07-10-2010, 02:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2010, 03:41 AM by Peter Dawson.)
JFK and the Unspeakable is the most moving book I've read in quite a few years. It certainly creates a strong, solemn mood as one reads it, and it appears that Douglass creates the same mood when one meets him in person. There should be more of it.
I actually put Douglass' book down after reading only two thirds of it, because I felt it was pointless continuing the journey of reading the book alone - pointless to deal with the subject matter on my lonesome, especially as I'm not an American myself. I dip back into it now and then and find interesting new things. I'm sure I'll eventually complete reading it, but the more important objective at this point is to see that more Americans read it. We don't need a small number of experts on this topic, we need a large number of committed novices.
The question is, what would these committed people do, if it did come to pass that a large group of them was formed? I was so taken with Douglass' writing that I bought some of his other books. One of them was called "The Non-violent Coming of God." I haven't read much of it. I didn't engage with it on my first attempt at reading it, and I think the reason why is that I've got some conflicting ideas running around my head about the notion of "non-violence".
You get to an age in life where moving books and novel ideas become thinner on the ground than they once were, and apart from Douglass' JFK book, something else that has caught my attention recently is an idea put forth by John Lamb Lash. Actually, his book Not in His Image was the last profoundly moving book I read before reading JFK and the Unspeakable, but the specific idea I'm referring to is Lash's suggestion that a righteous violence is not only possible, but necessary for the survival of all that is good.
He has written about the idea, so I will simply provide a link, and end with a Ghandi quote which I have recently discovered:
Edited to add: Upon re-reading Lash's essay at the link, I must say, I'd forgotten how "out there" Lash can be. He can be pretty out-there!
I actually put Douglass' book down after reading only two thirds of it, because I felt it was pointless continuing the journey of reading the book alone - pointless to deal with the subject matter on my lonesome, especially as I'm not an American myself. I dip back into it now and then and find interesting new things. I'm sure I'll eventually complete reading it, but the more important objective at this point is to see that more Americans read it. We don't need a small number of experts on this topic, we need a large number of committed novices.
The question is, what would these committed people do, if it did come to pass that a large group of them was formed? I was so taken with Douglass' writing that I bought some of his other books. One of them was called "The Non-violent Coming of God." I haven't read much of it. I didn't engage with it on my first attempt at reading it, and I think the reason why is that I've got some conflicting ideas running around my head about the notion of "non-violence".
You get to an age in life where moving books and novel ideas become thinner on the ground than they once were, and apart from Douglass' JFK book, something else that has caught my attention recently is an idea put forth by John Lamb Lash. Actually, his book Not in His Image was the last profoundly moving book I read before reading JFK and the Unspeakable, but the specific idea I'm referring to is Lash's suggestion that a righteous violence is not only possible, but necessary for the survival of all that is good.
He has written about the idea, so I will simply provide a link, and end with a Ghandi quote which I have recently discovered:
Quote:[size=12]I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence... I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature....
But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.
We do want to drive out the beast in the man, but we do not want on that account to emasculate him. And in the process of finding his own status, the beast in him is bound now and again to put up his ugly appearance.
The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.
[/SIZE]
Edited to add: Upon re-reading Lash's essay at the link, I must say, I'd forgotten how "out there" Lash can be. He can be pretty out-there!