Saturday, March 25, 2023

I'm sorry I made you break the window

Clara Gundelach
circa 1935
Today is March 25th.

If you go back to see what happened on this day in history, you may want to focus on March 25, 2011, when a fire broke out in the Triangle Shirtwaist Company a block east of Washington Square in New York City.  The factory employed mostly teenaged immigrant girls, many of whom spoke little English. There were four elevators but only one was working. It could hold only twelve people and it broke down after four trips. The only other way out were the two staircases to the street, but the door to the street in one of them was locked and the other opened inwards, meaning the mob trying to escape only blocked the door. 146 workers died. The families of the victims received $75 each from the insurance company; the owners of the sweatshop received $400 for each victim.

In my case, I'd go back to a totally unrelated event four years later.  My mother was born on this date in the House of Midwifery in Celle, Germany, one year into the First World War. Her father was off somewhere in France fighting for the Vaterland and ran off, as our family tells the story, with a French woman. Her mother, a woman who two months before was still a teenager, asked her sister to take the baby because she was married to a farmer and they had enough food to eat.

I am not inclined to look back on anything I'd want to call "the good old days."

I have now lived nearly twenty-three years longer than my mother did.  She died at the age of 60 because when she had a heart attack she went to bed hoping she'd feel better in the morning. Instead she lived only three more days. People didn't go to doctors except in absolute emergencies, and apparently a bit of pain in the chest didn't count as one.

Another thing people didn't do in my family when I was growing up was share the misery in their lives with their children. I had no idea of the circumstances in which my mother grew up. She was a good mother to me and my sister when we were small kids, but in our teenaged years she lived with profound depression. If divorce were acceptable, she would have left my father. Instead, she stayed and they fought and made me dream of the day I might get away from it all, seek my fortune, and never go back.

I ran ultimately as far as one could go in the United States, from New England to California. And for many years I did not go back. As the years gave me time, however, to process the bits and pieces of my mother's life and make sense of them in later years, I began to develop the feelings I have today. I would give anything to be able to go back in time, grab hold of my mother - and my father - and let them know I understand the challenges they faced. I would not forgive them for their foibles. I no longer believe there is anything requiring forgiveness. They lived their lives playing with the cards they were dealt. I would simply use every available moment to hang out with them and get them to tell me more of their stories. And I wonder now if it's the case that they simply didn't share their lives with us kids, or whether it's that they did and we simply were too busy growing up to want to pay attention to what they had to tell us.

My mother was born Clara Schultheis. Her aunt and uncle who took her in when she was a month old and raised her as their own daughter were Paul and Johanne Gundelach. Paul Gundelach, too, had fought for the Vaterland, in his case in Russia. He came back to the wreck that was Germany resolved to get his family to America one way or another. In time, when my mother was eight years old he got an uncle to pay his way and lived the first decade or more as an indentured servant in Torrington, Connecticut. Four years later, my mother's birth mother, who had found a job as a stewardess on the Hamburg-Amerika Line, landed in New York, jumped ship, i.e., went up to Torrington and reclaimed my mother and never went back. Years later, she would be discovered as an illegal German alien during the Second World War and arrested, brought to trial as a spy. "Do you know that the German soldiers cut off the hands of Belgian Children?" "You are liars. No German would ever do anything like that. Send me back to Germany. I don't want to live among people like you who tell such lies." She was found innocent.

I don't remember where I heard this story. All the people who might have told it to me are gone now, and there is no way I can check its veracity. But it does ring true, and I seem to remember that my father confirmed it. He went to the trial as a worthy white anglo-saxon character witness. They had married and I had just been born and there was no reason to see my grandmother as anything other than an innocent, even naive, young woman whose actions were transparent.

The result of this turmoil is that I have two sets of grandparents on my mother's side. My mother's birth mother clearly saw in me the chance to make up for her inability to raise a child in the first decade of her life, and treated me like a little prince. I called her Grossmutter, a more formal word than Oma, which I think most German kids call their grandmothers. I credit to her the psychological grounding I needed to get through some tough times in later years. She flooded me with affection and gave me a powerful sense of right and wrong. She modeled the good German virtues: punctuality, cleanliness, duty and the belief that life is what you make it. My mother's aunt and uncle became Mutti and Vati, German for mommy and daddy, the name everybody I knew growing up came to call these people who seemed willing to take in the whole world and care for them. They called her Klärchen, "little Clara," a name that struck me as ridiculous when I was a kid and couldn't yet see my mother as a small object of affection.

My mother went to work in a factory, as much out of boredom as to make ends meet - although there's no doubt we needed the money. As a result, it was to Grossmutter's house that I went after school every day. And even before then, when she still lived in Torrington, I used to spend many days and nights at her apartment next to the train station, across from the Brass Mill where my father worked. 

I have two clear memories of those early days when I was four or five years old. One was of the end of the war when the factory whistles blew and everybody poured out into the streets to dance and whoop it up. Another was the time my grandmother started teaching me things like "Punkt, Punkt, Komma, Strich...", sparking an interest in the German language and ultimately all things German.

The contrast between Grossmutter on the one hand and Vati and Mutti on the other was striking. I know there has to be a world of tales of family anxieties there, but as I've mentioned before, they kept the drama away from me. Vati and Mutti walked the tightrope between love of German language and culture - they became caretakers of the German Singing Society in Torrington - and a fierce dedication to becoming good Americans. Which, in those days, meant hiding their German identity, certainly never speaking the language to each other in public, and cutting all ties with "the old country." The day they arrived, so the story goes, my grandfather announced, in German, of course, "From now on we speak only English." And they loved to tell the story about my mother responding, "Aber Vati, Du sprichst nur deutsch!" (But papa, you only speak German!")

Grossmutter, on the other hand, was a fierce booster of all things German, and instilled in me a pride which I hold to this day, in being German. No mean feat, given her experience of being tried as a spy, and having to watch people in the early post-war years throw stones through the stained glass windows of St. Paul's Lutheran Church, known to all in those days simply as "the German church." 

My mother straddled this identity divide. She spoke only Plattdeutsch to start with, although one of the reasons I acquired German as a kid is that she and her mother tended to speak to each other in different languages, my mother in English, my grandmother in (standard) German. I like to say that I grew up bilingual and that my two first languages were English and "Code-switching."

I was a perfect shit as a teenager. My mother and father, possibly out of a sense of guilt at being young parents with no parenting experience, possibly simply out of a nature to be forgiving and indulgent, let me get away with murder. I remember a time when my mother was on the phone, probably one of those times when it would ring and she would pick it up and talk to whoever was on the other end. In those days we had a party line. Our ring was two long rings, but if you didn't listen carefully you could get it wrong and answer a call meant for somebody whose ring was one long and one short. People were apparently all right with talking with whoever picked up the phone and my mother was always happy to take a break from her True Confessions and Photoplay magazines.

I was sitting across the room from her on one of those occasions and mimicking everything she said. She signaled for me to shut up and when I kept on she picked up one of her shoes and threw it at me, missing me entirely and breaking the window behind me. I got a ton of mileage out of that one, never let her forget it.

After college I went into the army. I was no longer a snotty teenager, but I still wasn't much inclined to give my mother much space. While I was serving in Berlin I got a letter from her once telling me how proud she was that all three of the McCornick boys, me and my two cousins, Brian and Billy, were in uniform serving their country. Brian was in the Air Force, Billy in the Marines in Vietnam. I wrote her back and said if she ever said anything like that again I'd tear up her letter and never read anything from her again. So overpowering was my sense of the wrongness of the Vietnam War and the role of the American military in messing up the world. And so impatient was I with my mother's ability to handle anything political.

All bits and pieces of family history soon to be lost once I move on.  I'm the last in my family to speak German and the generations on both sides don't even know of the other side's existence. All these events, as overpoweringly important as they were when they happened, are now too trivial to register anywhere.

But it's March 25th, and I am remembering my mother.

Happy Birthday, Mom.

I'm sorry I made you break the window.




Friday, March 24, 2023

When the tail wags the dog

How many times has the gap between the two Americas come down to the lack of sophistication among the provincials in our population being ridiculed by the more cosmopolitan? The bumpkin nature of the country folk measured against the concert and museum possibilities of urban life. Note here that there is no way to talk about this without taking sides. My use of "provincial" clearly makes me a snob in enlightened circles. As does my use of "enlightened."

This issue is in the news once again today. On the national level is the effort by Republicans to pass a "parents' rights" bill, the chief motivation for which seems to be a means for clamping down on the right of transgendered kids to express what they insist is their rightful sexual identity. On the state level - in Florida, at least - is this effort to put the fig leaf back on Michaelangelo's David's marble genitals. An art teacher at a charter school in Tallahassee, Florida, showed sixth-graders a picture of David, one of the world's most famous - if not the most famous - statues in the world and was taken to task for it. Apparently three parents found the image "pornographic." Subsequently, the school principal has been fired, allegedly for a number of unacceptable decisions not specified. This tacit approval of "pornography" is apparently only the last straw.

To be fair to the three (overly-protective? engaged and activist?) PTA moms (I assume it's the moms), there is a long history of attempts to cover up the youthful junk of the boy who killed Goliath and went on to become Israel's greatest king. They were not the first to miss the genius of the carving and just see him as a naughty kid with his pants down. Queen Victoria commanded a fig leaf be at the ready when David visited England. And there have been others, including the Catholic Church, who have tried to keep "innocent" kids "innocent." God forbid they should travel to Florence and see David in his birthday suit, showing off his nearly perfect body right there in front of God and everybody.

I remember taking an American Literature class in college with the Robert Frost scholar, Reginald Cook. Marvelous teacher and great story-teller. He told us of the time he was teaching in the south somewhere - was it Texas? Alabama? - Can't remember. He was going on about Hemingway and Gertrude Stein and all the intellectual goings-on in the literary salons in Paris. Somebody spoke up and said she'd been to Paris but had "never seen anything like that." Turns out she was talking about Paris, Texas.

It's hard not to laugh at these examples of lack of experience and sophistication. Urban dwellers - democrats, specifically - are learning to recognize that the Trumpist lemmings are not just uninformed. They are tired of being laughed at, shut out and ignored. And not just economically. But as we try to balance the scales, and close the gap between the two Americas, do we really have to give ignorance equal billing with knowledge? Isn't it bad enough that we have dumbed down in this country to an alarming degree, thrown out an appreciation for empirical truth along with a disdain for government and maybe even democracy? Do we now have to hold back and allow a small group with a minority opinion to assume the right to make decisions for all of us on the basis of a strongly held ideology? Is it really necessary to allow the tail to wag the dog?

One of my early memories of watching my Christian faith slip away was the time in Sunday School when it hit me that the apple tree in the Garden of Eden was known as the "Tree of Knowledge." Adam, the poor shlump, duped by his more clever female partner, was talked into eating something that would make him smart. Or at least give him access to knowledge he didn't have before and wouldn't have otherwise.

How could that be a bad thing, I wondered. I was barely into my teens but I'll never forget the look on the kindly Sunday School teacher's face when I asked her that question. "Some things don't make sense to us. We just have to trust that they will in the end," she said. Or something like that. I wasn't buying it and it prepped me for more doubts about the line I was being fed in Sunday School that were yet to come.

They came flooding in when I got away from the small town I was raised in, where everybody went to church - except for the Jews, of course, but they worshiped in a building that was once a church.  A big jolt hit me when I realized the Lutherans I came to know in Germany were not the same people as the German-American Lutherans of my family and my home town. And then came anthropology and sociology and exposure to Mormons and Muslims and outspoken atheists. One thing that might have happened, but didn't, was I could have converted. To Roman Catholicism - they had much prettier churches. To Judaism - they had cantors and a much richer sense of history. Islam was never an attraction, abject submission to somebody I couldn't see was never my thing.

But one thing did draw me in with the kind of power religion can have, and that is the wonderful narrative of the blind men and the elephant. You know the story. I believe the original source is the poem by John Godfrey Saxe from 1872.  I trust I'm not breaking any piracy laws by reproducing the whole thing here:

THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT.

HINDOO FABLE.

I.


IT was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

II.


The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me!—but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

III.


The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho!—what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 't is mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

IV.


The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:

"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

V.


The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'T is clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

VI.


The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

VII.


The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

VIII.


And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!


MORAL


So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!


The conclusion we are expected to take from this bit of wisdom is that we, all of us, seldom if ever have a grasp of the big picture. And that means it's very easy for us to run on, overconfident in our own conclusions, half-cocked. But, simultaneously, we should not conclude that we cannot get ever closer to a true picture of the whole. That, after all, is the purpose of science, the ever improved and improving understanding of the world around us. And that requires an eschewing of ideological stances, including the embrace of principles such as parents have the right to choose what ideas their children are exposed to in schools.

The context for this controversy is an old one. Should society-at-large, aided by government, determine what an educated citizen needs to know to be able to maximize the number of informed decisions they make as they participate in democratic government? Or should parents be free to override group interests, however rational and based on the broadest possible human experience, on the grounds that their children belong to them - and individual rights trump collective rights?

My point is that while I suppose most people in my circle of friends will guffaw as I did when I first came across this story about prudish censorship in the Sunshine State, it's not just that. On a political and philosophical level, it's about who frames the story, who calls the shots. It is not unrelated to the question of how we balance constitutional rights with states' rights, and to the curious fact that Christians have made morality about sexuality, rather than, say, the elimination of poverty. And to the sometimes one-step-forward/two-steps-backwards historical process of shedding the limitations we have placed on personal freedom.

When they say that living life is an art, not a science, that's what they mean.



photo credit

Wednesday, March 22, 2023

When non-violence becomes surrender

Nothing has gotten under my skin lately as effectively as the attempts by the so-called "Freedom Movement" in Germany to get the German government to stop sending weapons to Ukraine. The movement was organized by two women I used to admire fiercely. One of them is Alice Schwarzer, editor and publisher of Emma, a bi-monthly modeled after America's Ms. magazineThe other is arch-leftie Sahra Wagenknecht, a onetime member of the Bundestag for Die Linke (The Left) party and harsh critic of American foreign policy, to which she tends tends to attribute much of what's wrong with the world today.

Nothing wrong with being anti American foreign policy, in my book. But Wagenknecht is blindly ideological in this regard. And nowhere is this more evident than in her insistence that America and NATO have backed Russia into a corner and made Putin's aggression in Ukraine if not justified, at least understandable.  But her purpose in establishing The Freedom Movement, and Schwarzer's, is not that they are taking Putin's side against the West, they insist, but simply to get the bombing and the killing to stop. They are convinced neither side can win, and when asked why they are not addressing Putin himself, since everybody agrees he's the aggressor in this fight, Schwarzer answered that since she is a German, her voice is best directed at Germany's Chancellor Scholz, and not Putin. I leave it to you to draw conclusions about her powers of logic.

Back in the 1960s, my friend Linda once knocked on my door. When I answered it, she stomped in, sat down on the couch, wagged her finger in my face and said, "You are wrong. You are dead wrong. You couldn't possibly be more wrong!" I forget the issue, now, sixty years later, but I can still feel the strength of Linda's conviction and the fact that she got my undivided attention. I am now wrestling with the fantasy of sticking my finger in Alice Schwarzer and Sahra Wagenknecht's faces and declaring, "You are wrong. You are dead wrong. You couldn't possibly be more wrong."

I'm speaking about their conviction that negotiations are the proper alternative to more fighting. Putin has made it perfectly clear that he believes Ukraine has no right to exist, that it is nothing more than a backyard corner of Russia, which Russia allowed and which Russia can take away at will. He would eliminate use of the Ukrainian language and ignore the stunning unity and sense of national identity his attack has fostered among Ukrainians, including Russian-speaking ones. His stunning brutality in striking the civilian population of Ukraine and in kidnapping Ukrainian kids and transporting them to Russia and turning them into little Russians is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. Which is another phrase meaning cultural genocide. There is nothing over which Ukraine can be expected to negotiate. Negotiation here is a euphemism for surrender. The only question is how much of Ukraine will the Ukrainians be willing to surrender. Does anybody believe, given Putin's declaration, that he will stop with the Crimea and the Donbas?  Yes, talk is better than war, but what could the negotiations possibly be based on? Where could they possibly go?

Schwarzer and Wagenknecht can readily tap into the otherwise laudable German inclination to advocate for non-violence. Germany today demonstrates on a daily basis that it has internalized its history. It frames the end of Hitler and Nazism in 1945 not only as the end of a thuggish military period in its history, but more importantly as the beginning of a flourishing period of creativity and cooperation with its neighbors, a chance to become once again a land of Dichter und Denker, poets and thinkers.  And, one must add, economic prosperity. Just as Trump has a ready-made audience of Americans whom vulture capitalism has left behind, the organizers of the so-called freedom movement have a ready-made audience of folk who live by the slogan "nie wieder Krieg" - War No More. Both stem from decent impulses but, in the absence of nuanced thinking, both can also become examples of tragic wrong-headedness.

A big problem arises with non-violence when it is taken as an ideology instead of a tool.  Peace and justice are two goals civilization cannot do without. The question is how to prioritize them. To "negotiate" with Putin for the sake of peace would mean to surrender any sense of justice for the Ukrainians.  The phrase "a just peace" is not an idle one.  Peace without justice cannot last. Sooner or later the wronged underdog will rise and fight again. It's also true that "war is hell" and the temptation to sacrifice land to stop the killing is strong.  If a one-time swap of land for peace would do it, that is. And that brings us back to whether Putin would even consider the proposition. It would require him to take back his claim that Ukraine is part of Russia, and there is absolutely no evidence that is even remotely possible.

A superb article by Peter Olandt showed up yesterday in the Daily Kos. Olandt makes several excellent points, besides the one I just made, that if you value non-violence over justice you've got your priorities wrong. For non-violence to work certain conditions must apply. You must be dealing with a rational actor with a moral code. Or at least a reason to be persuaded that a non-violent approach can serve their interest.  The British brutalized the Indians. But Gandhi's willingness to take a beating (and no small number of killings as well) from the British worked because in the end they could be shamed. Would Jews have fared better than dying by the millions by standing up to the Nazis and saying, "Go ahead and kill me. I'm not complying with your wishes"?  It makes no sense to sacrifice yourself if after your killer kills you he will only go on to kill others as well. Absent the assurance your death will deter him, you've simply thrown your life away.

Some battles have to be fought. For years the world stood idly by as Hitler killed Jews. The human race is eternally shamed by the delay in taking him down.  Slavery, along with genocide of the indigenous population of North America is a permanent stain on U.S. history. The war to eliminate slavery was a moral necessity.

Laying down arms in front of an aggressor like Putin is a self-indulgence.  It feels good to side with would-be peacemakers and preach satyagraha as a morally superior way of life. But suggesting that justice can wait while we appease the beast is, in moral as well as practical terms, human folly.



And let me share a few of the more thoughtful readings I've come across lately:

Why Finland Joining NATO Checkmates Russia:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9Phc9ArpU&t=1029s

Conversations with Bill Kristol - Francis Fukuyama on the War in Ukraine, Authoritarianism, and Liberal Democracy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS_e_ei9V3o&t=1386s

The Ukraine/Russia conflict in ten minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63_MJNZ3Ce8

A brief history of Ukraine and why Russia wants to control it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDN-DtJMs4Y

takedown of Russell Brand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or9kGzemcps

Timothy Snyder's take on the conflict in Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbT6v5GbGJI

Putin cannot surrender - it will mean his death - the view of Dutch historian (U of Rochester) Hein Goemans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_djyPEfkSI

Anne Applebaum on Ukraine (Conversation with Bill Kristol): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIPyFynxWpg

There is no shortage of Ukraine boosters on the internet. Here's one of my favorites:  Geography Now 

If you understand German, there is this very informative take on the war by German historian Klaus Gestwa. He lays out eight claims made by the advocates of laying down weapons and submitting to the allegedly more powerful Russian invaders. Myths, in other words:

1. NATO threatened Russia and Putin had to defend himself.

2. From a historical perspective, Ukraine belongs to Russia.

3. Nobody can say exactly what Putin wants.

4. Ukraine is not a democratic state, but one led by the West and by oligarchs.

5. From a historical perspective, the Crimea and the Donbas belong to Russia.

6. Whoever delivers weapons extends the war.

7. Russian media lie no more than Western media.

8. Ukraine and the West could have ended the war a long time ago through negotiations.



Photo (of Mariupol) is from a NATO source