Shaking the World Part 3 Final Thoughts

As I concluded John Reed's account of the Russian Revolution in Ten Days that Shook the World; I found that the rising of the Bolsheveki party was rather mystifying. Reed mentions there were a number of meetings b/t the Bolsheveki party and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries that no one seemed to know anything about. Not only that, but Reed records many of the decrees sent and speeches given by Lenin, himself, and ironically, those too were color coated. For example, Lenin declared that they had invited members of other parties to join the government council sessions, but was very determined, as stated in writing, to keep his government in power once they seized it, with little room to compromise.

But interestingly enough, there was a statement that stuck out to me. A student, with a wounded arm from battle, told Reed, "you foreigners look down on us Russians b/c so long we tolerated a midevil monarchy, but we saw that the Tsar was not the only tyrant in the world; capitalism was worse, and in all the countries of the world, capitalism was Emperor. Russian revolutionary tactics are best..." The student said this while lamenting over the Tsar's tombs.

Ironically, a group Reed sparadically mentions in the book, still exists today and actually hopes to see the return of the "Tsar." That group is known as the Cossacks. The Cossacks were a group of people, planted in the South-Eastern area of Russia, particularly the Ukraine and known for their deft military abilities. They opposed the Bolsheviks but fought with both the Red Army and the White during the Revolution. Their communities were among the "gaurdians of ethinic culture," protecting Russia from southern European invasion. They have always been self-relient and agriculturally based. Their community government was run with military diplomacy and relient on the word or law of the eldest male in the community. During the years of the Soviet Union, their class was disreguarded and their status stripped. But today-they are speaking out again and predominantly in favor of Vladimir Putin.

A BBC article noted that a Cossack leader, Viktor Vasilyevich, has appriciated the changes since the early 1990's. While they may not be able to own the state land, they are able lease it and still live as freely as they please. Being a traditional community, however, and of hierarchial status- they feel the tradition of the Tsar is the best government leader. When asked for canidates, Vasilyevich elected Putin's name.

I find it ironic however, that the student mentioned the preference of the Tsar to capitalism. In fact, the student in Reed's book, refered to capitalism as tyrannical. I can only assume that the student's reference was to the fact that he felt capitalism enlisted the class system, making it impossible for proletariat to exceed their means of survival. Perhaps under the Tsar- it was simply the lesser of two evils. But according to analysts- early 20th century capitalism was experiencing extreme cycles of expansion, prosperity and collapse.

It's funny; the Russian people, at the time, really only traded a Soverign Monarchy for a political one.

"America is NOT the Kingdom of God"

I couldn't agree more with Greg Boyd's statement. Watching CNN's documentary- "God's Warriors" last night, I could not help but be impressed with Boyd's segment of the program. Overall, I think, that Christiane Amanpour did a fantastic job on her year long project, investigating the fundamentalist ideas of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. But for now, I want to focus on the ideas that Boyd brought to the table.

Of all the pastors and ministers Amanpour interviewed, among them Jerry Falwell and Ron Luz, Boyd had the most central idea of how the Christian should conduct themselves in a selfish society and politically dominated church. It was noted that he lost almost 20% of his congregation after refusing to endorse conservative candidates with conservative platforms. He doesn't believe that a Biblical value should become a political battleground- and I agree.

When did we start to turn social issues into political ones? When did we start voting for candidates b/c they supported one or two of our favorite Bible stories or values?

I'm pretty sure that Jesus said, give to Caesar what it his and to God what is His. The Roman Empire was under and Emperor, conquered defenseless nations. Romans 13 talks about submitting to the governing authorities. Granted, God is above all- however, I believe that in country such as ours- we reap what we sow. What government we elect in place will be. AT THE SAME TIME, I also believe we should not have a government that has Christian or religious beliefs imposed on it. Nor do I believe that the government should impose them on the American people. That is not what the founding fathers instigated.

The Kingdom of God, Jesus stated, is not of this world. In fact, it is something that should be in the hearts of every person that believes. When it comes to our politics, why oh why, are we making our faith the platform? Why not instead evaluate the candidates based on who we think will best lead the country and create and positive atmosphere, maintaining the confidence and safety and freedom of the the AMERICAN people?

I am not saying I don't have my own political preferences, but I certainly don't expect my president to believe every little thing I do. I don't expect them to come the conclusions I have for my life. Boyd exemplified the fact that being "pro-life" should not mean about hounding against abortion but rather erring on the side of life- from birth to death! Amazing how that phrase gets twisted to mean "over-turn Roe vs. Wade."

I don't know that it would be wise for the United States to become a "religious" state. Iran has done that with Islam- and nothing but conflict has ensued internationally and internally.

I do believe, in the freest nation in the world, every Christian has American duty to vote, but a greater responsibility to spread the love of the Cross w/o endorsing politics from the pulpit. I'm tired of preachers who use their Sunday sermons to promote ballots and politics. How about just teaching the Bible. God is not a democrat or a republican. He's God. Period.

Shaking the World Part 2

As I noted in a previous blog, I have been engaged in John Reed's Ten Days that Shook the World. It is Reed's account of the Russian Revolution at the point which Lenin and the Bolsheveki party took over in 1917.

I came across a quote that has had me thinking- Dielo Naroda, a socialist-revolutionary stated- "A revolutioin is a rising of all people, But here, what have we? Nothing but a handful of poor fools decieved..." His comment of course refering to those that began to side with Soviet Communists.

Yet as I read through, it seems to me that, at the time, Lenin seemed to have the answers. After the overthrow of the Tsar, the people lived squalor, they had no voice, they had nothing. They're decisions were not out of true conviction, but hopelessness. They needed a leader who would live their hopes in to a reality. They wanted and end to the revolution it self and Lenin seemed to be the peace talker, someone who bring the rich and the poor together.

The people of Russia would later learn that Vladimir Lenin and the leaders that followed were some of the worst- but who could blame them then?

I think our lives follow similar patterns. It seems that in dire moments, the best decisions, are really the worst. So what does that say for our politics? Our faith? Our convictions? Are we doomed to repeat history? We don't have to. We elect our leaders and our lives to what seems to give us hope. The problem is- Good leaders make poor judgements, bad leaders help us point out our frustrations and we tag along with bad leaders b/c they comfort us with promises they'll never fulfill. As individuals, we lose hope in change for the better and make decisions that are comfortable rather than revolutionary.

"Change comes hard, Change comes slow, But change does come."-(A Certain Wise Man).

article review: a woman leaving legacy

i recently read and article in the new yorker. the magazine, no matter what side of the spectrum you're on, has a common reputation for being extremely left. but the article i read, i couldn't help but to be impressed. it was entitled, letter from pakistan, days of grace by william dalrymple. while i felt the article was fairly presented as dalrymple visited a number of groups and gained different opinions on pakistan; it was most interesting that dalrymple examined the state of the pakistan and musharraf goverment through the eyes a female human rights lawyer, asma jahangir.

i should note, that in islamic communities, it is not common for women to play such a high role in society. but asma grew to her belief in the people with her father as an example. as a child her father served in the government and her family lived a luxurious lifestyle, but after Ayub Khan overturned the existing government in 1958 to a miliary run government, her family lost everything, her father, who opposed the move, was arrested and tortured. still a teen, asma led her own pro-democracy women's demonstration. she has, for years defended women, rape victims and people w/o a voice. but such a stand has put her under scrutiny as well, living in a strong islamic society where religious law can often trump human or political rights.

asma jahangir does note ecomonic improvents under musharraf, but overall is critical of his use of presidental authority. she did say, in the article, that, "however flawed democracy here [pakistan] is, it is still the only answer." she is a strong woman, with passionate opinions and desperate to help bring human rights to her country, esp for young women.

dalrymple noted that asma jahangir is an idealist and believes that change is possible. he even asked others if she might be naive, but the response was inspiring-"many thought they [refering to Martain Luther King Jr and Ghandi] were politically naive but it was they, not the realists who succeeded in changing the course if history."

how important it really is to believe that change is possible. there are people who need someone to reach out and defend them, and there nations that need to see peace. a wise man once told me, "change comes hard, change comes slow, but change does come." i believe that those that are willing to break the rules will be the ones to change the history of our future.

Shaking the World

I have never visited Russia. It is a trip I hope to take in the next year or so. But in the mean time I am learning about it. I recently picked up a book called, Ten Days that Shook the World by John Reed. It is Reed's account to the Russian Revolution in 1917.

I am only a quarter of the way through, but with Reed's description, it's apparent that Russia was mess. Not only were they entered into the First World War against Germany, but they were facing battles of their own. Political parties and groups swarmed everywhere. There was little food and the Russian currency was inflated.

They were trying to ally with the U.S. and Britain, but were constantly losing ground in the war b/c they had no unified government.

Not long after, Lenin and his Bolshevik party took over and so began the Soviet Union. Since then , Russia has truly come a long way. It made it through another world war and a cold one with United States Superpower for over 50 years. I recently heard and interview of Russian 20-somethings and one of them mentioned the Putin is well liked and encouraging the people to be patient another 20 years as the country develops some sort of democracy and identity of its own.

Russia has seen it's share of war torn country, orphans and poverty. As I continue to pour through Reed's emotional account, I certainly hope I will gain some insight to the transition that took place in Russia almost a century ago.

I am compassionate toward those who live in war torn conditions, to those who have difficulty seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. To stir Revolution and it's end result be more threatening than promising, can only scar a people. Revolution, in its nature, is a sudden marked change, one that often that purposes to revive people from the inside-out. Revolution often ignites and motivates. What happens when it does not? What happens when the outcome is un-anticipated? Most of all, must it be accompianed by violence or perhaps hatred? Desperation drives people to stir Revolution, to stir a fight for overcoming and renewing circumstances for the better. Must that struggle be violent?

I personally believe that at times, struggle must be experienced in full force to achieve change. But violence defined in society is often different than that necessary for good. I decided to look it up and what I found was this- predominently, violence is defined as "damage by distortion" or "unjust exertion." But I also noticed another definition: "a swift or intense force." En Route to change, particularly a nation, does not require a level of "swift or intense force" to implement it? Just a thought....