What is happening in the world is that at any given time the current content and context are what develop the subtext that will be the life background baggage for those who are at that time in their formative years.
DR. FISHER:
The subtext can
include baggage, but it is not background. Oh, no! It is always
there working its ways to the fore but just not always apparent. In any case, acknowledged or not, it influences events.
The subtext is what
is. It is what drives events.
The source of
subtext is the subconscious (individual or collective) from which the content
and context of behaviors are displayed and ultimately managed or mismanaged.
You could liken
subtext to values if you like or collective history but only as a gauge.
The subtext is there, fully operational, but not apparent. By that
I mean that during periods of order surface consistency give the mocking sense
that all is well when it never is.
Great disruptions,
personal or societal, bring the subtext to prominence and to the confusion of
those in charge, who are so schooled in denial that "what is" does
not get much attention. We have seen this in love and war, politics and
religion, especially in politics and religion.
It is during these
periods of disruption, such as our current "Age of Technology," that
subtext is neither acknowledged nor challenged. It is avoided by more
wondrous technology.
To be fair, there
has been more change in the past 30 years than the previous 300. So,
rather than acknowledge subtext, and deal with its root attributes, we call
this the "Age of Anxiety" and develop drugs to treat the condition,
or writes books to describe it, and on and on.
We valiantly avoid doing
anything constructive about it, which would start by addressing the nature and
function of subtext relative to the current age.
THE READER:
Hitler had not attacked
the US and yet we declared war on Germany and in less than 4 years the US alone
killed at least 2 million Germans. In the 1940s there was no question in
our collective mind that Germans were bad and in need of killing. Hence
it was a short war.
DR. FISHER:
Oh, dear! That
great justification, attrition!
Here it is an expression of content
(numbers) and context (dead Nazis) as it was also used in Vietnam, but without
any attention to the events (including Vietnam history), which were driving subtext.
I will have more to say about WWII shortly.
The US military
routinely published its daily successes in Vietnam in terms of "body
count" (Vietnamese killed) on the television nightly news as if a war of
attrition was the answer to a war without a purpose.
That attention shows
a total ignorance of subtext, and yet no one in power or public life at
the time seemed to see the absurdity.
The French ruled
Vietnam for more than a century, the subtext of a colonial power. When
France fell to Germany in WWII in 1940, this colonial power base was disrupted.
Finally, in 1954, France lost the First French Indo-China War,
and Vietnam received its independence, being divided into North and South
Vietnam as if you could separate a common people without disruption.
Not surprisingly,
that solution aggravated the problem of the subtext of Vietnam as a common people
wanting total independence from foreign influence.
President Kennedy
stepped into this South Vietnam quagmire in support of a corrupt South Vietnam
regime with American advisers and trainers.
From that point forward it became a
descent into the subtext of hell with more than 55,000 Americans in the
military losing their lives in a cause that history hasn't treated kindly.
A generation of young Americans who protested against the war and refused to join in the fight were
consumed in subtext and eventually stopped its advance.
The subtext has a
very long pull from the collective or historical subconscious of a people.
The book I'm now writing, NOWHERE MAN IN NOWHERE LAND, is an attempt to
give subtext to the American madness that currently dominates the content and
context of our times, which is optimism in the face of reality of a pessimistic future.
To give you a closer
sense of how pervasive subtext can be to history, consider WWII. It all
started long before even WWI.
Up until WWI, the
aristocracy controlled every aspect of life of the European Western world.
The pull of Queen Victoria of Great Britain, alone, is impressive.
Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was a grandchild. Other grandchildren
included queens of Greece, Norway, Romania, Spain and Sweden and the Tsarina
Alexandra of Russia.
WWI broke up this comfy aristocratic status but not its aristocratic subtext.
We are still feeling it to this day.
By the end of WWI, the high aristocracy collapsed. The tsar, a relative of King George V
of Great Britain, was overthrown and he and his royal family murdered by the
Bolsheviks. The great disruption didn't end there.
In the 1920s, the
royal families across Europe had to find new ways to make a living as the
aristocracy was in a state of collapse. Take Germany's aristocracy as
palpable evidence. By 1938, nearly a fifth of the senior ranks of Heinrich Himmler's SS
Gestapo were filled by holders of titles of nobility.
The subtext goes ever deeper.
The Third Reich of
Hitler's Germany had a cozy relationship with King George and Queen Mary,
current Queen Elizabeth's parents. Her father even taught her the Nazi salute
as a child.
Many of the English
aristocracy were fond of Hitler's Germany and believed he had restored
political and social order. They also saw him as a perfect foil to
communism. That was the content and context of the times with many with
royal ties advocating an Anglo-German alliance.
Great Britain's Prime Minister, Neville
Chamberlain, gave an appeasement speech (Munich Agreement) in 1938 essentially conceding the Czech Republic to Hitler while ceremoniously declaring, "We have peace in our time."
This speech was given one year to the month before Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, launching WWII.
Appeasement was but a mask to the prevailing subtext of those in power in the British government. Many prominent Brits were willing to make huge concessions to Hitler to
avoid war. One man understood the subtext of events and their meaning, and he saved the
day for the West.
Were it not for
Winston Churchill being elected Prime Minister, it is difficult to imagine Great
Britain not capitulating to the will of Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain
resigned eight months after the start of WWII, the war going badly at the time, with Churchill taken office on May 10, 1940, and having to resist Nazi
sympathizers in Great Britain from the first.
THE READER:
In the new century, based
on changed subtext we have a very different context and content. We
accept Islam as the religion of peace and are careful to sort out the bad
Muslims who have hi-jacked the religion, from the good ones. The war
being, for that reason, more nuanced is longer but we are killing far
fewer. That is not business as usual for us – that is progress.
DR. FISHER:
I hope what you imply is true, that our subtext reaches such maturity. It is possible.
The People of Islam
are victims of history as were the Japanese, and as are we all. Demagogues throughout history have adulterated the subtext of a people to
present aspects of subtext in a twisted content and context to further their
aims.
Yet, the subtext of a people's history can be ripped from the bowels of their beliefs to present ugly aspects of that subtext. No history is without this occasional momentum, not even ours.
The al-Qaeda
terrorists present themselves as fighting a holy war, but what they want is power and the pride and identity of that power with their people. They are using religion the way Roman
Catholicism justified the the Inquisition, or forcing Jews to become
Christians, and the list goes on. No people or history is without the ugly side of subtext.
Interestingly, your
last word is "progress," seeing tolerance for Islam and Muslims a sign of progress. I see it as a common sign of decency for differences.
Everyone thinks progress is good, at
least most Americans. General Electric once boasted "Progress is
our most important product." Progress is as deceptive a
word as is Islam or Christianity. African Americans understand what I mean by this.
Everyone influenced
by such words thinks they understand and are simply dealing with the content
and context of matters when it is subtext that is ruling the day, and not necessarily wisely.
For example, Spain
wouldn't be as Spain is today without the invasion of the Moors from North
Africa in the eight century. Nor would Europe be Europe without the Moors
who would dominate well into the sixteenth century. The Moors brought
with them art, literature, architecture, mathematics, science and culture to
the continent, a culture of black men who were then called "Negros"
and who also taught discipline, military expertise and tolerance.
Shakespeare would capture something of this with his "Othello" in the sixteenth century.
My views, I must confess, were influenced by a nun. I had the good
fortune of having Sister Mary Cecile as my seventh and eighth grade teacher in
grammar school at St. Patrick's School, who taught me about the Moors and about
their influence and culture. It has never left me.
No, I have no
love for terrorists of any stripe, but I have no fear of a new mosque going up
in my neighborhood, or of a family of Muslims moving in next door.
Thank you for
stirring up my little gray cells. Keep thinking and reflecting.
And always be well,
Jim