Mimesis - imitation.

Amended April 6, 2019.

Violence! Something that impacts us all in some manner. Sometimes. But why? Why do some people, groups or societies so dislike other people, groups or societies that they are prepared, indeed plan, to inflict extreme violence on those they dislike. Why?

There is of course no easy answer but there are some very plausible theories that attempt to explain why.

One theory which makes a great deal of sense to me is the “mimetic” theory. This word is derived from the Greek root of the word “mimesis” that has given the English language the word “imitate”.

Some, often those who are deeply religious, from both the “far right” and the “far left”, in fact all extremists, whatever their beliefs, seem to copy or imitate the actions of others. Should one person or group start with “all Muslims” or “all Jews” or all “non-Muslims” or all “coloured” people or those in the LGBT community, in fact any and all who are considered "heretics", “unbelievers” or “different”, are in some distorted way now deemed “unworthy” or “unclean” – and so the spawning season commences. Others pick up on the themes and each tries to out do the others in their view of why the difference matters and what to about it. 

This is mimesis – this is rampant and mindless imitation. More importantly it is the imitation of someone else's desires, particularly whenever what is desired cannot be shared that gives rise to conflict. It is a case of, "I want it so you can't have it!" 

As we have witnessed all to often in the world, violence is always the outcome. More often than not unlimited violence, leading to death, mutilation, extreme physical punishment, isolation or imprisonment. 

All this because some people will not, or cannot, accept the fact that everyone just wants to live peaceably, worship God according to their tradition, have enough shelter, food and adequate clothing together with sufficient means to raise and educate their children.

For goodness sake what’s wrong with that?

A Man or THE MAN? – not such a simple question.

Being an “older” male, it has come to my attention that in many respects men have forgotten, or never learned, what it is to be a man. My understanding and what I have always tried to adhere to, is that men and women compliment each other, in that each should support the other. Each brings to any relationship the strengths, and weaknesses, of their gender; neither should try to dominate the other; that it should always be a partnership of equals – equal but different. The physically stronger male should support and protect the female, while the female should bring to the partnership her intuition and “feminine” strengths (these are indefinable!).

I know that my late wife, Magucha, certainly did that. Her strengths lay in her astonishing insight, her emotional strength and her courage. 

Much is reported about the, unfortunately, extremely high, seemingly worldwide, incidence of domestic violence (principally committed by men against women and children); the revelations of the coercion and sexual abuses in the media industry committed by men in positions of influence and authority; the revelations, worldwide, of appalling priestly paedophilia (if ever there was one this is surely the ultimate oxymoron!!) – almost exclusively committed by male priests, pastors, rabbis and imams, against children.  

And one is left to wonder why. I suggest that this stems from two sources – power and insecurity. 

This is a “power play” by men. The average male is physically larger and stronger that the average female and of course, children. So a male, in a dominant position of influence and authority, such as a priest, has tremendous “leverage” to force those in a dependent situation, to “obey” any instruction or command. His insecurity lies in his need to dominate.

In domestic violence situations my understanding is that much of it is “caused” by jealousy. The male feels he is being “betrayed” and is the “victim” - that his partner should be blamed for any resulting violence. “She made me do it”, is a common refrain. Again, this jealousy and need to dominate, lies in insecurity.

“Boys will be boys” is not an valid response.

So – I now – as usual find that others, more fluently say what I’m trying to express, more pointedly and in far fewer words. 

This, by Atticus:-

“Boys learn too late

that being 

‘The Man’,

is not the same thing

as being

A Man.”  

Refugees are people too!

First up I would like to state, as boldly as I can, that refugees – however they are portrayed – are actually PEOPLE. Never forget they are people, as I am a person; as are you, the reader. As people, individuals, we all suffer – physical and emotional pain, stress, anguish and anxiety and we all have a desire to be treated justly and without prejudice. This is as it should be and this has been recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is a noble document and Australia (rightly so) is a signatory to this Declaration.

When some people, citizens of Australia, and others, denigrate and demonise refugees as “boat people”, as “illegal immigrants”, as “queue jumpers” or as “criminals”, I wonder just how many of them have actually put themselves in the position of these “refugees” and have reflected on what they would do had they experienced a similar background of poverty, injustice and discrimination. And I wonder, also, how many Australians have actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Some Australians (the Federal Government included) in violation of the Declaration actually, do nothing to prevent prejudice and discrimination, not to say violence against these individuals, ignoring the fact that, for instance:-    

 Article 7 states that: 

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protec­tion of the law. All are entitled to equal pro­tection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

And Article 9 seeks to ensure that: 

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

And then Article 14 which rightfully proclaims: 
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

By keeping the refugees/boat people/illegals - whatever - in detention for years Australia is, I believe, in breach of the very Declaration they signed and are hypocritical when they castigate others for not upholding the same Declaration.

And what about charity? This is a quality which is woven into the fabric of every culture and society.
In term of Christianity (and Australia is nominally a Christian country) charity implies love of one's fellow men (from the OED - Oxford English Dictionary). It means 'Love; kindness; natural affection; spontaneous goodness; a disposition to think favourably of others and to make allowances for their shortcomings; beneficence; liberality to or the provision for this in need or distress'.

Is this how we are treating these people who are desperate and in need of succour?

And there is the adverb 'charitable' which, again in Christian terms, means charity or the love of God and man; tender hearted; loving; benevolent; generous in giving to the poor.

Again I ask are we, as Australian, displaying these virtues and giving assistance to those who ask for our help?

There should be no need for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If we treat people the way we would like to be treated we are applying the universal principles, so powerfully declared. We don't do this because politicians, for political reasons, and a few mischievous individuals, for personal reason, use terms which portray these refugees as "different" - they are illegal immigrants; they are queue jumpers; they are disparaged as 'boat people' as if this is something to be despised. 

Once this term enters the public consciousness it is easy to assume that because they are considered "different" it doesn't matter if they are treated differently. This is "scapegoating". This is a dangerous step which leads to a slippery slope of persecution - and history has provided many unfortunate examples of what this means.

To avoid the accusation of breaching the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all applications for refugee status should be considered carefully in the true spirit of the Declaration.

The Scapegoat – and why we use it.

Amended: October 25, 2018.

This ancient form of “displacement” activity is still very prevalent today. And it is really very simple. It is a form of aggression used to relieve frustration (in a person, a group, or society in general) that is usually directed at a weaker person (or group) that is unable to retaliate – and can thus be easily blamed for causing the frustration.

The scapegoat is usually distinct, easily identifiable and “different” from the more dominant person or group thus justifying the aggression and prejudice – “they are not us” – and so - “it is their fault!”

An intense frustration directed at some individual or group (which cannot be easily assuaged) gives rise to what is known as a “Frustration – Aggression - Displacement Hypothesis” and thus a Scapegoat is found.

We all, each one of us, thinks or believes, that we are “good” – no one believes, deep down, that they are “bad”. So if any untoward event causes us to look in the “mirror” as it were, and we see ourselves unfavourbly reflected in the face or eyes of another, we may be shocked or dismayed at what we see. This will often give rise to denial – “that’s not me!” 

We therefor blame the “scapegoat”. And more often than not there is extreme violence applied to the scapegoat – sometimes death. 

Many examples of “scapegoating” are recorded in history – the Bible is a good source. Two tragic, unfortunate but classic, more recent, scapegoat examples were the racial aggression (extrajudicial action that led to the lynching of African Americans) in the Southern States of the USA. As the price of cotton fell and the slaves were freed (causing frustration as economic opportunities for the white people were reduced) the African Americans (all either former slaves or descended from slaves) were blamed and the numbers of lynching increased as the economy in the Southern States tanked (prejudice and displaced aggression). 

The other was the anti-Semitism, the prejudice, aggression and extreme measures directed at the Jews in Nazi Germany in the period leading up to the Second World War. In this case the Jews were targeted and blamed, by Hitler, for the economic and political crisis that arose after Germany suffered the humiliation of firstly losing the First World War and then being forced to pay massive reparations as determined by the 1920 Treaty of Versailles. Again, an example of frustration leading to displaced aggression against a weaker group.

The Jews were in no position to retaliate and six million were killed, just as the African Americans had no recourse against the Ku Klux Klan and the judicial system applying at that time. It is believed that about 3500 African Americans were lynched.  

Now, today, it is Mexican “drug addicts, rapists and undocumented immigrants swarming across the border” between Mexico and the USA. 

Now, today, it is Islamic fundamentalists not willing to integrate and trying to subject Europe to Sharia Law, also taking jobs from hard working Christian Europeans. 

Now, today, it is “illegal boat people” and “asylum seekers” still trying to flood into Australia. 

Now, today, it is “criminal elements” within the ethnic minority Muslim Rohingya causing problems in Buddhist Myanmar. 

Now, today, it is immigrants causing violent crimes, taking jobs and causing the funding problems with the UK’s National Health Services.

Now today we have the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince authorising(?) the murder and dismembering of Jamal Khashoggi  in Turkey (he was a  journalist who wrote for the Washington Post and who annoyed the Prince). Khashoggi exposed corruption and the Saudi involvement in the "war" in Yemen. And this was in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, no less. 

They too have no recourse - none of them.

The scapegoat is always chosen because it is easy to victimize without fear of retaliation.

As the Nazi Hermann Goering ominously warned the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial (1946): “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Guns

Let there be no confusion about this. Guns were invented for one purpose only – to kill living things. Generally people; people in war situations. Though this, as we are only too aware, is not always the case.

Killing people, by whatever means (outside of war) is generally considered a crime – unlawful killing or manslaughter, if not murder.

There is certainly a case for farmers and other licenced operatives, to be allowed to own guns to shoot and kill vermin. There is also a case to allow licenced guns to be used for competition purposes.

I, personally, can envisage no other reason to own a gun of any description. Who would you want to kill? And why?

I have always believed that violence, of whatever kind, is the last resort of the morally bankrupt. Now for some proponents of gun ownership to state that “It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun”, is still a call to kill. How do you stop a “bad guy with a gun” if not by killing him (or her)?

This argument about good guys with guns etc, just begs the question. Would giving everyone, yes everyone, access to a gun of some sort be a better antidote to violence in society than removing all guns and not allowing anyone to own a gun?

Of course there will always be the criminal element who acquire weapons by illegal means. But they would be very few and relatively easy for the authorities to manage.

So a simple question, everyone with a gun or nobody (apart from those with a licence) with a gun?

You choose.

Never touch save out of love.

In today's world with many people, who should know better, being accused of domestic violence and inappropriate sexual behavior it maybe worthwhile to take some time and read what follows:-

Some of my readers may know that I find solace in poetry. Some time ago I “discovered” the American poet Max Ehrmann. He wrote with great depth, pathos and understanding of the human condition.

For instance, take the lines of the title of this post – from a poem called “Her Acceptance” – the last two lines are:

“Still let us both be owners of ourselves,

And never touch save out of love. – Kiss me.”

Those last words are so, so important – “never touch save out of love”. Here a woman accepts a proposal of marriage from a man – but she comes with nothing. No inheritance; nothing except her love (these line were written I think in the early 1900s). And she warns him that there has to be more that attracts him than her youth, which will fade with the years and she reminds him that with young children she will be a burden on him. Seeing him work long hours in sad drudgery will “pierce me to the soul”, and that she will suffer with him because she knows that she “Shall be a weight upon his back”.

Even with all this she understands that love is what will hold them together and advocates that they “never touch save out of love”.

These are wonderful words with a sentiment that, while many adhere to, quite a few, unfortunately and tragically, do not.

.

Injustice – 298 dead in Ukraine, over 700 dead in Gaza.

My one loyal reader – remember Archie? – knows the one human failing that always gets up my nose is injustice; injustice of any kind. There is no such thing as partial injustice; there is either injustice or there is no justice. All injustice, even perceived injustice, burns like a hot ember in the psyche of those affected – it rankles for generations and is never forgotten.

The terrible tragedy of Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 with the loss of 298 lives (many  were children, even infants) – shot down by Ukrainian separatist rebels has a parallel lost in the confusion of current events - Gaza. The continuing violence in Gaza has left over 700 dead, most of whom are women and children – innocent women and children. There are obviously some, reputed, militants among the dead as well but it is the deaths of women and children and the over three thousand injuries that have been reported that really upset me.

One received worldwide condemnation, the other is barely mentioned. Why?

The 298 dead in MH 17 were killed when the aircraft was shot down by a surface to air missile fired from Russian separatist controlled Eastern Ukraine; the majority of the over 700 dead and the thousands injured, in Gaza, died or were injured  by missiles fired from the air – air to ground missiles - what's the difference?

The Russians blame the Ukrainians for the loss of life in MH 17; the Israelis blame Hamas for the loss of life in Gaza.

Both are wrong. Both are the result – the tragic result – of injustice.

The injustice, in Gaza, and Palestine, has its roots in the aftermath of the First World War. The Palestinians believed that the British, who they had helped to defeat the Turks, would grant them the right to live in Palestine (a British “mandated” territory, where they had been living for centuries anyway).

Meanwhile the Jews believed that now the First World War was won and the Turks defeated,  the British would grant them their God given right to the land of Israel (according to their interpretation of the Biblical Old Testament).

Unfortunately neither of these beliefs was ever realised. Accordingly the very disillusioned Palestinians blamed the British and the Jews for the fact that their beliefs turned out so wrong.

Similarly the Jews were greatly disillusioned that their “God given right” to the land of Israel was to be so frustrated – they accordingly blamed the British and the Palestinians.

The British, in effect, threw up their hands and walked away from the problem, thus setting the scene for the fact that there has been no real peace in Middle East since 1946.   

This, current, senseless violence and appalling loss of life will inevitably end in a truce or ceasefire in Gaza so it may be useful to reflect on why the conflict was ever started in the first place!

If Israel continues to refer to the horrific past visited upon the Jews of Europe in the 1930s and during the Second World War as a justification for their “right” to have a homeland which “right” they also claim is supported by the Bible’s Old Testament, why can’t the Palestinians also refer to their “horrific” past in the hands of the Jews and the war time allies (USA, England and France)?

It is recorded that the great teacher, Hillel (who died in 10 C.E.) summarized the essence of Judaism by saying: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow humans; this is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go and learn.” Another central premise of the Torah (the moral code of Judaism) is the command to “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

Remember the Palestinians were summarily removed from what had been their “homeland” for centuries, to make way for the state of Israel, and many were made stateless and homeless. Some still lay claim to the land and buildings now occupied by the Israelis.

Also remember that far more Palestinians have been killed by the Israelis than there have been Israelis killed by Palestinians. And remember that the Palestinians in Gaza have no where to go. They live in one of the most densely populated areas on earth. Giving 10 minutes warning of a bombardment, as the Israelis claim they give, is no answer. Another point to remember is that the Israelis have had a "siege" in place for years - nothing may enter or leave Gaza without the Israelis say so.

This is the injustice that the Palestinians seek to have redressed (and are prepared to fight for this to be redressed); this is the injustice that the Israelis cannot, or will not, accept. For a people (the Jews) who have suffered so much injustice, racial vilification and horrific pogroms in their long history, one would hope that they would have developed sufficient insight, understanding, humility and empathy to accommodate the Palestinians in the land that “belongs” to all (all land was present before humans existed and all land will still exist long after humans have vanished from the face of the earth). 

But no – the Israeli response has always been “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

As for the current Russian/Ukraine problem this, again, stems from injustice and a perceived “right” to land. The Russians believe they have a “right” to Ukraine because of historical links – and they are offended by the Ukrainian’s desire to be affiliated with Europe rather than Russia. Many Ukrainians object to this Russian view - they will recall the terrible loss of life under the rule of Stalin (when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union) – enforced starvation killed over 5 million Ukrainians; many Ukrainians will recall the Russian imposed limitations on teaching (and speaking) the Ukrainian language; many Ukrainians will know that their forebears fought for Ukrainian independence from Russia at the end of the Second World War, which was brutally suppressed. This is the injustice that many Ukrainians resent. 

Hopefully a yet to be seen Russian directed pull back by the Ukrainian separatists in Eastern Ukraine may at least bring about a semblance of a truce.

Violence is never, repeat never, a solution to any problem – violence begets more violence. As has been stated before in these Posts, violence is the usual outcome of moral bankruptcy.

(Amended 24/07/2014)

Religion, injustice and “honour”.

It was Blaise Pascal (1623- 1662) who wrote the much quoted lines, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

It seems very strange, in fact bizarre, that religion, which should guide followers to behave better often does the reverse. I know that local custom, social mores and tribal “law” often dictate how any person is supposed to act or behave, but many of those who follow entrenched local customs and tribal laws are from ostensibly, deeply religious societies.

There is no indication that any particular faith or belief system is more or less prone to committing “evil” than any other. Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists all seem to resort to violence and “evil” in the defence or promotion of their particular brand of religion.

Before I continue I would like to point out that any “evil” perpetrated in the name of God is almost always committed by those who believe totally in the dogma of their faith, in the absolute truth of the written word as printed in their particular “book”, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Dharma or the Vedic texts.  

In this regard I wish to state very clearly that I am NOT anti-religion. I am not anti any belief in God – I believe in God.  What I am against is any, repeat any, injustice and all activities or behaviours which cause harm to people, whether or not it is perpetrated in the name of God.  

I was thinking particularly of the recent case in Sudan where a woman (apparently Christian) has been accused of apostasy and sentenced to death unless she recants her Christianity and declares herself a Muslim (her father was apparently Muslim). It seems that a male calling himself her “brother” agrees she should die – he says he cannot say anything else without offending God.

Quite how a belief in God can offend Him, defeats me. Surely a Christian concept of God is no less valid than a Muslim concept of God? As far as I know (please prove me wrong) there is only one God who is called by many names such as Allah, or Krishna or Brahma or the Creator. Does it really matter what name is used? He, She, It is still the same God!

Then there are the many instances of “honour killing” reported in India, Pakistan and the Middle East generally. There are also disturbing reports of such killings or severe injuries including rape from countries as diverse as Australia, the United Kingdom, America and Canada. These crimes, and they are crimes, are almost exclusively committed by either Muslims or Hindus.  These crimes are mainly against women to, purportedly, restore family “honour”.

How “honour” is restored by killing or injuring one of God’s creations (generally a woman) defies my imagination. This is a barbaric tribal practice used to reinforce, or protect, male dominance and power and also as a means of control.

Such practices have no place in any society today.

PS: an update 24/06/14 - the woman I mentioned has been released and will not now be executed. Apparently the authorities bowed to the international outcry. About time too, I say!

Syria – don’t add fuel to the fire!

It is a very dangerous course of action to try a pick a winner in a war zone. Particularly in a civil war and even more dangerous when to opposing sides are divided by religious beliefs.

I am not a Syrian, I have never knowingly met a Syrian – nor am I a Muslim. I strongly believe that no person, group or country that is neither Muslim nor Syrian should interfere in Syria. Bashar al-Assad may not be a very nice person – but look at who his father was and look at what his father did to the Syrian people many years ago. He killed thousands. So his son, the current Syrian president, has not had a particularly good role model to emulate.

The Syrians started this “war” two years ago (Amended Feb 22, 2018:- actually started March 15, 2011, so now seven years ago) and while I am appalled at the violence and the escalation into neighbouring countries I strongly disagree with any attempt to “support” any of the warring parties by supplying them with weapons. The Russians are wrong; the EU is wrong and the Americans are wrong in offering support to either side – in other words trying to pick a winner. (Added Feb 22, 2018:- Also  don't forget the religious side of this war Shia - the Alawite ruling minority and Shia majority in Iran vs the Sunni majority opposition allied to the Turks and others in the region).

Picking winners in a civil conflict never works. The Russians and the Western Coalition tried it in Afghanistan; the French and the Americans (and allies) tried it in Vietnam; the Americans and their allies tried it in Iraq and there are many other examples to draw on (Palestine?) – history is littered with such attempts - all failed or are failing. The Americans themselves should know better than to interfere in someone else’s civil war – each side resisted interference from the French and/or British in their various "home grown" conflicts hundreds of years ago.

Now the Russians are ramping up their supply of weapons to Syria. This will inevitably be matched by the “West” and by Israel. To what end? Such actions will just add fuel to the fire. This Syrian civil conflict – as in all such conflicts - has its origins in injustice (Palestine?). And injustice can never resolved by violence. Violence just creates more injustice, as we have already witnessed, this in turn will promote more violence to “redress” the additional injustices and so a vortex of violence and injustice will ensue. No one benefits – except arms dealers and weapons manufacturers and suppliers.

By all means provide humanitarian aid to the millions of Syrian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and to support these countries in their efforts to assist the refugees  - this is  fair and just. But not to supply weapons.

Violence is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.