a warning to all people concerned with the longevity of their individual rights and political freedom.  After over fifty years, his words still continue to impact how people view government and its potential evils.  His writings were undeniably affected by his own experiences in the fields of media and political conflict, and hold serious weight for people living in the modern world.  Certainly, George Orwell hoped people would heed his warnings and remain constantly aware of their social situation.  As Bennet said, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

Bibliography

Bennett, John. “Orwell’s 1984: Was Orwell Right?” The Journal for Historical Review 6.1 (1986). Web. 9 Dec. 2015. <www.ihr.org>.

Marshall, Colin. “George Orwell Explains in a Revealing 1944 Letter Why He’d Write 1984.” Open Culture. Ed. Dan Colman. 9 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Only Good on Paper

Leave a reply

Jocelyn Gunter

In the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto, authors Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spell out the beliefs, motives, and hopes of the Communist party. Communism, in its essence, is the abolition of social class, freedoms, and private property. The goal of the Communist party is to have the proletarians or the lower class overthrow the bourgeois or upper class. The Communists believe the lower class is oppressed by the upper class and it is time for the lower class to say no more and become free from the bourgeoisie.

Communists believe once the lower class is free, the proletarians will be in charge and rid societies of social structures and social classes that have plagued the world since Roman days and before. Communists want to equal the playing field by throwing away social classes. They want to control the flow of everything, including private property and inheritance. Communists believe private property should return to the government after a person passes on, instead of it being passed on to the heirs of the dead person. Communists want to do the same with inheritance. This way everyone has the same equal opportunity for everything and no one man is inheriting a huge amount of land or money. In Communism, not only is everything “equal” but also money is shared. Money is taken from the wealthy or hard working people and given to the poor. It’s like a large scale version of Robin Hood. It also gives no incentive to the people to work or try their best to accomplish something because they are spoon fed by the government and don’t have to try for anything. Communism is basically the opposite of the glorified American dream.

Communism not only wants to rid society of classes and freedom, it also wants to rid society of religion, family, education as it is currently, countries, nationality, eternal truths, and all morality. The want to abolish religion, family, eternal truths, and all morality should be a red flag right away to Christians and dissuade them from this type of social structure. Christians should be careful of Communism because it directly goes against what Christians believe. Christians believe religion is an important part of life, all morality and eternal truths are from God and are necessary in life to live like Christ, and family is a God-ordained thing created by Him and vital to our essence. Humans crave relationships, and family is the most important relationship after God. Communism wishes to destroy all of that, so Christians should strongly disagree with Communism. Communism takes away vital parts of human life, parts that make up who we are as humans.

Communism is a nice idea, but it only works on paper. First, the proletariat overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not end oppression. The proletarians may not be oppressed anymore, but they become the people they despised. They become the bourgeois. They become the oppressor. The bourgeois becomes the oppressed. This doesn’t end anything. The cycle of oppressed and oppressor only continues and only the roles have changed. Communism wants to throw off the past, but they are just continuing it. The lower class people of feudalism pushed their way into the bourgeois and became the bourgeois and another people group filled in the empty place and the cycle continued. In the same way, what the Communists wish to do is just continuing the cycle.

Second, something as large as every country switching class roles through revolutions would take much time and, in many cases, turn into chaos and anarchy. Revolutions can take many years to complete the goal. Economies would fail because of the turmoil and war and spending going into the revolutions. The whole world would be in chaos because of the failing economies, therefore the economic structure of the world would fail also. Countries would shut down, limiting the resources being exported and imported into the country, depriving the country’s people along with the rest of the world. Along with the world economy being shut down, countries could spin out of control amidst a revolution and go into anarchy. The lack of a leader and control in the country could really run a nation into the ground. Overthrowing another class through revolution may seem easy, but it is easier said than done. Then again, it seems Communism wishes to ruin the world through a worldwide social upheaval. Changing social structures and styles of government takes time and money, which a lot of countries do not have. Communism only seems to take place in countries with revolutions, which is why they want social upheavals to occur, so Communism can take root. John F. Kennedy said, concerning Communism, “Communism has never come into power in a country that was not disrupted by war, corruption, or both.” Communism is only a good theory, but it is has many, many faults. Any form of government has faults, but Communism is the faultiest because its beliefs and hopes only work in theory. Proof of this is countries like Russia, where the people are oppressed and controlled by the government. They have no freedom and, until recently, have been very behind the rest of the world economically and technologically.

Finally, Communism believes in equality among everyone. All wealth is shared among the people of the nation. Property will be socially or commonly owned, given, and shared by the government, not a private person. Production will not be privately owned, but socially shared. Everything would be shared and controlled by the government. The wealthy’s money would be shared with the poor. Hard working people would lose their money to those who are lazy and don’t work. The world and its people being equal is a nice idea, but the world would need to be a perfect place. The problem with this idea is the world is far from perfect, and because of sinful nature, there is no equality and people are constantly fighting for equality. Jesse Ventura said concerning the ideas of Communism, “The Communism of Karl Marx would probably be actually the best for everybody as a whole. But what he didn’t figure into was human nature, and that’s what corrupts it.” Sinful nature makes the idea of perfect equality and the world in harmony an impossible idea. Only when Christ returns with the New Jerusalem and sets up His thousand-year reign could something like the world being equal and perfect be possible. Sin nature means people make wrong choices, are imperfect, and struggle with being in harmony with one another. That is why there are wars and evil things and people, and why Communism just doesn’t work in the present age.

Communism sounds like a good idea, but that is as far as it goes. Communism doesn’t survive or work off the pages of this pamphlet. Communism destroys fundamental structures and beliefs. As Christians, we cannot accept Communism because it wishes to take away many things we hold dear and are vital to what we believe and hold as true. As the world, we cannot accept Communism now or ever because it is controlling, could put the world in more chaos than it is now, and it takes away rights we hold as true and God-given. Communism does not have a place in the present age or really in any age. Communism is very relevant and present today in the world, and the world needs to rebel against because it is not good for society, the economy, and the world as a whole. Christians and all people, in the United States or not, should listen to the words of Emanuel Celler: “Communism feeds on aggression, hatred, and the imprisonment of men’s minds and souls. This shall not take root in the United States.” Communism should not be allowed to take root and destroy our beliefs, rights, hopes, and dreams, because Communism is only good on paper.

Bibliography

“Quotes on Communism.” QuotesGram. Quotes Gram. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.

Only Good on Paper

Leave a reply

Jocelyn Gunter

In the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto, authors Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spell out the beliefs, motives, and hopes of the Communist party. Communism, in its essence, is the abolition of social class, freedoms, and private property. The goal of the Communist party is to have the proletarians or the lower class overthrow the bourgeois or upper class. The Communists believe the lower class is oppressed by the upper class and it is time for the lower class to say no more and become free from the bourgeoisie.

Communists believe once the lower class is free, the proletarians will be in charge and rid societies of social structures and social classes that have plagued the world since Roman days and before. Communists want to equal the playing field by throwing away social classes. They want to control the flow of everything, including private property and inheritance. Communists believe private property should return to the government after a person passes on, instead of it being passed on to the heirs of the dead person. Communists want to do the same with inheritance. This way everyone has the same equal opportunity for everything and no one man is inheriting a huge amount of land or money. In Communism, not only is everything “equal” but also money is shared. Money is taken from the wealthy or hard working people and given to the poor. It’s like a large scale version of Robin Hood. It also gives no incentive to the people to work or try their best to accomplish something because they are spoon fed by the government and don’t have to try for anything. Communism is basically the opposite of the glorified American dream.

Communism not only wants to rid society of classes and freedom, it also wants to rid society of religion, family, education as it is currently, countries, nationality, eternal truths, and all morality. The want to abolish religion, family, eternal truths, and all morality should be a red flag right away to Christians and dissuade them from this type of social structure. Christians should be careful of Communism because it directly goes against what Christians believe. Christians believe religion is an important part of life, all morality and eternal truths are from God and are necessary in life to live like Christ, and family is a God-ordained thing created by Him and vital to our essence. Humans crave relationships, and family is the most important relationship after God. Communism wishes to destroy all of that, so Christians should strongly disagree with Communism. Communism takes away vital parts of human life, parts that make up who we are as humans.

Communism is a nice idea, but it only works on paper. First, the proletariat overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not end oppression. The proletarians may not be oppressed anymore, but they become the people they despised. They become the bourgeois. They become the oppressor. The bourgeois becomes the oppressed. This doesn’t end anything. The cycle of oppressed and oppressor only continues and only the roles have changed. Communism wants to throw off the past, but they are just continuing it. The lower class people of feudalism pushed their way into the bourgeois and became the bourgeois and another people group filled in the empty place and the cycle continued. In the same way, what the Communists wish to do is just continuing the cycle.

Second, something as large as every country switching class roles through revolutions would take much time and, in many cases, turn into chaos and anarchy. Revolutions can take many years to complete the goal. Economies would fail because of the turmoil and war and spending going into the revolutions. The whole world would be in chaos because of the failing economies, therefore the economic structure of the world would fail also. Countries would shut down, limiting the resources being exported and imported into the country, depriving the country’s people along with the rest of the world. Along with the world economy being shut down, countries could spin out of control amidst a revolution and go into anarchy. The lack of a leader and control in the country could really run a nation into the ground. Overthrowing another class through revolution may seem easy, but it is easier said than done. Then again, it seems Communism wishes to ruin the world through a worldwide social upheaval. Changing social structures and styles of government takes time and money, which a lot of countries do not have. Communism only seems to take place in countries with revolutions, which is why they want social upheavals to occur, so Communism can take root. John F. Kennedy said, concerning Communism, “Communism has never come into power in a country that was not disrupted by war, corruption, or both.” Communism is only a good theory, but it is has many, many faults. Any form of government has faults, but Communism is the faultiest because its beliefs and hopes only work in theory. Proof of this is countries like Russia, where the people are oppressed and controlled by the government. They have no freedom and, until recently, have been very behind the rest of the world economically and technologically.

Finally, Communism believes in equality among everyone. All wealth is shared among the people of the nation. Property will be socially or commonly owned, given, and shared by the government, not a private person. Production will not be privately owned, but socially shared. Everything would be shared and controlled by the government. The wealthy’s money would be shared with the poor. Hard working people would lose their money to those who are lazy and don’t work. The world and its people being equal is a nice idea, but the world would need to be a perfect place. The problem with this idea is the world is far from perfect, and because of sinful nature, there is no equality and people are constantly fighting for equality. Jesse Ventura said concerning the ideas of Communism, “The Communism of Karl Marx would probably be actually the best for everybody as a whole. But what he didn’t figure into was human nature, and that’s what corrupts it.” Sinful nature makes the idea of perfect equality and the world in harmony an impossible idea. Only when Christ returns with the New Jerusalem and sets up His thousand-year reign could something like the world being equal and perfect be possible. Sin nature means people make wrong choices, are imperfect, and struggle with being in harmony with one another. That is why there are wars and evil things and people, and why Communism just doesn’t work in the present age.

Communism sounds like a good idea, but that is as far as it goes. Communism doesn’t survive or work off the pages of this pamphlet. Communism destroys fundamental structures and beliefs. As Christians, we cannot accept Communism because it wishes to take away many things we hold dear and are vital to what we believe and hold as true. As the world, we cannot accept Communism now or ever because it is controlling, could put the world in more chaos than it is now, and it takes away rights we hold as true and God-given. Communism does not have a place in the present age or really in any age. Communism is very relevant and present today in the world, and the world needs to rebel against because it is not good for society, the economy, and the world as a whole. Christians and all people, in the United States or not, should listen to the words of Emanuel Celler: “Communism feeds on aggression, hatred, and the imprisonment of men’s minds and souls. This shall not take root in the United States.” Communism should not be allowed to take root and destroy our beliefs, rights, hopes, and dreams, because Communism is only good on paper.

Bibliography

“Quotes on Communism.” QuotesGram. Quotes Gram. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.

Che Guevara’s Travels and Writings: Inequality, Power Transitions, Revolutions, and Ideals

Leave a reply

Nicole Moore Sanborn

Ernesto “Che” Guevara transitioned from a medical student to a world-renowned guerilla leader and socialist. His journey through Latin America changed him and shaped his ideas. The film Motorcycle Diaries, analyzed in conjunction with Guevara’s writings, “Guerilla Warfare: A Method” and “Man and Socialism” provide insight into Che’s transition. The people Che met along his journey in Motorcycle Diaries, specifically the men trying to find work at the mining company, experiences with the leper colony in Peru, encounters with Incan culture and society in Peru, and works he read over his journey were key encounters that shaped Guevara’s thoughts on inequality, exploitation, capitalism, and imperialism, thoughts that echo in his writings.

An underlying concern of Guevara’s is the inequality he sees along his journey. His writings reflect the goal to remove inequality and elevate the poor masses. In Motorcycle Diaries, Guevara became angry with the mining company for not taking all of the men for work and not giving them water when they were thirsty and in the desert. Another instance of inequality that influences Che is inequality in the leper colony. The nuns, nurses, and doctors all wear gloves when interacting with the lepers, despite the fact leprosy cannot be spread by contact. The glove rule combined with the nuns refusing dinner to those who do not attend mass anger Guevara. The separation between religious and non-religious, the natural separation of the leper colony from the “clean” by the Amazon river, and the message wearing gloves sends to the patients, spark realization of inequality throughout Latin America.

Guevara becomes a man of the people during his journey. In “Guerilla Warfare: A Method,” Guevara references the Second Declaration of Havana and declares the rural population is the majority of the population of Latin America and that it lives under horrible conditions of oppression and exploitation (144). Guevara argues guerilla warfare is a means to the end goal of the seizure of power (142), necessary to level inequality. Directly referencing the Second Declaration of Havana, Guevara supports the claim revolution is inevitable and argues the necessity of a revolution is determined by conditions of exploitation in the nation he saw present (145). Guevara also fights inequality in his writing “Man and Socialism.” Che believes in a capitalist society, man is tied to society as a whole and one can win only at the cost of others (370-371). Specifically, Che references the capitalistic United States’ elevation of Rockefeller. Guevara sees Rockefeller not as an example of the success of capitalism, but as a prime example of inequality. He poignantly reminds readers few mention or give thought to the depravity, suffering of others, and poverty Rockefeller caused and required to acquire his fortune (371). Capitalism, then, is a root cause of inequality and must be replaced by socialism.

Imperialism, also evil in Guevara’s eyes, rears its ugly head in the film and both of Guevara’s writings. Motorcycle Diaries depicts a scene where Guevara is sitting in Machu Picchu and comparing it to Lima. He notes the Incas had math and science and built an empire and beautiful Machu Picchu, now a ruin for the ages. The Spanish defeated the Incas because they had gunpowder and built Lima, living out their exploitatively imperialist ways and building a much less beautiful city. Guevara also talks to an indigenous woman who tells her story of working with livestock, not being able to attend school, and only knowing Quechua, the language of the Incas. Because she does not know the Spanish language and is indigenous by blood, she is not able to either attain the same resources of an education or earn the same amount of money as Spaniards. Drawing from his experiences, in “Guerilla Warfare: A Method,” Che discusses how in an agrarian feudal system and society, guerilla warfare may develop to destroy imperialism (143). Che mentions the “worldwide crisis of imperialism” (145) and states his observation of a “reactionary alliance between the bourgeoisie and the landowning class of each country which has a greater or lesser preponderance of feudalism” (146). The dictatorship oppresses the proletariat (146) and is therefore imperialistic in nature. Most importantly, Che provides reasons for the masses to agree with the necessity of guerilla action to win their struggle. His second reason of three in favor of guerilla warfare is the struggle of the poor masses is fighting an “alliance between local and foreign exploiters” (151).

In conjunction with Guevara’s belief in an alliance of exploiters, in “Guerilla Warfare: A Method,” Che later states the national bourgeoisie has united with North American imperialism, which inevitably leads to the clash of the exploited and the exploiters though guerilla warfare fighting traditional warfare (157). North American imperialism appears to be a specific reference to the United States, which entertains his writings in “Man and Socialism” of the dangers of a capitalist (in his mind, also imperialist) economic system. “Man and Socialism” says, “the commodity is the economic cell of capitalist society” (371). Guevara’s “new man” has transitioned from being a slave of capitalism. Man as a commodity ceases to exist in Guevara’s ideal. In Che’s new society, man acquires a new status where he is not working as a commodity, but works for the fulfillment of his social duty (372). “Man and Socialism” also states “man truly reaches his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by physical necessity to sell himself as a commodity” (373). In his writings, he fights against the feudal system rampant with exploitation, feudalism, and imperialism. Imperialism, feudal systems (wealth of landowners and therefore exploitation of rural masses), and capitalism must cease to exist. Guerilla warfare will transition societies from feudal, capitalist, and imperialistic to one of proletariat dictatorship (Guerilla Warfare 145), equality, and working not as a commodity but for the good of society and of the masses.

Motorcycle Diaries shows Guevara reading Marx and Marti. Subtle, yet significant, Che’s readings on his journey ultimately influence his writings. Guevara read works written by Marti, Marx, and Lenin, all arguing for a new socialist society. Guevara connects the ideas he reads with the stories of the people he encounters, thereby justifying (in his mind) a call to arms in the form of guerilla warfare. In his writings, he references and quotes these men. “Guerilla Warfare: A Method” quotes Lenin and Marti. Guevara quotes Lenin saying class antagonisms are irreconcilable and immediately argues for a complete and total revolution and the total elimination of bourgeois legality, otherwise the nation will once again be enslaved (146-147). Che also quotes Marti discussing when to wage war in a country. Guevara uses this to further fuel his argument violence and revolution in the form of guerilla warfare ought to be used when the moment arrives, and that moment is now (147). Marxist-Leninism influences his thoughts in “Man and Socialism” when Che discusses the Marxist ideal of man reaching his human potential when he ceases to sell himself as a commodity.

Che Guevara was a man who had to reconcile his seemingly compassionate nature with his ideological belief in the need for guerilla warfare and violence in revolution. His compassion is evident in his interactions with and listening to the stories of the people he encounters. Che has compassion on the sick in Motorcycle Diaries, despite the fact they are dying. The medical side of him shows his innate desire to cure humanity. Guevara’s ruthlessness, however, is evident in his writings, especially in “Guerilla Warfare: A Method.” Che’s innate desire to cure humanity, his inspiration by Marti, Marx, and Lenin, and his alignment of ideological views with those writers causes him to desire a violent overthrowing of the current state. Guerilla warfare is a necessary means to an end. The oppressive landholders, feudalism, imperialism, capitalism, and inequality must be reversed and overthrown. Che’s ultimate ideological shift remains rooted in his innate desire to cure, and though he clearly prescribes a violent revolution, he sincerely believes it is the only means to an end he believes will cure his continent.

Civil Disobedience

Leave a reply

Christian Tullos

Throughout the course of history, mankind has possessed a unique need. Faced with turmoil, instability, and injustice, man has searched persistently for the cure. A tool men have turned to through the ages has been government. Men seek to find structure, order, and stability in its confines. Government has been interwoven into the fabric of society. Government is a constant in the world of man. The only inconsistency remains the constant inconsistency of the form the government takes.

Many sages, philosophers, and thinkers have proposed forms of government hoping to find the proper balance of power, freedom, and security. The balance has been elusive and many great ideas for government have not withstood the strain of society. The governments of past and present have proved corrupt, failures, and warped. Yet many men have perpetually struggled, and still do, making vigorous effort to provide a solution to the problems government and societies have. Henry Thoreau proved to be one of these men.

A Transcendentalist, Thoreau espoused many radical ideas for his time. Outspoken, logical, and insightful into the nature of man, he attempted to rectify what government is, into what it should eventually become. His ideas for and about government are captured in his work, “Civil Disobedience.”

Immediately opening his work he erects his core pillars: “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” Diving headlong into the fray, Thoreau opens with excessively strong words. He believes the best form of government is a detached one; one that doesn’t interfere with man and his relations.

Following up this statement Thoreau states, “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.” In plain language, he is saying government is a tool, a means to a certain end. Government ought to better society easing the lives of men, but it failed drastically. Government now hinders their lives. Governments, according to Thoreau, have defeated their own purpose.

Next he says, “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.” Government being composed of the people should be controlled by the people, not a select few in authority. Thoreau leads one to believe in order for government to be good it must be controlled by the good people.

Thoreau then lays out his thoughts on the American Government. He addresses his countrymen stating their country is corroding. It started out well but is regressing into the trends of the Old World. He points out the accomplishments of the people saying they didn’t need the government to achieve great things, and, in fact, the government hindered their progress in many ways with their rules, regulations, and delegations.

He then challenges the reader: “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” Thoreau isn’t saying immediately abolish government but immediately strive to make it better. In many ways, the hardest part of change is starting the change, so he gives men a starting block. He wishes for people to make their opinions known.

Consistent with his Transcendentalist views, Thoreau believes men should be self-reliant. Men should not tie themselves to a certain group, state, or government as it could limit their potential to become truly great. He believes a good and wise man is one who is independent, who has transcended the restraining structure of society. Man should seek to ascend the impediments and constraints of society and government.

“A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be ‘clay,’ and ‘stop a hole to keep the wind away,’ but leave that office to his dust at least.”  Man should be careful to attach to any form of government as it will seek to use and mold him into what it desires or needs. If he desires freedom, he will seek it outside of the confines of government, Thoreau concludes.

Through his writing he cites the mistakes of the government. He sees error in their morals, their views, and their actions. He disagrees with the war, slavery, and legislation government has engaged in. In some ways Thoreau blames the government for the state of turmoil he believes the nation to be in. He sees government as oppressive to minorities and the general population as well. He sees it as a corrupt system passing corrupt law, evil begetting evil.

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Here Thoreau condemns government commanding those who will not stand for it to not vainly follow, but to stand against it. He wishes to change man’s disposition: that all men would see the evil he believes it has caused and to strive to amend the wrongs it has done.

Throughout Thoreau’s work, he has some keen insights. The government is not perfect nor has any form of government under any kingdom or civilization been perfect. It has been used for evil, it has been a platform for injustice, and it has been oppressive; yet Thoreau forgets a key point. Government is not intrinsically good or evil. The government is only a tool — a tool that can be used for good or ill. It is a powerful tool and, if put to its proper purpose, can accomplish great things. The reason governments fail is because of the people who lead them. What Thoreau and many other philosophers have failed to realize is mankind is a fallen being. He is sinful, fallen, and prone to temptation. It is because man doesn’t have a tendency toward good that governments become corrupt and do unjust things.

The fact man is fallen also negates his proposed solution. As men are not innately good, they will not create a better society with the absence of government. Power, lust, greed, would consume people. Government is made to restrain the very thing Thoreau is proposing to loose. In a perfect world where man is good, there would not be a need for government, and man could live in peace without restrictions. However, man will not have that privilege on this side of the grave. Thus, governments should primarily be used to protect the God-given rights and liberties with which every man is endowed, the liberties that need protecting from men who chose to abuse their own.

Ultimately, Thoreau’s idea of each man acting autonomously and free from government rests on a faulty and dangerous premise. His recipe, rather than promoting prosperity and peace, would lead to anarchy and chaos. As Thoreau states, there may be a time for civil disobedience, but not for the reasons Thoreau indicates. When a government oppresses citizens in a way that compromises their God-given freedoms, people have the liberty, and even the duty, to disobey a government out of loyalty to their higher authority.

A Sociological Examination of Christian Dominionism

Leave a reply

E. J. Erichsen Tench

When people think of cults, the initial ideas may be doomsday cults, cults that end in mass suicide, orgies, and brainwashed drones.  The mainstream idea can be isolating and dangerous for survivors of less insidious and violent cults.  Left trying to find answers in a world that imagines cults only as massively violent, bizarre, and insulated, survivors of less radical cults find themselves cut off from help and support groups.  Some cults are doomsday cults, while others disguise themselves in the guise of religious movements with hundreds of members.  These such cults have a benign outside that can reach thousands of people, while a rotten inside holds sway over smaller, more tightly-controlled groups.  These more subtle cults are sometimes referred to as “new religious movement[s];” cults that “do not result from schisms or breaks with established ecclesiae or denominations,” but instead function for a time as another denomination within a larger religion (Schaefer, 2015, p. 357).

One such cult is best described by the overarching title of Christian Dominionism, a Neo-Calvinist interpretation that stresses full obedience to patriarchal leadership with the end goal of setting up a theocratic state through political activism and outbreeding the enemy (the Quiverful movement).  While some of its branches are prone to bigoted and unscientific teaching as opposed to cult behavior (such as Focus on the Family), both benign and harmful aspects of Christian Dominionism can trace their origin to an attempt by some Christian leaders to address the moral dilemmas of the 1960s.  Some of these such leaders are Doug Phillips (Vision Forum Ministries), Michael Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries), Doug Wilson (Theology That Bites Back), James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Geoffrey Botkin (Western Conservatory) and the most influential figure Bill Gothard (Institute in Basic Life Principles).  I will demonstrate through sociological terms Christian Dominionism fulfills the requirements for a cult, or new religious movement, by focusing on five main criteria: a “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” a “Basis of Authority,” “Isolation,” the tools to “Establish Control,” and the need to “Maintain Control.”

Alex Jones (2009) provides an, if darkly humored, explanation of each criteria.  The first criterion, “Benign Outside, Rotten Inside,” refers to a cult leader’s attempt to structure their “cult like an onion, with the most benign and helpful features on the outside and the most controlling, kooky, and evil parts in the secret evil core.”  The success of Christian Dominionism can be attributed to this very criterion.  On the outside, Christian Dominionism presents a rational, scientific, and historical framework by which any Christian can gain the tools and knowledge necessary to influence their culture for good, starting with the church and family unit.  Through mainstream organizations such as Focus on the Family, Christian Dominionism hardly appears to be cult-like.

The Institute in Basic Life Principles (Gothard recently resigned due to his sexual scandals) offer a clearer look at the “evil core” of the Christian Dominionist movement.  Functioning under the same goals as Focus on the Family, Gothard founded the organization (originally called the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts) to “reach the troubled youth of the turbulent ’60s.  Parents obviously appreciated Gothard’s teachings as an antidote to the rebellious anti-authoritarian attitudes of the hippie culture, and soon his seminar attendance swelled, and unfortunately, so did Gothard’s head” (Sue 2008).  As his power and influence grew, Gothard developed key Christian Dominionist teachings, such as the “Umbrella of Authority,” the Quiverful movement, and a theocratic vision of the “Christian faith [as] a religion of world conquest” in a “world at war” (Wilson, 2001, pp. 104, 170).

Survivors of Christian Dominionism are most familiar with the emphasis on authority.  The appeal to an established “Basis of Authority” is the second criterion noted by Jones (2009).  Cult leaders “claim authority from a divine source, bogus scientific research [or] special knowledge.”  In addition, the “person with the most power resources is in control” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 168).  Cult leaders, like abusers, flex their authority over a group by emphasizing their power through “money, presents, trips, more knowledge, experience, a better vocabulary, and superior status” (p. 169).  This special knowledge and status has to come from somewhere; for the Christian Dominionist, the source of all authority derives not from “scientific findings” but through whoever is interpreting the Bible, “the Standard of all faith and practice.  The Scriptures, therefore, are the basis, and contain the criteria by which … to make every judgment” (Adams, 1970, p. xxi).

The Christian Bible clearly states some rules, but the Christian Dominionist movement encompasses a bizarre authoritarian bent, where (most notably) Gothard’s “personal opinions” on the Bible have risen to the “status” of actual “scriptural authority” (Veinot, 2002, p. 102).  Gothard’s abuse of Scripture “extends into medical advice (Cabbage Patch dolls interfering with the birth of children), adoption (tracing family lineage to bind ancestral demons), and other mystical elements (hedge of thorns, umbrella of authority/protection, sins of the father).”  How the Christian Dominionist leader can convince followers to hold personal opinions on the same authority level of Scripture is related to the idea of Biblically directed rules versus Biblically derived rules.  Lou Priolo (1997) notes “Biblically directed rules are those which all men are obligated to obey because God commands them in His Word. … On the other hand, biblically derived rules are those which are based on biblical principles; but which I am obligated to obey only as long as I am under God-ordained authority” (p. 36).

It is this emphasis on Biblically derived rules as determined by a spiritual authority that grants Gothard (and the other leaders) their power.  Jones’s fourth and fifth criteria will examine the cult leader’s use of control through this authority, but at the moment it is important to emphasize the patriarchal aspect of authority.  Not only are Biblically directed rules determined by only men interpreting Scripture, but Biblically derived rules are also only given authority when issued by men.  The Christian Dominionist is an inherently authoritarian patriarchal movement that teaches men are created to exercise dominion over the earth; they are fitted to be husbandman, tilling the earth; they are equipped to be saviors, delivering from evil; they are expected grow up into wisdom, becoming sages; and they are designed to reflect the image and glory of God” (Wilson, 2001, p. 13).  Women are left out of “this mandate” as it is “a masculine vocation in this world” (p. 31).  This emphasis on the isolation of women will be explored by the third criterion.

Jones’s third criterion is “Isolation.”  He notes cult leaders must “encourage separation from … family and friends.”  Relationships with nonbelievers are inherently “unhealthy” and most be “cut off” in order to ensure the spiritual well-being of cult practitioners.  This emphasis on isolation is a tactic cult leaders use to ensure members “tighten [their] bond[s]” through viewing all “outsiders as wrong.”  One survivor of a Dutch Dominionist church recalls how the “‘church dictated our entire social life, school, clubs, and acquaintances.  Friends were allowed to come home with us as long as they were from the same church’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).  Jones (2009) emphasizes how even former members of the cult are not exempt from this characterization of “outside” and are treated as “enemies” once they leave.  The Dutch survivor remembers when she left the church and “‘received a letter telling me that I was damned.  My parents dropped me, too’” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 54).

In particular for Christian Dominionism, patriarchy “predominates in very narrow, sectarian ‘Christian’ practice.  As patriarchy comes to expression in the home schooling movement, there is a tendency to have an inbred, tribal approach to relationships” (Zens, 2011, p. 54).  This is especially true for daughters, whose fathers, encouraged by the “stay-at-home-daughters movements” of Botkins, ensure “young lad[ies] stay at home serving [their] father until a husband is chosen for [them] by him” (Zens, 2011, p. 45).  Proponents of this ideology “even use the word ‘helpmeet’ — a word in Scripture exclusively connected to the wife — to describe the daughter’s relationship to her dad.”  In many cases, daughters are forbidden to attend college (if permitted, they take online courses) and are instead “given ‘the tools for dominion,’ that is, kitchen and homemaking supplies.  Many home-schooled girls are not taught academics beyond the eighth grade.”  This idea ties into the Quiverful cult, where daughters must remain docile in order to accept their role as broodmares for Christianity’s eventual cultural domination.  Thankfully, not every Christian Dominionist family forbids their daughters to seek higher education.  However, children are still raised in a patriarchal structure in order to establish and maintain control of the family unit.

A cult leader’s success depends on how well he can establish control, Jones’s fourth criterion.  The methods used to establish control can vary immensely, from mandated devotionals, readings, and prayer to creating a “rigid schedule,” keeping members “active” and with “little sleep,” and controlling thoughts and emotions through “induc[ed] guilt and fear of the enemy” (Jones, 2009).  These latter examples most frequently occur at Gothard’s youth retraining camps, including his ALERT Academy for wayward males and the Hepzibah House for rebellious females.  While the Hepzibah House closed down many years ago, it was home to incredible abuse committed by staff against underage girls, including forced feedings, mandatory isolation, regular beatings, and stringent work.  Both ALERT and Hepzibah ensure the youth are kept on a tight schedule with little sleep, menial tasks, and devotions, all to ensure a rebellious spirit is destroyed.  A more mainstream, if less extreme, example is Summit Ministries in Colorado, a Christian worldview training camp for Christian high schoolers and college students.  Camp attendees (some of whom are forced to attend by parents) must conform to a regimented schedule, little sleep, mandatory seminars they cannot leave (even to use the bathroom), and are assigned physical labor as punishments for either breaking rules or not maintaining a clean dorm room (this includes picking lint off the floor).  Once youth are physically and mentally broken down, they are more susceptible to the religious teachings.  At Summit Ministries, this takes the form of biased and outright false teaching on other worldviews and religion, proponents of gay-conversion therapy, members of the radical religious and political Right, and a mandatory Bible-knowledge quiz that must be repeated until an acceptable score is attained.

In day-to-day life, Christian Dominionist leaders establish control through the appeal to authority.  Gothard developed the “Umbrella of Authority” concept to illustrate God’s use of authority for life and protection from sin.  At the top of the Umbrella is God, who ordains all authority and circumstances.  Next come Christian authorities (such as Gothard), who are the mouth-speakers of God.  Next come men fathers, the heads of the home, who have authority to lead and control and act as prophets of God in their children’s lives.  Next come wives, who have some authority over children.  At the bottom are children.  Individuals who submit to their God-ordained authority are assured blessings, while those who breach the Umbrella are no longer considered under God’s protection; they are no longer under God’s ordained shield of protection.  Christian Dominionism results in a retributive God, where curses and punishment are the natural consequences of removing oneself from under authority, but blessings and protection are offered to those who obey.

The Umbrella, while not present in Scripture, is a derived concept Gothard has used “to bring his legalistic teachings into all areas of life” (Sue, 2008).  Once a derived concept is law is made and implemented by an authority figure, disobedience now results in breaking of the Umbrella.  Laws not explicitly laid out in Scripture now become God’s laws and disobedience brings punishment.  Using the Umbrella, Gothard and other leaders gain power to control every aspect of life, including “use of cosmetics, clothing, beards, sleep schedules, homeschooling, courtship and marriage, and even medical advice.”  All “precepts, commandments, instruction, words, reproofs, discipline, and correction” derive from this “outside source imposed upon” the members (Adams, 1970, p. 100).

Once the cult and patriarchal leader’s teaching is considered God’s authority, “autonomous thoughts and actions” can be controlled (Jones, 2009).  Church and family members are taught “God’s desires are exalted over everyone else’s.  Everyone in the [unit] may be expected to sacrifice personal pleasures if God’s will requires it” (Priolo, 1997, pp. 26-7).  Personal autonomy in thought and action is restricted; instead, complete obedience to God’s will is the mandate and God’s will becomes whatever the present authority interprets it as.  “Males will necessarily be dominant in any given culture,” according to Wilson, so women are never granted spiritual authority and cannot interpret Scripture (2001, p. 24).  Since “in a scriptural worship service, both masculine and feminine elements will be present, but the masculine will be dominant, in a position of leadership” women’s interpretation of Scripture can never be personal, but must always be subject to the authority of the men in her life (Wilson, 2001, p. 95).  Women are not only forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but they are also forbidden from exercising personal authority.  “The most important message a woman hears in church is obedience” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 140).  Since “Eve was disobedient and [brought] sin … into the world,” women are considered naturally deceptive and weak-willed.

Once cult leaders have created a benign outside and a structured, isolated inside where control is established through authority, they must “Maintain Control.”  The fifth criterion is often the most difficult, as cult leaders must fight the “resistance [and] critical thoughts” of their members (Jones, 2009).  While the men in power in Christian Dominionism are comfortable, members can experience extreme discomfort as their autonomous thoughts conflict with the stringent legalism of their God-ordained authority figures.  Gothard and his ilk have developed techniques to subdue members by using common cult tactics, such as creating “guilt” and creating self-doubt through accusations of bitterness and “negativ[ity].”  “Critical thoughts are [presented as] evidence of crimes” by focusing on man’s depravity.  Nouthetic counselor Jay E Adams (1970) builds upon this framework, teaching that “unpleasant visceral and other bodily warning devices” are activated when a man “sins” (p. 94).  Christian Dominionist members are reminded time again by their authorities the physical and mental conflict they feel is a result of sin; questioning God-ordained authorities and rules disturbs a good conscience and results in “misery, defeat and ruin” (p. 105).  The only way to feel at peace is obedience to authority and confession.  For members of these churches who are mentally ill, the answer is the same.  Psychiatric diseases are treated as a manifestation of unconfessed sin since “God in the ordering and disciplining of his church frequently uses sickness as a rod of chastisement” (p. 109).  To this day, Nouthetic counselors deride the American Psychological Association and contend the Bible is the only mental health book required (p. xxi).

Not only does the Christian Dominionist ensure obedience through punishment of questions, but facial expressions and body language are considered accurate reflections of a sinful or righteous state of mind.  Members and children must interact or respond with the correct “verbal and non-verbal communication [that] reflect both submission to and respect for authority” (Priolo, 1997, p. 170).  Priolo includes asking “why” as a sign of disrespect, worthy of punishment (p. 131).  Children are punished by corporal methods.  The most common punishments are taken from the teachings of Michael Pearl and Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo, who lay out detailed instructions for corporal punishment.  These techniques include spanking infants, purposefully testing if infants and children will obey a command, switching children with wooden switches and spanking them with wooden or metal rods, and resuming punishment if a child expresses too much pain.  The severity of the punishments and the range of physical punishment to mental manipulation vary from household to household.  Christian Dominionist punishment methods have come under more recent scrutiny since the deaths of Lidia Shatz, Hana Williams, and other children disciplined in Quiverful homes. 

For offspring raised in Christian Dominionism, legal adulthood is not recognized.  Obedience to parents is required for those still living at home, regardless of the age.  Male offspring experience more freedom while living at home, while female children are not expected to leave until marriage.  After all, not “only are these children different from one another, these differences reflect the wisdom of God, who intends for them to serve Him differently” (Wilson, 2001, p. 85).  While boys are encouraged to be visionaries and leaders, girls can “only honor God by doing whatever [their] father says” (Zens, 2011, p. 26).  Ultimately, women and daughters are forced to “repress [their] feelings, desires, and natural talents (which are not appropriate to her role), and to make these subservient to the feelings, desires and talents of men, specifically fathers and brothers” (Imbens and Jonker, 1992, p. 257).

Through these methods of control maintenance, Christian Dominionist leaders squelch critiques, “instill a fear of divine retribution or earthly punishment,” and “keep” their members “doubting” their own consciences (Jones, 2009).  It is no wonder the cult has managed to survive for decades, reaching thousands of members, and entwining itself with patriarchal Christianity, the political Right, the Quiverful movement, and homeschooling movements.  In order to break from these churches, survivors must first “overcome” a “very difficult” mindset where questioning “‘God’s appointed man’ is tantamount to questioning God” Himself (Veinot, 2002, p. 316).  Those who “recognize some signs of spiritual abuse, hypocrisy, or oppression” are conditioned to “reject this input out of fear of reprisal or condemnation for presuming to judge the leader or leaders supposedly anointed or specially anointed by God” (p. 315).  Children are especially vulnerable, as the stringent “‘obedience’” called for feels [increasingly] instinctively wrong to the youth” (Zens, 2011, p. 30).  For those who leave or who try to expose corruption, church leaders silence their voices through accusations of bitterness and sin (Adams, 1970, p. 167).

The Christian Dominionist movement fulfills five main sociological requirements for a new religious movement (cult).  While mass suicides do not occur, orgies are unheard of, sacrifice is unacceptable, and those influenced through various degrees are in the thousands, those who follow the teachings of Gothard, Wilson, and others subscribe to an authoritarian version of Christianity that traps its members in an isolated belief system built upon complete subjugation to derived patriarchal interpretation of Scripture.  With such a wide audience, church pastors and heads of homes vary in the severity of the practices, but the basic theology is stifling, harmful, and spiritually abusive across the board.  Those who, through exposure to new ideas and more moderate Christians, reject the teachings of Christian Dominionism are disowned and branded as trouble makers.  With the continual rise of the digital age and social media, survivors of this lesser known cult can now find healing and answers in Internet communities.  The Wartburg Watch, Homeschoolers Anonymous, No Longer Quivering, Under Much Grace, and Libby Anne of Patheos (among others) are continuing the survivors’ mission to educate and bring freedom to the adults and children still trapped under the Umbrella of Authority.

References

Adams, Jay E. 1970. Competent to Counsel: Introduction to Nouthetic Counseling. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Imbens, Annie and Ineke Jonker. 1992. Christianity and Incest. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jones, Alex. 2009. “How to Start A Cult.” YouTube Web site. Retrieved November 15, 2015. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBK5aKOr2Fw).

Priolo, Lou. 1997. The Heart of Anger: Practical Help for the Prevention and Cure of Anger in Children. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press.

Schaefer, Richard T. 2015. Sociology in Modules, 3rd Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Sue, Paul. 2008. The Blinding and Binding Teachings of Bill Gothard. Battered Sheep. Retrieved December 4, 2015 (http://www.batteredsheep.com/gothard.html).

Veiont, Don and Joy Veiont. 2002. A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life. Buffalo, NY: 21st Century Press.

Wilson, Douglas. 2001. Future Men. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press.

Zens, Jon. 2011. No Will of My Own: How Patriarchy Smothers Female Dignity & Personhood. Omaha, NE: Ekklesia Press.

The Controversy of Gender Politics in The Taming of the Shrew vs. 10 Things I Hate About You

Leave a reply

Hannah Moonis

From A Comedy of Errors to Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare composed many comedies throughout the years. Perhaps one of the greatest comedies of his time was The Taming of the Shrew, one of his first plays. This comedy follows the tale of sisters Katharina and Bianca and their various suitors. The elder sister, Katharina, (the “shrew”) is pursued by Petruchio, a man from Verona on a mission to wed and make money. Bianca is courted by many men, but most noticeably, Lucentio (disguised as a tutor) and Hortensio (a friend of Petruchio). Through a series of events, Katharina weds Petruchio and is successfully “tamed” by her new husband. Bianca married Lucentio after Tranio, Lucentio’s servant who disguised himself as Lucentio to convince Bianca’s father to let her marry Lucentio, disguised as her tutor. All ends well for everyone and as a final test, Petruchio shows the other men how obedient his once-wild wife now was. In its modern day film adaptation, 10 Things I Hate About You, the plot similarly follows the story of sisters Kat and Bianca. In a modern day high school a new student, Cameron, arrives and immediately falls in love with Bianca. The girls’ father has a rule Bianca can’t date until Kat starts dating, which Kat claims will never happen. In order to date Bianca, Cameron must pay “bad-boy” Patrick to date her older, quick-tempered sister Kat. Though the two are quite similar in the storyline, the two tales diverge at particular parts. There are two main differences in the plots of these two stories: how Katharina or Kat is “tamed” and the role of gender politics.

The Taming of the Shrew has brought up many controversial topics throughout its long history. One of the most debated topics is whether or not Katharina’s taming was emotional abuse or merely a less violent way to control Petruchio’s wild wife. During Shakespeare’s time, beating one’s wife was becoming more and more frowned upon by society, leading many to argue Petruchio’s psychological methods of taming were more humane and gentle. Katharina is eventually “tamed” and submits to her husband. There are many theories as to what her final speech in Act 5 means; most commonly believed is Katharina is sincere and has been successfully “tamed” by Petruchio. It is unknown if they truly love each other. Quite contrary to the original story, in 10 Things I Hate About You, Patrick “tames” Kat, quite on accident, through the power of love. Only after falling in love with Patrick does she become a more calm and loving person. Though both Petruchio and Patrick pursue Katharina (Kat) for money, Patrick’s actions become much more sincere as the movie progresses. It is up to the reader to determine if Petruchio and Katharina truly loved each other in the end, or if it was simply a woman’s submission to her husband through nonviolent means.

Gender politics plays a huge role in the story of Katharina and Petruchio or Kat and Patrick. Many critics debate whether or not Petruchio’s treatment of Katharina was emotional abuse. Emily Detmer, author of “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and Taming of the Shrew,” suggests in her book the final speech made by Katharina was a result of Stockholm Syndrome, saying, “Her surrender and obedience signify her emotional bondage as a survival strategy; she aims to please because her life depends upon it.” Other critics such as David Beauregard, author of Catholic Theologies in Shakespeare’s Plays, argues Katharina and Petruchio’s relationship takes on the characteristics of an Aristotelian story and is in no way abusive, but in fact, beneficial to both parties. Beauregard believes Petruchio was acting as a light to Katharina, bringing her into harmony with her own nature, thus teaching her obedience. In the reverse, Katharina also helps Petruchio understand happiness and fortune through her taming according to Beauregard. The gender politics in 10 Things I Hate About You  is decreased in importance from the original story. Kat is portrayed as an angry feminist who finds social constructs to be restricting, hence her reluctance to date. Patrick doesn’t use relatively abusive psychological methods on Kat to make her date him. He may be motivated by money in the beginning, but over time, Patrick shows he actually cares about her, contrary to her previous notions about men. In the end, both Patrick and Kat are happier and much nicer people. Their relationship becomes a symbiotic one, much like Beauregard’s description of Katharina and Petruchio’s relationship, which is definitely not emotionally abusive.

The Taming of the Shrew is responsible for many gender role-based debates. Some say Shakespeare is warming against the cruelty of submissive techniques, even non-physical ones. Others argue Shakespeare is portraying the change in social civility as Petruchio doesn’t physically abuse Katharina. But almost everyone can agree The Taming of the Shrew is controversial. Is it misogynistic? Is it sexist? The debate continues. 10 Things I Hate About You stays largely away from the gender politics portrayed in its source material, possibly because The Taming of the Shrew offends so many people, not just women, in this day and age. George Bernard Shaw in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette describes the play as “one vile insult to womanhood and manhood from the first word to the last.”

The contrasts between these two stories, The Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate About You, are a little drastic, the latter taking out what many critics say to be the most important part of the story: the role of gender in society and marriage and the controversial cruelty of men against their wives and women in general. The two tales seems to both send different messages to their audiences. The Taming of the Shrew portrays a woman’s role in life is to submit to her husband with blind obedience. 10 Things I Hate About You shows how love and acceptance reveal one’s true self and essentially makes you a better person.           

Bibliography

Detmer, Emily. “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and the Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly 48.3 (1997): 273–294. Web.

Junger, Gil, dir. 10 Things I Hate About You. Perf. Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles. Touchstone Pictures, 1999. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare: The Taming of the Shrew. Mumbai, India: Wilco Publishing House, 2005. 224-47. Print.