Mormonism Tucked in Fiction

I'm currently wending my way through the novels of Reginald Hill with Andrew Danziel, Peter pascoe and Ellie Soper Pascoe. I love reading the adventures of the 'Fat Man' and the family of Pascoes that he interacts with. While reading through the series I noticed that he commented on Mormon culture a few times. I thought the quotes were interesting and they caused me to pause in reading. My relationship with Mormonism is complicated, but it is a part of me that I own and follow. So I am always surprised to 'meet' it in un-religious and popular texts. Here are my favorite quotes from his novels.

It was like the pope admitting some uncertainty about the position of the Mormons- Reginald Hill (Ruling Passion)

They also might have been gang leaders, astronauts, presidential aides or Mormon PR men, but they were unmistakably American. - Reginald Hill (April Shroud)

Here is one from another author I enjoy- Martha Grimes

Alert, Bass sat up. “Conditions?” Good Lord, conditions as in the inheritance is null and void if you divorce Helen, or become a Mormon, or sell this cottage, or refuse to keep Bolly on as a house boy? The list could go on and on.”- (The Way of All Fish)

NOw that I have completed the works of these authors (for the third or forth time) I am moving on to the non fiction works of Elaine Pagels. Her religious books are great and I'm ready to read some more serious stuff. I always turn to non- fiction in the spring as my thoughts move to more contemplation and my body yearns for warmth and time outside. The time change is this Sunday and the solstice happens soon after that on the 20th... so spring is coming at last. I can't wait!

Notes from "Walking the Bible"

I recently finished a DVD/ book set titled "Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses." Taking a spiritual journey along side someone else's journey can be challenging yet it can have advantages as well. Many of us have our journeys alongside spouses and friends, children and acquaintances. Lately, my journey has been walked alone with books or acquaintance conversations and this set was really interesting because the addition of the DVD and its images helped create a more thought provoking environment for learning. The paragraphs below are notes from the book and video series. These passages really stuck with me and I have enjoyed chewing on the words more than once in the last month. Even though this was Bruce Feiler's journey, his words have changed my journey a bit as any good thoughtful religious text can. I'm happy to share the quoted paragraphs below. Please feel free to share your thoughts as well.



"Does it really matter?" "What do you mean does it matter- Oh course it matters! That’s not why we came here. We came to see the traditional place." Maybe Arbur was right- finding the ark may not be so important. What’s important was that people who told the story of Noah understood the landscape they were talking about. And the story was still alive in this place. The people who live here are still connected to it.

But now that I am here I am beginning to realize that science can’t answer all of those questions. Even if I did find a piece of Noah’s ark and even if I could prove it was 5000 years old and even if I found a piece of wood that said ‘Noah built me,’ I’m still not going to prove that God ordered Noah to build it. OK, so I get that, but still its hard to let go of that comfort of science. If I give up that, what am I looking for?

For my whole life I felt connected to the place where I was born. I was this traveler I would go out and then I would bounce back home. I was like a bungee cord. Now for the first time I felt that cord catch in another place. It’s as if I found a home I didn’t even know what I was looking for. And when I went back to the Bible I realized that the Hebrew word for Adam is ha-adam or earth. “From dust you are,” God says to Adam, “to dust you shall return.” The Bible seems to be saying with these very words that we come from these places ,were made from these places, and we carry these places along with us.

For the first time since we started, I felt a sense of contentment and peace. It wasn’t just what I was learning about the history of the Bible. The landscape itself was beginning to give me answers… answers to some internal longing I hadn’t even identified. Some journeys we choose I realize. Some journeys choose us.


What would I do in this situation? Would you do it? Would you kill for God? I don’t know. For me Abraham is unique … very special. It was an beginning for me to try and find an answer of that specific question which forced me to examine my own relationship with God. When I first started this journey on the roots of the bible, the stories and images seemed so vague in my mind. They no longer seem distant to me. They are no longer distant; by visiting these places I feel like I have entered the bible itself.

Stories are universal and have the remarkable ability thousands of years after they were first written down to become personal for each of us. My geographic adventure was turning into a very different kind of journey.

bell hooks: Links and Thoughts on "Cultural Criticism and Transformation"

I just spent some time watching some a discussion and critique by bell hooks on American media and society. I found it difficult to watch... didn't necessarily agree with everything, but here are some of my thoughts. The links for the full talk are here, here, and here.

My first thought was that this author is the first person I have heard in years who uses the word agency outside of my church /religious faith. Every Sabbath I attend church I will hear at least one mention of the word agency in discussions on choices, consequences, the Plan of Salvation, and even gossip of mild judgment directed towards another member.   So I have gotten very used to hearing that particular word in a very specific setting with very specific meanings.  When I try to have discussions with people about helping individuals with problems such as drug abuse, debt, or homelessness, the conversation is always quickly steered into finger pointing and firm testimonies that these 'people' have made bad choices, could have made different ones and should now 'reap what they have sown'. I have never felt like I have had the words and language to really explain how I feel differently - that I believe you can only make choices that you recognize as true choices and if you do not see the choice.... how can you choose it? (I have no idea if that last sentence made a lot of sense.)  bell hooks gave me the wording that I have been looking for in this quote:

"Entitlement... a sense of agency is profoundly different [and] open to embracing ... an imagination into the future." 

I have spent a bit of time pondering these thoughts and watched this particular section a few times to make sure I internalized it.  I look back at my life and see the choices that I made to focus on marriage and family and not become a marine biologist or veterinarian and I see how while I had choices... I really didn't see the choices that I had.  So at 41 years old I am attending college and I am thrilled to be doing so yet am pretty much behind the bell curve age wise.  It's great to be able to open up and see what other choices there are out there that really are choices that I can make.  It really is freeing and I do feel like I have more imagination for my future and what I can make of it.  :)

Another thing that stuck out to me through her discussion was that Darth Vader was given a 'black voice'. (I am not convinced this was a racist decision, but I digress...) I haven't seen any of the Stars Wars movies since I was a teenager, but I think I recall that when Darth Vader was unmasked at the end of one film by his son Luke Skywalker, he was pale, white... sort of bloated looking.  It's interesting that James Earl Jones did the voice (I think that was the voice I recognized from the clips, but when the character was unmasked he wasn't actually black at all.  Am I remembering that right?  Any fans out there?  As I was thinking about this I thought about J.K. Rowlings and the Harry Potter books and how in reading most books, the general rule of thumb is that the character is white until proven otherwise.  Some Harry Potter fan sites have drawings and portraits of some of the characters where Hermione is brown or black and other characters look differently that they are portrayed in the movies and possibly in our minds.  I wonder about how it feels to read books where most of the characters are not necessarily like you... I think I just discovered anew another form of white privilege... as almost all characters I read about are made in my image. To have the 'proactive sense' of agency that Ms. Hooks talks about seems to mean more than critical thinking in my mind... more than an understanding of responsibility...  it requires true focus and vigilance about all thoughts imagined, all behavior committed, recognizing where you receive favor and where others do not.  I cannot imagine a more difficult task and one that will certainly take a lifetime to even delve past the surface of for most of us.... especially me.


Intersectional analysis is such a valuable and important way to look at information because it gives the researcher or interested party a better understanding of the causes, needs, choices, and motives of those being studied.  While simple, looking at pieces of information in small bits doesn't really give us a true and clear image. A white male moves in his space and makes decisions based not only on color and privilege, but background, environment, family, education, needs and desires, etc...  A female will do the same...  We can not truly separate ourselves from the disparate parts of ourselves that, inadvertently or wonderfully, help us to determine our choices and our life paths.  No matter how much education I get, no matter how well liked I am, I will still find limits to what I can accomplish due to experience biases, gender, environment, etc...  A woman of my age with all similar information who happens to be black has even more limits to struggle against.  To truly understand and try and change a cultural and social problem, if must be truly examined.  For instance, the text mentions how people of different genders and races are more likely to be paid according to these factors and not necessarily on education, experience, etc...  So making a change to standard pay for specific jobs will not really solve the problem even if it appears to temporarily.  Only by understanding the other aspects behind unequal pay and working to change them as well gives us a real shot at true cultural change.  Understanding how historical patterns of oppression still live on in our culture today helps us to look at ourselves, our friends and our communities and that steps towards making our communities more equitable are possible for us.  If we cannot recognize how race, gender, sex, etc... create our relationships with ourselves, our families and our communities... we will find ourselves struggling to truly understand what hinders us.  Like the seven blind monks who are touching an elephant and believe that each have something different at hand than the others, the elephant can remain hidden... even when in plain sight.

photos from: http://www.nndb.com/people/593/000115248/, https://www.pinterest.com/lilyt888999/harry-%2B-ron-%2B-hermione/, http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm

The 'Wicked Witch' in the Sixteenth Century... and Today

The word ‘witchcraft’ brings to the mind visual images and emotional reactions for many people. So it has from the creation of the idea of magic, witchcraft, etc… but even in our civilized and enlightened society today. The origins of magic and its practitioners or ‘witches’ are unclear; there are various references to both in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, in the Jewish holy scripture book called the Torah, in laws and court hearings in both Ancient Greece and Rome as well as references and myths written by the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Early Egyptians and the Persians. Depending on the time frame and the culture in which you live, the images and emotions provoked are very different. Today as I get ready for the Halloween traditions in my culture, I expect to see costume- clad children knocking on my door and I will ‘ohh and aww’ over their choices while I pass out goodies and smiles. It was not always this way and the ideas of witchcraft and magic, or ‘unnatural acts’, have provoked much less benign and more violent reactions from those who feel threatened.

So what is witchcraft… and who are those who practice it? Again, that definition can change based on time, place and culture, but the generic definition of witchcraft can read as follows: the practice of magic, especially black magic; the use of spells and the invocation of spirits… the art or practices of a witch. Those who practice the craft are thought to be individuals with three specific qualities; use of malevolent power, a depraved heretic towards the majority religion and/or power structure, and also the acts of sexual deviancy. It was thought that both men and women could practice the art of magic and in some cases that magic could be ‘white’ (good) or ‘black’ (bad). During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the idea of witchcraft and its practitioners changed in the minds of many and how it was dealt with became a larger and more significant issue then it had been in other times during human history. Many aspects of culture at this time can be analyzed to understand and recognize how situations like witch-hunts happen, how the targeted individuals are picked and why, and what forces are in play to cause the volatile fearful situations. I wish to look at the political, education, social, and religious constructs of early modern Germany as well as the continent of Europe as a whole to try and understand how all the violence came to be and who it was against. It is hopeful by understanding it, we can work to not perpetuate it in our own lives and cultures.

This time period was a time of great change and many of these transitions help explain some of the fear and escalation in these communities. This was the time in history that we also call the Reformation when the Christian religion was going through a significant change as the Catholic Church no longer had a complete monopoly on Christ and Christian thought. Individuals such as Martin Luther and John Calvin wrote about their ideas/ thoughts on their concerns in the Catholic Church and its teachings following with suggestions for change and needed reform. These men and others created new communities or groups that came to be known as Protestants and which vied with the Catholic Church for converts. Rulers, kings and other political elite found that the doctrinal instability in the religions and communities correlated into political instability. One side benefit - rulers who converted to a Protestant religion could stop paying the Roman church high taxes and could also seize Catholic funds and assets in their own lands providing themselves with a new source of revenue. During this time there were also times of sickness and famine as the ‘Little Ice Age’ passed through which caused a lot of hardship and death for all. Protestant thought at this time also stressed that Satan was a physical being and Luther himself described himself as having many encounters with Satan who attempted to keep him from reforming the church. So it is into this time of insecurity- both of doctrine, politics and the beginnings of the questioning of sexual relationships, power that we start our journey into sixteenth Germany.

Before the sixteenth century, the idea of witches and their ‘craft’ were fading from the public sphere across Europe and magic was thought to be a superstitious practice with very little real power. In the early Catholic church, the ideas of witchcraft were thought to consist more of idolatry and illusion- sins to be sure, but not the cause of direct harm to others and, in an anonymous text titled Canon Episcopi from the ninth century which is part of canon law, it states that ‘there was no such thing as an actual witch’. During the development of early modern Germany and other states, misogynist writings and men in power worked to change the viewpoint of the whole society towards witches, magic and its practitioners. Books such as the “Malleus Maleficarum” helped to define and spread the new image of witches; they were real, they were women, and the source of all societal degradation. Add to those ideas the concerns of Catholics at a rapidly changing religious landscape, the changing power structure, and the tensions between the differing factions began to stretch and break. Some women joined one of the differing groups of Protestants and found they had more opportunities and influence than they had when participating in the Catholic Church. The obvious threats to the power structure of the church caused the religious male hierarchy to go on the offensive. Under the belief that the female sex is more susceptible to evil influences and is the inferior of both genders, any woman who did not strongly conform to the local religious and cultural expectations was easily accused of being a witch. (Some historians show evidence that the witch hunts were strongest and encompassed the most victims in territory that was 'Protestant controlled' but that is not definitive- Sociologist Nachman ben-Yehuda states, “Only the most rapidly developing countries where the Catholic Church was weakest, experienced a virulent witch craze.”) It is quite evident that both religions and their leaders used the supposition of witchcraft as a way to try and regain their lost power and hierarchy in areas where they were at risk. In some cases, there is evidence that men who were not seen as being vigilant enough in finding and persecuting witches were disparaged as men who were weak, womanly, etc... What is clear is that the idea of witches/witchcraft was no longer a subtle idea or existed only in the realm of thought- these ideas were now useful as a confrontational and aggressive way to deal with ‘enemies’ or other undesirables in the community.

In essence, any woman who (or was thought to be) engaged in behavior that felt threatening or was unconventional in behavior or appearance was at serious risk for problems. Many women could be accused and found guilty and executed on little to no evidence of significant wrong doing. The most common way was to accuse a 'witch' and charge her with heresy. As the definition of heresy was defined by the specific religion but usually enforced not only religious orders and leaders but also enforced by the secular legal power structure. In that light, a heresy charge was a pretty significant and threatening event in someone’s life as well as a charge that didn’t depend on physical proof for convictions- circumstantial evidence, hearsay and confessions under torture were sufficient. Due to women’s influence in their homes and as the transmitter of the culture to their young children, they were in the position to spread unconventional information to their children. As this could potential force changes in the hierarchy and its power, men were encouraged to be actively engaged in keeping the women in their family / household under their control. Single women, whether due to a lack of marriage or from being widowed, were also likely to be accused and condemned for a few reasons. Due to their single status, they had no male protectors and were easier to accuse than married females. In that same sense, they had no men to ‘control’ and keep tabs on them and their behavior and if they were self-sufficient or financially independent, any woman who could be seen as too prominent in society for any reason was in a dangerous situation. Also, by being single and taking assents, these women could and did stand in the way of the orderly transmission of property from one generation of males to another.

The ways that ‘witches’ were caught and were mostly women make sense in the power structure at that time. Midwives who practiced medicine could be targeted for that by their male rivals. A midwife or healer could be accused if a birth didn’t end perfectly or a child died- even one accusation could easily multiply as other individuals looked back at past experiences and reinterpreted them with the accusation in mind. In some ways, midwives, and medical women were seen to have power over life and death. Over centuries, the Catholic Church taught that the suffering and illness of this world were only temporary and fleeting. It was thought that God was no longer involved in the physical world so anyone who was able to divine or understand natural knowledge was seen as using supernatural power… or power from the devil. As the concept of medicine and medical care developed and gained a following, the church put its backing behind the upper class men who studied and practiced it and supported medical care for the few who could afford it. To control medical knowledge, it was taught in the first universities (in which women were not allowed to study) so any woman who practiced medicine was self or informally taught – a method described as “If a women dares to cure without having studied than she is a witch and must die.” Add to those thoughts that women were thought to be more likely to be able to weld unnatural, malevolent power and even bad weather and environmental conditions were blamed on local women. Whether being accused of calling up a storm to try and drown a King in his ship at sea, a papal bull stating “…have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine….” or the entire chapter written on the subject in the Malleus Maleficarum titled “How they Raise and Stir up Hailstorms and Tempests, and Cause Lightening to Blast both Men and Beasts” ending with the sentence “Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that, just as easily as they raise hailstorms, so can they cause lightning and storms at sea; and so no doubt at all remains on these points.”

The other thing that made women more likely to be accused and punished of witch craft was if they could be suspected of sexual deviancy. Many women were prosecuted based on charges relating to their own motherhood and role in the home. Sexual orgies, having sexual relations with the devil and the normal sexual misbehavior or fornication and adultery were all reasons that could be used in accusations of witchcraft. Any kind of male sexual dysfunction- from impotence to premature ejaculation to complete disappearance of the penis and other sexual organs was also blamed on the power and perversion of witches. To counter this problem, men used trials to assert their dominance over women and their bodies with public strip searches, torture, etc… giving themselves permission to sexual assault women and remind everyone of their place.

There seems little doubt that religion and gender played a huge role in the witch-hunts in early modern Germany. Whether the ‘witch’ was burned, hanged, strangled, or beheaded, it is clear that most of the accused were female and were chosen because they were perceived to be a threat to the male hierarchy. By criminalizing women’s attempts to share power as well as the anxiety that was felt by the male hierarchy over women’s societal roles and the influence and power in them, a women’s perceived sexual prowess, and the general weakness of women to resist and therefore were more susceptible to witchcraft, those in power had a lot of leverage to control women’s behavior, place in society and to remove them if necessary. We still struggle with these same issues today. While we no longer call women we fear witch (very often) and as a civilized society unnecessary violence is abhorred, the fears, confusion and anger over women and their choices spills out into the communities in more subtle and acceptable forms in our patriarchal society- negative labels, harassment or assault both physical and sexual, as well as cultural expectations that indirectly (and directly) place limits on the behavior of women. Politicians and those individuals on all sides of the political spectrum use their beliefs, desires, value systems and power in society to 'create' and name our new 'witches'- single mothers, poor and elderly women, feminists, working women, women in power, minorities, etc... Some religions also continue to set limits and rules on women's expectations and behavior that are not applicable to men and women who speak out against injustices in their faith communities can be removed or kicked out- many by male only courts. It is important to recognize that, while the concentrated and active witch trials of the sixteenth century are in the past and we no longer 'burn' witches, the feelings, anger, and power struggles of that era have not been resolved and are still alive in us and our society today. That different methods are used to cause fear, oppression, or motivation to keep the status quo of power in the hands of the few, the rich, and the male doesn't suggest anything other than a recognition of the gender power struggle itself will not bring about peace between genders and stability in society. Only time, a willingness to share power and humility will bring the possibility of that….

pictures from: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/dominicselwood/100252072/the-dark-deep-roots-of-britains-fascination-with-witchcraft/, http://www.damnedct.com/connecticut-witchcraft-trials, http://www.biography.com/people/john-calvin-9235788, http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/shop/the-malleus-maleficarum-in-latin-pdf/, http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/shop/the-malleus-maleficarum-in-latin-pdf/, http://witchnest.blogspot.com/2010/07/killing-witches-as-best-way-to-kill.html, http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAMQjxw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.academic.ru%2Fdic.nsf%2Fenwiki%2F11823268&ei=cKPjVPK9L-OxsASR94DIDw&psig=AFQjCNGjAAFlzXs6eji2QEbpsIhDxcZ0Pg&ust=1424291020320634, http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/11823268,

Introduction to This Month’s Topic: The History of Women in Western Civilization

This was a class I wanted to take for a few reasons. One reason is that I love history and it feels like I have studied it all my life. I grew up with a thirst for it and devoured every book I could find that I could understand. I think that this passion for learning and history has served me well in my life and has been very enjoyable for me. However, I found that I felt over time that my knowledge was really very limited and as I looked at it from an education and a religious standpoint, I realized that I pretty much can give the basics on many of the individuals that have made history, but the majority are men. The exceptions in my mind can be classified as wealthy, white, powerful women such as Catherine the Great of Russia and Queen Elizabeth I of England... which were rare. Over the last year or so, I have tried to change that and have actively tried to look at the flip side of the coin so to speak. I have found the information a lot more challenging to come by and having anyone to discuss the information I do find with is difficult because the history of anyone besides men isn't taught in most standard classes so the discussion becomes a bit of a lecture or monologue.... which is no fun at all. So I saw this particular class as a lot of fun and a great resource towards gaining more knowledge, but also more guidance towards more resources for future study. I was hopeful that I can learn more not only about women and their struggles in culture, families and in creating a human history of their own, but also that I can develop a better understanding of the struggle for gender equality that is going on in my own lifetime. I also wanted to have a better understanding of how power and entitlement work between gender, class and race and how people are working towards changing the cultural biases that affect the under-privileged majority of people.

I found myself really interested in learning about how women's history is being compiled by historians and feminists today and how, as history is complied, what forces or parts of culture tend to decide which history is most important for the average student to learn about. I recognize that politics enters that equation as well so I understand that question must needs be open ended without a full solution to be had.

I think that anyone who approaches any of this information differently on a few levels. As our gender is intertwined in our mind and our thoughts without it being consciously there, each individual will have no choice but to either ignore or recognize that you will look at in the material based on your gender. However, I think that we are each much more likely to approach the material from a just as personal and unapproachable bias.... the bias of our own life experiences as well as current life circumstances. Our experiences, culture, family and our choices over time have helped each of us develop into a unique and amazing person and we cannot help but approach any topic with those biases in place and work to try and set them aside as we study and try to look at the topics addressed. I do not think that it is possible for any of us to do that completely- part of me at least has a hard time recognizing biases in myself and I assume others may have the same difficulty in self reflection and introspection. So I suspect that even when many of us appear to see the topic in the same 'light' and have the same viewpoint, we are getting there from very different paths and thoughts.

I recognize that the topics that I will address in the next several posts may be unknown to most and may also be on topics that are sensitive or cause negative emotions in yourself and others. I am not sharing them to cause any harm or anger; rather, I am sharing because I believe that the only way to change culture is to talk about it. From my writings, you will find that some of these topics were challenging for me and my emotions will hang off of some of my sentences and paragraphs. I hope that as readers, we can share our thoughts freely and discuss our feelings and concerns on the history and the topics that are discussed… many of which are still relevant to ourselves and women around the world today.

pictures from: http://www.citelighter.com/film-media/fashion/knowledgecards/womens-fashions-of-the-medieval-era, https://oregonheritage.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/oregon-womens-history-project/, https://oregonheritage.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/oregon-womens-history-project/, http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid/article/grid-history-women-history

Eugenics in America After 1945: Term Post #1

The study of human history shows the many achievements and journeys of our race. From our humble beginnings, through the development of culture, religion, communities, hierarchy and power structures, to what and who we are today... well, as a less-than-humble commercial suggests- 'You've come a long way, Baby!’ The path to the twenty-first century has not been smooth nor painless and, like our predecessors, we view ourselves, our lives, and our world as an improved and civilized place with the human race as the most intelligent and virtuous beings on it. Looking at the history of the human race, I see many recurring themes that are a part of every society; hope, love, beauty, want, etc. The theme of self-improvement or change that benefits ourselves and, in turn, society has been a reappearing idea that became more pronounced after the Enlightenment and the Renaissance along with the concept of improving groups of people to improve society. However, like all virtues, self-improvement or personal development can come with a dark side that is exposed when the virtue itself is placed on a pedestal or idolized without regard to the thoughts and rights of those we consider 'lesser' than us. When this happens, any noble or virtuous ideas are shown to be the shallow horrors that they can become ... the virtue is pulled and stretched out of its normal view to a pained and stretched mask of what it actually is. During the twentieth century, the themes of human breeding, genetics, prejudice, self-improvement and social progress collided to serve the virtue of better breeding and health of human beings. Eugenics, which means 'well born', was created in

America. This movement was so strong and large that it was able to spread into other cultures and countries before its horrors and Machiavellianism tendencies became apparent enough to create a sizeable opposition that attempted to crush it. In response to the common belief that eugenics was no longer an important movement after World War II, I will discuss briefly the history of eugenics in the United States before WWII and then analyze the way the movement changed after the war. I will show that the ideas behind eugenics are still alive, well and being acted upon in our society today. Recognizing the way the movement itself has adapted to our changing culture and its opposition helps place us in an informed position to focus on the fearful and reactive areas of ourselves and our society so we may work to create a more lasting and peaceful change in our thoughts and fears. Hopefully, that will help us change how we act upon our fears and prejudices and how we justify acting on them in our communities and society.

The idea of eugenics is a simple idea with more complex answers. The word was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton who advocated the scientific regulation of human breeding to ensure that 'better' genes had a larger chance of predominating in the continuation of the human species. Eugenics encompassed the progress of medical practice and scientific thought and recognized the inseparable relationship between medicine and social progress. To be blunt, the idea of the eugenics movement was that better breeding would lead to a healthier population and was an effective way to deal with social problems. It provided a comfortable way to rationalize people's prejudices about race, poverty, etc... and also suggested that 'undesirable traits' could be minimized within a few generations if people were only brave and good enough to work towards it. Undesirable traits that were thought

to be correctable through eugenical reproduction included epilepsy and other physical disabilities, alcoholism, tendencies towards rape (rapists), and other criminal behavior, promiscuity, and more. Races and immigrants that were not of Anglo-Saxon heritage were also of 'suspect' genetic material and poverty was thought to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority. Always a controversial movement, eugenics has had its loyal adherents since its conception and even the tragedy and knowledge of the German Holocaust in World War II didn't change those who believed and followed its tenets. Before the war, it was common to institutionalize the ‘feebleminded’ or those that those in power worried about reproducing. The rationale was that the only way to stop a living being from reproducing was to limit its movements, monitor it in risky situations, or make it biologically impossible for breeding to take place. Institutions for those who were ill, the ‘feebleminded’ or those who had medical difficulties were created to isolate and remove those individuals from active society. Laws were passed that forbade marriages between people who had specific medical or mental health problems. However, locking people up costs a lot of money and the inability to remove everyone from the community that fit the criteria (due to lack of funds or institutional space) made the original eugenics process less effective than its early adherents wished. Sterilization allowed the individuals to be released back into their local communities to support themselves while not crating any more individuals like ‘them’. Because of that, sterilization became the easy, cheap, and irreversible weapon in the eugenics supporter’s arsenal.

The Holocaust did shift some of the popular views of how eugenics should work, but didn’t change any of the eugenic and popular thoughts of a large part of the populace nor did it change the most popular procedures that were used. In 1927, psychologist George Ordahl explained at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that if it was possible to calculate “the economic burden of the moron” that [was] paid for by taxpayers, “every patriotic citizen would become a eugenicist in search of methods of prevention even more drastic than any now known.” The tone may have softened since WWII, but not by much. Dr. Charles Gamble wrote in 1947, “Tomorrow's population should be produced by today's best human material” and he complain[ed] that only one in forty-one people with severe mental illness had been sterilized, leaving dozens of others to spread defective genes. In 1966, C. Lee Buxton published an article titled

“The Doctor’s Responsibility in Population Control” in which he reminded his colleges that “medical responsibility demands more action than just passing resolutions and making recommendations...” and advocated sterilization as a solution to the ‘problem’ of unwed mothers on welfare. In his view, the problem was multiplying “because the medical profession has controlled the death rate but has done very little about the birth rate.” The exact number of women- for women were by far the more common victims of eugenics- involuntarily sterilized after the end of World War II into the 1980’s remains unknown due to the lack of collected statistics, listings in medical records of coerced sterilizations as ‘voluntary’, the social and reluctance of women to file formal complaints, and the ignorance of individuals who never knew or were never told that they had been sterilized. (The reason I stop at the 1980’s is due to a lack of information on current trends.)

Euthanasia programs never gained popular ground in the Unites States, but did have their supporters before WWII. One egregious example is Dr. Harry Haiselden who advocated and practiced denial of life saving treatment (even of newborns) and thought it was acceptable for an institution to give inmates tuberculosis through infected milk because only those with ‘defective’ genes would get the disease and die. In the end, after the Holocaust, sterilization was the procedure of choice and was perfectly legal through the decision in Buck vs Bell decided by the Supreme Court. This court decision has never been overturned and has been used to support involuntary sterilizations since its publication and over the last sixty years. Here are some examples....

pictures from: https://mediachecker.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/bill-gates-its-gods-work-monsanto-vaccines-eugenics/, http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/whatis1.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton, http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-horrifying-american-roots-of-nazi.html, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/darwin_day_in_may_buck_vs_bell003669.html, http://galleryhip.com/american-eugenics.html, http://365daysofthis.blogspot.com/2013/02/define-eugenics.html
eugen

Eugenics in America after World War II /1945 : An Introduction to the Term Paper

I know a few people have been waiting for this paper so here it is! I will need to break up the paper into a few posts but it will give a very basic outline of eugenics before World War II and our influence on other countries… and then move into how eugenics changed and what groups were affected by these legal policies. I do give current examples when I was able to find some and I am hopeful that after I share this research, maybe we can have a discussion about how to create community awareness and change in our areas…..

Here is my abstract paragraph:

The study of human history shows the many achievements and journeys of our race. From our humble beginnings, through the development of culture, religion, communities, hierarchy and power structures, to what and who we are today... well, as a less-than-humble commercial suggests- 'You've come a long way, Baby!' The path to the twenty-first century has not been smooth nor painless and, like our predecessors, we view ourselves, our lives, and our world as an improved and civilized place with the human race as the most intelligent and virtuous beings on it. Looking at the history of the human race, I see many recurring themes that are a part of every society; hope, love, beauty, want, etc. The theme of self-improvement or change that benefits ourselves and, in turn, society has been a reappearing idea that became more pronounced after the Enlightenment and the Renaissance along with the concept of improving groups of people to improve society. However, like all virtues, self-improvement or personal development can come with a dark side that is exposed when the virtue itself is placed on a pedestal or idolized without regard to the thoughts and rights of those we consider 'lesser' than us. When this happens, any noble or virtuous ideas are shown to be the shallow horrors that they can become ... the virtue is pulled and stretched out of its normal view to a pained and stretched mask of what it actually is. During the twentieth century, the themes of human breeding, genetics, prejudice, self-improvement and social progress collided to serve the virtue of better breeding and health of human beings. Eugenics, which means 'well born', was born and This movement was created in America and was so strong and large that it was able to spawn into other cultures and countries before its horrors and Machiavellianism tendencies became apparent enough to create a sizeable opposition that attempted to crush it. In response to the common belief that eugenics was no longer an important movement after World War II, I will discuss briefly the history of eugenics in the United States before WWII and then analyze the way the movement changed after the war. I will show that the ideas behind eugenics are still alive, well and being acted upon in our recent history. Recognizing the way the movement itself has adapted to our changing culture and its opposition helps place us in an informed position to focus on the fearful and reactive areas of ourselves and our society so we may work to create a more lasting and peaceful change in our thoughts and fears. Hopefully, that will help us change how we act upon our fears and prejudices and how we justify acting on them in our communities and society.

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Eugenics_supporters_hold_signs_on_Wall_Street.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Cupcakes and Thought

Yesterday, I snuck out of work at lunch to buy a cupcake. Not just any cupcake, but a fancy, big, full of gluten cupcake! I forgot that today was the last day for one of my co-workers who is headed off to a new job and I wanted to give her something. And the fact that I am broke and not willing to buy or make desserts for myself but I’m running around on my lunch time to buy a cupcake for someone else was something that I thought was a really interesting choice. So I gave it to her when I got back and a big hug and settled in for an afternoon of patients and testing and business and let my mind wander. And while I was being introspective, I discovered a few things.

The first was that I really work at a pretty cool place. I think I have known that for a bit, but even with its problems – as all places have problems- it’s pretty amazing. It feels a lot like Miller Drug did when Bill Miller still owned it and it was a business that cared about both its customers and employees. After he sold it and retired, everything changed quickly and I am so grateful that I no longer work there- those I know who do really struggle to feel anything positive and turnover is pretty astonishing. With the exception of two co-workers I love them all… and I get the feeling that they like me too. I work with several people of my faith so I feel a kindred spirit that I haven’t had the opportunity to have before… heck, most of them moved from Las Vegas as well. Isn’t that an amazing coincidence. :) I have only been at this job for about five months and while I do see some of the challenges and not every day goes smoothly, I can feel myself relax into a routine that feels quite nice. I spend the day helping patients, working as a team player and being valued for it, and as I learn a new occupation, I am finding myself learning new strengths and helping myself to grow in new ways. This place doesn’t have a great deal of turnover and has a few employees who have left for other jobs and then come back to work here again. (I think that says something pretty good on its own.) I haven’t really worked closely with patients since my emergency medicine days and as I gradually return to similar work, I realize how much I missed working with people and trying to help them improve their health and help through crisis, etc… But I have also found that I just love working with people who seem to love working with me. I’ve always found a handful of people in every place that I have worked that seemed to like and respects me, but not a majority and certainly not in such a way that many people would stick up for me- and feel they were in a safe enough, stable environment to do so. And it was in that thought that I realized that even though I do not know the co worker really well, she has been consistently kind and nice and I didn’t feel comfortable not acknowledging that… even if I could only do it in a small way. That in itself is pretty cool. :)

I think that I also wanted to do it because I think that even in small ways people appreciate knowing that they as people are valued. I don’t tend to feel that very often and while some of that is self esteem and therefore, my fault… a lot of it is the world we live in. All of us do not tend to take the time to show or gratitude to the people around us very consistently. We also tend to not comment on the small things that we quickly notice, appreciate, and then they leave our mind as we continue with our tasks or thoughts. Corrie has smiled every time she has seen me with only one exception- she didn’t smile when I came in with my broken foot for the first time. Granted I wasn’t smiling either ;) Knowing that my interactions with her in the future will probably be quite limited, I knew I only had a short window of time to do something to show her what her attitude and kindness have meant to me. A cupcake was so little, but she seemed to appreciate it and I am glad. I remember all the jobs I have had in the past and even when I was cared for, people pretty much said goodbye and that was it- the one exception was one workplace threw a pizza lunch for me, but forgot about my celiac disease so I couldn’t attend my own going away lunch- that was sad and funny all at the same time. I guess I knew how much it would mean to me and wanted to offer that experience to someone else. And so we parted, hugs all around and I have a phone number and email address in my pocket- more than I expected and was a gift in and of itself.
The last thing that entered my mind was that the fact that I am willing to splurge on other people but not on myself is something that I need to really analyze and look at. That tendency has been pointed out to me in the past by counselors and friends alike, and I have been able to acknowledge the truthfulness of their observation, but haven't felt like I could really change it. I feel a renewed urge to change that and so today, early.... six in the morning... I was at the store to get Brock some pasta and me some brownies Gotta start somewhere! :D

Happy Saturday my friends!

Angry Fruit : Before the Birds (Commentary on the “Grapes of Wrath”)

When I was in high school, I was introduced to the novel “The Grapes of Wrath” written by John Steinbeck. A masterpiece of depth and feeling wrapped around the story of a small family in the environment of the Great Depression. There are so many aspects to the story that are worthy of note, conversation and introspection, for even today the lessons that the author intends us to learn are still questions and attitudes that we struggle with today in our society. As a high school student, I was intrigued and saddened by the story of a young man fresh out of jail who goes home to his family to watch and help as they are forced off their land, struggle on to California and then to find himself an outlaw for his actions as much as for his place in society and the powerlessness of the many underneath the crushing heel and whim of the few. It is a symbiotic relationship that humanity aspires to- one of equality and opportunity for everyone- that we as humanity may never reach. So I thought that I would focus my thoughts not on the story or the lessons themselves that were brought to my mind again in this class, but to peer into the thoughts and images of my mind that come with the quotes that stuck in my mind long after the initial hearing of them.

Tom - (shakes head) “Anybody ever told me I'd be hiding out at my own place...”

Grandpa - “My dirt – it's no good, but it's mine”

While growing up, I would hear the words of the people around me talk about how hard work can get you anything in life you want. How being good and motivated and virtuous can make you rich, get you the things that you want in life and make life generally pleasant and easy. A part of those ideas have never made sense to me as I struggled to find a way to understand life, people and relationships in the dysfunctional household that I was to reach adulthood in. And as I have studied and watched many different kinds of people that have flitted in and out of my life, I have realized that those words only had a brief kernel of truth in them. With few exceptions, the only way to reach the ideal of wealth and a life of your choosing the individual must also be lucky enough to have a good background, a family with enough resources to get them the education, health and the resources that allow the 'hard work' of the individual to get them their desires. For the majority of humanity, especially women and those of a minority class... those are blessings or luck that no matter how hard they work, the individual will not get. The majority of people wish to own land, to own things... in fact, many of us derive our base worth to ourselves based on these things – what we own, what we do for a living, etc... Owning things gives us a feeling of security, safety and a sense of worth, but for most of us everything we 'own' is actually owned by a bank and we will spend our lives paying for those things. A wrong move- a recession, a lay off, a disabled child, etc... and we fall and break. No amount of hard work can save everyone in these situations no matter how good they are. A sad, but true fact.

Ma Joad - “There was a boundary to us then... there ain't nothing that keeps us clear.... There ain't no family now.”

“How big the country is … How small we are.”

In the study of history, we can look at the hierarchy of the medieval world with an understanding of place and power. To whom you were born set up the course of your life and no amount of motivation or work could change that. If you were a prince, your future was fairly set... you became a king, died as a prince or lived a life at court with its specific sets of rules and responsibilities. If you were born to a serf, then you were a serf for life... almost no exceptions. There was no intermarriage between the different groups of classes of which there were usually considered three – the nobles and monarchy, the clergy and church, and the 'rest' of us. With the French Revolution, and the other revolutions and uprisings that happened in the western world in the late 1770s and later years. For the lower classes wanted to have more opportunities open to them. So we come to ourselves and today. The struggle for equality has given so many more people opportunities to rise and the lines of hierarchy have become blurred. However, the lines of power and wealth have not blurred much allowing only a few more in and keeping the rest of us in control by the ideals mentioned above. If we all think that we can also be successful by working hard, then we are less likely to band together and recognize the true reality. And the reality is that as we have gained more rights for women and minorities we have also lost some as well. However, what we have lost is mostly something that we 'think' we had yet maybe never did. We have lost the concept of family and what are duties are in it. So we argue about what constitutes a family today but only when it comes to a few things. Other things break the family apart- economics, society, but we argue about 'what' constitutes the family itself. Our generation looks back and sees a 'rosy' past... that never existed. We as individuals struggle to understand our place in the world, our collapsing communities and our responsibilities as members of the human race. Our perspectives of the world and ourselves are what we use to wade our way into the waters of our futures... to keep our place and an understanding. Otherwise, we worry about being swept away in the crowd and that vastness of the world around us. We try to control and create order in the things that we can... to feel the security and serenity we crave.

Tom - “I just don't know who to blame.”

Preacher - “There ain't no sin and there ain’t no virtue. It's just what folks does....”

When things go wrong in our lives and the world, we tend to look around for the scapegoat. Humans have done that for so long that many people do not even understand today what the origin of the term actually means or how it came about. (It is from an ancient Jewish tradition in which the sins of the people are figuratively cast onto a goat and it is driven away into the desert to die as a part of the rituals alined with the Day of Atonement). If we look at psychology, we see how easily we find reasonable excuses for our own poor behavior/mistakes and yet we do not tend to allow others the same leeway for the same behavior. So we throw the evil and guilt we feel in ourselves out and project it towards others hoping to alleviate our suffering and to feel 'pure' again. So all of us continue to do so... and so we distract from real issues by pointing our fingers at others. Republicans point at the debt ceiling and big government and keep us from looking at the facts that the middle class is declining, the poorer classes are swelling and almost all economic gains are going straight to the top one percent. Democrats complain about the republicans but do not do anything but complain. Independents have no chance because of low numbers.

Conservatives blame homosexuals and their behavior for breaking up the family and proclaim abortion as murder, but they do not tend to adopt, to help children in foster care... to create a supportive society that would make abortion unnecessary nor to they acknowledge the good and the benefit of homosexual marriage. Liberals fight for the right to marry for all and for available abortion, but do not seem to acknowledge the fears and concerns of the other side and dismiss them... which tends to bring both sides even farther apart and to continue to demonize each other. Marriages break up and both sides point to the other party – friends and family split off into sides like there is something to win. Our perceptions and views on life and people color how we view the world, how we blame others and how we see our future possibilities.

Gas Station Attendant – 'A human couldn't stand to be so miserable.'

The Great Depression was a horrible time; a time of hunger, homelessness, and despair for most. People would do almost anything for any security or food. Those with money had the power over the lives of thousands. Severe conditions tend to make most of us fall into the physical and emotional traps that stress caused. We are less rational, less able to think, more desperate. Good works, intelligence, decision making and emotional control are the losers when our body is under stress for long periods of time. In desperate times, we can hurt each other- even those we dearly love- to gain a few morsels of food if we are so very hungered. We can break every virtue we believe in if we are desperate enough. We are currently living through the storm of recession and social change... a time where moderation doesn't seem to exist and being kind can be challenging. Daily, people are dying from torture, bombs, etc.. based on blame- the blame of religion, politics, or simply being in the way of other's viewpoints and motives. The Great Depression was in many ways so similar to what we face today...yes, we have more food (in theory) but the storm of culture, wealth and power, and change continues today. How will it end... I wonder.

An Open Letter to Tsar Peter I from King Louis XIV of France

This was one of the most challenging assignments I ever have had. Pretend, etc... is not a strong suit for me and when we were asked to 'write' a letter as one particular monarch to another... well, I will admit that I avoided the assignment until I couldn't any longer! So I have finished it and I don't think its too bad considering I feel like it's waffle. :) So here is a letter from King Louis XIV of France to his Russian Counterpart, Peter I (the Great). What do you think? Is it a lot of waffle or maybe a bit interesting... I would have happily written a ten page paper on the both of these men to get out of this letter....


To my esteemed colleague Tsar Peter Alexeyevich, Emperor of all the Russias

It was with genuine pleasure that I dictate these words in response to your communication dated August last, 1714.

I was much pleased to watch over the last few years of the many reforms and cultural improvements that you have commenced to put into place with great enthusiasm and vigor. I know from personal experience the challenges and deft hand it takes to create great changes in social culture as well as the difficulties of controlling the wayward and selfish of those in our realms who would rebel against us and our divine responsibilities as rulers over those the Lord has put into our dominion. Controlling and appealing to the natures of the aristocracy- many of whom consistently seem to forget their place in society and endeavor to pull themselves up to heights that their God did not deem proper has been a challenge for both of us from our tender years to now. I wish to congratulate you on your tax reforms as well as your ingenuity in using the ideals of loyalty and meritocracy to control and distract those in noble stations who might distract you from continuing to improve the lives of those under your care. Your efforts towards a strong military have also been noticed and I compliment you highly on the strength and organization of it. It is quite a formidable force at this point and I would be quite shocked if it disappointed you in your quest for more liberal trading routes and partners.

One thing that I find myself quite puzzled and repelled by is your consistent desire to ignore or demolish ritual anywhere you can find it. Ritual is an important part of monarchical and universal law; important and clear to show and maintain the appropriate order as well as an example to those in society of the proper and necessary conduct to the monarch as God's 'lieutenant'. I know you have mentioned that I should address you as simply 'Peter'... as if I could possibly consent to such disrepute and impropriety. I, myself, have recently begun to wear a new ornamental clothing around my neck which is an accessory that I am using to show my high rank as well as wealth and importance.  Already, many of the noble classes here have begun to wear these 'neckties' and I am confident that this new addition to my wardrobe and to social ritual will continue to become a symbol of importance and honor over time.  My dear friend, please consider these things when continuing to confuse God's order between yourself and your subjects by such frivolity and informality.


I was distressed to hear through the courier channels and from your own pen of your challenges of health in the last winter and relived to know of your continued improvement and robust health. I have heard many tales of your legal reforms and the beauty of your new city of Saint Petersburg. I hope your inspiration for a grand residence in the style of my 'Versailles' is able to come to fruition in your lifetime. As to mine, I have little left and I am reluctant but ready to face my God when that time comes as it must soon. Please do not follow my example and leave the future of the state and your subjects as uncertain as I have. I think it may have been the mistake that may undo all I have managed to accomplish in my life. By outliving my heirs of legal succession, I have left a power vacuum that surrounds my grandson and I fear it could swallow him. Pray mind my advice in this matter.

With much thought and salutations,

King Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre

Brief Views on the First Crusade... and the Major 'Players'

Almost anyone these days with even a small background in history or religion has heard of the Crusades... and it goes without saying that many people hold strong views on the subject. But very few people really know more than a few basic facts: that the Catholic church started Crusades to remove heretics and 'Christianize' the Muslims, etc... What is clear is that without the idea and experiences that we now call the First Crusade, there would not have been any more of this particular brand of religious battle. The First Crusade is really a blend of religious fanaticism, political shrewdness and expediency, greed, desperation and human frailty.... and not simply a religious war. This post will cover some of the basics of the First Crusade and the people in power who created this difficult and deadly conflict. From the idea that Jesus himself led the Christian armies into battle and the reality that the majority of the deaths were actually caused by Christians against fellow Christians... this war is not a simple two dimensional vision.

The beginnings of this war actually started about twenty years before in the Eastern Roman empire. Over this period of time, groups of Turks moved into a part of the territory ruled by Byzantine Emperor Alexis. He eventually decided that he wanted to kick out the Islamic Turks, but Emperor Alexis didn't feel he had enough resources or soldiers to be successful in his attempt. It was also economically prudent for him to remove the Turks as the lands that had been taken over were rich in resources and potential military members. So Alexis decided that he would write the Pope/Bishop in Rome to try and get some help. His desire was based on an inappropriate assumption that the Pope or Bishop of Rome was a high ranking Byzantine official and so the emperor expected that what would happen was that this official would work to help raise some funds and hire some soldiers for him. Unfortunately for the world itself, this assumption was truly incorrect.

The true nature of the Roman Catholic Pope and his church was not really as simple as the idea of the Pope being a 'Byzantine official'. In reality, the Pope was truly an ambitious politician who was hopeful of building himself and his lands into a superpower. The last few 'Bishops' of Rome had worked to create huge and radical reforms for the position of 'Pope' giving themselves more political power. It was hoped by these churchmen to make one 'greater church' that would control and supervise all churches and other churchmen and all Christian souls on earth- a very ambitious goal indeed. Popes had begun to demand that Bishops should be free from pressure from secular leaders, but under the firm authority of the Pope... that men in armor were ultimately ruled by God... and therefore the Pope as God's representative on earth... and other very extreme demands. All of these demands were for the ultimate goal of making the Pope the true head of a state – the state of Christendom- and truly changed the nature of the papacy itself. This would also allow the Pope to have authority over all other secular leaders on earth who were Christian... which was quite a large swath of people. :)

The Pope at this time was Pope Urban II. When he got the letter that had been written by Emperor Alexis, Urban II used this letter as an excuse to create and raise his own army to conquer the 'heathen' East. What he meant by liberation wasn't 'liberation' in the sense that we think of that word. What the Pope meant was that the lands and people in the Holy Lands should be brought under the political, physical and spiritual control of the papacy.... which certainly isn't the same as 'liberation', is it. ;-) Pope Urban gave a speech on November 27, 1095 complaining about the Turks and their 'perceived' ill treatment of fellow Christians in the Holy Land- he might have stretched the truth quite a bit. But in the end, his speech could be summed up in one sentence- “God wills it!”

To be a Christian knight (then and now) was to live in a difficult quandary of the mind. A knight is a hired warrior- a man who is hired to kill other people and to do so at the whim of his sovereign, the man who pays his salary, etc... Sometimes they were admonished to kill every member of the enemy's family as well. As a job it was physically dangerous and emotionally and psychologically exhausting. However, being a believing Christian adds a whole other level of difficulty to this job. Jesus Christ, the savior and the first leader of the Catholic church, was very specific about killing... it was wrong, period. You were to turn your cheek to your enemies, love your enemies, be meek to enter the kingdom of God, not practice unrighteous dominion... to name a few of the savior's sayings. How a person was able to deal with this dichotomy was and still is a personal endeavor. Pope Urban solved that dilemma by stating that Jesus Christ only meant that you followed those creeds with other Christians... and that war against non Christians was not only OK, but it was holy, and necessary. The Pope's speech pretty much equated war with penance such as prayer and devotion … the sacraments that would save your soul. In essence, it was good to 'kill for God'. In fact, it was almost a 'get out of hell free' card. If you went out on this fight, then you were absolved of all your sins in this life and the next. No worries about purgatory for you. :)

The Crusade would never have been able to happen without the cooperation and volunteering of ordinary people and the 'warrior' aristocracy. One reason that people were so willing to do this was that the church had a power over people that they did not truly understand. People believed in an actual heaven and hell... and that these places were very close and simply a breath away. They believed that the Pope was God's mouthpiece on earth and so that when the Pope spoke, he was speaking God's commands... that the judgment day was coming, that hell was at hand.... and hey, lots of treasure to be gained from the infidels as well. Many hoped to gain positive eternal life in heaven, many wished for earthly treasures and wealth, as well as earthly status and fulfill earthly needs. The majority of the volunteers were peasants who didn't really have any stability or way to fulfill their basic daily needs so the idea of a Crusade gave them hope. The inspiration to do what 'God wills' was not a small motivation at all and the gift of a direct ticket to heaven must have been a very strong inducement. The pope didn't just raise the army that he had hoped for- he sparked a mass migration! (I need to state that there isn't a problem with the belief in heaven and hell and its literal existence... I believe in it myself actually.)

As people headed toward the Holy Land and Jerusalem, people looks for inspired leaders to follow. One leader of small note was the divinely inspired goose that led a group of people for a short period of time towards the goal. :) Another important leader was an eccentric tramp known as Peter the Tramp or 'Peter the Hermit'. Peter gathered almost 15,000 people to follow him to the Holy Land... some historians suggest that he may have given speeches which might have also caused the first crusade to happen. These groups traveled over four months towards Constantinople with no planning and preparation for the trip at all. The pilgrims would become thieves in their quest for food and needed supplies such as shoes and clothing; in fact, many were willing to fight the local people in the places they were traveling by for the goods the pilgrims felt they needed. These needs of the pilgrims could backfire... sometimes causing large amounts of casualties and riots... certainly not 'civilized' behavior. By the time Peter the Hermit showed up to the city of Constantinople, he arrived with around 60,000 people. The Emperor Alexis found this mass of people a 'headache' and he advised Peter the Tramp to not march on to Jerusalem until the Pope's real army arrived, but Peter insisted on continuing. When his group arrived on the shore towards their goal, the crusaders couldn't get in the city fortress and so a large group tortured and murdered and plundered the goods of the people of Nicea. Unfortunately for the goals of the crusaders, all the victims were Christian. Others in the group went on to try and conquer other cities with various levels of effectiveness until most of the members of these groups were massacres or sold as slaves by the conquering Turks. Peter the Hermit did a good job at unifying and inspiring people, but he did not have good planning and contributed to the failure and death of most of his followers. His group is also called by the name of the 'Peasant's Crusade.'

It should come as no surprise that the Pope's words condemning pagans could be construed as to condemning Jews as well and contributing to the entrenched anti-semitism in Europe. After all, it is true that the Jews were not part of the group that was currently accused of 'torturing' Christians... but they (the Jews) were the group that killed Jesus Christ. How could the pagans be any worse than the group that martyred the Savior? And to add to this unfortunate rationale, it must be noted that the Turks and the Holy Land was three thousand miles away... while Jews tended to be in all the villages in Europe so you didn't have to go very far to find them. All you had to do was wear a cross... So people who were unscrupulous and looking for easier targets closer to home began to slaughter local Jews and taking the 'spoils' from these heathens. This attitude caused massacres of whole Jewish communities- and the first pogrom during the First Crusade is sometimes called the first 'holocaust'. And it was in this way that anti-semitism was made almost a permanent institution in Europe. And any time a Crusade was called for in the future, pogroms would happen in Jewish communities. We can see that this 'disease' hasn't yet been eradicated as the massacres of Jews in the 1940's during WWII in the state of Germany and beyond their borders can testify to.

The Peasant's Crusade was an abysmal failure... not really sure there is another way to describe it. It was a great crowd led by Peter the Hermit and a few others. As mentioned above, almost no planning had been put into this project and was really very much almost an emotional movement. Most of the members of this 'movement' were peasants- they had no goods, hadn't been well fed at any recent time in their lives and almost all had never fought in any kind of battle before. Many of the members were women and children- certainly children were probably not the best soldiers. Thousands of people- as many as 60,000- traveled the thousands of miles to first reach Constantinople. Without supplies, they were forced to steal or beg the required provisions from towns and villages along the way... and this did not always happen peacefully or without difficulty. Upon finally getting to Constantinople, Emperor Alexis was fairly dismayed- at least not pleased- to see this army and after warning them about the Turks, he quickly helped the 'pilgrims' across the waterway and on their way toward Jerusalem. (It is known that he did warn Peter the Hermit that the 'group' should wait until the Pope's main fighting forces arrived to engage the enemy.) After crossing the waterway, some groups divided off ethnically from the larger total group and attacked nearby towns causing great death and devastation to the inhabitants of the towns (who appear to have been all Christians) or causing their own death and devastation by the Turks who offered them death.... or the opportunity to convert to Islam and live as a slave. (That was a bit of an irony.) Peter the Hermit no longer had much control as the groups divided and so they were easily divided and conquered. By the end of all of this, including a successful trick and ambush by the Turks, the peasant's crusade was over with very little loss of life on the part of the Muslims and near total annihilation of the Christian Crusade participants.... only a couple of thousand people lived to be able to share their story of the Peasant's Crusade.... one of whom was Peter the Hermit. I imagine Alexis breathed a sigh of relief in some ways.

It was the Pope's original intention to have Adehmar, bishop of Le Puy lead his 'army' in the crusades. The Pope's official forces were led by a few different individuals who were meant to combine their troops and work together. Hugh of France was the first to arrive at Constantinople with his army. Raymond, Count of Toulouse led almost 15,000 troops. Duke Godfrey of Lorraine came to Constantinople with around 20,000 foo soldiers and with most of his property sold and mortgaged to the church to pay for his 'ticket' to ride. Bohemond of Taranto led an Italian and Norman army with his nephew Tancred. Emperor Alexis was fairly pleased to see these armies, but also was intelligent enough to recognize that they came at a risk to his rule and also might not give him the land they conquered... if they managed to actually conquer it! So emperor Alexis would quickly move the arriving army across the waterway so that the armies wouldn't all be sitting in his city at one time- certainly a prudent move after some of the behavior from the earlier peasant groups. :) Alexis also had each of these leaders swear an oath to him that any land that the crusaders were able to conquer was his (Alexis) as well as an oath of allegiance. It must be said that the emperor still didn't trust them because after the crusaders had fought off all the defenders of the city of Nicaea, and were going to attack the next morning, Emperor Alexis came into the city through the nearby waterway and convinced the city's inhabitants to surrender to him. For these concessions, he would protect the city from the Crusaders- the city took the deal and the Crusaders themselves were angry and not pleased at this turn of events... (suggesting Alexis was right not to trust them.)

If nothing else is looked at about the Crusades but sheer numbers, it is clear to see that the power that the Catholic Church had over the inhabitants of most of Europe was HUGE! Look at the massive numbers of people who simply left and headed to the Holy Land in the Peasant's Crusade alone (60,000)... to the numbers that came with the 'official' army from the pope (60,000+). The First Crusade also opened up more information about the East to Europe and helped reopen some trade and knowledge that had been lost over time from the collapse of the Roman empire. Even with all the death and savagery of the crusaders with little gain, this 'war' was considered a success in Europe... setting the stage for more calls in the future for Crusades by future Popes.