Rockotitlán

 

ROCKOTITLAN
Written Thurs. March 3rd, 2022; posted Fri. June 3rd, 2022

 

Rockotitlán was a club, bar, and music venue in Mexico City dedicated to rock and roll music, 1985-2004.  There's a good picture of the interior at http://rock111mx.blogspot.com/2018/02/rockotitlan-el-lugar-del-rock-1985-1990.html (Rock Ciento Once) [since Rock Ciento Once = Rock 111, it might be meant to sound like the label of a college course].

Wikipedia's article on Fernando Arau says "In 1985 [Fernando] together with his brother Sergio they opened Rockotitlán, the first club that would only book Rock en Español bands in Mexico City. Rockotitlán became the centerpiece and meeting place for the nascent genre and featured historical performances of some of the most iconic Mexican rock bands . . . "

I've never been to Rockotitlán, it's closed now, & it has nothing to do (that I know of) with the month we are in.  But I fell in love with its name a while back, when it first reached out and grabbed me from the pages of (could it have been) the Rolling Stone magazine.  It is derived from Tenochtitlán, the name of the Aztec capital city, which has now grown into Mexico City.  Apparently the Arau brothers replaced Aztec Tenoch- (apparently meaning "a rock (stone) [and a] prickly pear cactus") with the English word rock (as in rock music), and glued it together with -o- (originally the Greek technique for combining two roots into one word, as in pyr-o-maniac and klept-o-maniac).  That might be the real reason I brought it up, because its name combines an English root and an Aztec ending.  That's my kind of word poetry.

Frank Newton

 

The Theology of Thanks and the Theology of Old Words

 

THE THEOLOGY OF THANKS AND THE THEOLOGY OF OLD WORDS
Wed. March 2nd, 2022 to Thurs. March 3rd, 2022

 

Introduction

I started thinking about the expression "to return thanks."  But my train of thought went from that topic to another topic, and then to another.  I decided to try to write down the series of thoughts that occurred to me.

1. Returning Thanks

Christianity abounds in technical terms.  One technical term is "to return thanks."  That ex­pression is common among conservative Christians.  Both liberal Christians and non-Christians are more likely to use the other expression which means the same thing, namely "to give thanks."

Both liberal Christians and non-Christians may misunderstand returning thanks to mean "thanking someone back, after they have thanked you."  But that's not what returning thanks means.  Returning thanks means "thanking someone, after they have shown you a kindness."  The expression "to return thanks" is based on the idea that thanking someone is a natural response after they have shown you a kindness.

For me, the expression "to return thanks" is one of things I admire about conservative Christians.  I am a liberal Christian myself.  But I agree with the premise of "to return thanks."  I agree with conservative Christians that thanking someone is a natural response after they have shown you a kindness.

That does not mean, however, that I frown on the expression "to give thanks."  I do not believe that the expression "to give thanks" is inferior to the expression "to return thanks."

2. Blessedness

It seems to me that Jesus used various technical terms himself.  One of his technical terms is the word or words in Jesus' native language which is commonly translated into English as "blessed."  I would argue that, in Jesus' terminology, "Blessed are you when you . . ." means "It makes you happy when you . . ." and "Blessed are you if you . . ." means "It makes you happy if you . . ."  For example, in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 20, verse 35, St. Paul quotes Jesus: "remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."  That saying of Jesus can be read to mean, "It makes you happier to give than to receive."

Jesus often spoke in paradoxes, and it seems that many of his "Blessed are you . . ." sayings can be interpreted as paradoxes.  To bring out -- or smooth out -- the paradoxical nature of Jesus' "Blessed are you . . ." sayings, one can add "in the long run" at the beginning of the translation, for ex­am­ple: "In the long run, it makes you happier to give than to receive."  That suggests the in­terpret­ation that when you look back on your good deeds when you are downcast, the memory of your good deeds will cheer you up.  For me, that has the ring of truth.  When I am downcast, and when I am thinking that I am not a good person, the memory of my deeds which I consider good deeds will cheer me up.  I do not know if that works for everybody, but I know it works for me.

After suggesting that "Blessed are you . . ." in the Bible can be understood to mean "It makes you happy when you . . ." we could go on and try that interpretation out on many other Bible verses, to see if it fits.  But that is not the turn which my thoughts took, and as I have said, I will follow my train of thought here.

3. The Theology of Thanks

Now we will try to make a connection between returning (or giving) thanks, and blessedness.

We have already professed our belief that saying "I thank you" is a natural response to being shown a kindness.  But what does "I thank you" mean?

I would suggest that "I thank you" can mean "I will repay your kindness if I have an oppor­tunity."

That reminds me of the fable of the lion and the mouse.  Wikipedia describes that fable in the following words:

"In the oldest versions, a lion threatens a mouse that wakes him from sleep. The mouse begs forgiveness and makes the point that such unworthy prey would bring the lion no honour. The lion then agrees and sets the mouse free. Later, the lion is netted by hunters. Hearing it roaring, the mouse . . . [summons a bunch of his friends (other mice), and with their help, he] frees it by gnawing through the ropes. The moral of the story is that . . . there is no being so small that it cannot help a greater. Later English versions reinforce this by having the mouse promise to return the lion's favor, to its [the lion's] sceptical amusement."

Therefore, the person who is thanked may feel "There is no way you will be able to repay me."   But because the person who is thanked has heard Aesop's fable -- or a similar fable in another culture -- that person refrains from saying "There is no way you will be able to repay me," and says "You are welcome" instead.

Now to try to connect giving or returning thanks with blessedness.  Although Jesus did not say so as far as I know, I would propose a further blessing: Blessed are you when you thank someone.  Meaning: It makes you happy when you thank someone.  You have implied -- if your thought-paths are similar to mine -- "I will repay your kindness if I have an oppor­tunity."  The act of returning thanks can be seen as a down payment on the act of repaying someone's kindness.

One of the distinctive features of Christians is that we thank God in addition to thanking people who have shown us a kindness.  Christians thank God in spite of the fact that we know we cannot repay to God the kindness which God has shown us.

But of course the same thing is sometimes true when we thank human beings.  In other words, when we thank a person, sometimes the opportunity to repay their kindness never arises.  And we all know that.  When we say "Thank you," the opportunity to repay the other person's kindness may never arise.  Sometimes the down payment -- the "Thank you" -- is all the payment the other person ever gets from us.

An extreme case of our inability to repay is when we are thankful to people who have given their lives for our country.  In that case the only possible repayment is for us to honor the memory of those who have died.

That may make it easier to understand the idea of thanking God.  It seems to imply that we honor God -- although for religious people, we are not honoring the memory of God (we are not imply­ing that God is dead).  For Christians, it is as if we are saying "I thank you, God, for showing me a kindness, and/or I thank you for ordering the universe in such a way that the person I am thanking has shown me a kindness."

Essentially, when we bless or return thanks to God, then blessing, and thanking, and honoring, are all the same thing.  For example, in my prayer book, in the old prayer of general thanks­giving, we say, "We bless thee for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life."  That can be understood to mean We honor you and thank you, God, for our creation, preser­vation, and all the things which have made us happy in this life.  The blessings of this life -- the things which have made us happy in this life -- can include the food we have gotten or been given to eat ; the love which our parents have shown us ; the opportunity to have friends ; and all other similar things.

This is my effort to put into words a theology of thanks.

4. Sayings

We will speak very briefly about one other technical term, and then try to draw some conclusions about the language which Christians use.  Very briefly about the term "a saying": in Christianity, "a saying of Jesus" means "a thing when Jesus said, and someone else wrote down."

The New Testament makes it plain that Jesus did not write his ideas down.  In my view, it does not matter whether Jesus chose not to write, or did not know how to write.  It does not matter theologically.  Since Jesus was born into a poor family, and honored poor people, the fact that most poor people were illiterate when Jesus was on earth would not have deterred Jesus from being illiterate if he chose to be illiterate.  Jesus planned his work, and worked his plan.

5. Trusting Old Language

In the society I live in, many people mistrust old words and expressions.  They seem to feel that words which have gone out of use should not be used any more with the old meaning.  If the idea behind the old word is still useful, a newer way of saying the same thing should be found or created.

For example, "blind people" and "the blind" mean the same thing.  But "the blind" is an old-fashioned way of talking, and it tends to be mistrusted by many Americans nowadays.

There is some secret grammar in the expression "the blind."  In other words, the expression "the blind" exemplifies an old grammatical pattern in English, which is nowadays rarely discussed, and nowadays people tend to be unaware of it.  To see the pattern, consider these four sentences:

a) He is radical.
b) He is one of the radicals.
c) He is blind.
d) He is one of the blind.

The old grammatical pattern is this: when you put the word "the" before an adjective, and you do not add a noun, you need not add the ending -s to make it plural when you are talking about people.  In other words, we say "the blind" instead of saying "the blinds" if we are talking about people.

"Radical" adds an -s in "He is one of the radicals" because "radical" is seen as a noun, even though it is used as an adjective in the shorter sentence "He is radical."  "Radical" is seen as a noun because you can also say "He is a radical" -- adding the little word "a," which makes "radical" a noun.  But you cannot say (people do not say) *"He is a blind."  That's because "blind" is only an adjective.

This "secret grammar" lingers in many expressions in modern English.  For example, we say "the dead" to mean "the people who were killed in a battle, or died in a tragedy."  For another exam­ple, there is or there was an American television show called "The Young and the Restless."  The show's title means "the young and restless people."  For a third example, "The good die young" means "The good people die young."  As with "the blinds," if we say "the goods" we are no longer talking about people.

So the pattern we find in "the blind" lingers in current-day English.  But it is probably shrinking  -- probably less common than it used to be.  I am guessing that it is perceived as old-fashioned by numerous Americans.  But in the case of "The Young and the Restless", it gives a poetic feel to the show's title.

I would suggest that the old-fashionedness of the grammatical pattern which we are using when we say "the blind" is the reason young people avoid using this pattern with handicaps, such as when people say "the blind," "the deaf," etc.  Because that way of talking is seen as old-fashioned, I think modern people mistrust it.

But it seems to me that Christians do not mistrust old words.  For example, if you tell a Christian that the word charity used to mean love, a typical Christian feeling in response to that would be "That will help me understand older sentences in which the word charity is used."

But if, in my American society, you tell a person who is not a Christian that charity used to mean love, they will typically stop listening after "used to mean."

6. The Relation Between Mistrusting Old Words and Bible Translations

If someone says that an English word in an English Bible has changed its meaning, the typical modern response of a Christian whose native language is English will be to re-translate the Bible, or to ask or clamor for someone else to re-translate the Bible.

That sounds like a contradiction of our previous generalization, that Christians do not mistrust old words.

But modern ideas about English Bible translations are an example of Christians in the English-speaking world being influenced by the people around them.

It is not so, I think, in many societies in which other languages are prevalent.  Christians who speak one of the world's many, many minority languages are likely to respect the labor that went into the translation, even if the translation is now old-fashioned.  I would even suggest that Christians who speak minority languages might think  that re-translating the Bible into their language is a project they do not have enough time to carry out.

The idea that there is not enough time to re-translate the Bible into English would not occur to a modern English-speaking Christian.

7. Coded Messages

Modern American ideas about mistrusting old words are influenced by modern American ideas about coded messages.  Current American thinking is that coded messages are used by op­pressors.  Nowadays when an American says "It is a coded message," it is often meant as a devastating criticism.  In other words, it means "It is expressed in the typical double-talk of oppressors."

For example, modern Americans liberals mistrust the term "aliens," a legal term used by the United States government; used by the government  because it is a term written into American laws.  In the laws, it means a person living in a country they are not a citizen of.  In the Old Testament in English, it means a person not living in the country where their ancestors lived -- in other words, an immigrant.

The fact that "alien" originally meant "foreigner" simply isn't relevant to most modern liberal Americans.  Nowadays the most common meaning for "alien" is "a person from another planet" (an idea which is native to science fiction, in which aliens are always bad guys).  So when modern liberal Americans hear the word alien applied to foreigners, they assume it is a coded message of fear and loathing, or at least of disrespect.

But older thinking included the idea that coded messages are often used by oppressed people.  In the words of a 1960's song by the American musical group Peter, Paul, and Mary, "If I really say it, the radio won't play it, unless I lay it between the lines."

Some of Jesus' sayings can be interpreted as coded messages.  But if so, they are coded messages in favor of the oppressed, not in favor of the oppressors.  For example, there is the question about whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman occupiers in several Gospels.  In Matthew chapter 22 verses 15-21:

15  Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.  16  And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians . . . [and the ones they sent asked Jesus]  17  Tell us . . . What thinkest thou?  Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?  18  But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?  19  Shew me the tribute money.  And they brought unto him a [Roman] penny.  20  And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?  21  They say unto him, Cæsar's.  Then saith he unto them, Ren­der therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

A little bit of commentary:

-- Verse 16: They sent to Jesus some of the students of the Pharisees, mingled with some people who would report what Jesus said to King Herod.

-- Verse 18: Why tempt ye me? (Why are you all asking me a trick question?)

-- Verse 19: the tribute money (the currency used to pay Roman taxes).

-- Verse 20: Whose is this image and superscription?  (Whose picture is on the coin, and whose wording is above the picture?)

A few years ago, my adult Sunday school lesson discussed this conversation between Jesus and some of the Pharisees, the Pharisees being mixed with some supporters of the Roman overlords.

The Sunday school lesson-book showed a picture of a Roman penny (Latin denarius, worth much more than an American penny is worth now), with the head of the Roman emperor on it, and a picture of an ancient Jewish shekel, with the likeness of the seven-branched candlestick on it.

The Sunday school lesson explained that in this conversation Jesus did not mention a Jewish shekel, but a contrast with the shekel was implied: the shekel was Jewish money, which the Romans allowed the Jews to continue minting; the shekel's main use in Jesus' day was to pay tithes and offerings to the Temple in Jerusalem.

In effect, Jesus was saying "Give back to the Roman emperor the coin with the picture of the Roman emperor, and give back to God's temple the coin with the picture of the seven-branched candlestick."

On the surface, that was just an answer that neither the Roman overlords nor the Jewish patriots could complain about. 

But was it a coded message?  Jesus implied a lot in a little.  I would suggest that Jesus' answer implied, "Do not talk as if you believe that paying taxes to the Romans is a more important question than paying offerings to God."

If it was a coded message, it was a coded message in favor of the oppressed people -- not in favor of the oppressor.

8. Conclusion

I would like to conclude by suggesting that not mistrusting old words simply makes sense for a Christian.

The Greek language has been used to express Christian ideas for two thousand years.  The Latin language has been used for over fifteen hundred years to translate Christian ideas.  Many other European languages, including English, have been used to translate Christian ideas for a thou­sand years.  Old words (some of them borrowed from Latin and Greek) are woven into the fabric of Christianity.

For many Native American languages, a translation of the Bible into their native language may have been made a hundred years ago.  Already there may be some old-fashioned expressions in the translation.  But it is, in fact, a lot of work to re-translate the Bible into a language spoken by a small number of people.  Besides, many Native Americans may know that one of their grand­parents or great-grandparents assisted in the translation.  Or to use the modern expression, one of their grandparents or great-grandparents may have been on the translation team.

All of these languages which have been written for a while (if not centuries) have what some people call baggage. But other people call the same fact about their language a glorious heritage.

I hope my fellow Christians will continue not mistrusting old words.

Frank Newton

A Proposal for Reducing Rioting After a Police Officer or Vigilante Has Been Acquitted of a Criminal Charge that the Officer or Vigilante Caused the Death of a Black Person

A PROPOSAL FOR REDUCING RIOTING AFTER A POLICE OFFICER OR VIGILANTE HAS BEEN ACQUITTED OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT THE OFFICER OR VIGILANTE CAUSED THE DEATH OF A BLACK PERSON
Tuesday Feb. 22nd, 2022

 

After a police officer or vigilante has been acquitted of a criminal charge that the officer or vigilante or vigilante caused the death of a black person (a suspect or otherwise), there are usually riots in large American cities protesting the finding of innocence.

There have been many such acquittals, and many such riots.

As I have previously argued (in my blog posting of "Failure to Heed the Discourse of the Poor," at http://boilingspringsnewton.blogspot.com/ under June 12th, 2021), such rioting can reasonably be interpreted as the natural outgrowth of originally peaceable assemblies to petition the Government for redress of grievances, which are made legal by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The most-favored solution for forestalling such riots is one in which the right to assemble peaceably is not diminished or craftily rendered inaccessible to citizens in any way.

The solution I propose is that when a police officer or vigilante is charged with unlawful behavior in an incident in which the officer or vigilante caused the death of a person belonging to a minority listed as a minority on any United States government website or in any United States law, at least half of the jury members must be of the same minority as the person who was killed.

Any admissible evidence that the minority in question used to be listed as a minority on any United States government website, but has since been removed from that list on that website, will be considered to be evidence that that minority is, for the purpose of this law, currently listed as a minority on a United States government website.

It is perfectly obvious that a law fulfilling this purpose would have to be far, far longer than this proposal.  To anyone who considers this proposal an idea worth working for, clauses and language forestalling loopholes will immediately come to mind.

The rioting described here may take place after an acquittal, but such rioting may also take place immediately after the officer or vigilante or vigilante has caused the death of a black person, before an acquittal indeed before any trial has taken place.

The purpose of a law fulfilling the description proposed here would be to forestall rioting after an acquittal, by decreasing the probability of an acquittal in the case of an officer or vigilante acting in bad faith or without appropriate restraint -- and to forestall rioting before charges have been brought against the officer or vigilante in question, by increasing the faith of the minority to which the slain person belongs, that the system of justice will operate fairly and without prejudice -- in other words, by increasing the faith of the minority that a majority of citizens will not use the doctrine of qualified immunity to acquit an officer or vigilante who has acted in bad faith or without appropriate restraint.

Frank Newton

Talking to People of the Other Political Party: "The Gentleman Works on the Trunk"

 

TALKING TO PEOPLE OF THE OTHER POLITICAL PARTY: "THE GENTLEMAN WORKS ON THE TRUNK"
By Frank Newton
Written Tues. Sept. 21st, 2021; posted to my blog Sat. Feb. 5th, 2022

  

"The gentleman works on the trunk." -- Confucius, Analects, book 1, verse 2.

 

Let's begin by talking about the English translation of this remark by Confucius.

It's based on Sir Arther Waley's translation of this sentence, which will be on the first page of Confucius's Analects in most English editions of Waley's Confucius.  Let's set the superscribed translation underneath Waley's translation:

Waley's translation of Confucius's Analects, 1:2:

            "It is upon the trunk that a gentleman works."

Newton's simplified translation of Confucius's sentence:

            "The gentleman works on the trunk."

I hope you will agree with me that I haven't changed the meaning of Waley's translation.  I have just boiled the English sentence down, so it can easily pass from mouth to mouth without the meaning being trampled. It has become more like a saying, and less like a sentence from a speech.  Most likely, Waley's goal was to move the trunk to the beginning of the sentence -- rhetorically effective in theory, but less memorable in English.

Waley draws out the meaning of Confucius's remark in a footnote which your publisher should have put at the bottom of the same page: "I.e. [the gentleman works] upon what is funda­mental, as opposed to 'the twigs,' i.e. small arts and accomplishments, which the gentleman leaves to his inferiors" (that is, to other people).  Confucius's metaphor refers to a bunch of men with axes who are turning a tree into firewood to keep people warm, or into lumber to build a building.

Those things being said, we suggest that Confucius's statement applies to politicians, and in politics it should be interpreted as follows: Politicians who are trying to make their country a better place address the big problems and issues of their generation, and do not waste their energies trying to prove that some other political party has more scandals than their own political party has.

But not just politicians.  Ordinary citizens also, who are sincere about trying to make their country a better place, center their political conversation on the important issues of their time; not upon the scandals.

The work of journalists has to be nuanced.  Journalists have to spend enough time investigating scandals and choosing their words with care when reporting scandals, so that their readers and listeners will have a clear understanding of what the scandal is about.  But journal­ism (especially commentary upon the news) should be like farming.  Dealing with the time-sensitive things -- crises and scandals in journalism, and planting, watering, and harvesting in farming -- should not use up all the worker's time.  Journalists should manage their time so that time remains to report and comment on the important issues of their generation.  Just as farmers manage their affairs in such a way as to leave time to get into diplomatic conversations with their neighbors in the hope of securing the best possible spouse for their sons and daughters.

(An example is given in Leonard Bloomfield's Menomini Texts, page 2, where he translates the words of Maskwawānahkwatōk (Red Cloud Woman), one of the Menominee people of Wisconsin who taught him the Menominee language.  She said & he wrote it down & he translated it:

[The mother of a young woman visits the parents of a young man]:
"I very much admire your boy; might he not well marry that girl of ours?  It is for this I have come.")

What it means is that the hunting, planting, watering, and harvesting did not take up all of the old people's time.  They did the time-sensitive things in such a way that there was still time for working on the trunk.  It should be the same with our journalists.  And it should be the same with our politicians -- our leaders -- and the same with our citizens of good will.

Every conscientious adult among us, man and woman, has opportunities to be a gentleman in Confucius's meaning.

Scandals and crises have to be dealt with.  But the person of good will does not spend all their thought and their conversation on scandal. 

When talking to a person of a different political party, the person of good will focuses their attention on the important issues of their generation, and not on the scandals.

Frank Newton

Pruning the Suffix -Ism

PRUNING THE SUFFIX -ISM
By Frank Newton
Mon. Jan. 10th, 2022

1. Purification

In my country there is a great need for purification; perhaps in other countries, too.  Purification does not mean killing enemies and poisoning their wells.  It means improving the contents of our hearts.

Hearts in the Biblical sense.  It is well known that in the Bible, your heart rarely refers to the thing that pumps blood.  Your heart normally means your attitude center.  The Bible uses "your mind" to refer to your thought center, and "your heart" to refer to your attitude center.

So, in the worship of Holy Communion, "Lift up your hearts" means "Exalt your attitude."  The ‑s at the end of hearts does not mean you have more than one heart.  It means the sentence is addressed to more than one person.  "Lift up your hearts" means "Lift up your heart, all of you."  And going from there, "Lift up your attitude, all of you."

But where was I?  Purification.

2. Purification of Words

An important part of purification is purifying our words.  Words are intimately connected with attitudes and beliefs.  When we purify our words, we are purifying our beliefs.  That is what the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius -- or rather, the guy who translated Mencius into English -- referred to as rectification of names: getting our words right, in order to get our ideas right.

(Notice that, when we describe Mencius as a philosopher, "philosopher" means the same thing as "prophet.")

3. Critique of -ism Words

The first problem with -ism words is that they make your language sound as if you believe that everything can be explained in terms of politics.  That is totally false.  There are a ton of things on our planet that are better explained by farming, by human nature, by God, by accidents of birth, by all kinds of sins (not just greed), by love, by hate, by the rules of the road, and so forth.  The suffix -ism exalts politics above all other explanations of things.  Putting politics on a pedestal by itself is a really bad idea.

Second, words ending in -ism are warlike.  They make people say "Kill!  Kill!"

The third problem with -ism words is that they preach to the choir.  Going back to talking about my country, America is in a pickle.  We desperately need to find ways to talk to fellow Americans who think differently from us.  Saying that Americans who think differently from us are "not real Americans" is simply a mental preparation for killing them.  And killing some of your fellow-Americans because you think they're "not real Americans" is deeply unpatriotic.

But let me get back to the problem of preaching to the choir.  It is our patriotic duty to express our ideas and beliefs in ways that people who disagree with us can understand.  It is also our patriotic duty to express our ideas and beliefs in ways that clueless people can understand.  You need to believe that!

Talking about our beliefs is like teaching arithmetic.  But beware!!  Talking about our beliefs is not like making other people memorize something.  It is like talking about one and two and three, in ways that clueless people can understand.

That's what we need to do.  We need to talk about one and two and three in ways that clueless people can understand.  That means getting rid of a ton of words ending in -ism that clutter up our rhetoric -- that make our words meaningless to the very people who need to hear them -- that clog the arteries of our political system and harden our hearts -- words that are driving us toward the madness of  civil war, because of our mindless worship of fancy words when we should be cultivating plain speaking without coarseness, plain speaking tempered with politeness and motivated by desire to explain ourselves.

4. Replacements for Stupid and Uninspired -ism Words

activism                  political involvement
ageism                    prejudice against old people
Americanism          patriotism of Americans
Aristotelianism       philosophy à la Aristotle
asterism                  pile of asterisks
Caledonianism        Scottish patriotism, patriotism of the Scots
Calvinism               following John Calvin's teachings
clericalism              worship of the clergy
collaborationism     supporting the occupier
colloquialism          a colloquial word or phrase
constructivism        constructiveness
defeatism                defeatist thinking
despotism               tyranny
eclecticism             eclecticalness.  (You can also say eclectic-ness.  For some reason, eclectic-alness sounds better to me.)
emotionalism          crying and grieving
equestrianism          horse-riding
exoticism                love for exotic pictures
fanaticism               fanaticalness
formalism               1. formality.  2. dithering about form.
functionalism          making things functional; making things that work
idealism                  idealist thinking
imperialism             empire-building
institutionalism       worship of institutions
Marxism                 Marxist thinking
messianism             hankering after a messiah
minimalism             pruning
monasticism            monastic life
monotheism            "One God Only"
mysticism               mystical philosophy
negativism              negative thinking
nihilism                   the "Nothing Matters" philosophy
nonsensicalism        nonsense
obstructionism        getting in the way, blocking the path
Platonism                philosophy à la Plato
polytheism              worshipping many gods
radicalism               radicalness
realism                    philosophy of sticking to the facts
regionalism             any regional word or phrase
revivalism               reviving religion
royalism                  1. supporting the king.  2. supporting kings.
secessionism           support for secession
Southernism           any Southern word or phrase
survivalism             1. survival skills.  2. fascination with survival skills.
symbolism              1. symbol.  2. symbols.  3. symbol-lovers. 

For some words, the replacement will need to be long, or multifaceted, or both.

annihilationism                        1. belief that the world will end in the transformation of Everything into Nothing.
 2. a bloody and wicked desire to kill a lot of people.

anti-Americanism                    knee-jerk opposition to Americans

anti-capitalism                         knee-jerk opposition to capitalism

antidisestablishmentarianism  resistance to getting rid of special privileges for a certain branch of Christianity

apocalypticism                        dithering about the end of the world

Arianism                                  Christians following Arius

Arminianism                            Christians following Arminius

Atticism                                  imitating Athenian Greek

boosterism                               1. irritating attempts to increase everyone's awareness of your home­town.

                                                2. ugly songs to praise a big city, like "New York! New York! a Wonderful Town."

chauvinism                              patriotism taken to crazy extremes

colonialism                              1. colony-making.

                                                2. squatting on land with the help of your army.

                                                3. treating someone else's country as your Promised Land.

creationism                              1. belief that the universe was created by God.

                                                2. teaching that the universe was created by God during the scheduled time for teaching science.

ecumenism                              1. bringing Christians together.

                                                2. bringing different religions together.

determinism                            [You tell me what this means, and we'll figure out what to replace it with.]

egoism or egotism                   1. me-first thinking.

                                                2. trampling on the rights of others.

Elizabethanism                        1. the energy and style of the English people in the Age of Elizabeth the First.

                                                2. imitating the energy and style of the English people in the Age of Elizabeth the First.

empiricism                               being guided by experience and experiments

environmentalism                    taking nature seriously

escapism                                  admiring beautiful things when you should be preparing to fight

estheticism                              1. neglecting to feed your children so you'll have more time for art.

                                                2. hoity-toity gestures and a hoity-toity tone of voice.

exceptionalism                        1. arrogance.

                                                2. allowing your feeling of superiority to sabotage your dealings with foreigners.

Gallicism                                 1. a Gallicism means a French expression.

                                                2. Gallicism also means love of all things French.

heathenism                              non-Christianity

Hitlerism                                 witless support for wicked leaders

industrialism                            1. factory-building.

                                                2. worship of factories.

                                                3. forcing people off their farms.

intellectualism                         being "sicklied over (or o'er) with the pale cast of thought," as Hamlet said, or fascinated by "useless and pointless knowledge," as Bob Dylan said

Jeffersonianism                       [Help me out here.  Maybe I'm supposed to know what this means, but I don't.]

Lancastrianism                        support for the House of Lancaster

librarianism                              excessive love of call numbers

mannerism                               an attempt at stylishness

mentalism                                [You tell me what this means, and we'll figure out what to replace it with.]

militarism                                giving up too easily on peaceful solutions

minimalism (in art)                  eliminating luxuriance in art

modernism                              1. the modern age.

                                                2. modern thinking.

                                                3. worship of modernity.

nationalism                              nations hating each other

nativism                                   1. harsh treatment of immigrants.

                                                2. support for the small minority of people who are the original inhabitants.

naturalism                                1. a nature-loving attitude.

                                                2. nature-based thinking.

                                                3. naturalness.

nominalism                              [You tell me what this means, and we'll figure out what to replace it with.]

operationalism                         [You tell me what this means, and we'll figure out what to replace it with.]

Pan-Slavism                            the belief that Slavic countries need to support each other

parochialism                            1. narrow or petty loyalties (same as tribalism).

                                                2. narrow loyalties in Europe.

pastoralism                              1. sheep-herding.

                                                2. wanting to live like a shepherd, dreaming of a shepherd's life.

paternalism                              thinking that the father is always the smarter parent

post-modernism                      trying to figure out what comes after modernism

pre-millennialism                     [People who understand the Book of Revelation can figure out another word for this.]

pseudo-intellectualism            pretending to be an intellectual

                                                Note.  I am not against the word pseudo-intellectual.  The point is: when you commit the sin of adding -ism, your punishment should be, not only do you have to replace the suffix -ism, but you also have to replace the prefix pseudo-.

puritanism                               fanatical dislike of earthly thinking

recidivism                                getting thrown back in prison again

revisionism                              useless tinkering with ideas

roboticism                               doing the robot walk

sensationalism                         prurient interests; getting paid to scratch someone else's itch

supernaturalism                       belief in things that science can't explain

transcendentalism                   the ideas of Emerson and Thoreau

tribalism                                  narrow or petty loyalties

Trinitarianism                          thinking of God as a cloverleaf

triumphalism                           dragging the captured enemy through your capital city in a parade, and then strangling them (one by one, or all at once)

Victorianism                            thinking like Queen Victoria's generation

Zionism                                   1. a movement for Jews to return to the Promised Land.

                                                2. taking back the Promised Land.

⁂ There are so many of these critters!  This is only a beginning.

Note. I am not asking you to write "Pan-Slavism (the belief that Slavic countries need to support each other)."  I am asking you to avoid the word "Pan-Slavism" completely.  Telling people what "Pan-Slavism" means (outside of a dictionary) just opens the door for this giant mush and mishmash of rarely-understood words to creep back into our language.

What is more,  I am also asking people who make Russian-English dictionaries not to translate "панславизм" as "Pan-Slavism."  I am asking them to translate it as "the belief that Slavic countries need to support each other."  Don't even let English-speakers suspect that our ancestors allowed this crushed automobile to come into the English language!!

5. Compromising on -ism

We cannot get rid of all -ism words, because some of them are too useful or widespread, and figuring out what to replace them with would be a waste of time.  We need to make a list of protected -ism words.  Here is a beginning.

Words to Keep -- baptism, Buddhism, capitalism, communism, conservativism, criticism, cynicism, extremism, Fascism, heroism, Judaism, liberalism, optimism, patriotism, pessimism, skepticism, socialism, Stoicism.  Also words for the beliefs and ideas of other religious groups: atheism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, etc.

Other Words to Keep -- Words which do not include the "-ism" idea, such as aneurysm, cataclysm, prism, schism.

 I think baptism and criticism are keepers.  Although "baptism" and "criticism" sound like they include the "-ism" idea, in fact they are just words people use instead of "baptization" and "criticization."  So I say it's okay to keep "baptism" and "criticism."  Whatever -- I'm not yet convinced we need to replace "-ization" words.  For example, I like civilization.

6. Purification of Words Again

I am completely against political correctness, but that's way too big to fit into this essay!

7. Conclusions

* -Ism is an out-of-control suffix.  With a few exceptions -- think of optimism and pessimism -- words ending in -ism make your language completely incomprehensible to most of your fellow-citizens, and especially to the man on the street.

* Looking at the lists of replacements above shows that, in many cases, I am asking you to speak in shorter words, but more words.  For a good purpose: to make your babble compre­hensible to your fellow-citizens.

* With a few exceptions, words ending in -ism should be replaced with almost anything else that makes sense in context.

* The rarer an -ism word is, the more it needs to be replaced with something else.

* If the -ism word expresses a positive attitude, you should replace it with another expression that conveys a positive attitude.  If the -ism word expresses a negative attitude, you should replace it with another expression that conveys a negative attitude.

Let's close with a quotation from "The Leader of the Pack":

"Get the picture? -- We see."

Weeping in the Promised Land by John Fogerty

WEEPING IN THE PROMISED LAND BY JOHN FOGERTY
Mon. Dec. 20th, 2021

 

John Fogerty, leader and songwriter of the excellent band Creedence Clearwater Revival 1967-1972, has written and recorded a new protest song called Weeping in the Promised Land.  It is a good song.  It expresses some opinions which I agree with about the mess our country is current­ly in.  It is melancholy and prophetic.  But I can't use it.

In the 1980's, John's brother Tom Fogerty (another member of Creedence) caught HIV and possibly AIDS from a blood trans­fusion with tainted blood that, because of medical error,  had not been checked for toxicity.  Tom died in hospital of HIV complications in 1990.  I have read that in his last weeks he begged John to visit him in the hospital, but John would not.  They were estranged because of a lawsuit between John and their former record company Fantasy Records.

Although the Wikipedia article on John Fogerty, as it stood on December 20th, 2021, explained John's side of the tragedy of unreconciliation -- although the article does not say that Tom begged John to visit him in the hospital -- and although I have not found written confirmation for the story I read or heard that Tom begged John to visit him as he lay dying -- nevertheless, I am not persuaded by the current Wikipedia article on John Fogerty which only gives John's side of the story.  Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article on Tom Fogerty does not have anything at all to say about his last weeks and days.

I am not writing to criticize Wikipedia, an encyclopedia for which I have enormous respect.  Wikipedia may have omitted relevant information in these two articles, but I have to wait to know more.  But I am writing to explain why I will not refer to John Fogerty's prophetic song in my political writings -- in spite of the fact that John Fogerty is a Democrat, and I am a Democrat.

I find my existing information about the unreconciliation of the two brothers tragic and deeply troubling.  I will wait until I possess more information.  But in the meantime, I will not align myself with John Fogerty.

The Wikipedia article on John Fogerty contains much interesting information.  Towards the end under "Political Views," it states that the conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh was an enthusiastic fan of Creedence Clearwater Revival, and quotes Limbaugh on that subject.  That testifies to how good Creedence's music was.  I have no plan to stop listening to or singing the songs of Creedence Clearwater Revival.  I love it too much to give it up.  But in the current state of my information, I am wary to listen to or support the music which John Fogerty has made since Creedence broke up.

Frank Newton

Spirit in the Sky: an Anthem for the Cradle of Religions

SPIRIT IN THE SKY: AN ANTHEM FOR THE CRADLE OF RELIGIONS
By Frank Newton
Mon. July 12th, 2021

 

Yesterday one of my two favorite radio stations played "Spirit in the Sky," a song written and sung by Norman Greenbaum. 

    When I die and they lay me to rest,
    Gonna go to the place that's the best.
    When I lay me down to die,
    Goin' up to the spirit in the sky.

    Goin' up to the spirit in the sky --
    That's where I'm gonna go when I die --
    When I die and they lay me to rest,
    I'm gonna go to the place that's the best.

I had heard it many times before.  But yesterday, it seemed to me that Greenbaum's song could be an anthem for the cradle of religions (the Near East).

The first stanzas quoted above affirm that there will be an afterlife.  Later in the song, Greenbaum mentions Jesus twice.  But according to Wikipedia, Greenbaum is an observant Jew.

I know we Christians, and the Muslims, believe in the afterlife of heaven and hell.  But I wasn't sure whether the Jews believed in an afterlife.  I found that Jews do believe in the afterlife from reading parts of the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_eschatology .  It is an excellent article and I recommend it warmly -- says I, not speaking as a religious expert which I'm not, but speaking as an avid reader of encyclopedias.  It provides a fair amount of detail on a subject which Jewish thinkers have written a lot about, detail which I am omitting here.

So.  The beginning of Norman Greenbaum's song affirms beliefs that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims share in common.  That is why I have given Greenbaum's song a new name: the anthem of the cradle of religions.

Other religious people that I know (or have read the writings of) have expressed concerns about the watering down of our religious beliefs.  I rejoice in my Christian beliefs.  But one of the central tenets of the type of Christianity which God has written in my heart is that the people of any good religion, including my Christian religion, are forbidden to kill people of other religions or no religion, even if they think less of people of other religions or no religion because of their religious differences.

So the idea of having an anthem for the cradle of religions -- that is, an anthem which celebrates the common core of beliefs of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and the coexistence of Jews, Christians, and Muslims -- is very appealing to me.  It touches a chord in my heart.  I was Judeo-Christian.  But now I'm Judeo-Christian-Muslim.  (Footnote for wordsmiths: one -o- is enough.)

Frank Newton 

Failure to Heed the Discourse of the Poor

FAILURE TO HEED THE DISCOURSE OF THE POOR
by Frank Newton, Boiling Springs, North Carolina, USA
Sat. June 12th, 2021 

There is a great division among the people in my country on how the law and the prophets apply to the people who rioted after the killing of George Floyd.  That division will be my topic.

Introduction

Perhaps very few people nowadays understand the sting which Napoleon intended when he described the English as "a nation of shopkeepers."  I incline to think that Napoleon simply meant that "No matter what YOU say, all THEY ever say is 'Keep your paws off the merchandise'."

Keeping your paws off the merchandise is an important part of the law.  But it is not a good summary of the law.

It is an important part of the law.  Keep your paws off the merchandise is a corollary of Thou shalt not steal, the commandment which appears in Exodus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 5:19, among the ten commandments: called the seventh commandment by some Christians, but the eighth commandment by others.  From Thou shalt not steal, it follows that Thou shalt not set fire to the shop and store of any shopkeeper.  Also it follows, thou shalt not urinate upon the merchandise of any shopkeeper, nor permit thy children to toy with the merchandise, nor do any thing which shall cause the shopkeeper's merchandise to lose value.

But it is not a good summary of the law (Keep your paws off the merchandise).  The summary of the law is in Matthew 22:37-40.  Jesus is speaking; replying to a question in verse 36.  In the King James Version:

36  Master, which is the great commandment?  37  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  38  This is the first and great commandment.  39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  40  On these two command­ments hang all the law and the prophets.

 Here we will appeal to the second branch of the summary of the law: Love your neighbor as yourself.  In another part of the Gospels, Jesus was asked, Who is my neighbor? and Jesus replied with the parable of the good Samaritan.  The burden of that parable is this: your neighbor is anyone you pass by who is bleeding.

Application of the Law and the Prophets to the Rioting

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." But the Constitution and its amendments do not address the question of what the enforcers of the law should do, if some of the people assembled are peaceable, but others are not.

A grievance for a long time unredressed is a thorn in the side of the republic.  In other words, a grievance for a long time unredressed ensures that a portion of those who assemble to petition will not be peaceable.

Redress seems to mean, literally, to bind up a wound the second time, when the first binding of the wound did not prevent infection.  But sometimes the English language imitates the French; sometimes the prefix re- in French has lost all semblance of meaning; therefore, redress might possibly also apply to binding up a wound for the first time.

Here is the burden of my appeal.  The citizen of your nation who assembles peaceably with others to petition for the redress of grievances is your neighbor.  But the citizen of your nation who joins the same assemblage but riots -- he is no longer peaceable -- is also your neighbor. 

In both cases (with your fellow-citizen who assembles peaceably and your fellow-citizen in the same assemblage who riots) you must determine if your fellow-citizen is bleeding.

Here is where the sin of failing to heed the discourse of the poor enters into the picture.

Is failing to heed the discourse of the poor a sin in the eyes of the Bible and in the eyes of Jesus?

I am not able to answer that question satisfactorily.  But I take my cue from Matthew 25:45, which is the less well-known of Jesus' two conclusions to the parable of God dividing the sheep from the goats:  "Then shall he [the King of Heaven] answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."  (It is less well-known because it includes the word "not" -- unlike Jesus' first conclusion in verse 40.)

I conclude from that -- If a human being fails to heed the discourse of the poor, then in the end time, it will be as if that person had not heeded the discourse of God.

The Discourse of the Poor

Do you say to me, that the poor have no discourse but to riot?  I would point you to Joel 2:29.  What difficult words that verse contains, after it has been translated into English!  But here it is in the King James Version, with the better-known verse that precedes it:

28  And it shall come to pass afterwards, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:  29  And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

"Upon the servants and upon the handmaids" means "upon the servants, male and female."  But do not be distracted: this Bible verse does not deserve reproach as a reference to inequality.  It is not a reference to inequality; it is a reference to equality.  Being interpreted by a follower of Jesus, it means: "In truth, I will pour out my spirit upon the least of your brothers and sisters."  It means, that the poor will prophesy.  It means that the poor already have prophesied: just as the verse before it means that the people of more wealth and assets, male and female, will prophesy, and have already prophesied. 

This is to say: the poor have already prophesied, but you ignored them.

How can this be shown to be true?  I tell you: Amos was a herdman.  A shepherd, I say.  Has anyone heard of a rich shepherd?  If not, then Amos was poor.

Amos prophesied in chapter 2, verse 10 "For they know not to do right, saith the LORD, who store up violence and robbery in their palaces."

Yes indeed, there are two A's in palaces!  And the palaces tell you: It is a prophecy against the rich.  Not a prophecy of prediction: but a prophecy of criticism.

Besides that, is it not written by Paul Simon, that the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls?

But you ask why is the argument so slender, at this juncture?  Because I have searched on the internet for "prophets among the poor", and I came up with nothing.  Truly, I put quotation marks around it.

Does the failed search for "prophets among the poor" on the internet mean that there are no prophets among the poor in the United States of America?  It does not mean so.  It means perhaps that no one has taken the trouble to name the prophets among the poor.  Who has searched out the prophets among the poor?  More importantly: who will search them out?

The merchandise of the shopkeepers was destroyed, because the people failed to heed the discourse of the poor.

Changing the Way You Think About Policemen

I tell you, the crusade against child abuse has led in some cases to parent abuse.

But let me ask you: how do you feel about child abuse?  Do you believe that there are a few parents who are cruel and hateful to their own children?  Or do you believe that there are no parents at all who are cruel and hateful to their own children?  Do you believe that there are a few parents who need to be restrained by their fellow-citizens from hurting their own children?

Now riddle me this: do you believe that there are a few police officers who are bad apples?  In other words, do you believe that there are a few police officers who are cruel and hateful to the citizens of their own country?  Or do you believe that there are no police officers at all who are cruel and hateful to the citizens of their own country?  Do you believe that there are a few police officers who need to be restrained by their fellow-citizens from committing injustices against the citizens of their own country?

The discourse of the poor suggests to me that there are a few police officers who are cruel and hateful to the citizens of their own country.  I pay attention to the discourse of the poor.  How will those few police officers be retrained?  By punishment.  But how will they be punished? 

A prophet is only one citizen.  It is not possible for one citizen alone to determine punishments.

But the thing is just only this: no punishment at all for bad apples is not appropriate.  Although the discourse of the poor is hard for a single citizen to find on the internet, it has been written, & it can be found on the internet by a more thoroughgoing effort than this prophet has made, & it will apply to the punishment of bad apples, & and it must not be ignored.

Frank Newton