I have been reading a book about marriage by Steve and Cokie Roberts, called "From This Day Forward." Although the book was published in 2000 and I bought it quite a few years ago, I am just now getting around to reading it. Steve and Cokie chronicle much about their own marriage and family life, but they also write about many other couples and what part marriage played in their lives.
As I was reading this morning it suddenly dawned on me: I have lived to see my children's children. Of course I have been crazy about each and every one of my grandchildren. But the reality of the blessing it has been -- and is -- never sunk in until this moment. Perhaps it is because I am now visiting the tenth of those grandchildren. Or maybe I'm just slow in getting to some of the truth in life.
My paternal grandmother did not get to see any of her grandchildren. In fact, she did not even live to see her last child, my father, out of infancy. She died about a month after he was born. And though my dad lived long enough to see his grandchildren being born, he did not get to enjoy the pleasure of watching them grow.
One if the greatest pleasures in life is watching those little creatures develop into amazing human beings. I adore looking at the pictures of them progressing through the various stages and appreciating what a unique person each one is. There are no two alike, even in the same family. We have funny ones, serious ones, athletic ones, and still so much more to come, because we don't know much about the baby's personality. But we have been assured she will be extremely intelligent and spunky.
I have loved watching my children grow into the fine young men they have become, and of course, I am so proud of them. But there is something so different about watching their children grow up. I used to say it is because when your own children are growing up, there is no time to enjoy it. You are much too busy being a parent. Knowing that it goes by so quickly though makes a grandparent appreciate and savor each little moment. For it is in those little moments that big memories are created.
So for those who have heard the Irish blessing -- or read the verse in Psalm128:6 -- to wish someone the grace of seeing their children's children is to bestow the best fortune ever, long life with abundant family.
Yes, I have been fortunate indeed.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Sit Down and Shut Up?
(Originally written June 29, 2015)
I read online a remark that finally put me over the edge. In reaction to nine people gunned down at a prayer meeting and Bible study, many have called for removal of the Confederate battle flag. Without getting into all the First Amendment issues, I want to be clear: I believe the time has long since passed for that symbol to removed from official government locations. Fly it in your front yard or hang it on your pick-up truck, but don't try to make it an official symbol of American freedom, because it's not.
For those who want to get hyper-technical and argue this banner was never the official flag of the Confederate States of America, but only a flag carried into battle by some troops, my response is "horse-hockey." Anyone who has paid attention for the last 150 years knows the primary symbol of the old south is that emblem. Otherwise, if it were only some one-off standard from a single regiment, it would not have the impact it does.
For those who say it is only a symbol of southern pride and heritage, my guess is you do not have dark skin or ancestors carried over to this country on a slave ship. Your family was never sold or held in chains unjustly or split apart by a human master who decreed it. That flag may be a symbol of southern pride to you, but try walking in someone else's shoes for only a couple of minutes. For people who are the heirs of that legacy of slavery, the flag represents pain, humiliation, and shame.
There can be no pride in slavery because there is no dignity accorded to a human being trapped in that horrid state. Why on earth would you want to deliberately inflict more pain on people with that collective memory?Why insist they be subjected to it by their government?
For those who want to argue about the American Civil War, its purpose, and what percentage of people owned slaves before and during that war, my response is to check your facts. My great-great-grandfather fought and was wounded in the war on the Confederate side. I visited his grave last October and saw the Confederate flag ensconced on the grave marker. I have no quarrel with that, because that is history. And even though my family may not have owned slaves (but I cannot be certain), according to official census records from 1860, 28% of the families in Texas did own slaves. (In Mississippi it was 49%. ) Until recently I sincerely believed that my family never owned any slaves because they were so darned poor. My research into our genealogy has caused me to reconsider that life-long belief, because it is a serious possibility. There are legal records in Alabama indicating bequests that include slaves in wills, so if I am looking at the right person -- yet to be confirmed because the name is not uncommon, but good possibility -- then the evidence leans in the direction of slave ownership.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans and other apologists want to insist the American Civil War was not about slavery. Technically, they are correct -- at least insofar as why the war got started. The reason the war began was the "united" portion of United States was ripped asunder. Abraham Lincoln was very clear that his motivation was to save the Union.
However, the specter of slavery was very much in the picture from the beginning. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 that created the Mason-Dixon line, established the boundaries beyond which slavery could not extend. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 completely stripped the carefully worked-out provisions from 1820, essentially repealing the compromise. It opened Kansas and Nebraska to slavery and provided that future territories would vote (that is, free, white male property owners could vote) whether slavery should be permitted in newly-opened territories.
So for those who want to argue that "War of Northern Aggression" was about states' rights, be careful. That position is true only if one understands the "states' right" at issue was slavery. Slavery was the economic backbone of the old south. The greatest concentration of wealth in the mid-19th century was in the hands of southern plantation owners. The largest portion of that wealth was the commercial value (at that time) of the slaves, not the land or what we would think of as capital equipment (e.g. horses, mules, plows). If the plantation owners were forced to pay wages to produces their goods, the system would have been so much less profitable, it likely would have collapsed.
Moreover, consider this quote from the "Declaration of Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union": "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Reading the entire document compels but one conclusion: Texas seceded from the United States in 1861 because of slavery.
For those who would gloss over the impact of the American Civil War, consider this. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died in that war (a recent study put the number of deaths as high as 850,000). That is almost half (49%) of all American soldiers killed in all of the wars ever fought by the United States, including World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War -- and the American Revolution -- around 644,000. Over 3 million soldiers fought on both sides in the American Civil War, many of whom were brothers that fought opposite each other. There is nothing romantic or nostalgic about this war. Over 1 million Americans either died or were wounded in this tragedy.
If we are to remember this episode in our history -- and we should -- let it be for the right reasons. I recognize that people fought to preserve their way of life and because they felt a sense of duty. But let's not lose sight of the bitter truths about this war. Ultimately, it was about slavery and that way of life is gone and should stay gone.
So for the people who claim anyone in favor of removing Confederate battle flags from official state images should "sit down and shut up," I say, "Hell, no." We can have a civil discourse whether streets named for those old leaders should be changed; civil discourse is part of our American way of doing things.
Or at least it should be. Removal of archaic, racist memorabilia? From your home, maybe not. From the state house, you bet.
I read online a remark that finally put me over the edge. In reaction to nine people gunned down at a prayer meeting and Bible study, many have called for removal of the Confederate battle flag. Without getting into all the First Amendment issues, I want to be clear: I believe the time has long since passed for that symbol to removed from official government locations. Fly it in your front yard or hang it on your pick-up truck, but don't try to make it an official symbol of American freedom, because it's not.
For those who want to get hyper-technical and argue this banner was never the official flag of the Confederate States of America, but only a flag carried into battle by some troops, my response is "horse-hockey." Anyone who has paid attention for the last 150 years knows the primary symbol of the old south is that emblem. Otherwise, if it were only some one-off standard from a single regiment, it would not have the impact it does.
For those who say it is only a symbol of southern pride and heritage, my guess is you do not have dark skin or ancestors carried over to this country on a slave ship. Your family was never sold or held in chains unjustly or split apart by a human master who decreed it. That flag may be a symbol of southern pride to you, but try walking in someone else's shoes for only a couple of minutes. For people who are the heirs of that legacy of slavery, the flag represents pain, humiliation, and shame.
There can be no pride in slavery because there is no dignity accorded to a human being trapped in that horrid state. Why on earth would you want to deliberately inflict more pain on people with that collective memory?Why insist they be subjected to it by their government?
For those who want to argue about the American Civil War, its purpose, and what percentage of people owned slaves before and during that war, my response is to check your facts. My great-great-grandfather fought and was wounded in the war on the Confederate side. I visited his grave last October and saw the Confederate flag ensconced on the grave marker. I have no quarrel with that, because that is history. And even though my family may not have owned slaves (but I cannot be certain), according to official census records from 1860, 28% of the families in Texas did own slaves. (In Mississippi it was 49%. ) Until recently I sincerely believed that my family never owned any slaves because they were so darned poor. My research into our genealogy has caused me to reconsider that life-long belief, because it is a serious possibility. There are legal records in Alabama indicating bequests that include slaves in wills, so if I am looking at the right person -- yet to be confirmed because the name is not uncommon, but good possibility -- then the evidence leans in the direction of slave ownership.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans and other apologists want to insist the American Civil War was not about slavery. Technically, they are correct -- at least insofar as why the war got started. The reason the war began was the "united" portion of United States was ripped asunder. Abraham Lincoln was very clear that his motivation was to save the Union.
However, the specter of slavery was very much in the picture from the beginning. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 that created the Mason-Dixon line, established the boundaries beyond which slavery could not extend. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 completely stripped the carefully worked-out provisions from 1820, essentially repealing the compromise. It opened Kansas and Nebraska to slavery and provided that future territories would vote (that is, free, white male property owners could vote) whether slavery should be permitted in newly-opened territories.
So for those who want to argue that "War of Northern Aggression" was about states' rights, be careful. That position is true only if one understands the "states' right" at issue was slavery. Slavery was the economic backbone of the old south. The greatest concentration of wealth in the mid-19th century was in the hands of southern plantation owners. The largest portion of that wealth was the commercial value (at that time) of the slaves, not the land or what we would think of as capital equipment (e.g. horses, mules, plows). If the plantation owners were forced to pay wages to produces their goods, the system would have been so much less profitable, it likely would have collapsed.
Moreover, consider this quote from the "Declaration of Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union": "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Reading the entire document compels but one conclusion: Texas seceded from the United States in 1861 because of slavery.
For those who would gloss over the impact of the American Civil War, consider this. Approximately 620,000 soldiers died in that war (a recent study put the number of deaths as high as 850,000). That is almost half (49%) of all American soldiers killed in all of the wars ever fought by the United States, including World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War -- and the American Revolution -- around 644,000. Over 3 million soldiers fought on both sides in the American Civil War, many of whom were brothers that fought opposite each other. There is nothing romantic or nostalgic about this war. Over 1 million Americans either died or were wounded in this tragedy.
If we are to remember this episode in our history -- and we should -- let it be for the right reasons. I recognize that people fought to preserve their way of life and because they felt a sense of duty. But let's not lose sight of the bitter truths about this war. Ultimately, it was about slavery and that way of life is gone and should stay gone.
So for the people who claim anyone in favor of removing Confederate battle flags from official state images should "sit down and shut up," I say, "Hell, no." We can have a civil discourse whether streets named for those old leaders should be changed; civil discourse is part of our American way of doing things.
Or at least it should be. Removal of archaic, racist memorabilia? From your home, maybe not. From the state house, you bet.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Power
I think we underestimate the power of saying "thank you." As I shared with a group on Monday, the words I try to live by go something like this: Do the right thing for the right reason, and you don't have to worry about the results. It takes both portions of the equation for the answer to come out correctly. So I spend some of my time each day searching my heart, to be open to opportunities to help people, and to have the right attitude as I'm going through the day.
I've noticed a tendency by many (most?) people that upon performing some act of kindness or a good deed, they expect to be thanked. I've even caught myself muttering under my breath, "Yeah, buddy, you're welcome" after I've let a car in front of me in the line and no acknowledgment from the driver. But if I'm following my own belief system, I should not expect to be thanked. I should do it simply because it is a good practice and the right thing to do. If I'm doing it only with the expectation that I'll receive "bonus points" for doing something nice, I'm off base. Don't tell anyone, but this is also the secret to unconditional love -- the removal of judgments, no strings attached. (I spent a lot of time in therapy talking about conditional love and the strings or conditions that were attached. While unconditional love is better, it's much harder for humans to achieve.)
What happens then when the thank you comes unexpectedly, and from the heart? My reaction is usually one of extreme gratitude. And what's interesting is that gratitude produces an open heart, letting out love at the same time. Letting out love and sharing it with the world multiplies all the good things in life, creating only more good things.
So when I say thank you, it brightens someone else's day. That person's heart is opened, multiplying the bounty. More people feeling appreciated, more goodness and joy spread. How can that hurt?
I've noticed a tendency by many (most?) people that upon performing some act of kindness or a good deed, they expect to be thanked. I've even caught myself muttering under my breath, "Yeah, buddy, you're welcome" after I've let a car in front of me in the line and no acknowledgment from the driver. But if I'm following my own belief system, I should not expect to be thanked. I should do it simply because it is a good practice and the right thing to do. If I'm doing it only with the expectation that I'll receive "bonus points" for doing something nice, I'm off base. Don't tell anyone, but this is also the secret to unconditional love -- the removal of judgments, no strings attached. (I spent a lot of time in therapy talking about conditional love and the strings or conditions that were attached. While unconditional love is better, it's much harder for humans to achieve.)
What happens then when the thank you comes unexpectedly, and from the heart? My reaction is usually one of extreme gratitude. And what's interesting is that gratitude produces an open heart, letting out love at the same time. Letting out love and sharing it with the world multiplies all the good things in life, creating only more good things.
So when I say thank you, it brightens someone else's day. That person's heart is opened, multiplying the bounty. More people feeling appreciated, more goodness and joy spread. How can that hurt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)