The Destructive Power of Myth
By
William A. Cook
Never before have the people of the world, watching with trepidation, even
with fear, witnessed a leader of a powerful nation stand before his assembled
nobility to address both them and the populace about measures he would take
to retaliate against the forces of evil that had devastated the nation by
incinerating 7000 of its people. Never before had the peoples of the earth
been congregated together in the Cathedral of Television to hear a sermon
from a consecrated man who had publicly vowed to eradicate the world of the
forces of evil. Never before have we as a people had to consider the power
of ritual, pageantry, and rhetoric as motivating forces to carry out the will
of one power against another.
The above scene, however, has its analogies in history, though on a far less
dramatic scale. On January 8, 1198, Innocent III ascended to the Papacy of
the Roman Catholic Church. Consider the scene. We enter the great church of
consecration where the Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, monks of the many monastic
orders, priests and seminarians are gathered in the crossing of the nave and
in the choir, with the peasants and the parishioners massed in the nave and
aisles. Above float banners declaring the fealty of the noble houses throughout
the land gleaming brilliantly in the ethereal light that seeps through the
stained glass and clerestory windows. The organ resonates lightly above the
hubbub of noise when suddenly the great doors open and the yet to be anointed
Popes Celebrant announces to the assemblage the presence of Gods
chosen. The organ swells forth with thunderous sound as the entire congregation
rises in splendor as the Cardinals in scarlet robes, the Bishops in glistening
white capes, the Monsignors in cassocks trimmed in purple, the monks in tan
and black cloaks and cowls, the seminarians in red vestments, the variegated
colors of the parishioners greet the entrance of the appointed by God whose
coronation they are about to witness.
The Pope to be, head adorned with miter, crosier in left hand, right hand
raised in blessing, dressed in brocaded vestments with cape flowing behind,
moves majestically, with pomp and dignity down the central aisle. As he enters
the transept and steps through the choir, the Cardinals bow in salute, some
reach out to touch his cloak, and he nods his approval before reaching the
altar that overflows with flowers and candles. He genuflects before the tabernacle,
then turns, under the direction of his Celebrant, to stand before the Chair
of St.Peter. There, at the podium and in front of the chair that symbolizes
his direct descent from the great disciple, he will speak to the people where
he will declare that "
He is indeed the vicar of Jesus Christ, the
successor of Peter, the Lords anointed
set in the midst between
God and man
less than a God but greater than man, judge of all men
and judged by none."
Now convert the above scene to the great Hall of Congress as the President
of the United States makes his entry: his Celebrant, brandishing his symbol
of office, announces "The President of the United States". The position
is announced not the man who holds it. Dress the congressmen in tan and black
cloaks, the Senators in white robes, the Cabinet members in purple trimmed
garments, the Supreme Court members in scarlet, turn the applause into the
resonance of the organs swells, the lights into heavenly hues that bathe
those present, and watch the President move with dignity and splendor down
the aisle to his anointed place, where, before he turns to address the assembled,
he nods to the Speaker of the House and to the flag. Now we have the pageantry
and ritual that is the hallmark of myth.
Consider now President Bushs address to the nation on the 20th of September.
That address included an ultimatum to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan to
turn over Osama Bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attacks
against America that took place on the 11th. Almost immediately, the Talibans
rejected the ultimatum. That is invariably the fate of any ultimatum. But
issuance of an ultimatum to those who have nothing to lose but the mythology
that gives them an identity and a purpose is an empty gesture, doomed to failure
before its very conception. The Presidents address did not address the
primary cause of the atrocities that were visited upon America on the 11th
of September and his proposed actions will not bring an end to terrorist attacks
even if Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders are captured, tried, proven
guilty, and put to death.
Both Bin Laden and the Talibans are driven people, but they are only a fraction
of those infected with a rabid hatred of the United States and Western Capitalism
who have multiplied since World War II. For it is since that war that western
culture, particularly its insidious necessity to find new markets for its
ever expanding need to consume goods to fuel its investors drive for greater
and greater profits, has made its way inexorably across the globe. And while
that spread of Capitalism first took form in the manufacture of products in
distant places like Japan, China, Korea, and Indonesia, it has in more recent
decades been more obvious in the spread of American television programming
with its ever-present commercials that provide its support and, indeed, reflect
western values. The consequence of this transportation of western societys
economic power has had a twofold impact: a dramatic recognition that the worlds
resources benefit a small percentage of the worlds population, a self-absorbed
population suffused with comforts unknown and unavailable to the vast majority
of peoples around the world; and a determined belief by a minority of those
deprived that they will rise against their oppressors, and, with the power
of their God behind them, bring down the infidels that threaten the existence
of their governments and the values that govern their way of life.
Statistics can help us understand the reality that gives credibility to the
disenchanted and the deprived. The UN Human Development Report of 1997, for
example, noted, "The worlds 225 richest individuals have a combined
wealth equal to the annual income of the worlds poorest 2.5 billion
people." That same report showed Americans spending $8 billion a year
on cosmetics and Americans and Europeans spending $17 billion a year on pet
food, $4 billion more than needed to supply basic health and nutrition for
everyone in the world; and, as reported in TIME magazine November 9, 1998,
the US government provides $125 billion in corporate welfare every year, an
amount equivalent to all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and
families. The Fellowship of Reconciliation has made graphic the inequity of
the worlds distribution of resources by noting that 40,000 homeless
could be adequately housed for the cost of one Trident Submarine, a submarine
capable of multiplying by 10 the number of deaths of the Holocaust. And, finally,
the columnist David Smith has written, "The richest fifth of the worlds
population receives 86% of global income. Some 1.2 billion, nearly a quarter
of the earths population, live on the equivalent of less than a dollar
a day an annual income of 250 English pounds (or less) and are
the poorest of the poor."
One of the most glaringly obvious meeting places of the "haves"
and the "have-nots" occurs at Khan Younis in the Gaza strip. Chris
Hedges writes in the October 2001 HARPERS that the Israelis have constructed
32 wells there and a pipeline in 1994 that carries the water into Israel.
About 1000 Israelis live in the settlement and consume about one-third of
the water supply, though about 160,000 people live in Khan Younis. The Israelis
have in effect issued an ultimatum to the Palestinians that they will take
the water from the aquifers in this deprived area regardless of the inequity
of its distribution. The consequence of such blatant disregard for those living
in the city is the hatred that infests the population, especially the young
who have grown up with the omnipresent TV images of the western wealth that
supports Israel.
As Hedges makes clear, there is a prevailing attitude on the part of the Israeli
soldiers who guard the crossings into Gaza that the Palestinians are scum
and they treat them that way. They entice the young Palestinian children to
the dunes by cursing at them, making their futile attempts at retaliation
a right of passage into manhood. Hedges provides the figures: of over 1200
youth killed in the past year, over half are below the age of 18 and many
nine to twelve years of age. When these children return home, they enter overcrowded
rooms where the stench of sewage permeates the air. Tires and cinder block
hold down the tarpaper roofs. They live in squalor. Their misery is palpable
making conscious the deprivation that festers in the soul breeding vengeance
and retaliation.
Their parents have to go through checkpoints to get to work, sitting for hours
awaiting the hand movement that allows passage. Unemployment hovers at 40%
making the trek even more vital although the checkpoint is often closed altogether.
Drivers keep the window down and their hand on the door handle, despite the
heat, because they may have to dive from the car should bullets fly. They
watch the Israeli settlers, who have free passage, drive past the bumper-to-bumper
traffic in which they are locked. The consequence of such conditions breeds
hatred both of those at the guard points who inflict the injury and those
who support them, the United States in particular. These children grow up
without dignity, respect, or the expectation that things will improve. Indeed,
generations have now been raised in these abysmal conditions. The Israelis
who were provided a homeland as a gesture to compensate for the horrors of
the Nazi atrocities, now oversee a deplorable ghetto teeming with people who
have no homeland since they do not own it, no sense of dignity since they
depend on the largesse of their oppressors for the meager sustenance they
have, and no hope for the future since it has been denied to them so many
times in the past. Is it any wonder that numbers of these people find solace
in beliefs that they can attain a glorious state of everlasting reward by
sacrificing themselves for their people and for their God?
It must be pointed out that Hedges' article is a rare glimpse into the conditions
that prevail in Gaza. The American public has no understanding of these realities.
US television, newspapers, and magazines do not show images or run articles
about these conditions. Only non-mainstream publications have the freedom
to publish these insights. The mainstream press shows only the resulting carnage
of the suicide bomber's detonation with accompanying stories about his fanatical
beliefs as explanation for his insane act. Controlled ignorance by the corporate
powers that support the government's policies toward Israel and the oil producing
nations that fuel our economy becomes the controlled knowledge of the electorate.
That in turn gives rationalization for further support and greater restriction
of those identified as terrorist sympathizers or collaborators.
Corporate control of communications has done much to limit an American's perception
of the conditions that exist in the mid-east and even less concerning our
understanding of the peoples or their cultures. Since eight dominant corporations
(General Electric, AT&T/Liberty Media, Disney, Times Warner, Sony, News
Corporation, Viacom and Seagram, and Bertelsmann) control worldwide communications,
the interests of those corporations color virtually all information coming
to the western nations. Since they are also the dominant source of contributions
to political candidates in western nations, they ensure that policy and legislation
address their interests.
The dearth of information regarding the beliefs that motivate the terrorist
bombers is a case in point. The press invariably presents such information
in the form of ridicule as Michael Ramirez political cartoons in the
L.A. Times demonstrates. No comparison to Judaic-Christian beliefs has been
discussed even though zealots with perverted views of those faiths continue
to gather believers around them as the Rev. Jones made all too obvious. Sacrifice
for one's faith, duty to the one and only God, elimination of the unbeliever,
and resurrection to eternal life have been tenets held by members of the Jewish
faith and of Christian denominations for centuries. Indeed, reflection on
events from the past where these beliefs were prevalent could help us understand
the actions of those who sacrificed themselves to a cause.
The Old Testament is filled with God's commands to His people to destroy the
infidels who could obstruct their passage to the Promised Land. From the book
of Exodus to Joshua and the fall of Jericho, we witness a ruthless God demanding
total obedience even to the slaughter or elimination of whole tribes of people.
This God shall have no other gods before Him (Deuteronomy 6:14) and His people
will "cast out all thine enemies from before thee (Deuteronomy 6: 19)."
And if the Testament is to be believed, they did just that. Were these people
fanatics or believers of a true faith? How would we view their adherence to
their religion today? Are the myths that gave them identity and purpose acceptable
today? If there were a world court at the time of these atrocities, would
belief in a "jealous" God justify the slaughter of the Canaanites,
the Hittites, or the citizens of Jericho? Does belief in a God who discriminates
against other peoples, who finds them so unclean that His people are not to
marry them but can use them as concubines or slaves, justify the derogatory
insults of the soldiers at the cross-points and the Ultra Orthodox perception,
expressed publicly, that Palestinians are "animals" and "inhuman"?
Or should adherents of this faith today, recognizing the untenable beliefs
that have been part of its tradition, repudiate them, understanding that a
new time requires new myths that are more in harmony with the needs of the
world community?
The President inadvertently commented on the need for a "crusade"
against the terrorists and then apologized for the use of the word. And he
had reason to make the apology. Members of the Islamic faith have suffered
at the hands of "crusaders" before, victims of Christians during
the Medieval period who willingly sacrificed their lives to recover the Holy
Land from the infidels. These same Christians just as willingly slaughtered
the Jews because they had killed their God, Jesus Christ. The office of the
Pope, speaking as Gods representative, justified these incursions into
the Holy Land. Those participating would be guaranteed everlasting life for
sacrificing their time and/or their life for the one true faith. Can we look
back at this effort and condone it because it was done in a prior day and
cannot be judged by our standards? Or do we look back at it and say that no
belief based on a set of stories purported to be the word of God could justify
such actions? Do we learn from this history that humans are quite capable
of fabricating myths that will justify their goals for control of populations
and accumulation of wealth and power and use whatever means feasible to attain
those ends?
These questions beg for a deeper understanding of the causes that would entice
one people to join an effort to exterminate another people with whom they
have had little or no contact and willingly accept the probability that they
might sacrifice their own lives in that cause. An examination of the events
during the Albigensian Crusade instigated by Pope Innocent the III against
the Cathar sect reveals multiple causes -- economic, social, political, and
religious -- culminating, however, in beliefs that formed the basis of motivation
driving Christians to slaughter of the innocent and to self-immolation.
Thirteenth century France submitted to the domination of four kings; France,
as we now know it, was, in fact, a gift of Pope Innocent III to the Kings
of France. At the beginning of the 13th century, Philip Augustus held sway
in northern France and was the smallest and least rich of the kingdoms. By
contrast, the King of Aragon, Peter II, controlled land far beyond the Pyrenees
as far as the Ebro for which lands he paid homage to the King of France, although
in practice this meant little; indeed, the Counts of these areas, of Bearn,
of Aragnac, of Bigorre, of Cominges, of Foix, and of Roussillon, lived under
Aragon's protection, as did the viscounts of Narbonne, Carcassone, and Beziers.
Both the Lord of Montpellier and the Count of Toulouse depended on Aragon's
protection despite the relative independence Toulouse maintained. The entire
area known as Provencal developed its own language and discarded the Flemish
French of the North, created a unique and beautiful culture crowned by the
lyrics of the troubadours, and, generally, can be considered the most cultured
and educated peoples of the time.
This, too, was a time of great inquiry into the teachings of the Roman Catholic
Church, not just by the fathers of that church who were reaching beyond the
writings of Augustine, men like John Scotus Erigena, Abelard, and Aquinas,
but by others in Bulgaria and Italy, as well as Provencal, teachers like Pop
Bogomil in Bulgaria, John I. Tzimisces in Philippopolis, and Papa Nicetas
in Constantinople. Various sects, motivated in good measure by the corruption
in the Church, preached to a population desirous of understanding the truth.
The Cathars were one of many sects, variously identified as Waldensians, Bogomils,
and Humiliati, that believed in some form of dualism understood in varying
ways by practitioners, but basically taking the form of two ruling principles,
one good, one evil, spirit and matter, God and the Devil, doctrines originally
known as Manichaeanism. The Cathars of Languedoc, the name applied to the
region surrounding Toulouse, denied the incarnation of Christ because matter
was corrupt and the evil it housed must be shunned. Christ could not have
entered the world in a human body. They likewise denied the doctrine of Atonement
believing instead that salvation was reached through a series of progressive
reincarnations. These beliefs grew out of their interpretation of the book
of Genesis, the Bible's story of the flood, God's covenant with Abraham, and
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. These events were caused by the Devil,
called God in the Old Testament. The intricacies of their teachings cannot
be recounted here; however, it is clear that the Cathar beliefs are as complex
and derivative as those of the Catholic Church and, in point of fact, amount
to a different religion. Both rely on the stories from the Old Testament that
tell of the Creation and Fall and God's intervention in the affairs of humankind.
They differ in how they interpret those stories.
Catharists found favor with the common people and their lords because their
ministers, called Perfects, lived rigorous and ascetic lives by contrast with
the Priests and Monks of the Church who were seen as self-serving profligates.
Cathars did not use churches, preferring to speak to the people in their homes
or in small community gathering places. The contrast of the Cathars' asceticism
with the Catholic Church's land holdings, its rich raiment's, rituals, and
the splendor of its houses of worship appealed to many and Catharism became
a primary threat to Catholicism's control over the people. This contrast is
pertinent to our concerns here. Where power, induced by fear, is exercised
through an elite, who are determiners of what people must believe if they
are to attain salvation or retain favor, the maintenance of that power depends
upon the controls that can be enforced on the masses. Fear compels obedience:
mortal fear through torture and threat of death; spiritual fear through excommunication
and threat of damnation.
The Cathars had no such power: they had no Pope, no central place of authority,
no churches, no synods, no accouterments of power, and no commitment to their
God that they must bring all people to their truth, that unless accepted,
would cast the unbeliever into perdition; they did have friends and a committed
flock who walked into the flames prepared for them unless they denounced their
beliefs. Commitment to beliefs is no evil until and unless others are forced
to the commitment. That is the difference in the interpretation of the myths
between the two faiths.
The twelfth and thirteenth century Catholic Church proclaimed its authority
throughout the land, in civil matters as well as religious; it demanded allegiance
and it enforced allegiance through the establishment of Papal Inquisitors,
Synods, Legates, and armies that took up the cross against its enemies whether
heretic or infidel. It accepted its authority as direct from God, that God
speaks through it, that the coming of God was immanent and that all were to
be converted to the one true faith. It marshaled its power through its legions
of priests, bishops, monks, and cardinals, all under the authority of the
Pope. And it used the power of mystery to control its faithful. God is the
Creator of all things and is, therefore, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent,
and immutable, attributes that contain by their very definition the reason
we cannot understand. Jesus, His Son, sacrificed Himself to save humankind
from damnation, and gave to Peter, and through him to each of his successors,
the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Only through the Church could salvation
be attained. This required belief in, among other mysteries, the Trinity,
the Atonement, the Immaculate Conception, and the Resurrection, teachings
derived from interpretations of the myths resident in the Old and New Testaments.
The reality of Papal authority, both religious and civil, found confirmation
in the actions of Innocent III who ascended to the Papacy on January 8, 1198,
and, curiously, was ordained on the 21st of February and made a Bishop the
following day. Innocent believed that he, "as vicar of God," was
the only universal power, he alone was answerable for the souls of kings and
he alone had responsibility before God and all Christians. These are his words
preached at his consecration: "Only St. Peter was invested with the plenitude
of power. See then what manner of servant this is, appointed over the household;
he is indeed the vicar of Jesus Christ, the successor of Peter, the Lord's
anointed
set in the midst between God and man
less than a God
but greater than man, judge of all men and judged by none." No question
here whose authority held sway; no question here where truth resided. Anointed
by Jesus Christ Himself to carry out the dictates of the Church. And carry
them out he did.
Prior to his ascendancy, throughout Provencal (roughly what is now southern
France), northern Italy, and Bulgaria, particularly Bosnia, there existed
the many different religious sects noted above offering varying interpretations
of the teachings of Jesus. The Cathars' influence spread widely throughout
this region in good measure because of the corruption present in the Catholic
Church. Preceding Popes had not forcefully moved against these sectaries,
but Innocent did. Simonde de Sismondi, the chronicler of French History, writes
of Innocent III, "
he menaced by turns the kings of Spain, of France,
and of England;
he affected the tone of a master with the kings of Bohemia,
of Hungary, of Bulgaria, of Norway, and of Armenia;
as if he had no
other occupation, watched over, attacked, and punished, all opinions different
from those of the Roman church, all independence of mind, every exercise of
the faculty of thinking in the affairs of religion."
Innocent believed that if he did not eradicate the heresies and put all Christendom
in fear, the kingdom of God on earth would be threatened. Innocent did not
turn to conversion of the unfaithful, he "charged his ministers to burn
the leaders, to disperse the flocks, and to confiscate the property of every
one who would not think as he did." He excommunicated or laid under anathema
the lay leaders, the Counts, the viscounts, the Barons, who harbored these
heretics, and placed their lands under an interdict. In the first year of
his reign, Innocent appointed two monks of Citeaux, Brother Guy and Brother
Regnier, to search out and pursue the Cathar heresy invested with his full
authority. Regnier fell ill shortly after his appointment and Peter of Castelnau
was sent to join him. They were Papal legates to the provinces of Embrun,
Aix, Arles, and Narbonne. These legates, together with their followers, traversed
the provinces identifying heretics, confiscating property, and sending people
to the stake. Peter, in 1207, excommunicated Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse,
a friend of the Cathars because he refused to allow an army to march through
his lands looking for heretics. Innocent reacted angrily, publishing a Bull
declaring that "the Devil" had instigated Raymond to refuse the
Papal legates desire to subdue the heretics. That same year, in November,
Innocent exhorted Philip Augustus to "declare war against the heretics",
the enemies of God and the Church by taking up the cross. He proffered Philip
the same route to salvation given to those in the Crusades against the infidels
in the Holy Land, indulgences for sins, as well as confiscation of all goods
resulting from their actions. But Philip did not take up the offer, and, consequently
leadership of the crusade fell to Simon de Montfort, a brave, ambitious, and
ruthless man, a baron from the Ile-de-France. He had much to gain in title,
power, and land in addition to the indulgences. The power of the indulgences
cannot be overestimated; the Barons believed firmly that fighting in the Holy
Land guaranteed them a place in Paradise. Fighting on behalf of the Church
in Provencal now awarded that same guarantee. Thus began what we now call
the Albigensian Crusade, an army of over 50,000 according to the estimate
of the Abbot of Vaux Cernay. Ultimately, the only power Innocent possessed
to compel both noble and peasant to the cause was belief in the teachings
of the Church as expressed by him, God's representative on earth.
In 1209, the crusaders marched on Beziers -- peasants, knights, and lords
-- the masses, mantled now in the mysteries of God's omnipotent power, radiant
in the armor of the righteous, marching to the will of God's almighty ministers,
committed to the extermination of the infidels who were pitted by the Devil
against the forces of truth. Entering the city, they massacred the entire
population estimated at 15,000 to 30,000 souls depending on your source, 7000
of whom had sought sanctuary in the Church of Magdalin to no avail. That church
still stands as it did then in the heart of the city, a massive granite edifice
dedicated to the sinner saint, now a tombstone for the martyrs and a monument
to Innocent's reign of terror. When the Pope's legate, Arnold Amalric, abbot
of Citeaux, was asked how the crusaders should determine heretic from Catholic,
he replied, "Kill them all; the Lord will know well those who are his."
"Not a house remained standing, not one human being alive." And
this was just the beginning; the extermination of the Cathars continued into
the 14th century.
At issue here is the primacy of the myths as they played a major role in determining
the fate of the Cathars. If the Catholic Church of the 12th to 14th centuries
had not held that it alone had ultimate authority over the souls of all humans
relative to their salvation, and the supreme authority in civil matters to
effect it, both positions based on their interpretations of the stories of
the Old and New Testaments, the Church would have had no reason or license
to exterminate a people. But the Church did act through the powers inherent
in their leaders, the elite ministers who controlled the machinery of the
denominations and the civil government, who offered to their laity, an exclusive
body of adherents distinct from the heretics and the infidels because chosen
by God, the reward of salvation through indulgences. Therein lies the destructive
power of the medieval interpretation of myth.
But let's bring the analysis a little closer to home. This is a story about
America's forebears, the Puritans who sought refuge from persecution in England:
a stalwart, upright, courageous people who dared to enter an uninhabited wilderness
and create there a new Zion, God's "City on a Hill" as a testament
to all the world. They, too, were a Christian sect, one decidedly different
from the Roman Church. However, the tenacity with which they exercised their
faith allowed for slaughter of the innocent.
|
"On May 1, 1637, the Connecticut Court, meeting at Hartford, declared
war on the Pequot Indians, a Mohegan tribe living on the shore of Long Island
Sound from Rhode Island west to the Thames (then called the Pequot) and Connecticut
rivers." (Encyclopedia Americana). Before the month was out, on May 26,
a force of over 400 led by Captain John Mason and Captain John Underhill consisting
of Sachem Uncas, Narragansetts, and Puritan regulars crept into the area near
the mouth of the Mystic where the Pequots had their encampment. They surrounded
the fenced village of the tribe and at daybreak, while the Pequots were asleep,
they forced their way into the village, torched the dwellings, and, from their
encirclement, "
proceeded to pick off those who sought to escape.
More than four hundred (by some estimates 600-700) men, women, and children
were killed." according to Larzar Ziff. A month after this slaughter
Ziff records, Captain Israel Staughton with 120 Massachusetts men set out
to pursue the remnants of the tribe and wipe them out as a warning to others.
Mason tracked the main body to a swamp in Fairfield, Connecticut and killed
or captured all but 60 who escaped. "An entire tribe was eliminated."
What drove the Puritans to exterminate this tribe, to torch women and children,
old and young alike? Alden T. Vaughn commenting on this slaughter noted "It
resulted in the extermination of the most powerful tribe in New England, it
witnessed one of the most sanguinary battles of all Indian wars -- when some
500 Pequot men, women, and children were burned to death ... and it opened
southern New England to rapid English colonization." But Vaughn sees
the land acquisition at best as only a partial answer. The Puritans were prodded
into righteous action by the Pequot hordes, Satan's legions, and by the Puritans
frustration with Pequot retaliation attacks resulting from an earlier (General
John) Endecott expedition against them. Concerning this expedition Vaughn
states "
the Endecott expedition may well have represented something
even more fundamental at stake here -- the struggle between Puritans and Pequots
for ultimate jurisdiction over the region both inhabited. The Puritans, determined
to prevent Indian actions that might in any way threaten the New World Zion,
had assumed throughout their government's responsibility for maintaining law
and order among all inhabitants, Indian and whites." According to John
Winthrop, Endecott had a "
commission to put to death the men of
Block Island, but to spare the women and children, and to bring them away,
and to take possession of the island; and from thence to go to the Pequods
to demand the murderers of Capt. Stone and other English, and one thousand
fathom of wampom for damages, etc., and some of their children as hostages,
which if they should refuse, they were to obtain it by force."
Francis Jennings comprehensive and scholarly account of the Pequot slaughter
notes that the expedition was intended to be "highly profitable."
The "soldiers" under Endecott's command were volunteers who were
to "nurish themselves on plunder."
Gary Nash in his work the Red, White & Black (1992) claims that all the
factors that motivated treatment of Native Americans in the southern colonies
like Virginia were operative in New England: English land hunger, a negative
view of native culture, and intertribal Indian hostility. But he adds that
the Puritan sense of mission, the "
anxiety that they might fail
in what they saw as the last chance to save corrupt Western Protestantism
"
could be stalled by the Indian who stood as a "direct challenge to the
'errand into the wilderness'. The Puritans' mission was to tame and civilize
their new environment and to build in it a pious commonwealth that would 'shine
like a beacon' back to decadent England."
If Vaughn and Nash synthesize the viewpoints of the scholars who have reviewed
this period, one could conclude that the Puritans' extermination of the Pequots
had many causes: the Pequots were living embodiments of Satan's demons placed
there to prevent the establishment of God's "City on a Hill"; the
Pequots represented, therefore, a hindrance to the "Mission" God
had given to the Puritans; the Pequots had terrorized the locals with retaliatory
attacks following Endecott's expedition against them; the Pequots prevented
the expansion of English settlements in southern New England; and, finally,
the Pequots posed a problem politically for the Puritans since they controlled
a significant land area which the Puritans believed should be under their
(i.e. God's) control.
I would propose that there is a more fundamental cause that wrought the slaughter
of the Pequots, one that is the root cause of all the above "causes",
a primary cause if you will that gives credibility to actions that would,
at a distance, be seen as barbaric. I would suggest that all of the above
causes find their roots in the medieval era's interpretation of the myths
that gave credence to the peculiar tenets of Puritan doctrine. In the power
of these myths resides the destruction of the Pequots.
The "principall Ende" of the Massachusetts' plantation, according
to its charter (Records of Massachusetts, 1, 17) was "to wynn and incite
the Natives of [the] Country, to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true
God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth." Or, as the Reverend
Increase Mather put it in his Brief History of the War (King Philip's War
of 1675), and recounted by Jennings, "the 'Lord God of our Fathers hath
given us for a rightful Possession' the land of 'the Heathen People amongst
whom we live' and that said heathens had unaccountably acquired -- but without
having been injured -- some 'jealousies.' That they had remained quiet so
long 'must be ascribed to the wonderful Providence of God, who did (as with
Jacob of old, and after that with the children of Israel) lay the fear of
the English and the dread of them upon all Indians. The terror of God was
upon them round about.' There could be no clearer equation: the dread of the
English was the terror of God." Jennings also cites the Puritans frequent
reference to Psalms 2:8 and Romans 13:2 as justification of God's gift to
His chosen.
This is the "Mission" given to the Puritans by their "covenant"
with God: possession of the land he had provided for them and the responsibility
to bring the heathen to the true God. To the extent that the Pequots represented
Satan's hordes and they possessed land rightfully belonging to God's chosen,
they had to be disposed of by the "armed band of the Lord" as Larzer
Ziff puts it. It is instructive to note, and perhaps ironic, that the Puritans
did nothing before 1643, if the evidence is to be believed to "wynn and
incite" the natives to the "onlie true God", years after the
extermination of the Pequots.
What circumstances existed that allowed the Puritans to exercise their will
on those who came as part of the Puritan cult and on the populations that
lived on the land before they arrived? A variety of scholars have addressed
the demographic background of New England as well as the nature of Indian
culture prior to the arrival of the Puritans. Suffice it to say here that
their numbers had been drastically reduced by disease brought by Europeans,
a reduction of about 2/3rds just prior to the Puritan settlement. And, perhaps
more tellingly, they had little inclination to adopt Christianity.
If their depleted numbers and the internecine tribal wars prevented the natives
from mounting any significant resistance to the newcomers, the fact that they
occupied the land did not; they were used and abused as the Puritans pursued
their errand for God. This was made possible in part by the reality of circumstances;
according to Thomas Wertenbaker, in his work The Puritan Oligarchy, "In
the Bay Colony the Puritan leadership had a free hand in building their Zion
exactly after the blue print which they were confident God had made for them.
For a full half century they were permitted to shape their government
as they chose, they could legislate against heresy and Sabbath breaking, they
could force attendance at worship, they could control the press, they could
make education serve the ends of religion." Wertenbaker points out that
"
It is more accurate to call it (the government in Massachusetts)
an oligarchy, since it was a government of the many by the few."
This is an important point, as we shall see, since it is the elite (those
who control and are a minority) who determine the myths for the many. Myths
derive, as Joseph Campbell says, not from the masses but from the elite, the
few create the stories that become the guideposts for the many. The elite
perform the rituals that become the means by which the many experience the
myth and make it part of their lives. Campbell believed it necessary to liberate
religion from "tribal lien" or the religions of the world would
remain -- as in the Middle East and Northern Island today -- the source of
disdain and aggression.
Puritan theologians, the elite group that masterminded the "new Canaan",
what they termed "doing God's errand", would concede that the physical
universe is the work of God, but it did not follow that the visible universe
was God Himself. They knew this distinction had to be maintained; they thought,
after all, as the Medieval mind had thought for 1500 years, that the transcendence
of God could not be called into question; neither mysticism nor pantheism
could be tolerated. "The Puritans carried to New England the historic
convictions of Christian orthodoxy," states Perry Miller, "and in
America found an added incentive for maintaining them intact. Puritanism was
not merely a religious creed and a theology, it was also a program for society."
If individuals had the right to seek understanding independent of the ministers,
than the solidity of that civil and ecclesiastical order would be threatened.
This was a society of laws but laws established under the guidance, indeed
the rule, of Scripture. Puritanism sought an ideal of social conformity through
obedience, or, if not, through mandatory compliance. This, then, was a society
determined by those in authority and defined by them as, in Winthrop's words,
"good, just and honest."
It is important to recognize that the Puritans maintained this Medieval perspective
because they, too, would not tolerate heresy in their midst. They understood
the need for authority to intervene, as the Catholic Church's Inquisition
had intervened and as Henry VIII had intervened to cause the burning of 30
heretics, to control errant thinking. But intervention also meant force, if
warranted, against those not "elected" to be saved, those destined
to the torments of hell. This was Calvinism; "
based on a division
of the elect and the damned that ran throughout mankind." This theology
grew out of Augustine's reasoning that some men are born "concupiscent
rational animals" and some are "grace-endowed rational animals",
one or the other. They also understood the battle between the forces of good
and evil, the presence in the world of Satan's power attempting to undermine
God's will; and they made evident that belief in the extermination of the
heathens called the Pequots. "The Indians were Satan's helpers,"
as David Stannard says, "they were lascivious and murderous wild men
of the forest, they were bears, they were wolves, they were vermin. Allegedly
having shown themselves to be beyond conversion to Christian or to civil life
-- and with little British or American need for them as slaves -- ... straight
forward mass killing of the Indians was deemed the only thing to do."
Two issues are of immense importance here: from whence did this authority
emanate and what were its consequences? I cannot in this paper present the
arguments that rationalize the evolution of Christian thought, though W. T.
Jones' work The Medieval Mind provides a good path to that end, except to
note that as the Roman Empire crumbled, the Catholic Church, with its doctrine
of the Divinely inspired word of God as its authoritative base, took control
over both the civil and spiritual lives of the people. This was in stark contrast
to the first three centuries of Christian development when that sect was considered
by the general population as nothing more than a small Jewish cult. The times,
however, called for a supreme authority and for belief in a life with purpose
even if that life were to be in the hereafter. Jesus' teachings, according
to Jones, required "conformity to God's will" resulting in God's
approval. That required understanding of Jesus' teachings and interpretation
of them. This was the role undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church and successively
by various Christian denominations including the Puritans.
Much of what Christianity teaches grew out of the epistles and writings of
St. Paul, the leader of the Gentile mission. "It may be said," according
to Jones, "that he more than any other individual, was responsible for
the development of Christianity, as a distinct religion
" Of particular
importance to the authoritative base of Christianity is the interpretation
Paul provided. Here is how Jones presents it:
It will be seen that Paul first made the historical Jesus into a savior god
and then built up a mythical setting for this god out of the Jewish legends
and stories that he and Jesus, as Jews, knew in common. How, for instance,
did we come to sin and so to require the services of Christ the Savior? For
answer Paul fell back on the old Jewish myth of the creation. God created
Adam, the first man, free from sin. But Adam disobeyed his Maker, and we,
his descendants, have inherited his sins. Just as the sin of one man (Adam)
brought death and all our woe into the world, so the virtue of one man (Jesus)
saves us; and just as Adam's sin was disobedience, so the virtue by which
Jesus redeems the many is obedience."
This became the teaching of the Roman Church and continues to this day as
the teaching of Christianity. The church as an organization undertook responsibility
to determine who would be and who could not be a member as well as prescribing
the doctrines and the dogma that would bring its members to obedience in Jesus.
Since Paul had in his letter to the Romans wrote that God had "marked
out" and "predestined" some for salvation, adherence to the
true faith was necessary for salvation. The Puritans subscribed to this belief.
Indeed, orthodoxy required adherence to Puritan doctrine; tolerance of differences
was not allowed. "Persons who accept the 'right' beliefs," as Jones
says, "are saved; persons who mistakenly accept the 'wrong' beliefs are
damned." Those who accept 'wrong' beliefs were labeled heretics and subject
to punishment, banishment, slavery or death. "
New England had
early taken the lead and throughout the colonial period held more Indians
in slavery than any other colonies except South Carolina
" (Forbes,
89).
The Puritans carried out this understanding of their God given authority by
linking the civil government to the church. Wertenbaker makes this observation:
In ardent sermons they warned the people that God had chosen His own from
the mass of those predestined to damnation,
that the one sure guide
for the state as well as for the individual was the Bible, that the civil
government, while separate from the church, shall be in the hands of godly
men who would give religion their hearty support and suppress error.
Obviously, the understanding of the Bible was to be in the hands of the ministry.
Malcolm Lambert states, in referencing actions taken against heretics in the
Medieval era, "Scripture was to be mediated
to the faithful through
authorized preachers; the base text was not to be put into the hands of anyone
who might misuse and misunderstand." That, too, was the position of the
Puritan Divines. But what, then, of those who had never heard of the Bible
or its teachings? Can they suffer damnation regardless of guilt? "Yes,
the Puritan preacher says," and Ziff recounts, "because they are
men and as men in justice they deserve damnation; salvation is theirs only
through divine mercy, and mercy has not been extended to them. 'They who never
heard the Gospel, shall never answer for not believing in it as revealed or
offered,' the preacher admits, because it was not so made known to them, but
yet they shall answer for that habitual infidelity whereby they would have
resisted it, and whereby they are opposite unto it."
What consequences resulted from this adherence to a set of beliefs that placed
the authority of God's word, indeed the determination of what was God's word,
in the hands of an elite few? Of necessity, we focus here on the Puritan determination
to exterminate a people, the Pequots. First, according to Stannard,
there is little doubt that the dominant sixteenth-and-seventeenth century
ecclesiastical, literary, and popular opinion in Spain and Britain and Europe's
American colonies regarding the native peoples of North and South America
was that they were a racially degraded and inferior lot -- borderline humans
as far as most whites were concerned.
Second, the establishment of the "new Zion" in the "New World"
offered an opportunity to link the civil government with the church's teachings
where the word of God should supersede the word of men. "We came hither
because we would have our posterity settled under the pure and full dispensation
of the gospel, defended by rulers that should be ourselves," wrote Cotton
Mather. Those who came with the Puritan divines were but subjects of them,
obedient servants to the Lord God made manifest through them. What they came
to understand was not only the inferior status of the natives, what we would
now understand as racism, but the inherent right of their company to possess
the land held by them. This was understood before they left England as Wertenbaker
notes: "John Winthrop encouraged his counterparts to leave England because
God had given the whole earth to mankind '
why then should we stand
striving here for places of habitation, etc., many men spending as much labor
and cost to recover or keep sometimes an acre or two of land as would procure
them many hundreds as good or better in another country
" This was
the economic reason behind the migration according to Wertenbaker.
That reference to God giving the land to His people comes from the Old Testament
and understood by the Puritans in exactly the same way. "For the covenant
the congregations claimed direct authority from the Bible and direct precedent
in the history of Israel. 'The covenant of grace is the very same now that
it was under the Mosaical dispensation,' stated William Brattle. They saw
themselves, Mather himself has said, as the chosen of God, that He had made
Himself manifest to them, and that He had directed them to the new world.
But it went further than this: "The Lord hath planted a vine, having
cast out the heathen, prepared room for it and caused it to take deep root
We must ascribe all these things, as unto a grace and abundant goodness of
the Lord our God, so to His owning a religious design and interest."
(See Necessity of Reformation, Epistle Dedicatory). These teachings allowed
for the slaughter of the Pequots. It is clear that the myths gave credibility
to the Puritan behavior against the Pequots. Campbell remarked about this
myth of the "Chosen" and its allowance for slaughter in his interview
with Moyers: "
the Ten Commandments say, 'Thou shall not kill'.
Then the next chapter says, 'Go into Canaan and kill everybody in it'. That
is a bounded field. The myths of participation and love pertain only to the
in-group, and the out-group is totally other. This is the sense of the word
'gentile' -- the person is not of the same order."
Stannard quotes the Puritan Captain Mason upon witnessing the plight of the
Pequots: "
God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the
Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven: Thus were the
Stout Hearted spoiled, having slept their last Sleep, and none of their Men
could find their Hands: Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling
the place with dead Bodies." And William Bradford added this commentary:
It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying and the streams of blood quenching
the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed
a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought
so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and
give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.
Cotton Mather noted that the extermination was the "just judgment of
God" who had allowed five or six hundred "who had burdened"
the earth to be "dismissed" from it. (See Magnalia). These represent
God's interpreters on earth. These basic Christian myths, the foundations
of Puritan thought and hence behavior, grew out of the understood relationship
of God to His creatures: humans are conceived in guilt, live amidst evil,
and must find their way back to the Creator. As Campbell says, "But when
nature is thought of as evil, you don't put yourself in accord with it, or
try to, and hence the tension, the anxiety, the cutting down of forests, the
annihilation of native people." To put this in the words of a contemporary,
William Bradford in 1617, "The place they had thoughts on (in coming
to the new world) was some of those vast and unpeopled countries of America,
which are fruitfull and fitt for habitation, being devoid of all civil inhabitants,
wher ther are only salvage and brutish men, which range up and downe, little
otherwise then the wild beasts of the same
" Thus did the belief
in myth allow for the eradication of a people and the taking of their land.
It became a justification for racism and for greed permitting these realities
to determine the destiny of 500-700 people who did not share, or even understand,
the rationale that gave purpose to the Puritan slaughter.
The extermination of the Pequots by the Puritans, on its surface, appears
contradictory; why would a group devoted totally to fulfilling the word of
God, having formed a "covenant" with Him, having moved from their
homeland in England to Holland and thence to America to protect that covenant,
enamored of traditional Christian values, accept the mandate of their ministers
to eradicate a tribe of people? Even if the "soldiers" who accompanied
Endecott were mercenaries, or those regulars who went with Mason acted in
accordance with military custom, the consequence of their actions had to be
accepted by the Puritan people and their ministers. While some argue that
opening up southern New England to English expansion would be cause enough,
that advantage would not be for those already resident in Massachusetts, but
for those yet to come, and they were not privy to the slaughter. It should
now be obvious from the above analysis that something inherent in what the
Puritans' believed, something inculcated in them as an absolute truth, something
they could not question, drove this acceptance.
Jennings, in the Appendix to his book, The Invasion of America, compares the
process of "chartered" conquest in Europe and America. He observes
that such a conquest "
was launched ostensibly to reduce heretics
or infidels to subjection to a protector or champion of an only true religion
and clerics of the appropriate orthodoxy preceded or accompanied or
followed the troops." While Jennings' hypothesis sees the use of religion
as an "ostensible" tool for intervention and subjection where heretics
and infidels are the "game", I believe that in instances where heretics
and God's enemies are hunted and burned, as is the case in the Puritan slaughter
of the Pequots and in the Papal slaughter of the Cathars, the religious belief
precedes the economic advantage and must be employed if the heads of state
(the elite) are to maintain their authority and the power they wield. To this
end, they will employ the economic "carrot" to motivate others to
join their design offering them the spoils of their efforts. Economics is,
of course, a fundamental cause, but in these instances not the primary one.
Maintenance of control through maintenance of that which guarantees control,
the myths that control behavior of the masses and ensures power for the elite,
is the primary cause. When absorbed in dictatorial activity, the conscious
mind responds to no other; the consequence is an obedient servant shackled
to ritual, customs, tradition, and rites.
I would posit six characteristics that brought about the destruction of the
Pequots and the Cathars, each inherent in the myths that formed the basis
of the Puritan and Roman Catholic faiths or were appropriate actions in light
of the myths' teachings requiring immediate action. I would also contend that
these same characteristics are likely to exist for all similar events recorded
in our histories where the actions resulted from fulfillment of myths accepted
by that society but destructive of another. The examples are too numerous
to record here. We are witness to this potential in the current conflicts
in Israel and Palestine, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in Kosovo and our histories
have recorded such events in the Conquistador invasion of Central America,
in the impact of the Atlantis myths on some of the elite minds in Nazi Germany,
in Japan's imperialistic expansion into China in the 1930s and 1940s, and,
in ancient times, in the Hebrews extermination of the Hittites, Amorites,
and Canaanites among others.
These are the destructive consequences of adherence to myth. The unquestioned
acceptance of absolute right has been the hallmark of humankind's greatest
achievements as well as their most loathsome acts.
What does the above analysis teach us? I would suggest that it is possible
to identify characteristics of myths as destructive forces. I would recommend
that we have much to learn and much to gain if we apply this analysis to current
conditions, especially since our Western culture has not altered its adherence
to the myths that have determined the events of the past 2000 years. I would
also suggest that historians and teachers have to confront these events from
a new perspective, one that does not avoid bringing contemporary values and
understanding to the analysis, one that does not excuse behavior on the basis
that it resulted from commitment to beliefs (an approach that would justify
Innocent's eradication of the Cathars, the Puritans elimination of the
Pequots, the Nazis extermination of the Jews, America's wanton bombing
of the Cambodians, and the Terrorists atrocities that befell America
on the 11th of September), one that does not excuse behavior on the basis
that it was within the "norms" established by that society, and
one that brings the means to analyze the events before all Americans the better
to determine what actions should be taken if terrorism is not to haunt us
the rest of our lives.
If we extract from the above analysis of the extermination of the Cathars
and the Pequots the underlying causes that allowed for the atrocities, we
might be able to illuminate the actions of the terrorists that threaten us
today. Killing those who are willing to kill themselves for their cause does
not eradicate the cause. Addressing the beliefs that become the motivation
to action could eliminate the need for terrorist acts. The study of myths,
then, becomes a means of acquiring an understanding of people's behavior,
and a means of avoiding repetition of destructive behavior.
Events of the past can be recounted, authenticated, and analyzed in light
of their contemporary social structures, philosophy, politics, and religious
values, but they have little value to us if we cannot learn from them in order
to prevent recurrence of past error. By approaching the study of myth as a
primary cause of human behavior, we address fundamental truths that have been
the foundation of civilizations as they interact one with another. If through
this analysis we can predict conditions that will result in the unleashing
of destructive forces, we can work to prevent their recurrence.
But the study of the myths that caused the havoc of the 11th is complicated:
we must look at the myths that motivated the perpetrators in the righteousness
of their cause and the myths that they believed were the foundations of the
West's power that both threatened their culture and oppressed their people;
we must analyze the beliefs that Americans and their Western allies accept
versus the reality that exists, a reality that causes the perceptions that
give rise to hatred and terrorist acts.
The analysis we have provided of the Roman Church's eradication of the Cathar
sect and the Puritan extermination of the Pequots was made possible because
1. An elite group designed myths for purposes of determining human behavior.
The Roman Church made Jesus the Messiah and the Pope His voice on earth speaking
for the one true Church. In the Puritan instance, this elite group took existing
dogma and modified it, codifying in the process standards of acceptable behavior;
2. The myth(s) contained the seed that allowed for the destructive behavior
to flower. That is, there is inherent in the myth a call to action imposed
on those who have accepted it as a guidebook for their lives. The dichotomy
projected by both denominations of the saved versus the damned provided the
premise for action and the imaging of the natives as Satan's minions by the
Puritan Divines provided the motivation;
3. The myth is exclusionary and restrictive providing access to its rewards
only to the initiate or through him. This characteristic allowed for degrees
of punishment to those who would tamper with the accepted doctrines or those
unable to accept those doctrines;
4. The culture responding to the myth must be in a state of economic, political,
and social ascendancy that requires action to sustain that status. The forces
that require action can be economic, for example, land acquisition or fear
of loss of existing lands; or political, for example, the opportunity to gain
more power or the opposite, the fear that power already acquired is in jeopardy
of erosion or loss; or social, for example, the belief that those excluded
from participation in the myth must be brought into it or removed as an obstacle
of its fulfillment. Each of these conditions existed in the 13th century and
in Massachusetts in 1636-37;
5. The nature of the myth does not distinguish between the secular and religious
spheres, but rather understands an absolute commitment of life in all its
actions to the governing force. We have seen the union of church and civil
authority at work in Medieval Europe and in Puritan Massachusetts;
6. A requisite structure is designed and employed, usually hierarchical in
nature, to codify, justify, and implement the behaviors called for in the
myth. That structure was manifestly evident in the Roman Church's condemnation
of the Cathars and in the Puritan community.
I believe that an examination of today's terrorist
activities reveals that each of the effects that brought about the atrocities
of the 13th and 17th centuries as described above exists now. Let's examine
the terrorists perspective first.
Two observations must be addressed: the spasmodic terrorists' acts that have
struck various countries around the mid-east over many years including those
by Palestinians against the Jews, acts that are generally executed by an individual
or small groups of people; and the organized business-like operations that
seem to be responsible for the destruction of the US Embassies and the atrocities
of September 11.
If we reflect on the observations offered by Hedges in his Diary published
by Harpers, the hatred of the Jewish peoples' oppression of the Palestinians
becomes one with hatred of the United States because it is seen as the power
behind Israel's strength. The anger must be directed at the Jews because these
people have no means to bring their terror to others.
But there are those within Palestine, and similarly in other countries in
the mid-east, who recognize the degree of frustration and hatred and capitalize
on it, the "elite" who take power, organize, and manipulate the
multitude. They give voice to the anger by giving it a context beyond jealousy
and deprivation. The Taliban assumption of control in Afghanistan demonstrates
this point. Now the very religion they have practiced for centuries becomes
the cause. It is threatened as well as the people it protects. The Satan of
the west, with its endless supply of money and military might, threatens to
destroy the Arab states and its Islamic faith. The leaders of Hamas, the various
Shite organizations, the Laskar Jihad in Indonesia, the Talibans in Afghanistan,
and others throughout the mid-east have brought together their hoards to fight
the infidel as effectively as Innocent III in his conquest of the Cathars
and the Puritan Divines in their mission against Satan's "salvages".
The stories in the Islamic faith, interpreted by the elite, allows for the
destructive behavior to flower. We've heard the various stories that raise
the martyr before the throne of Allah and bring him immediate gratification
in eternal life. That promise has been the promise of ages; it blessed the
peasant as he followed Simon de Montfort's banner just as it guaranteed salvation
to the Puritan fighting Satan's hoards. Not all heed the promise, but to some
it is the ultimate idealistic response that gives meaning to their lives,
and in most instances, an end to their misery and a reward of eternal bliss.
If this is insanity, then our churches have an obligation to ferret out those
who use their religion to motivate the few to destroy the many.
But the reward for the individual combatant is not the only reward. For those
who take up the cause, there is the victory of righteousness over the forces
of evil and the inevitable salvation of the state. These more universal rewards
might have greater appeal to the educated who see the world as part of a great
design, and their actions as a significant role in that design.
Part of the appeal of any "crusade" or "jihad" rests in
its exclusivity. Only the initiate can participate, only the chosen. This
appeal to the ego of the individual strengthens resolve, but it also strengthens
the directed hatred for the enemy. That which provides the exclusiveness,
being part of God's chosen, focuses motivation to condemn those excluded;
they become forces in "Evil's" camp or an obstruction in the fulfillment
of the grand design that has created the chosen and their set of beliefs.
This provides justification for the slaughter of those whom the crusader has
never met and whose beliefs he does not know.
Performing an act of self-immolation without involving others, simply to assert
the degree of your belief and commitment to an ideal, as the Buddhist Monks
did when they set themselves on fire protesting the Vietnam War, cannot be
equated to the acts of self-destruction that have taken the lives of others.
The latter have responded to the exclusivity of their organization and understand
that the enemy, whether civilian or military, is a necessary target to achieve
their goal. The Buddhist understands that his act is a sacrifice for others,
and in that act, he becomes one with them.
The organizations and the nations that support terrorist activities recognize
the necessity of undertaking such actions if they are to realize their economic,
political, and social goals. Either they have everything to gain or much to
lose. The Hamas desire the return of their homeland and hence the need to
eradicate the Jewish state. Bin Laden desires a pure Arab State, especially
in Saudi Arabia, hence the need to eradicate US forces in his homeland. The
Laskar Jihad desires the establishment of a committed Islamic state, thus
the need to expel the influence of the West in Indonesia. Inseparable in all
three resides the desire for power achievable through the establishment of
a state that imposes a monolithic belief system on its peoples. The existence
of the belief system ensures the existence of the power. That reality gave
Innocent III the power to manipulate monarchs and emperors, just as it gave
the Puritan Divines the commitment of its people during the slaughter of the
Pequots and following it.
Obviously, the power reflected in the organizations that carry out such devastation
must have both political and religious power intertwined. If Hamas and the
Jihads could impress or draft combatants, as an independent state can, they
would not need the power of the religious beliefs to enlist their forces.
But they cannot. They depend, therefore, on instilling a commitment to the
righteous cause in their recruits, one that offers the promise of eternal
rewards through sacrifice to the God who has chosen them to achieve His end.
And, finally, these organizations contain by design a structure that enables
its designers to codify, justify, and implement the behaviors called for in
the myth. The elite hierarchy establishes procedures for carrying out the
organization's responsibilities. The sacrificial victim sees himself as a
holy warrior fighting on behalf of his God. He participates in cells where
the purposes of the actions and the goals established to fulfill God's will
are discussed. He is a celebrant. We recognize the ritual that is part of
the suicide bomber's sacrifice; it symbolizes the justness of the cause thus
transforming it beyond a series of diverse, random acts of terror.
As we can see, the elements that allow for the destructive forces to mobilize
exist in the terrorist organizations. But they also exist in the West giving
credibility to the terrorists' beliefs and giving justification in their minds
to their behavior.
Two myths dominate western thought: the belief in democracy, understood as
the power inherent in the individual to determine with his/her fellow citizens
those who will serve them in their government; and the belief in individual
empowerment in determining his/her lifestyle and the economic system that
will make it possible. Neither belief exists in reality. Many have observed
the President's comment that the forces of evil desire the destruction of
the American way, especially the destruction of the democratic process that
allows the citizens to elect their President, when the Supreme Court appointed
him to the position. But that is only the most glaring contradiction of the
"democratic way".
Watching the Democratic and Republican Conventions dramatically demonstrates
the source of power in the country. The power elite, representing the top
1% of the population who own the vast majority of its wealth, control the
process. No common citizen could attend the gala events; but those who had
contributed upwards of $250,000.00 had open access. The Party platforms represented
the interests of the greatest donors and the most powerful lobbies. The corporate
owned newspapers and TV channels determined who would debate the issues and
which candidates would receive coverage. Even the electoral process reflected
the willingness of those in power to limit access to the ordinary citizen
as was only too obvious in Florida where minorities were denied admittance
to the polling booth and where the legal system thwarted the very laws that
provided for recount of contested votes. This most recent of our elections
blatantly demonstrated the power of the monied class to control the "democratic"
process. The Bush camp bought the election.
The problem that attends belief in this system exists when the citizens believe
that our government should impose its perceived values around the world. This
gives license to those in power to empower those of like mind in other countries.
We have been witness to that system in Argentina where our government threw
over the legitimately elected President Allende and put in his place the Dictator
Pinochet, actions recorded in Christopher Hitchens book, The Trial of Henry
Kissenger. His two decades of rule devastated his country causing an anti-American
backlash that lasts to this day. Larry Berman describes in No Peace, No Honor
how our government took an unknown student out of a New Jersey seminary and
made him the first President of Vietnam. It then built a war machine to support
his call for US aid to defend his country. The power structure that controlled
our government could not let the Communists control the oil in the region
and manufactured an attack on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify its
support of a fabricated nation. Needless to say, hatred of America blossomed.
In 1972, President Nixon needed desperately to show progress toward an "honorable
peace" in Vietnam. To force the North Vietnam leaders back to the negotiating
table, he ordered the Christmas bombing of Cambodia, Hanoi, and Haiphong.
In a little more than 11 days, he devastated Cambodia with whom we were not
at war, and all but obliterated the two cities. The people on the ground witnessed
the atrocity just as Americans did watching the slaughter of the innocent
in New York City and Washington. Then, to save his political skin for a second
term, he sold out the South Vietnamese at the negotiating table by ensuring
the presence of the North's troops throughout the South.
Nothing of the above behavior made it to the press or to the American people
until long after the events had passed. Three decades after the start of the
war, Secretary McNamara unburdened his soul by revealing that the President
and the administration knew the futility and injustice of the war, but by
then more than 50,000 had sacrificed themselves saving democracy from communism.
Governments do not mobilize a people by telling the truth, they mobilize through
mystery: fear of the unknown that threatens their livelihood, fear of forces
that could destroy them, fear that their religious beliefs could be undermined
by the forces of evil that accepts no religion.
Those that suffered through this war know that once the truth regarding its
purpose became known, the peoples' will to sacrifice themselves ceased. Once
the government understood that it could no longer command the beliefs that
motivated the citizens, it attempted desperately to stop the war. To put it
another way, once the elite's myths cease to have credibility, they lose power
or they rearrange the myths to justify an altered policy.
Americans, however, continue to believe that Democracy is the only acceptable
form of government. They retain this belief in conjunction with the Puritan
Divines' belief that this land should be a "City on a Hill", a phrase
that Ronald Reagan used to justify his war against the "Evil Empire".
This is, to all intents and purposes, America's religion. It justifies our
past and gives credibility to our purpose. We have yet to disassociate ourselves
from the Christian belief that God gave this land to us to illuminate His
truths to the world. It does not matter that the reality of a democratic form
of government does not exist here or that the country is home to countless
non-Christian faiths that do not accept the concepts that reverberate in the
call to establish a "City on a Hill".
As long as the reigning government in Washington, the elite who choose the
President and his cabinet, the members of Congress and the Senate, and bring
financial support to the military, as long as they can appeal to these idealistic
beliefs, they can mobilize the country against external forces characterized
as evil.
But if the spread of Democracy has caused ill-will in various nations around
the world, a form of Democracy that imposes a government friendly to the United
States not one duly elected by the people, the recognition of that imposed
form of government as a puppet of the Capitalistic forces that control the
American Government causes even greater consternation.
If Democracy recognizes the need to separate church and state, why do we provide
billions of dollars in support of a Theocracy in Israel? If we have no qualms
about supporting a Theocracy, why not offer equal support to Islamic nations?
If Democracy recognizes duly elected governments, why does the US support
dictatorships? The answer lies in the need for the monied forces that control
the US to have in power governments that support Capitalistic interests.
That reality provided the rationale for production of goods in Indonesia,
China, Korea, and Vietnam, among other nations, where exploitation of the
people resulted in child labor, token wages, and unsanitary, dangerous working
conditions. Nike Corporation, for example, paid Chinese workers, until recently
and only after a public outcry changed their policy, about $1.50 for making
a pair of sneakers that sells for $80.00 to $120.00. In Indonesia, Nike paid
.16 to .19 cents per hour. About 40% of Nikes work is now done in China.
This one example illustrates the reality of the "new" industrial
revolution taking place across the globe. My visits to China over ten years
depicted graphically for me the incursion of the industrial giants into a
"new" manufacturing state. During my last visit, ten years after
my first, I witnessed the explosion of factories surrounding Bejing; I also
witnessed the deep set smog that fused with the yellow sand that blew through
the city and created a pall that ironically foreshadowed the demise from lung
diseases of thousands. I took an eight-hour train ride from Yantai City to
Jinan watching smoke stacks belch black soot over the countryside. I passed
polluted streams that had been a place to swim and fish for my hosts when
they were young. The industrialization of China seems to be following the
same agonizing route that the British people had to suffer in the decades
after 1765 and the Americans had to endure after 1870, each a disastrous route
of a hundred years to acceptance of needed, imposed regulations to protect
the workers and the environment. But for the transnational corporations, the
bottom line dictates the investment, and without government imposed regulations
to protect health, safety, and wages, exploitation of the worker to produce
the product at the cheapest wage drives the process. Why else would these
corporations seek out underdeveloped countries to relocate their plants except
to increase the profit margin. The consequence of this exploitation in each
of these countries is an expressed dislike by the ordinary citizen for the
industrialized nations that bring about the exploitation, United States included.
Roger Altman has written about the dichotomy that exists between the "Have"
and the "Have-Not" nations. He states, "
half of the worlds
population is increasingly threatened with economic oblivion." But more
importantly, he says "That is dangerous for world stability, and we should
not resign ourselves to it." What happens if the West does not address
a redistribution of wealth and the utilization of the earths resources?
Altman again: "The Fourth World, the least developed parts of Africa
and Asia, will become even more fertile territory for brutality, state sponsored
terrorism and mass tragedy."
The disparity Altman cites coupled with the perception of the worker in the
exploited nations breeds resentment against the United States. Yet the average
American has no conscious awareness of these issues. They believe that American
Capitalism is a benefit to the worlds communities since it provides
jobs they would not otherwise have and it gives Americans a cheaper product.
To a certain extent they have accepted the need for these "new"
industrialized nations to suffer the 100 years it takes to correct the deficiencies
that exist at this time. After all, we had to go through that period, why
not them? But, once the total picture gets presented, Americans have demanded
a change in how these corporations operate. Americans are, after all, a generous
and compassionate people. Once they become aware of inequities, they generally
respond positively and force corrections.
However, today Americans lack knowledge of the reality that permeates even
their own lives much less the conditions imposed on other peoples by exploitive
companies in their name. Americans do not know that Executive pay increased
by 571% between 1990 and 2000, not adjusting for inflation, according to the
Washington Post in September of 2001, while the salaries for American workers
rose a paltry 5% during that same period, inflation considered. Figures vary
slightly, but the typical American household according to Sam Pizzigati has
a paltry $11,700.00 to call its own, down 10% since 1989. Figures that show
the average American household worth at $176,200.00 fail to mention that the
top one percent of American households has a worth of $7,875,000.00. That
accounts for the dramatic drop in reported value. And more dramatically still
is the discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have-nots"
in America: the top 1 percent holds more wealth than the entire bottom 95%
of American households. Yet Americans generally feel that they live well.
Why? Because they live far beyond their income; they live on future income
through plastic. The average American has a credit card debt in the neighborhood
of $18,000.00. Our economic system has literally forced Americans into an
indentured servant relationship with the banks and corporations that manufacture,
advertise, and sell the products. That reality has created a lethargic and
unquestioning public that must, for its own sanity, believe that the system
is the best in the world.
Because they have become so invested in the economic system, Americans have
a great deal to lose. Any threat to their livelihood evokes fear and retaliation.
Thus the atrocities of the 11th, greater in kind than anything yet experienced
in the states, awoke the American people to the enormity of the external threat
that could destroy their relatively complacent lives. The President responded
to these fears initially from an implicitly Christian perspective, seeing
the world as divided into the Good and the Evil, with America as Gods
force for good leading the world against the forces of evil. He saw the nations
response as a "crusade" against those forces. Calmer minds in the
administration corralled these terms by weeks end although the division of
the world into those "with America" or "against America"
still resounded in his speech before Congress on the 20th.
As we have seen, fear compels obedience. The dualistic division of the world
as a ruling principle existed for Pope Innocent III and the Puritan Divines;
it exists now. The God of the Old Testament, the Popes leading the Crusades,
the Puritan ministers, the Nazi powers, and Imperial Japan, all used fear
against the chosen, those protected by God or by genetic right, as the motivating
force to mobilize against the enemies that threatened the continuation of
the state, a war of good versus evil.
Our President has assumed absolute authority as the leader of all nations
against terrorists throughout the world, for he alone is answerable to the
American people and the protector of the American people. That is the mantle
Pope Innocent III assumed against the Cathars. He has raised the protection
of liberty and freedom as the banner around which the nation will rally even
as he asks Congress to give his administration authority to override civil
liberties. Pope Innocent III called upon the faithful to rally in defense
of the Church, to liberate it from the forces of evil that threatened its
existence. And he imposed the Inquisition to ensure that the one and only
true Church would continue to exist. Our President has demanded of the worlds
leaders that they choose between the forces of good and evil as defined by
the United States. "You are with us or against us," he told the
world. Pope Innocent III menaced the kings of France, Spain, and England that
they had to be with Gods voice on earth or be forever damned in hell.
He excommunicated or laid under anathema the leaders who refused his admonitions
and placed their lands under an interdict. He even demanded that they "take
up the cross." Our Presidentand his administration have threatened other
nations with economic catastrophe if they do not join the "war against
the terrorists", the crusade that he initially envisioned.
What is comparable here to the religious beliefs that motivate the terrorists,
the crusaders of old, or the Puritans? Fear that the American way of life
will be destroyed. That way of life, in its first manifestation, offered freedom
of opportunity to all in a land that God gave to the founders who came here
out of a commitment to their Christian God. The Revolutionary War brought
enhancements to that "way of life" by opening the land of opportunity
to all peoples, not just Christians; it also proposed that a laissez-faire
Capitalism offered the only true avenue to fulfillment of that opportunity.
America yoked together the freedoms inherent in a Democratic form of government
-- freedom to choose their government, freedom of religion, and freedom of
speech -- with an economic system that furthered the interests of its peoples
to acquire their cherished dreams. This way of life became the only way of
life. What we believed was true should be true for all peoples, and thus we
began electing Presidents who would require that our form of government and
our economic system be accepted by those nations with whom we would interact
and for whom we would provide support.
Most Americans, unfortunately, have not witnessed and have no true perception
of how those values are transferred abroad. We are blind to the reality of
our own economic condition, the discrepancy between our actual value and our
debt, and we fail to understand the dichotomy between the "haves"
and the "have-nots" in this country, a discrepancy so dramatic that
even an economist of the stature of John Kenneth Galbraith has reacted by
placing the burden of responsibility on the United States government to set
things right: "I have long been persuaded that a rich country such as
the United States must give everybody the assurance of a basic income."
But if our recognition of our own condition is lax, our recognition of how
other nations view America is almost non-existent. We believe that America
is seen as a free society where everyone is equal and has the same opportunities;
we believe that our government supports true democracy around the globe; and
we believe that the Capitalistic system provides the best opportunity for
all peoples in all nations. But these are myths. In truth what we believe
is what the corporate world wants us to believe and they have the means to
make it happen; they own communications newspapers, television channels,
magazines, movie production studios, movie distribution houses, telephone
systems, and radio stations. In truth what government supports are governments
that will guarantee protection of Capitalistic enterprise, and they will place
in power the necessary government to accomplish that end by whatever means
it takes. In truth what Capitalism actually does in the name of the United
States is to reap the greatest profits by producing for the least possible
cost regardless of the consequences to the peoples of other countries. These
are the realities that turn people against the United States. We do not understand
them because we do not see them as others do.
Capitalism, not Democracy, is at fault. As Capitalism has grown in this country,
it has saturated over time its primary base, the absolute needs of most of
the people for housing, clothing, transportation, and food. Once saturated,
new goods had to be designed and new demands for them created. Advertising
has taken on that role. But consumption is a never-ending process only as
long as there are adequate numbers of consumers. Americas population
could not absorb the quantity of products the system had to produce to continue
profits for investors, consequently, more markets had to be acquired. Russia,
after the fall, showed promise. China shows promise now. Unfortunately, as
Capitalism moves into countries with huge populations, some of its basic tenets
cause problems.
An example will suffice. A department store in the city of Yantai employs
hoards of personnel, four girls wait on a single customer buying a sweater
with similar numbers at other counters. A conscientious Capitalist would see
incredible savings by locating a checkout counter at the exit and laying-off
excess personnel. But for China, with a population of 1.3 billion people,
finding jobs is a problem. Capitalisms desire to hire as few people
as possible to turn out products at the least cost, efficiency of operation
its called, runs counter to the demands forced on the government to
find jobs for so many people, if only to provide them with a sense of worth
and personal dignity. Capitalism does not want nor can it thrive with a conscience.
Democracy must have a conscience. Capitalisms mobility across the globe
has fostered more hatred for the United States than any other single cause,
either in its support for "friendly" governments, even if dictatorial,
or in its exploitation of the people. Martin Khor, in his article "Global
Economy and the Third World" describes how such corporations raid resources
and ship them to the wealthiest industrialized nations. New trade rules imposed
with the support of these transnational corporations leave the Third World
countries virtually helpless to protect themselves. Indeed, Ralph Nader and
Lori Wallach, writing about GATT and NAFTA, stated, "Approval of these
agreements has institutionalized a global economic and political situation
that places every government in a virtual hostage situation, at the mercy
of a global financial and commercial system run by empowered corporations."
The full power granted to corporations by these multi-national agreements
cannot be fully appreciated without recognizing that they do not contain regulations
of commerce to protect environmental, health, or labor rights including prohibitions
against child labor. Is it any wonder other nations hate us?
Khor amplifies the consequences of this intrusion by noting, "Some corporations
are also concentrating their sales efforts on the markets of the Third World,
where they can sell lower-quality products or products that are outright toxic
and thus banned in the industrialized countries." Is it any wonder America
is hated? But these companies sell more than products; they sell a culture,
a consumer based, and valueless culture. Foreign countries despise this erosion
of values and fear loss of a cultural identity and subsequent loss of values
associated with their culture. Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh in a study
on "Homogenization of Global Culture" reflect on the consequences
of the globalization of entertainment that sends western television, film,
fashion, and music into virtually every country overpowering local stations
and media. A standardization ensues dominated by the west. They note, "The
strongest remaining ideological barrier to American music, television, and
film is Islamic fundamentalism." That was in 1996. The "values"
apparent in this western intrusion into other cultures: huge audiences, fame,
and money achieved by costly venues, advertising, and sex. Given Americans
desire to assert family values, the transfer of this pop culture to all peoples
seems a perversion of the peoples values. Is it any wonder that so many
hate the United States?
Now that we have confronted the reality behind the myths, it is necessary
to reflect on how Americans and their government can respond adequately to
the primary cause of the terrorists acts. The reality the terrorists
see cannot be erased without changing the way the Capitalistic system operates
on our behalf. The terrorist knows only that its Americas wealth
and that of the industrialized west that manipulates and corrodes their country.
They do not know what Americans believe to be true. If America continues
to let the transnationals and the power elite control the operations of America
abroad, it will continue to suffer from the atrocities terrorists commit.
The world has changed, and we have been the instruments of that change. As
the Bible says, "They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."(Hosea
8:7)
We have wired the world; they know now how the rest of the world lives. We
must recognize that a more equal distribution of the worlds resources
must be achieved if discontent, deprivation, and hatred are to be assuaged.
Our beliefs in what America should be, a melting pot of the worlds communities
living in tolerance and harmony, reflect desirable and universal values. Americans
must take back control of the government to ensure that those values, and
not those of the profit based transnationals, are those seen by peoples around
the world. Correction of the myths that motivate one people to eliminate another
will respond to the primary cause that under girds terrorism.