Stand up (Cynthia Erivo)

I heard this lovely song this evening, and I first thought it was a Biblical song.  It felt exactly as if it was Moses of the Old Testament, singing this song about his task of leading the Israelites back to the Promised land.  

However, I then realised it mentions of a 'river' rather than the sea. That's when I looked it up. It turned out to be the title song of the movie 'Harriet'. The movie itself, is no less an Exodus tale: HARRIET tells the extraordinary tale of Harriet Tubman's escape from slavery and transformation into one of America’s greatest heroes. Her courage, ingenuity, and tenacity freed hundreds of slaves and changed the course of history.

The video of the song narrates the story by itself. The song is co-written and sung by Cynthia Erivo.  She is also the lead actress of the movie!! That's some real passion and heart. 

I'll need to watch this movie... 

I been walkin' With my face turned to the sun Weight on my shoulders A bullet in my gun Oh, I got eyes in the back of my head Just in case I have to run I do what I can when I can while I can for my people While the clouds roll back and the stars fill the night That's when I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Can you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I can feel it in my bones Early in the mornin' Before the sun begins to shine We're gonna start movin' Towards that separating line I'm wadin' through muddy waters You know I got a made up mind And I don't mind if I lose any blood on the way to salvation And I'll fight with the strength that I got until I die So I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Can you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on And I know what's around the bend Might be hard to face 'cause I'm alone And I just might fail But Lord knows I tried Sure as stars fill up the sky Stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Can you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river Do you hear freedom calling? Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I'm gonna stand up Take my people with me Together we are going To a brand new home Far across the river I hear freedom calling Calling me to answer Gonna keep on keepin' on I can feel it in my bones I go to prepare a place for you I go to prepare a place for you I go to prepare a place for you I go to prepare a place for you

The fallen soldier

Here's the monument at the Chertsey town centre dedicated to the fallen soldiers from Chertsey, especially those who fought in the Great war (1914-1919)...

In the backdrop is St Peter's Anglican Church. 

I think practically every town and village in this whole country has a monument dedicated to the memory of those killed as soldiers during the World Wars.  There would be hardly any part of the country that did not have some of its residents enlist and fight during the past wars.  

For peace

A recent article on BBC debates the legitimacy of the air strikes on Syria (Syria air strikes: Were they legal?).  While it does not necessarily justify the Western attack, it does lay bare the loopholes in the whole political system whereby collection action or response is blocked, thereby leading individual states to take action.  This action by individual states, rather than the UN Security council, though "illegal" goes by the same regulations as that laid down by the Security council.  The article certainly shows the actual inefficiency of international bodies, like the UN, when it really matters. 

Even after years of technological advancement and a history replete with wars and destruction, we have still not mastered the art of consensus building.  If at all, the consensus (albeit partial) arrived at, is for destruction and not peace!  Wonder if there is anyone, the common folk, surviving in Syria!  They are bombarded by the regime, the rebels, the Kurds, the Turks, the neighbours, the Russians, the West.  Know not what else is left to be bombed.  God alone knows what information and stories those surviving are fed with - leave alone, food and water!  And after all this, we still expect those surviving to be 'normal'? 

Time and again, our actions prove that national, political, religious, economical factors outweigh humanitarian concern. Wonder what's more precious than human life and dignity? 

Beginning from Jerusalem

Jesus appears to his apostles and assures them that He is not a ghost.  He shares a meal with them and then explains the Scriptures and its fulfillment in him (may not have been the best time to do so, especially after a meal, but given the circumstance, I'm sure they were all awake and perfectly attentive!).  The gospel of the day concludes with these words of Jesus

Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.

Three weeks ago was Easter.  In these three weeks much water has passed under the bridge, especially in world politics.  Syria has just been bombed.  What course of action - or reaction - would follow is awaited.  And that is not the only tension and confusion in the globe.  Practically every part of the world is plagued with unrest and war-like situation.  Even the very place mentioned in the gospel is at the heart of some unrest.  In such a situation, it is ironic to hear that 'repentance, forgiveness of sins' would be preached to all nations, that too beginning from Jerusalem!  Really?

However, hope is always there to assure us of things different.  But hope is not the only thing.  There is the ground-reality of goodness too.  While media, national and international, trains its lenses on the war-games, deaths, scandals, and every sort of evil one knows and at times even of those unheard, there are the untold stories of good deeds being carried out by ordinary folks all over the world.  Perhaps there are too many to be spoken of or broadcasted and that's why the media chooses to ignore them or offer some only by way of closing notes.

And so we live, by hope and trusting in the goodness of humanity...

The bloody lens

Last Thursday I attended a discussion/seminar on the role of media and war reporting.  To be honest, I signed up for this thinking there would be some really good answers or solutions to the way media reports news of war, death, and destruction. There were none!  However, halfway through the presentations I asked myself if I had any answers or proposals for journalists as to how they could or should do the job of reporting war, terrorism and the like.  Surprisingly I didn't have a clear picture or at least one without fueling the event being reported.

Thereon what one of the speakers stated made much sense.  He was for reporting individual lives and events rather than mass numbers and mega wars and attacks.  He said that merely reporting acts of terror or war only 'feeds the monsters'.  He was not for comparing numbers of deaths in combat or terror attacks as this was in a way being insensitive and leading to insensitivity. 

Figures and numbers matter but

• only in as much as each death counts as an individual loss
• not when leading to an 'us vs them' attitude
• not at the cost of becoming insensitive to other forms of violence which are actually more painful and prevalent than a terror attack
• they actually carry out the propaganda sought by the terrorists and bombers (actions are theirs but the voice and message is carried forth by the media!)

Focusing on numbers and discussing the scale of violence is only feeding the monster rather than reporting news and making a positive difference.  Of course, there is the media bias that no reporter or channel can escape.  And neither is every situation the same or a seamless robe.  

Identity and conflict

Why and when do we enter into conflict with another?  In a broader sense, why war? Among the many reasons, one prominent one is the narrowing of identity.  When we human beings reduce or narrow down our identity to something specific and identify our whole selves to just that aspect, and if that aspect is questioned or perceived as under threat, then we are bound to enter into violence or conflict.  The problem is not with trying to get a clear and specific aspect of our identity.  The narrowing down of our identity to something definite or small is not the real issue.  It is the exclusion or failure to recognise and acknowledge the possibility of other aspects that make up our complex identity that really is the problem.  As human beings we carve our identity at various levels, in different ways and through diverse situations.  We belong to a family, have a certain social or economic standing, have a set of beliefs, affiliate ourselves to different groups (age, interests, work...), hold some convictions.... To convince ourselves that among all of these one of it or some of it exclusively creates our identity is the pitfall.  While one of these or some of these could influence us more than others, there is no exclusivity.  Identity formed through association is far more healthy and helpful than when done through isolation!

The power of words

Prior to Trump's election as the president of the US, it was the tension between the US and Russia.  Now it is the US vs North Korea.  And I still don't know why is it that there is the tension?  Did the US invade any part of North Korea?  Or did the North Koreans attack any part of the US?  The tension seems to spring and get escalated merely on the exchange of words... far more than the experimentation or military drills and tests.

No doubt words of provocation work so efficiently.  Wonder if words of peace and harmony too work with such finesse and effect.  Our sensitivities are so heightened that any small slip of tongue or gesture is enough to thrust us into war.  But the same sensitivities remain callous when it comes to discussing matters concerning the well being of the suffering, poor, marginalised and struggling folks within our circle of daily experience.  Even with enough and evident reasons and arguments for eradicating social evils and suffering, we still don't see the point.  We need Harvey and Irma and Jose to get our attention to more important and deeper issues than frivolous things like war and military exercises.  

No food

Food, clothing and shelter are considered the most basic of human needs.  Of these, food and water are considered a must for mere survival.  Now the rest of all human wants and needs are additional, in this sense.

The case in South Sudan is very weird.  There is civil war raging for years now.  There is also extreme famine that is plaguing the population.  What I really don't understand is how come a nation has arms and ammunition but no food?  That means the country in investing the little it has in purchasing ammunition.  If it is not, there are people supplying it for an exchange.  Either way, guns and ammunition and knives are far readily available than essential commodities.

If only those supplying or selling arms could start distributing food and essentials, they'd atleast be people still living.  Collectively the war and famine, will certainly leave no one alive!

Cure is the poison

Am reading stuff related to the World wars, the guerrilla warfare and the more recent war on terror... part history, part politics.

One particular author, Joseph Conrad while writing about the The Hague 'Peace' conventions of 1898 and 1907 speaks of them as the "solemnly official recognition of the Earth as a House of Strife".  In its pursuit of peace, to limit and 'humanize' war, the Hague convention, began the codification of warfare.  Not only did it drastically cut down the goal of peace from well-being to non-war, but also create of a category of illegal, illegitimate warfare by listing down how warfare should be carried out.

One might argue that it was only trying to reduce the extent of damage by drawing boundaries of acceptable behaviour.  However, it reduced itself from establishing peace to resolving conflicts... the latter being only a part of the former.  The League of Nations did the same.  Wonder if the United Nations is doing any better?

This is a typical example of how a cure is worse than the disease itself.

Of martyrdom

Regarding martyrdom and crusades...

A religious community, a church, can exhort a member to die for his belief and become a martyr, but only for the salvation of his own soul, not for the religious community in its quality as an earthly power; otherwise it assumes a political dimension. Its holy wars and crusades are actions which presuppose an enemy decision, just as do other wars (p. 48) [Schmitt, C. (2007) The concept of the political Chicago: The university of Chicago press.] 

Am not very sure if in the process of canonization, especially those considered martyrs, this element of distinguishing between dying for faith and dying for the Church is taken note of.  And I wonder if the latter is worth dying for.  For a person, a principle, yes! For a structure? Possible, but wouldn't that be political rather than spiritual?

This distinction between the political aspect and the spiritual aspect is good to understand the difference between the Church and the Kingdom of God.  That both these need not be the same, especially when the Church is understood with all its administrative and "political" tassels.

Family...

This SAFC there was a repeated request for prayer for Fr Tom Uzhannalil, the priest abducted by the ISIS and whose whereabouts are still unknown.  While everyone still felt this as something close to our hearts - him being a Salesian - I was feeling odd.  Why only Fr Tom?? There are thousands of innocent people afflicted by the ongoing disturbances around the world, especially in the middle-east.  Women and children are the worst affected.  Viewing the disturbing images and reading the news reports (from secular media outlets) that come out of the region, leave alone the human rights and other NGOs reports, one cannot but be moved.

I guess the pain is felt only when it touches the 'family'. So I ask myself how and why does our formation limit our 'family'?  Granted that embracing the whole of humanity is not possible or practical, but when such grave atrocities are meted out to vulnerable and innocent people, how can one remain unmoved?

True Ruler

(My last blog post while at Punganur...)

I was reading history this morning... just because it was so enticing. The text was about the situation in Europe just prior and during the two World Wars. Of course, was aware that history is never as plain and direct as it appears on paper. There are many dimensions to it and not all get recorded. Much depends on the one who is writing it. But all the same, history is always fascinating.

Reading the text in hand made me realize that we keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We learn basically nothing from the past. Just one point about wars. The same today, as it was then. The decision for going to war (either within the country or with the neighbour) which subsequently led to the World Wars, was of the leaders. And who paid the price for it? The common citizen! And he/she paid it dearly. And what was the reason for going to war with some other group or nation? Mere trifles! While people of the country suffered for want of food, medicine and peace, the rulers (one after another) sustained the war. Perhaps if the political leaders were a bit more educated and humane, they would have realised the difference between merely being good and being great.

A good man would act boldly and courageously, bring victory and spare lives. A great man would have stopped the attack from happening at all... a great man would have stopped what he knew to be wrong, no matter who was ordering it. (from the movie, Prince of Persia, The Sands of Time)

Machine Gun Preacher

Last night I watched the movie Machine Gun Preacher (here's the official site). It was quite interesting to note the transformation of Sam Childers from a drug addict to a 'missionary' with a very definite and clear vision. The movie is based on the book Another Man's War and describes the story of an American who takes up the gun, again, albeit for a different cause now. That too in a far off land, Uganda to save children from becoming victims of a bloody civil war.

It also in a subtle way shows the swings of the 'hero' between his personal life and the chosen extended family; between reliance on God and carrying out His mission and his own determination to 'set things right'; between being a preacher and a mercenary...

Gerard Butler, who plays the lead role, does a great work and as one review of the movie reads, his "born again, dead again" characterisation is something that makes the movie realistic. An interesting angle to this movie is the recent outcry on social media against Kony and the 'wave' to get rid of him and save the children of Uganda and South Sudan.

Besides these contemporary and actual facts, the movie raises several moral questions. The most challenging of them is perhaps the one posed directly by Sam Childers himself at the end of the movie.

... If your child or family member was abducted today, if a mad man came in or a terrorist came in, abducted your family member or your child, and if I said to you, "I can bring your child home," does it matter how I bring him home?

In another instance in the movie, a relief worker questions Sam Childers' 'rogue' means of carrying out his 'ministry', to which he replies that he does the same thing as she, but in a different way. Having heard all his arguments, she concludes, "Kony too had the same reasons when he began his reign of terror!"

I suppose it is a thin line that one treads here. Killing a human being is always wrong, but does become permissible if that one wrong preserves and promotes the lives of several children?

(last photo: the real Sam Childers)

The Lord of War

Yesterday I watched The Lord of War and was quite happy with it. Though not very convincing, but the subtle truths and lessons it portrays are worth reflecting upon. It is the story of a simple man who chances upon an idea of making it big by selling weapons to warring factions and nations. The double life he leads where in loves someone and his family but is willing to let thousands of innocent people die under the pretext of 'this is not my war' is quite chilling. The sudden change and remorse of his younger brother towards the end of the movie, when he refuses to do business, knowing well that the weapons being sold would be used upon the refugees gathered right in front of him, is quite touching. He dies a martyr in an attempt to sabotage the weapons deal. The conclusion leaves one in a bit of a dilemma: does the movie justify the arms deal by an individual as a camouflage for the official/'legal' weapons trade by politicians? When his wife comes of know of his 'business' and questions him, as to how he could cope with the guilt, his plain answer: "I'm good at it."

In this conflict between the personal moral stand and the professional ethics, the latter apparently emerges the winner... but with a heavy toll. I'm prone to believe that the fate of Yuri, the arms dealer would be the same as that of Simon, the other arms dealer who tries to cross paths with Yuri.

The scene where a whole jumbo plane is dismantled and carried away in pieces by the locals in a remote part of Africa, overnight, is very dramatic.

Fair Game

I just watched the movie Fair Game, directed by Doug Liman. Rather interesting one given the fact that it is an American movie which uncovers some of its own dirty politics, especially the great debacle of the accusation of the US government against Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government of producing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The acting by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn is superb; sober, restrained but making a powerful impact.

The best I liked about the whole movie and its message was the willpower of Joseph Wilson to fight it out, to stand by what is true, even if it meant standing against the most powerful in the world, standing alone, standing with everyone and every bit of the system working against you. That really calls for guts and perseverance.

As someone rightly commented on the movie: "...Fair Game brims with righteous anger." I wish very many in the Church and other sacred institutions and places which exert influence on policies which affect the world, also have such guts to stand by what is true, come what may.

About horses and statues...

I learnt an interesting fact today concerning statues...
If a statue of a person in the park has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle; if the horse has one front leg in the air, the person died as a result of wounds received in battle; if the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes.