How can anyone of average intelligence believe in a superstition like God? How can there be a God in such an unjust world? What about the inconsistencies in the Bible? Those are good questions, and I won’t pretend to answer them. I respect and admire atheists and agnostics, and their arguments make a lot of sense. Still, I believe in God. I’m not sure I can explain why, but here goes…
Experiencing the divine has nothing to do with any book. It’s a mere accident of birth if your book is the Torah, the Christian Bible, the Quran, or Bhagavad Gita. These scriptures may not help you experience God. You cannot find God by just reading a book; if you find God at all, it might be in spite of books rather than because of them. The god of the book is often vengeful and temperamental. If that’s all god is, then I’m with the atheists--- I don’t want anything to do with it. God, I think, can occasionally be found in the margins, in the ellipses, in the deletions of the book. When people say “Torah is absolute truth,” or, “I believe in the Bible as the literal word of God,” I’m wary. When debating a Baptist minister, Bishop Spong asserted anyone who believes the Bible is the absolute truth clearly hasn’t read it. And that goes for all the books, not just the ones we read in the West.
If I were starting from scratch, instead of my own dual traditions, I would join the Friends, Quakers. They have no dogma or doctrine; rather, they rely on the inner voice and an absolute commitment to peace. That is God, as far as I know. God is in the silence, when you have peaceful thoughts and hear that “still small voice.” I know what some will ask: what if you are Charles Manson, or George Bush, and your inner voice tells you to kill people? The rabbis tell us that taking one life is as bad as killing the whole race. Clearly some people are damaged and can’t rely on their inner voice, whether due to psychosocial factors or chemical unbalance. We have an obligation to care for damaged people, and make sure they can’t harm anyone, including themselves. In order to help others, we have to find our moral bearings.
The people who wrote the books were trying to find god. Their search was honorable and earnest. We have their wisdom and experience to rely on, and their successes and failures. We have the teachings of the three great Jewish prophets: Jesus, Marx, and Freud. If you can’t “do” Jesus, then try Hillel or Philo of Alexandria. Same message, different vocabulary. Jesus and Hillel were concerned with the heart; Marx wrote about politics, and Freud explored the mind. Use their expertise: in your experience of god, you don’t have to start from scratch.
At Passover this year, I had the privilege of sitting at the children’s table, no small feat for a middle-aged man. I visited with a young loving couple: he was Native American, she was Orthodox. His father, like mine, was clergy. Those two lucky people found each other, and respected each other’s tradition. The most cruel lie in all the books is the exhortation of tribalism, the idea that you must only be with others of your same tradition, endogamy. It’s a sad lie, and a terrible loss. This couple knew that God is god is G-d is Allah. They knew that if God is love, then love is God. Whenever two people love each other, God can be born--- it doesn’t matter if it’s a man and a woman, an Indian and a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian, or two men.
These days it seems that the only God we hear about is the God of the Book. If you don’t worship the books, you supposedly can’t experience god. God, it seems to me, has little to do with any book. Belief is a personal matter, and it alarms me to hear it discussed by all the politicians. If that is God, then count me among the atheists. It well may be that some are pre-disposed to believe in God because of genetic propensity or fluke of evolution.
In our post-Greg Mortenson era, I’m reminded what the rabbi taught: white-washed tombs hide inner rot. The people who talk most about God and pray the loudest probably know the least. In the end, it’s not what you believe, but what you do. John Lennon said “In the end, all the love you take is equal to all the love you make.” Buckminster Fuller said that “To me, it seems, God is a verb, not a noun.” God is peace, love, and everything good. Even talking about God seems to obscure the already obscure. God is above, beyond, and just out of grasp. Be careful of people who say God, God, God—-like I'm doing. Find out for yourself. Maybe you’ll find it, maybe you won’t. Some who think they haven’t found it already have, and people who say they have, haven’t. Listen to the inner voice, the stillness. When you hear it, the domain of the divine is here, and the revolution begins.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Temperance
I recently visited the Unitarian church, and listened to an excellent sermon on Temperance. It’s not a popular topic, and one I had never heard addressed at a liberal church. Temperance is moderation, and while that may not be popular thing, moderation is a virtue worth espousing. In America, Temperance has come to mean abstention from alcoholic beverages, and it’s not a widespread practice. Temperance, teetotaling and Prohibition are distinct historical movements.
I come from a long line of teetotalers. I had a visit from my beloved cousin last week, and we had a chance to discuss family traditions. 150 years after my ancestors first advocated that position, Temperance is still practiced. For my cousin, Temperance involves abstention from hard liquor, and avoiding public drinking. My cousin has, I think, stayed true to the political and practical origins of the movement. My ancestors wrote prolifically on the topic of Temperance, and it was one of the many liberal causes they espoused.
It seems strange from today’s vantage to see Temperance as progressive. In the 19th century, however, it was a liberal cause. In the early 19th century, potable water wasn’t always available, and where it was, it often had a brackish, mineral taste. In America, the two most popular beverages were whiskey and hard cider. Wine wasn’t widely available, nor was beer: that would change in the latter half of the 19th century. It’s estimated that Americans over age 14 consumed around 7 gallons of pure alcohol annually between 1800-1830. That’s a lot of alcohol. In war time, soldiers were paid partially in whiskey, and given a daily ration of whiskey and hard cider. In addition, wages were paid in whiskey. Public projects like barn raisings and even canal digging involved prodigious amounts of drinking.
Against this background, reformers sought to change drinking patterns and public drunkenness. By 1830, liberals, and some religious conservatives, took what was known as the “short pledge.” The “short pledge” was a pledge to avoid drinking hard liquor, and abstaining from public drunkenness. There was no concept of alcoholism as a disease, and excess drinking was seen as a personal moral weakness.
Temperance was linked to the women’s movement. While my ancestors didn’t identify as Christian, organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union advocated women’s suffrage, as well as ending poverty. The motto of this organization was “Do Everything,” and these worthy women did. Social reformers like Jane Addams supported the work of the WCTU. Susan B. Anthony supported the cause of Temperance, and my ancestors joined an organization called the Independent Order of the Good Templars, a Temperance group that was open to both sexes, something rare in that age.
Gradually, Temperance and Teetotalism joined forces. There was no consensus, though; some individuals took the “long pledge” which was the renunciation of all alcoholic beverages. These folks were called the “cold water people,” because that’s what they drank. Temperance and Teetotaler advocates began to espouse prohibition by the early 20th century, and the movement changed from a personal perfection campaign to a political one. We tend to lump Temperance, Teetotaling and Prohibition together; they were originally distinct, and there was never complete agreement among the three movements.
My family were not all in favor of Teetotalism; my great-great grandmother left many recipes that required a “rich wine sauce.” That being said, I don’t recall seeing liquor in either of my grandparents’ homes. Public drinking was taboo, and my grandfather would sooner go hungry than get a hamburger from the town bar, which he disparagingly called “the tavern.”
Radicals like Carrie Nations have given Temperance a bad name. She was not typical of the cause; Temperance advocates did not take hatchets to every unlicensed saloon in town. Most Prohibitionists wanted to close taverns for two good reasons: they did not allow women, and were owned by brewers. Before Repeal, all saloons were owned by distillers, and bartenders were encouraged to sell product at all cost. Saloons did contribute to drunkenness.
Prohibition was, by and large, a failure. Closing saloons didn’t eliminate organized crime. Rather, crime syndicates branched out from prostitution and gambling to selling bootlegged liquor. Prohibition advocates sought to close saloons and eliminate hard liquor. It was doomed from the start because of the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act limited the amount of alcohol in beer to .5%, near beer. Normally, beer has about 5% alcohol. By limiting the amount of alcohol to .5%, Prohibition criminalized beer and wine, something Temperance advocates were divided over. Also, it was never illegal to have liquor in the home, and personal consumption of alcohol was never outlawed. Buying liquor for distribution was illegal. Churches, doctors and pharmacies were exempt, along with personal home use.
What does Temperance mean today? Was Prohibition a total failure? To answer the last question first, Prohibition accomplished two things. When it was repealed, bars could no longer be owned by distillers, and weren’t forced to sell product. Today, alcohol consumption is half what it was in the early 19th century: Americans over 14 drink less than 3 gallons of pure alcohol a year. As for advocating people to take either the short pledge or the long pledge, that’s not my business. Temperance, moderation in alcoholic consumption isn’t a bad idea, and temperance in all aspects of our lives is a worthy goal.
I come from a long line of teetotalers. I had a visit from my beloved cousin last week, and we had a chance to discuss family traditions. 150 years after my ancestors first advocated that position, Temperance is still practiced. For my cousin, Temperance involves abstention from hard liquor, and avoiding public drinking. My cousin has, I think, stayed true to the political and practical origins of the movement. My ancestors wrote prolifically on the topic of Temperance, and it was one of the many liberal causes they espoused.
It seems strange from today’s vantage to see Temperance as progressive. In the 19th century, however, it was a liberal cause. In the early 19th century, potable water wasn’t always available, and where it was, it often had a brackish, mineral taste. In America, the two most popular beverages were whiskey and hard cider. Wine wasn’t widely available, nor was beer: that would change in the latter half of the 19th century. It’s estimated that Americans over age 14 consumed around 7 gallons of pure alcohol annually between 1800-1830. That’s a lot of alcohol. In war time, soldiers were paid partially in whiskey, and given a daily ration of whiskey and hard cider. In addition, wages were paid in whiskey. Public projects like barn raisings and even canal digging involved prodigious amounts of drinking.
Against this background, reformers sought to change drinking patterns and public drunkenness. By 1830, liberals, and some religious conservatives, took what was known as the “short pledge.” The “short pledge” was a pledge to avoid drinking hard liquor, and abstaining from public drunkenness. There was no concept of alcoholism as a disease, and excess drinking was seen as a personal moral weakness.
Temperance was linked to the women’s movement. While my ancestors didn’t identify as Christian, organizations such as the Women’s Christian Temperance Union advocated women’s suffrage, as well as ending poverty. The motto of this organization was “Do Everything,” and these worthy women did. Social reformers like Jane Addams supported the work of the WCTU. Susan B. Anthony supported the cause of Temperance, and my ancestors joined an organization called the Independent Order of the Good Templars, a Temperance group that was open to both sexes, something rare in that age.
Gradually, Temperance and Teetotalism joined forces. There was no consensus, though; some individuals took the “long pledge” which was the renunciation of all alcoholic beverages. These folks were called the “cold water people,” because that’s what they drank. Temperance and Teetotaler advocates began to espouse prohibition by the early 20th century, and the movement changed from a personal perfection campaign to a political one. We tend to lump Temperance, Teetotaling and Prohibition together; they were originally distinct, and there was never complete agreement among the three movements.
My family were not all in favor of Teetotalism; my great-great grandmother left many recipes that required a “rich wine sauce.” That being said, I don’t recall seeing liquor in either of my grandparents’ homes. Public drinking was taboo, and my grandfather would sooner go hungry than get a hamburger from the town bar, which he disparagingly called “the tavern.”
Radicals like Carrie Nations have given Temperance a bad name. She was not typical of the cause; Temperance advocates did not take hatchets to every unlicensed saloon in town. Most Prohibitionists wanted to close taverns for two good reasons: they did not allow women, and were owned by brewers. Before Repeal, all saloons were owned by distillers, and bartenders were encouraged to sell product at all cost. Saloons did contribute to drunkenness.
Prohibition was, by and large, a failure. Closing saloons didn’t eliminate organized crime. Rather, crime syndicates branched out from prostitution and gambling to selling bootlegged liquor. Prohibition advocates sought to close saloons and eliminate hard liquor. It was doomed from the start because of the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act limited the amount of alcohol in beer to .5%, near beer. Normally, beer has about 5% alcohol. By limiting the amount of alcohol to .5%, Prohibition criminalized beer and wine, something Temperance advocates were divided over. Also, it was never illegal to have liquor in the home, and personal consumption of alcohol was never outlawed. Buying liquor for distribution was illegal. Churches, doctors and pharmacies were exempt, along with personal home use.
What does Temperance mean today? Was Prohibition a total failure? To answer the last question first, Prohibition accomplished two things. When it was repealed, bars could no longer be owned by distillers, and weren’t forced to sell product. Today, alcohol consumption is half what it was in the early 19th century: Americans over 14 drink less than 3 gallons of pure alcohol a year. As for advocating people to take either the short pledge or the long pledge, that’s not my business. Temperance, moderation in alcoholic consumption isn’t a bad idea, and temperance in all aspects of our lives is a worthy goal.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Why Men Support Planned Parenthood
When I was 12, my dad gave me a booklet about sex. He told me if I had any questions, to ask him. I am grateful to him for a frank, informative discussion about human sexuality. My father was a clergyman, and I suspect that when it came to sex, he’d heard it all; nothing I asked shocked him. This was before Oprah and Dr. Phil, and today, people discuss the most personal aspects of their private life on TV. Some of today’s discussion seems vulgar, or tawdry and sensational. Maybe that’s just an indication that I’m old.
One summer, I spent time with my grandmother, my father’s mother. She lived in an old farmhouse in the hills of southern Missouri, just north of the Ozarks. My dad had four brothers and sisters, and the farm wasn’t large. During the Depression, times were hard. I was an impertinent teenager, and I asked my grandmother why she and my grandfather had so many children. She had a bad heart, and the each pregnancy had been difficult.
My grandmother told me that back in the bad old days, the 1930’s, birth control was illegal, except in certain cases. Although her doctor advised her not to have children, he could not refer her to a clinic until after she had five children. I had no idea things had been so bleak, and I’m glad she told me.
After her 5th child, (my father), my grandmother’s doctor was legally able to refer her to Planned Parenthood. In 1916, Margaret Sanger and other progressive women formed that great organization to provide healthcare, including family planning, for women. Wealthy women always had more medical options than middle and working class women. Sheepskin condoms were a possibility for well-connected men, and some educated women were able to be fitted with diaphragm-like cups. Some women used sponges, but writing about these options was illegal.
There was an incipient women’s movement in the mid-nineteenth century. Some, even then, advocated free-love. Increasingly, people chose not to marry. Women knew that family planning was necessary to insure their physical and economic health. There were even a few states with divorce laws, and there were books that discussed, in veiled terms, how couples could prevent unwanted pregnancy.
This was before divorce was widely accessible. Married women, in the nineteenth century, forfeited their right to own property; all their possessions became their husband’s. Women could not vote. The fact that some people opted out of marriage provoked an extreme backlash, and the Comstock laws were passed in the 1870’s. These laws restricted divorce, and made any discussion of birth control illegal.
Due to advocacy by Margaret Sanger and others, these laws stifling laws began to be undermined in the early twentieth century. The Comstock laws were not completely done away with till the 1960’s, and today, conservative politicians are chipping away at these hard won rights. Some on the right are intent on reversing these legal victories.
My grandmother explained how Planned Parenthood saved her life by fitting her with a diaphragm. It was a shame she had to wait until the birth of her fifth child before she could access this service. During this discussion, my aunt, a right-wing Southern Baptist, entered the room and told me she made monthly contributions to Planned Parenthood, because they provided so many vital services for women’s health. In today’s toxic climate, I wonder if we could have had such a frank talk. It made an impact on me, and I am grateful to my grandmother and aunt for educating me.
Here’s a news flash: most men love women. Those of us who have opted out of traditional, heterosexual marriage still love women. If there isn’t a girlfriend, there’s a sister, a cousin, an aunt or mother. Since we love women, we want them to be well-cared for. Thank God for Planned Parenthood. For many, Planned Parenthood is the only place available for pap smears, mammograms, and family planning. It is tragic that a few confused politicians are using this agency as a prop in their war against women. Attacks on Planned Parenthood are attacks on women. It’s misogyny, and it’s shameful. People who picket outside women’s clinics should be truthful. They should admit that they hate women, and they want women to die. There are women who hate women, too. I’ve seen women-hating women marching outside of clinics.
In some cases, motherhood must be postponed. It’s not easy to talk about terminating a pregnancy. No one wants to have an abortion, it’s a lose-lose situation. No one makes that painful decision lightly. In many cases, the mother’s life is endangered. It is irresponsible and murderous to insist women risk their lives for the sake of a fetus. In some cases, there are economic reasons to terminate a pregnancy. To say that a woman should carry the fetus to term and give it up for adoption is also irresponsible. It’s simplistic. Sadly, adopted children, if they are lucky enough to be adopted, are not all loved and raised in good homes. Some get bounced around in foster care for years. God knows foster parents are hard-working and well-meaning, but many foster children never feel loved or wanted.
You know a woman who has been helped by Planned Parenthood. I know women who have used their services. You know women who have made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. I know women who have had to do that, as well. Bad things happen: in the real world, there are diseases, there are unplanned pregnancies. These things happen; why pretend they don’t? There have been times I’ve suffered the unforeseen consequences of my actions, and such things have happened to people I love. If there were only wise people in the world, nothing would ever happen--- so goes a traditional African proverb.
It’s time for a frank discussion about human sexuality. This doesn’t mean screaming at each other, and it doesn’t mean being lurid like Dr. Phil or the kids from New Jersey. There is no need to demonize gynecologists, and I don’t know what to say about the sick people who kill doctors. Whatever your point of view, it’s counter-productive to carry hateful signs outside women’s clinics. Most of us have had sex at one time or another, and we have to deal with the consequences of this activity. Women’s bodies need to be treated with care and respect, and no woman should have to go without medical care. No man can claim to love women if he doesn’t respect women’s bodies. If we aren’t capable of a frank, honest, non-accusative discussion about sex and its consequences, maybe we should just shut up.
One summer, I spent time with my grandmother, my father’s mother. She lived in an old farmhouse in the hills of southern Missouri, just north of the Ozarks. My dad had four brothers and sisters, and the farm wasn’t large. During the Depression, times were hard. I was an impertinent teenager, and I asked my grandmother why she and my grandfather had so many children. She had a bad heart, and the each pregnancy had been difficult.
My grandmother told me that back in the bad old days, the 1930’s, birth control was illegal, except in certain cases. Although her doctor advised her not to have children, he could not refer her to a clinic until after she had five children. I had no idea things had been so bleak, and I’m glad she told me.
After her 5th child, (my father), my grandmother’s doctor was legally able to refer her to Planned Parenthood. In 1916, Margaret Sanger and other progressive women formed that great organization to provide healthcare, including family planning, for women. Wealthy women always had more medical options than middle and working class women. Sheepskin condoms were a possibility for well-connected men, and some educated women were able to be fitted with diaphragm-like cups. Some women used sponges, but writing about these options was illegal.
There was an incipient women’s movement in the mid-nineteenth century. Some, even then, advocated free-love. Increasingly, people chose not to marry. Women knew that family planning was necessary to insure their physical and economic health. There were even a few states with divorce laws, and there were books that discussed, in veiled terms, how couples could prevent unwanted pregnancy.
This was before divorce was widely accessible. Married women, in the nineteenth century, forfeited their right to own property; all their possessions became their husband’s. Women could not vote. The fact that some people opted out of marriage provoked an extreme backlash, and the Comstock laws were passed in the 1870’s. These laws restricted divorce, and made any discussion of birth control illegal.
Due to advocacy by Margaret Sanger and others, these laws stifling laws began to be undermined in the early twentieth century. The Comstock laws were not completely done away with till the 1960’s, and today, conservative politicians are chipping away at these hard won rights. Some on the right are intent on reversing these legal victories.
My grandmother explained how Planned Parenthood saved her life by fitting her with a diaphragm. It was a shame she had to wait until the birth of her fifth child before she could access this service. During this discussion, my aunt, a right-wing Southern Baptist, entered the room and told me she made monthly contributions to Planned Parenthood, because they provided so many vital services for women’s health. In today’s toxic climate, I wonder if we could have had such a frank talk. It made an impact on me, and I am grateful to my grandmother and aunt for educating me.
Here’s a news flash: most men love women. Those of us who have opted out of traditional, heterosexual marriage still love women. If there isn’t a girlfriend, there’s a sister, a cousin, an aunt or mother. Since we love women, we want them to be well-cared for. Thank God for Planned Parenthood. For many, Planned Parenthood is the only place available for pap smears, mammograms, and family planning. It is tragic that a few confused politicians are using this agency as a prop in their war against women. Attacks on Planned Parenthood are attacks on women. It’s misogyny, and it’s shameful. People who picket outside women’s clinics should be truthful. They should admit that they hate women, and they want women to die. There are women who hate women, too. I’ve seen women-hating women marching outside of clinics.
In some cases, motherhood must be postponed. It’s not easy to talk about terminating a pregnancy. No one wants to have an abortion, it’s a lose-lose situation. No one makes that painful decision lightly. In many cases, the mother’s life is endangered. It is irresponsible and murderous to insist women risk their lives for the sake of a fetus. In some cases, there are economic reasons to terminate a pregnancy. To say that a woman should carry the fetus to term and give it up for adoption is also irresponsible. It’s simplistic. Sadly, adopted children, if they are lucky enough to be adopted, are not all loved and raised in good homes. Some get bounced around in foster care for years. God knows foster parents are hard-working and well-meaning, but many foster children never feel loved or wanted.
You know a woman who has been helped by Planned Parenthood. I know women who have used their services. You know women who have made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. I know women who have had to do that, as well. Bad things happen: in the real world, there are diseases, there are unplanned pregnancies. These things happen; why pretend they don’t? There have been times I’ve suffered the unforeseen consequences of my actions, and such things have happened to people I love. If there were only wise people in the world, nothing would ever happen--- so goes a traditional African proverb.
It’s time for a frank discussion about human sexuality. This doesn’t mean screaming at each other, and it doesn’t mean being lurid like Dr. Phil or the kids from New Jersey. There is no need to demonize gynecologists, and I don’t know what to say about the sick people who kill doctors. Whatever your point of view, it’s counter-productive to carry hateful signs outside women’s clinics. Most of us have had sex at one time or another, and we have to deal with the consequences of this activity. Women’s bodies need to be treated with care and respect, and no woman should have to go without medical care. No man can claim to love women if he doesn’t respect women’s bodies. If we aren’t capable of a frank, honest, non-accusative discussion about sex and its consequences, maybe we should just shut up.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Haunted America
Recently, while channel surfing, I was struck by the number of haunted house reality shows on TV. Four cable networks feature such programming: Syfy, Travel, Bravo, and Animal Planet all have their versions. Some weekends, these shows are played as a “marathons,” making me wonder, is every house in America haunted? I’ve expressed my own views on the supernatural elsewhere, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of most of these claims. I find it significant that so many people have had paranormal encounters, and I’d like to make some observations.
Although each network has a unique perspective, these shows are formulaic. The “disturbances” are first noticed by women, children, and pets, usually in that order. The women who report such incidents tend to be single or second wives. Children and animals are perceived to be in danger, and the husband always discounts the wife’s claims, at least, at first. Eventually an “expert” is called in. The experts are often students (in the case of Syfy, plumbers), and are intense, earnest, and likable. They seem to be well-meaning, and in reality TV, that’s a nice change from the inhabitants of New Jersey. The ghost hunters have all kinds of gadgets and devices, and attempt to find scientific proof of the phenomenon. Cameras are and voice recorders are installed, temperatures are measured. Often a medium or psychic is called, and if a phantom or other presence is detected, it is because someone was murdered on the premises. Sometimes an Indian battle was fought nearby, and other times spirits don’t seem to know they are dead. Some manifestations require the efforts of a priest, clergy, or shaman.
Supernatural claims have a long history in this country. The two most influential cases were Salem, Massachusetts in the 1690’s, and Hydesville, New York, in 1848. In Salem, young girls claimed to be bothered by witches. 19 people died as a result of these accusations; one of the children later recanted. The Hydesville incident is less well-known, but just as influential. In 1848, 3 sisters claimed to communicate with the ghost of a murdered man, a man who was killed in their house. The Fox sisters became celebrities, and some see this incident as the beginning of 19th century Spiritualism in America. One of the girls later recanted, and still later, recanted her recantation. In both Salem and Hydesville, the claimants were intelligent, educated girls, who may have been thwarted in their ambitions by the repressive climate of the times in which they lived. My great-great-great grandfather, Eber Howe, was a Spiritualist, as were his son and grand-daughter. American Spiritualism was linked to liberal causes, and Spiritualists supported Abolition, women’s suffrage, and Temperance.
Again, let me state that I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who claim supernatural visitation, and I don’t doubt that there are such things. I believe in God, so I’m not a skeptic. I’m also open to the possibility I am wrong about my beliefs. I am struck by the similarity, the formula, of these ghostly claims. The afflicted women usually say, “I knew something was wrong,” and then “Something didn’t want me here.” This strikes me as sad, and it reminds me of the confined, restricted girls of Salem and Hydesville. Are some conflating the paranormal with loveless marriages, or social conditions? Why are malevolent spirits murder victims, or unhappy native peoples? There are always claims of the proverbial ancient Indian burial ground.
America was founded on the violence of genocide. Do some haunting victims reflect a collective, residual guilt for what was done to the original inhabitants of this land? If there are indeed Indian spirits, they have every right to be angry. In the case of murder victims, isn’t it significant that America is one of the most violent countries in the world? We can talk about sex in this country much easier than we can discuss our proclivity for violent death. We are the world’s military, we make the bombs, we kill 30,000 of our own every year with legal handguns. The recent shooting of a Jewish congresswoman is but the latest in a long list of gun crimes. We spend more than every other country in the world combined on our war machine. We incarcerate more people numerically and per capita than any other country, and those we imprison are usually ethnic minorities.
Is America haunted? Maybe. Maybe every other house in the country is haunted. Maybe 2nd wives in unhappy marriages are targeted by the supernatural. But one thing I suspect is, if our country isn’t haunted, it probably should be.
Although each network has a unique perspective, these shows are formulaic. The “disturbances” are first noticed by women, children, and pets, usually in that order. The women who report such incidents tend to be single or second wives. Children and animals are perceived to be in danger, and the husband always discounts the wife’s claims, at least, at first. Eventually an “expert” is called in. The experts are often students (in the case of Syfy, plumbers), and are intense, earnest, and likable. They seem to be well-meaning, and in reality TV, that’s a nice change from the inhabitants of New Jersey. The ghost hunters have all kinds of gadgets and devices, and attempt to find scientific proof of the phenomenon. Cameras are and voice recorders are installed, temperatures are measured. Often a medium or psychic is called, and if a phantom or other presence is detected, it is because someone was murdered on the premises. Sometimes an Indian battle was fought nearby, and other times spirits don’t seem to know they are dead. Some manifestations require the efforts of a priest, clergy, or shaman.
Supernatural claims have a long history in this country. The two most influential cases were Salem, Massachusetts in the 1690’s, and Hydesville, New York, in 1848. In Salem, young girls claimed to be bothered by witches. 19 people died as a result of these accusations; one of the children later recanted. The Hydesville incident is less well-known, but just as influential. In 1848, 3 sisters claimed to communicate with the ghost of a murdered man, a man who was killed in their house. The Fox sisters became celebrities, and some see this incident as the beginning of 19th century Spiritualism in America. One of the girls later recanted, and still later, recanted her recantation. In both Salem and Hydesville, the claimants were intelligent, educated girls, who may have been thwarted in their ambitions by the repressive climate of the times in which they lived. My great-great-great grandfather, Eber Howe, was a Spiritualist, as were his son and grand-daughter. American Spiritualism was linked to liberal causes, and Spiritualists supported Abolition, women’s suffrage, and Temperance.
Again, let me state that I don’t doubt the sincerity of those who claim supernatural visitation, and I don’t doubt that there are such things. I believe in God, so I’m not a skeptic. I’m also open to the possibility I am wrong about my beliefs. I am struck by the similarity, the formula, of these ghostly claims. The afflicted women usually say, “I knew something was wrong,” and then “Something didn’t want me here.” This strikes me as sad, and it reminds me of the confined, restricted girls of Salem and Hydesville. Are some conflating the paranormal with loveless marriages, or social conditions? Why are malevolent spirits murder victims, or unhappy native peoples? There are always claims of the proverbial ancient Indian burial ground.
America was founded on the violence of genocide. Do some haunting victims reflect a collective, residual guilt for what was done to the original inhabitants of this land? If there are indeed Indian spirits, they have every right to be angry. In the case of murder victims, isn’t it significant that America is one of the most violent countries in the world? We can talk about sex in this country much easier than we can discuss our proclivity for violent death. We are the world’s military, we make the bombs, we kill 30,000 of our own every year with legal handguns. The recent shooting of a Jewish congresswoman is but the latest in a long list of gun crimes. We spend more than every other country in the world combined on our war machine. We incarcerate more people numerically and per capita than any other country, and those we imprison are usually ethnic minorities.
Is America haunted? Maybe. Maybe every other house in the country is haunted. Maybe 2nd wives in unhappy marriages are targeted by the supernatural. But one thing I suspect is, if our country isn’t haunted, it probably should be.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Chaldean Christians in Iraq and the U.S.
“Write about us, write about the Chaldeans.” I don’t normally get requests for my blog, but I owe something to my Chaldean friend, S, who asked me to write about them, and his family. It is from this gracious man and his family that I have learned a little about Iraq, the country my country has invaded and occupied.
Chaldeans are Eastern-rite Christians who have lived in the Middle East for about two thousand years. They live mainly in northern Iraq and Baghdad; the area in northern Iraq they occupy is called the Nineveh Plain. Some Chaldeans live in Iran and Syria, but most are Iraqi. The origins of the Chaldeans are disputed. They claim descent from the Assyrians, and believe they are the direct descendants of Babylon. Some historians and ethnographers disagree. Chaldeans do not consider themselves to be Arab, but Arabs, by contrast, claim them as a sub-group. They speak a distinct language, Syriac or Aramaic. This is an ancient Semitic language that predates Arabic, Hebrew and Ethiopian. Chaldean is spoken by some Jews who previously lived in Iraq, and is similar to biblical Aramaic. In Mel Gibson’s Jew-hating sadistic movie about the crucifixion, the actors spoke Chaldean.
The Chaldeans are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, but they have their own patriarch, who is considered to be a cardinal by the Vatican. Chaldean priests can marry, but if they aspire to be bishops or rise higher in the ranks they must remain celibate. Chaldean Catholics separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the remote past; their affiliation with Rome has been historically inconsistent.
Chaldeans who lived in Iraq before the U.S. invasion numbered about one and a half million; now there are probably fewer than 400,000. Since the 2003 invasion, Chaldeans have been targeted by extremists in Iraq. The two worst massacres occurred in 2008 and 2010, but they have been victims of violence since 2003. In 2008 in Mosul, once a city with a large number of Chaldean Christians, 14 were murdered, and two thousand families were forced to flee in 10 days. On October 31st of this year, terrorists stormed Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church in Baghdad. During a ten hour siege, 60 people were killed, including two priests, one of whom was slain on the altar. More than 80 were wounded.
Extremists who murder Chaldean Christians claim it is retribution for the alleged kidnapping of a young Muslim girl by the Coptic Church in Egypt. That is a specious claim; Chaldeans aren’t Coptic, and have no control over what happens in another country. The real reason Iraqi Christians are murdered seems to be this: America is perceived as a Christian country, and Iraqi Christians are presumed to be in collaboration with the U.S. Frustrated Iraqis can’t come to America and kill their invaders, so Chaldeans serve as proxy Americans, no matter what their politics are.
This recent massacre provoked outrage in expat communities throughout the world. In Oakland and San Diego, Chaldean protesters marched, and urged the United States government to do something to protect the rights of minorities in Iraq. In Oakland, one marcher carried a sign that said “We miss Saddam.” Under Saddam, Chaldeans were not persecuted; in fact, Tarek Aziz was Chaldean, as was a famous Iraqui soccer player. Chaldeans faced some political discrimination in Saddam’s Iraq, and perhaps social isolation. They were not, however, murdered, or massacred in their churches.
Please understand, I’m not saying Saddam was a great guy. He wasn’t. But by cavalierly invading Iraq, a country that was no threat to our national security, we have opened up a hornet’s nest. African countries still haven’t recovered from a century of imperialism; civil war and genocide are rampant there. It looks like this will be Iraq’s fate as well. Our imperial adventure has caused the collapse of a country and an entire culture.
In 2003, the U.S. government apparently foresaw the problems they were creating for Iraqi Christians, and proposed the creation of the Nineveh Plan Administration, a semi-autonomous, self-governing area for Chaldeans, somewhat like the structure that exists for the Kurds in the north. As of yet, this remains a vague idea on someone’s desk. Prime Minister al Maliki says he is committed to protecting Chaldeans, but he has so many other problems. Iraq’s government is unstable.
Chaldean Christians are left in an untenable position: stay behind in Iraq and risk violence, or try to come to the country that has wrecked their homeland. If you come to America, good luck finding a job. Credentials don’t easily transfer; Iraqi doctors cannot practice medicine in the U.S. Those who have fled were forced to leave their homes and personal property behind, so they arrive poor.
San Diego currently has the largest population of ex-patriate Chaldeans outside of Michigan. How, I wonder, do Iraqi refugees like my friend S cope? What must it be like to have to immigrate to the country that has caused all his problems? What will happen to the thousands of Chaldeans who can’t leave? For every refugee that makes it out alive, tens of thousands are left behind, or remain in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Thousands live as undocumented workers all over the world.
It would be nice to end this posting on an upbeat note. For Chaldeans, and for most other Iraqis, there is no happy ending in sight.
Chaldeans are Eastern-rite Christians who have lived in the Middle East for about two thousand years. They live mainly in northern Iraq and Baghdad; the area in northern Iraq they occupy is called the Nineveh Plain. Some Chaldeans live in Iran and Syria, but most are Iraqi. The origins of the Chaldeans are disputed. They claim descent from the Assyrians, and believe they are the direct descendants of Babylon. Some historians and ethnographers disagree. Chaldeans do not consider themselves to be Arab, but Arabs, by contrast, claim them as a sub-group. They speak a distinct language, Syriac or Aramaic. This is an ancient Semitic language that predates Arabic, Hebrew and Ethiopian. Chaldean is spoken by some Jews who previously lived in Iraq, and is similar to biblical Aramaic. In Mel Gibson’s Jew-hating sadistic movie about the crucifixion, the actors spoke Chaldean.
The Chaldeans are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, but they have their own patriarch, who is considered to be a cardinal by the Vatican. Chaldean priests can marry, but if they aspire to be bishops or rise higher in the ranks they must remain celibate. Chaldean Catholics separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church in the remote past; their affiliation with Rome has been historically inconsistent.
Chaldeans who lived in Iraq before the U.S. invasion numbered about one and a half million; now there are probably fewer than 400,000. Since the 2003 invasion, Chaldeans have been targeted by extremists in Iraq. The two worst massacres occurred in 2008 and 2010, but they have been victims of violence since 2003. In 2008 in Mosul, once a city with a large number of Chaldean Christians, 14 were murdered, and two thousand families were forced to flee in 10 days. On October 31st of this year, terrorists stormed Our Lady of Salvation Catholic Church in Baghdad. During a ten hour siege, 60 people were killed, including two priests, one of whom was slain on the altar. More than 80 were wounded.
Extremists who murder Chaldean Christians claim it is retribution for the alleged kidnapping of a young Muslim girl by the Coptic Church in Egypt. That is a specious claim; Chaldeans aren’t Coptic, and have no control over what happens in another country. The real reason Iraqi Christians are murdered seems to be this: America is perceived as a Christian country, and Iraqi Christians are presumed to be in collaboration with the U.S. Frustrated Iraqis can’t come to America and kill their invaders, so Chaldeans serve as proxy Americans, no matter what their politics are.
This recent massacre provoked outrage in expat communities throughout the world. In Oakland and San Diego, Chaldean protesters marched, and urged the United States government to do something to protect the rights of minorities in Iraq. In Oakland, one marcher carried a sign that said “We miss Saddam.” Under Saddam, Chaldeans were not persecuted; in fact, Tarek Aziz was Chaldean, as was a famous Iraqui soccer player. Chaldeans faced some political discrimination in Saddam’s Iraq, and perhaps social isolation. They were not, however, murdered, or massacred in their churches.
Please understand, I’m not saying Saddam was a great guy. He wasn’t. But by cavalierly invading Iraq, a country that was no threat to our national security, we have opened up a hornet’s nest. African countries still haven’t recovered from a century of imperialism; civil war and genocide are rampant there. It looks like this will be Iraq’s fate as well. Our imperial adventure has caused the collapse of a country and an entire culture.
In 2003, the U.S. government apparently foresaw the problems they were creating for Iraqi Christians, and proposed the creation of the Nineveh Plan Administration, a semi-autonomous, self-governing area for Chaldeans, somewhat like the structure that exists for the Kurds in the north. As of yet, this remains a vague idea on someone’s desk. Prime Minister al Maliki says he is committed to protecting Chaldeans, but he has so many other problems. Iraq’s government is unstable.
Chaldean Christians are left in an untenable position: stay behind in Iraq and risk violence, or try to come to the country that has wrecked their homeland. If you come to America, good luck finding a job. Credentials don’t easily transfer; Iraqi doctors cannot practice medicine in the U.S. Those who have fled were forced to leave their homes and personal property behind, so they arrive poor.
San Diego currently has the largest population of ex-patriate Chaldeans outside of Michigan. How, I wonder, do Iraqi refugees like my friend S cope? What must it be like to have to immigrate to the country that has caused all his problems? What will happen to the thousands of Chaldeans who can’t leave? For every refugee that makes it out alive, tens of thousands are left behind, or remain in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Thousands live as undocumented workers all over the world.
It would be nice to end this posting on an upbeat note. For Chaldeans, and for most other Iraqis, there is no happy ending in sight.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
The Popes Against the Jews
David Kertzer’s 2001 book, The Popes Against the Jews is well-researched and readable. It’s not for the faint-hearted; it reminds me of Daniel Goldhagen’s 1996 blockbuster, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which I was never able to finish. Kertzer, the author of The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, took advantage of the access he was granted to the Vatican’s secret archives in 1999. The Pope had just finished an internal investigation of the Vatican’s role in the Holocaust, and--- surprise, surprise--- concluded the Catholic church had no guilt or complicity in the slaughter of the Jews. The Vatican insisted its objections to Judaism were based on religious principle, and not on racial anti-Semitism. As Kertzer points out, this is a distinction that is hard to sustain. It’s the “hate the sin, love the sinner argument” that always rings hollow. Yes, the Vatican concluded, it approved and promoted articles in Catholic newspapers opposing the Jewish religion, but they never incited violence. When a thousand years of insisting that Jews remain locked in the ghetto, and that Jews regularly murder Christian children at Passover, a climate of genocide is created.
The Pope, historically, was a political as well as a religious ruler. By the mid-19th century, the land the Pope ruled was greatly diminished, consisting chiefly of Rome and central Italy. The Vatican opposed Italian unification because it had to cede political authority. Italian unification was complete by the end of the 1860’s, but the Pope refused to recognize the fact until 60 years later. The Vatican had its own police force, spies, and soldiers. The Pope controlled the Jewish community with an iron fist. Jews were forced to wear special clothing, including a gold star. They were locked into the ghetto, or Jewish quarter, at night. The Roman ghetto was small and impoverished. Jews were forbidden from employing Christians, and the Vatican discouraged Christians from any contact with Jews. Jewish children who were secretly baptized without their parents’ knowledge were forcibly removed from their Jewish parents, and raised by priests. Kertzer’s previous book, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara details just such a case.
Like all superannuated entities, the Vatican resented its loss of power. It found a convenient scapegoat for its ire, the Jews. The Popes, by and large, were incensed by the liberation of the Jews that occurred when Italy was unified. Through its network of newspapers and periodicals, the Vatican waged war on the Jews. Apparently most priests and Popes actually believed the Talmud commanded Jews to murder Christians. Papal-approved newspapers regularly printed incendiary articles accusing the liberated Jews of murdering Christian children at Passover. In fact, the eastern European folktale of the vampire was blended with a heavy dose of anti-Semitism, since it was believed Jews drained the blood of Christians to put in matzo.
The history of European Jews doesn’t have a happy ending. The two Popes who reigned during the fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini, Pius XI and Pius XII, had no objection to the harsh anti-Jewish laws imposed by the new political order. Few are aware that Italy enacted the same racial purity laws as Germany; Italian Jews weren’t deported for execution, though, until Mussolini died and Hitler took over northern Italy. The only real complaint the Vatican had with fascism was that new political bodies had co-opted its pet project of anti-Semitism.
There were, of course, Catholics of good will who opposed the Vatican’s relentless persecution of Jews. Archbishops in England and America refused to print some of the Vatican’s most scurrilous anti-Jewish polemics, and urged the Popes to moderate their anti-Jewish attitude.
In California, the Catholic church has recently joined forces with the Mormon church to fight the political liberation of gays. The language used by the church is exactly the same as its anti-Semitic rhetoric. The church hates the sin of homosexuality, but doesn’t condone violence against the gay community. Of course, when there is anti-gay violence, the church resorts to the same old “blame the victim” meme. When pogroms occurred in eastern Europe, the Vatican refused to condemn them, insisting that Jews shouldn’t be surprised when their behavior resulted in murder. Gays shouldn’t be surprised at anti-gay violence, they provoke it by being so open.
As America, and the world, enters a period of what may be prolonged economic hardship, xenophobia and racism have again surfaced. Gays, who have some political liberation, could easily be the next target. Currently it’s Latinos and Muslims who are the victimized; there’s no reason to believe that gays and even Jews could be next. Kertzer’s work is invaluable, reminding us of the human tendency to scapegoat the minorities. The old line of “hate the sin but love the sinner” never ends well.
The Pope, historically, was a political as well as a religious ruler. By the mid-19th century, the land the Pope ruled was greatly diminished, consisting chiefly of Rome and central Italy. The Vatican opposed Italian unification because it had to cede political authority. Italian unification was complete by the end of the 1860’s, but the Pope refused to recognize the fact until 60 years later. The Vatican had its own police force, spies, and soldiers. The Pope controlled the Jewish community with an iron fist. Jews were forced to wear special clothing, including a gold star. They were locked into the ghetto, or Jewish quarter, at night. The Roman ghetto was small and impoverished. Jews were forbidden from employing Christians, and the Vatican discouraged Christians from any contact with Jews. Jewish children who were secretly baptized without their parents’ knowledge were forcibly removed from their Jewish parents, and raised by priests. Kertzer’s previous book, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara details just such a case.
Like all superannuated entities, the Vatican resented its loss of power. It found a convenient scapegoat for its ire, the Jews. The Popes, by and large, were incensed by the liberation of the Jews that occurred when Italy was unified. Through its network of newspapers and periodicals, the Vatican waged war on the Jews. Apparently most priests and Popes actually believed the Talmud commanded Jews to murder Christians. Papal-approved newspapers regularly printed incendiary articles accusing the liberated Jews of murdering Christian children at Passover. In fact, the eastern European folktale of the vampire was blended with a heavy dose of anti-Semitism, since it was believed Jews drained the blood of Christians to put in matzo.
The history of European Jews doesn’t have a happy ending. The two Popes who reigned during the fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini, Pius XI and Pius XII, had no objection to the harsh anti-Jewish laws imposed by the new political order. Few are aware that Italy enacted the same racial purity laws as Germany; Italian Jews weren’t deported for execution, though, until Mussolini died and Hitler took over northern Italy. The only real complaint the Vatican had with fascism was that new political bodies had co-opted its pet project of anti-Semitism.
There were, of course, Catholics of good will who opposed the Vatican’s relentless persecution of Jews. Archbishops in England and America refused to print some of the Vatican’s most scurrilous anti-Jewish polemics, and urged the Popes to moderate their anti-Jewish attitude.
In California, the Catholic church has recently joined forces with the Mormon church to fight the political liberation of gays. The language used by the church is exactly the same as its anti-Semitic rhetoric. The church hates the sin of homosexuality, but doesn’t condone violence against the gay community. Of course, when there is anti-gay violence, the church resorts to the same old “blame the victim” meme. When pogroms occurred in eastern Europe, the Vatican refused to condemn them, insisting that Jews shouldn’t be surprised when their behavior resulted in murder. Gays shouldn’t be surprised at anti-gay violence, they provoke it by being so open.
As America, and the world, enters a period of what may be prolonged economic hardship, xenophobia and racism have again surfaced. Gays, who have some political liberation, could easily be the next target. Currently it’s Latinos and Muslims who are the victimized; there’s no reason to believe that gays and even Jews could be next. Kertzer’s work is invaluable, reminding us of the human tendency to scapegoat the minorities. The old line of “hate the sin but love the sinner” never ends well.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta 2010
Last week was not a good one for us middle-aged lefties. So, I’ll quit obsessing about politics and turn to something happier. The hot air balloon festival in Albuquerque, the first week of October 2010, was phenomenal. The Balloon Fiesta began in the 1970’s. Albuquerque has great weather for hot air balloons at both sunrise and sunset in the fall. There is a weather pattern called the “Albuquerque box.” This means that balloons will rise, float in more or less a square or rectangular pattern, and return to where they left from. Hot air balloons are difficult to navigate, and normally a balloon lands wherever it can--- whenever it runs out of fuel. Because of the Albuquerque box, pilots need not worry about having an expensive chase crew to find them wherever they land.
This year there were about 600 balloons that participated. It brings in millions of dollars from tourists who flock to the event. It’s difficult to find a hotel room the first week of October, when the fiesta takes place. The balloons launch at sunrise, about 7:00 a.m. Getting out to watch them launch in the northeast heights is tricky. This year, for instance, friends who left their house at 5:30 a.m. were still stuck in traffic 2 hours later, and missed the launch. Even some people who bought tickets for the park and ride program missed out—this year had some unexpected logistical problems.
It’s really something to see the balloons all rise at once. Because there are so many, the launches are staggered, and it takes about an hour for all of them to get up in the air. You can see them from almost anywhere in the city. And if you think that all balloons are more or less round, you’d be mistaken. Increasingly they are in unusual shapes, from beer bottles to bees. The bees are incredibly popular: this year there were 3 bee balloons launched: mom and dad and a little one. On the ground, the most interesting and popular chase crew is dressed like Jedi warriors from Star Wars. I’m not up on the terminology, but some are good guys and some are bad guys—they are dressed in white costumes as well as black ones.
If you are lucky enough to go to Albuquerque during the Fiesta, there are a lot of other things going on at the same time. The Greek Orthodox Church has its annual Greek festival the first weekend of October. It was well-attended, and the food wasn’t bad. There are bigger Greek festivals in other cities, but if you’ve never gone to one, this one is a good start.
Don’t miss the Arts and Crafts Festival that is held near the balloon launching area. There is wonderful Native American art in New Mexico, but you won’t find any great art at this festival. It’s kitschy in a wonderful way. The artist that I was most taken with is R.C. Ramey, a Melungeon potter who had a great collection of hand-fired rabbis and other Judaica. I hope this promising potter, based in Arizona, keeps working.
And now for the food. When you are in New Mexico, the real question is: “red or green?” Chili, of course. You must try authentic New Mexico food, which you can get at almost any restaurant. I’ll recommend a few. If you are like me, and can’t make up your mind about anything, ask for both red and green. The red has a rich flavor, and is usually nice and spicy, but don’t miss the green either. Near Old Town, eat at Duran’s Pharmacy café. Duran’s is a pharmacy that has a lunch counter—be sure to try the homemade blue corn tortillas. Sadie’s has two locations, one in the heights and one in the valley. It may have the best New Mexico food in town. If you are downtown, try Cecilia’s—it’s like visiting the Hispanic family you wished you had! If you’re in the heights, you might try Eloy’s New Mexico café. Friends tell me that El Pinto is one of the finest restaurants in town. I’ve never been, but it’s where President Obama ate the week before I got to town.
If you want a steakhouse, then the place to go is Vernon’s. New Mexico beef is yummy. Vernon’s is a concept restaurant, with the gimmick of being a 1930’s speakeasy. There is no sign out front, and you must know the password to be admitted. (When you make your reservation, they give you the day’s password. And yes, you must have a reservation—it’s packed.) It is quite dark inside, and there is live music. And now for the disclaimer: the chef there is the neighbor boy I walked to school with for years. The food is excellent, but, sadly, there’s no green chili. Try the chopped salad--- it’s a meal in itself. The portions are more than ample, and if you have supper there you won’t need to eat again for a week. I had the scallops, which were fresh and tasty.
Finally, when you visit the lovely campus of the University of New Mexico (be sure to see the WPA era murals in Zimmerman library), eat at the Frontier Café on Central Avenue. Everyone in the state eats there. The food is delish, reasonable, but the reason to go there is for the people watching. You’ll see real cowboys, Native Americans, Hispanos, and students. It offers a cross-section of the most interesting people in this fascinating state. When I was there, we saw a cowboy with a loaded pistol in his belt, students, senior citizens, and various and sundry aging hippies.
I love Albuquerque, and any excuse to go there, and visit with my old childhood friends, is great. From Vivian Vance to my neighbor here, everyone says Albuquerque people are the friendliest—it’s a good middle class city. Santa Fe is OK, but too pretentious for my liking. Go to Taos if you want history. But by all means, see the Hot Air Balloon Fiesta, the first weekend in October, and eat as much red and green chili as you can!
This year there were about 600 balloons that participated. It brings in millions of dollars from tourists who flock to the event. It’s difficult to find a hotel room the first week of October, when the fiesta takes place. The balloons launch at sunrise, about 7:00 a.m. Getting out to watch them launch in the northeast heights is tricky. This year, for instance, friends who left their house at 5:30 a.m. were still stuck in traffic 2 hours later, and missed the launch. Even some people who bought tickets for the park and ride program missed out—this year had some unexpected logistical problems.
It’s really something to see the balloons all rise at once. Because there are so many, the launches are staggered, and it takes about an hour for all of them to get up in the air. You can see them from almost anywhere in the city. And if you think that all balloons are more or less round, you’d be mistaken. Increasingly they are in unusual shapes, from beer bottles to bees. The bees are incredibly popular: this year there were 3 bee balloons launched: mom and dad and a little one. On the ground, the most interesting and popular chase crew is dressed like Jedi warriors from Star Wars. I’m not up on the terminology, but some are good guys and some are bad guys—they are dressed in white costumes as well as black ones.
If you are lucky enough to go to Albuquerque during the Fiesta, there are a lot of other things going on at the same time. The Greek Orthodox Church has its annual Greek festival the first weekend of October. It was well-attended, and the food wasn’t bad. There are bigger Greek festivals in other cities, but if you’ve never gone to one, this one is a good start.
Don’t miss the Arts and Crafts Festival that is held near the balloon launching area. There is wonderful Native American art in New Mexico, but you won’t find any great art at this festival. It’s kitschy in a wonderful way. The artist that I was most taken with is R.C. Ramey, a Melungeon potter who had a great collection of hand-fired rabbis and other Judaica. I hope this promising potter, based in Arizona, keeps working.
And now for the food. When you are in New Mexico, the real question is: “red or green?” Chili, of course. You must try authentic New Mexico food, which you can get at almost any restaurant. I’ll recommend a few. If you are like me, and can’t make up your mind about anything, ask for both red and green. The red has a rich flavor, and is usually nice and spicy, but don’t miss the green either. Near Old Town, eat at Duran’s Pharmacy café. Duran’s is a pharmacy that has a lunch counter—be sure to try the homemade blue corn tortillas. Sadie’s has two locations, one in the heights and one in the valley. It may have the best New Mexico food in town. If you are downtown, try Cecilia’s—it’s like visiting the Hispanic family you wished you had! If you’re in the heights, you might try Eloy’s New Mexico café. Friends tell me that El Pinto is one of the finest restaurants in town. I’ve never been, but it’s where President Obama ate the week before I got to town.
If you want a steakhouse, then the place to go is Vernon’s. New Mexico beef is yummy. Vernon’s is a concept restaurant, with the gimmick of being a 1930’s speakeasy. There is no sign out front, and you must know the password to be admitted. (When you make your reservation, they give you the day’s password. And yes, you must have a reservation—it’s packed.) It is quite dark inside, and there is live music. And now for the disclaimer: the chef there is the neighbor boy I walked to school with for years. The food is excellent, but, sadly, there’s no green chili. Try the chopped salad--- it’s a meal in itself. The portions are more than ample, and if you have supper there you won’t need to eat again for a week. I had the scallops, which were fresh and tasty.
Finally, when you visit the lovely campus of the University of New Mexico (be sure to see the WPA era murals in Zimmerman library), eat at the Frontier Café on Central Avenue. Everyone in the state eats there. The food is delish, reasonable, but the reason to go there is for the people watching. You’ll see real cowboys, Native Americans, Hispanos, and students. It offers a cross-section of the most interesting people in this fascinating state. When I was there, we saw a cowboy with a loaded pistol in his belt, students, senior citizens, and various and sundry aging hippies.
I love Albuquerque, and any excuse to go there, and visit with my old childhood friends, is great. From Vivian Vance to my neighbor here, everyone says Albuquerque people are the friendliest—it’s a good middle class city. Santa Fe is OK, but too pretentious for my liking. Go to Taos if you want history. But by all means, see the Hot Air Balloon Fiesta, the first weekend in October, and eat as much red and green chili as you can!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)