Nationalism and Identity

Carissa mentioned in her blog ‘Ethiopia and Zion’ how the Ethiopians believed themselves to be of equal status as the Israelites, only lacking in wisdom. When they acquired the Arc of the Covenant, this gave Ethiopia even more status. This is a very important aspect of the narrative, and it sheds light on what may be the purpose for its creation. The continuous and underlying theme of ‘pro-Ethiopia’ throughout the text definitely alludes to a type of prehistoric propaganda that is repeated again and again throughout history- the methods have not changed. As discussed in class today, the ‘Kebra Negast’ gives an identity to all Ethiopians. It creates an ‘us’ that a specific group can relate and adhere to, and it provides a sense of unity much like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, or the Communist Manifesto. This text caters to the individual and group by offering a mentality that can fit all people of a certain group on the basis of similar nationality. I believe this is a great part of the appeal of the text, and the reason for its popularity- it provides a centralization and unification of a broad group of people; a bond that unites a nation.

The Importance of Narrative

For some reason, reading parts 1 and 2 of Kebra Negast reminded me of the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ series I used to love when I was growing up. I believe the reason for this is the way in which the writers of this text seem to choose which direction they were going to take the story- as based on the solidified previous publication of the Bible. They deviated from the set structure when it was appropriately vague enough to fill in their own detail, while always returning to the basic storyline. This separation and reunion gives the entire work an air of legitimacy and authority- the connection to a text already accepted and allocated authority automatically puts this new text within the same realm and with the potential to have the same status. This method is the most logical way to present new information, as molded to the needs of the writers.

This system most accurately fits the narrative storytelling as seen in the readings. The narrative voice gives the recording of events an air of a legitimate sequence of occurrences as vouched for by the personal author, who is in direct appeal to the readers. This is not a message as relayed through time and storytellers, but a straight and undeviating narrative voice that severs the margin for disbelief and contradictions (it is hard to find contradictions when the whole story is told by the same author with a singular point of view).

If I were to try and make up a story to fit my specific agenda, taking a widespread and popular text and expanding upon its vaguer points would be the most intelligent means toward accomplishing this goal. The narrative voice then compliments this mission perfectly.

Noah: Good or Bad?

One interesting distinction between ‘The Queen of Sheba and her only Son Menyelek’ and the ‘Zohar’ is the approach taken in regard to Noah. The ‘Zohar’ reproached Noah because he did not ‘shield his generation and did not pray for them like Abraham…he did not care and did not ask for mercy, he just built the ark and the whole world was destroyed’ (pg 58-59, Zohar). The Kebra Negast, however, says ‘…as for Noah, he humbled himself, and offered up sacrifice, and he cried out, and groaned, and wept. And God held converse with Noah, who said, “If Thou wilt destroy the earth a second time with a Flood, blot Thou me out with those who are to perish” And God said unto him, “I will make a covenant with thee that…I, on My part, that I will not destroy the earth a second time with a Flood, and that I will give unto thy children Winter and Summer, Seedtime and Harvest, Autumn and Spring.’ (6-7, Kebra).

These two interpretations portray Noah in drastically different lights. In ‘Zohar’, Noah is made accountable for the flood because he did not stand up for his people and plead to God on their behalf. Noah is chastised for not being as caring or protective as Abraham or Moses, both of whom pledged their pledged their lives in the attempt to save their people. In ‘Kebra’, Noah is presented precisely as Abraham and Moses are in ‘Zohar’. He pleads to God, and he asks that he be killed with his people if God decides to flood the world again. When God then promises that he will never again destroy the world by flood, Noah may be credited for this security.

These two differences demonstrate how different perspectives and authors influence the writings of historical texts. The portrayal of one book or work may create a person worthy to be praised, or it may make that same person into an example of what not to do. The ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra’ both offer different portrayals of Noah and his actions regarding the flooding of the world.

Response to Catrina

I believe that Catrina’s post ‘Religion and Music’ exemplifies one of the most fundamentally important aspects of belief. It is when events such as the Virginia Tech tragedy occur that people most clearly feel the peace and comfort that God provides every hour of every day to every person in the world. While Catrina refers to music as its own religion, I strongly believe that the deeper sense of security and knowing that reunion with the people taken from us will one day occur comes from not some vague idea or concept of ‘religion’, but from the strength and love of God that resonates in the heart of each human being, in some way.

Peace in the Middle East?

"Let us imagine that peace one day comes to the Middle East. What will Muslims say of the suicide bombings that they so widely endorsed?...How will they account for the celebrations that followed these "sacred explosions"?...It seems to me to be an almost axiomatic truth of human nature that no peace, should it ever be established, will survive beliefs of this sort for very long."

As the daughter of a Colonel of the US Army whose father served in Iraq and Kuwait, this is very disheartening news. Harris makes several strong arguements in support of the quotation above- in fact it is impossible not to arrive at the same conclusion once any understanding of the Muslim faith is conceived. The belief that peace can never exist in the Middle East is the logical conclusion of Harris' exercise through the complexities of the Koran and the followers of this text. This essay should move the readers to some sympathy for the soldiers and what they are dealing with in Iraq- although it is clear that not ALL Muslims believe in the 'idea of an amry of infidels occupying Baghdad' or that Americans are the 'enemies of God' (128). However, with this faith dominating the entire region the US is trying to rebuild, it cannot be too shocking that progress is going so slow. Imagine trying to defeat an enemy that blends in perfectly with the civilians- because the 'enemy army' ARE civilians- and in which each member of the oppossing army is willing to give the ultimate sacrifice- his life- by using his martyrdom to destroy anyone and anything in the persuit of attaining his reward of paradise.

The only hope, it appears, for peace in the Middle East would be to somehow corrolate democracy with Islam. Democracy is the government of choice because it does not allow for one man to run unchecked and uncontrolled by the people he governs. While many of the Muslims support this transtition to democracy, the danger lies in those select groups that may ignite the rest of the population to rebel if the economic situation is not improved and if the newly established government is not given the means to govern effectively and with authority. The current situation is the most precarious; a democracy that is still new and struggling to take hold is more prone to upheaval and coups than even a dictatorship (cite- Intro to International Relations). If a leader who highly supports the Jihad siezes control in this dangerous situation, the rest of the world will be in danger as a result of being part of the 'House of War'. It is for this purpose that the new government in Iraq must be cemented in place, given the means to succeed, and not allowed to degenerate into disorder and chaos. The chaos that will follow the failure of the US to completely succeed in Iraq will be many times greater than the chaos that exists now- this fact is made even more clear by Harris' text.

Parents, Children, and WWJD

Throughout the book of Lamentations, there are two main figures the reader is exposed to. God, who is an authoritative figure and has just whiped out the city of Jersalem, and the author, a figure in submission. This has been classified as a 'parent-child' relationship, and for several reasons. God is acredited with omnipotence and omnicience; he is believed to understand why the city was destroyed (because he did it), and is the one called upon to ensure that it does not happen again. The author is appealing to God for understanding, protection, and security- much like a child would appeal to a parent in a similar situation. The author is also expressing hurt, anger, and frusteration, much like a child would to a parent who has allowed harm to befall their offspring. This relationship is logical and befitting of the circumstances.
This parent-child relationship as used to help explain the author's interpretation of events is similar to the method many people use to explain their own interpretations of events today: What Would Jesus Do? This classic expression is the modern version of the parent-child relationship as expressed in the Old Testament. While Christians today still view God as Father, another ingredient thrown into the mix is Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Son of God. Jeremiah, the supposed author of Lamentations, was before Jesus' time. However, WWJD is sybolic of how Jesus altered Christianity, and took the roots of Judaism in a different direction. When Jesus died on the cross, he took on the sins of every person in the entire world and promised every person new life- if they believe he is the Son of God and died so that we may be with God in heaven. Through this act, Jesus advocates for each person and offers this gift of freedom to each person. This alters the relationship between God and man, because through Jesus, salvation is based on love and faith and not works. Jeremiah was appealing to God to remove his anger, and while believers do the same thing today, it is with the confidence of knowing that nothing that happens in this world can separate a person from the love of Jesus. This is a security that Jeremiah did not have, and this is the difference between the parent-child relationship and WWJD

Lamentations

It was brought up in class on wednesday that perhaps Lamentations was written from the viewpoint of God himself. This is a fasinating theory, and it calls for a much different reading of the text.
When reading the text as written from the perspective of a man, most likely Jeremiah, writing his thoughts, prayers, and opinions of an event he himself witnessed, the meaning is humanized. With this author in mind, the reader understands the writings to be grounded and failable- or at least limited in perspective and range of understanding of the events at hand. This view also makes the text more personal and exemplary of the author's relationship with God. For example, even in witnessing to the horrible events that have occured, the author still returns to praising and trusting God: "I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit: you heard my plea" (Lam 3:55). This is a relationship of trust, dependence, and hope between a man and God.
When reading the text as the voice of God, the entire reading changes. Now the meaning is not of a human in distress over his city, but God heartbroken that such disasterous events had to transpire. Now it is God speaking of betrayal, groaning, transgressions, and rejection. It is also God speaking of turning to him to make everything right again. In this perspective, God is telling his children to have hope in him, wait for him, and seek him. He is telling his readers that he will not reject forever, and that HE will hear the pleas from the depths of the pit. It shows that God feels all the pain of all the people, and that he hurts when we hurt. Through this pain, God says in Lamentations that he will "have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone" (Lam 3:32). From this viewpoint, the message becomes even more affirming.
While both perspectives deliver the same message of hope through the heartache, the emphasis and readings of the text alter how the reader approaches the verses.

The Grizzly Man

I did not know anything about 'Grizzly Man' before we watched it. While the first few minutes played, I thought it was a joke, or at least a satire, of a man who was obsessed with bears- possibly mocking other documentaries of animal-crazed people doing field work. Then the movie continued, and I realized that Tim was serious, and that the film was not mocking anything, but was an earnest documentation. Then I started (or tried to, anyway) to take Tim seriously.
From what we observed in class, bears had somehow become a religion to Tim. Clearly, Tim felt a spiritual connection to the bears that kept him returning to Alaska every summer for thirteen years. This pull and desire for connection may be similar to the human search for spiritual fufillment with God, or a 'higher power'. By watching Tim's actions on film, it was clear that he wanted to be on the same level as the bears, and desired to interact in a direct relationship which could lead to further communication between the human and bears. Tim wanted to bridge the gap- in the same was humans wish to with God...only with bears.
Also, it appears as though the bears had become Tim's identity. They were his life, and there was no end point of when he would stop spending his summers in Alaska. The trip was very much a part of who Tim was, and not dedicating time with the bears did not appear to be an option. When Tim was not with the bears, he was spreading his knowledge of them to children in schools- his efforts never ceased. This dedication and personal investment also makes Tim's relationship with the bears to appear to be a religious one.
The main downfall of entrusting religious feelings and tendencies to anything that is not God is that it can lead to demise. While people in the video said that being killed and eaten by a bear was how Tim would have wanted to go, and that he would be upset that the bear that ate him was killed, I think the audio from his last moments would prove otherwise. I could be wrong, and perhaps Tim really would feel that way, but he is human. Even a bear would be infuriated at being eaten by another bear, and would most likely want that bear shot and killed.

Response to Alex Fairchild's "Burial Mounds"

Alex brought up an interesting point that I was grappling with while reading 'Indian Mounds of Wisconsin'. The Native Americans seem to have been very deliberate in their distinctions between the 'upper' and 'lower' worlds. While one may immediately jump to the conclusion that this is similar to the Christian belief in a heaven- 'upper' world, and hell- 'lower' world, upon further reflection this does not appear to be the case. Christians believe that heaven exists as a place to be in union with God, and where the spirits of believers of Jesus Christ will go upon death. Christians also believe that hell is where the spirits of people who have had the chance to know Jesus and have refused to accept him go upon death. This concept is very different from the Native American's use of the 'upper' world and 'lower' world. While some tribes did consider the tribes with an 'upper' world animal as their symbol to be more powerful or significant than those tribes with a 'lower' world symbol, this did not necessarily connote a good verse evil approach, or a membership of the 'lower' world tribe to be a demotion or a punishment or a consequence of that Native American's actions. It would make more sense that the different classifications were physical observations of that animal's role in nature. Those animals that dwelled in the sky, and those who remained on the ground.

Social Structure and Mound Shape

The reading on Indian mounds was very interesting, overall. One area that was especially facinating was the way in which the burial mounds were "maps of ancient belief systems. They recapitulate the structure of the universe and model the relationship of the social divisons and clans..." (129).
The division between the upperworld and the lowerworld was not only apparent in the different shapes of the mounds, but also among the clans themselves. The mapping of the mounds are harmonious to the landscape, with the flying animals along ridges and the water animals near water sources- but they are also representational of some of the social institutions among the differnet tribes.
The Ho-Chunk are divided socially into two groups- "those who are above" and "those who are on earth" (116). The most important clan in the "above" division is the Thunderbird, while the Bear and Water Spirit are the most important of th "lower" divisions (117). "What is significant about his arrangement is that it not only more finely defines the realms of the natural world, but also represents common types of effigy mounds" (118).
While the mounds are very complex in their burial traditions, construction, and ceremonial centers, the social aspect of who belonges to which tribe is another important clue of who was buried where, and what their lives may have been like. Knowing that the Thunderbird had a higher status then a land animal in the Ho-Chunk tradition gives more information about what that mound may contain, and more pieces of the puzzle that will contribute to the broader picture of who exactly these mound builders were. While the symbolic and spiritual natures are also important, the social traditions can be the backbone of those other areas can be perceived.
Whether the mound is of a bird, animal, or water spirit, that particular shape will reveal much information- and in some cases the social hierarchy of that tribe can be a determining factor.

The Platform of Human Nature

"There is no evidence of transformative technical change on the scale of domestic animals, no permanent or fortified residences, no sophisticated watercraft...yet our reconstruction of that period suggests fully human lives, with associated intellectual and artistic capacity and much else we associate with modern people. Why is it that for 30,000 years we see no agriculture, urban life, written language, pottery,...any other of the dynamic panoply of innovations that shaped the lives of most of our Holocene ancestors?" (405, Part II, The Nature of Paleolithic Art)

One aspect of this course that is becomming more and more interesting to me is how inter-related this class is with my other two classes: cultural anthropology and comparative politics. (And I'm not just saying that because Professor Smith said it may be a good idea to bring in concepts from other classes). How we define culture and what entails a 'civilization' varies broadly accross different nations of the world. Guthrie's statement of 'what we associate with modern people' is noted through the lens of how westerns would view modern people. It may be interesting to investigate how Americans' opinions of the paleolithic art are shaped by their inherited culture, while a !Kung Bushman in the Kalahari would gaze upon the cave drawings and see something very different.
We students at Lawrence University, for the most part, have never had to rely solely on our own skill and the land for survival. We are analyzing paleolithic art from the perspective of our worldview, but the insights we may obtain may drastically differ if our worldview was more closely linked to what the art depicts. For example, if we were living in the Kalahari, and did not have modern weapons, we would be killing our food in a very similar fashion to the artists we are studying. If we then were asked to analyze the cave drawings, we would probably just say that the stags are stags, the bison are bison, and the dead man is a man who was not quick enough to get out of the way. We would not be searching for symbolism or hidden meanings, and we would find nothing unusual or overly facinating about the drawings: they are merely images- admitably very old images- of our everyday life, a life that clearly has not altered very much.
Everyone, even Guthrie, has a bias, and it is interesting to examine how the derived information may alter- even if slightly- if that bias changes.