‽istis ponders without whom…‽ (weekending
September 23rd 2023)
This weekending ‽istis has been
pondering all those people ‘without whom…’
‽ It started positively and
gratefully on a wet fellside in the Lake District: reflecting on the role of
forebears, those who have gone and gone before –
parents, grandparents, great-grandparents (all at the same time) without whom
the children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren simply would not be. A sort
of a poem formed:
I
look to the hills, whence cometh my help? (Psalm 121).
And
winds and rains
Will
carry and meld
Across
the fells and back to earth.
And
fruits will grow
With
light and warmth
For
kindled love remains.
‽ It continued with some passages
that stood out in this week’s reading matter: ‘Long Shadows – Truth, Lies and History’
by Erna Paris[i]:
·
Karl
Jasper’s distinction in the 1940s between ‘guilt’ for which there is only
individual culpability – and – ‘communal responsibility’ for crimes that could
not have been committed without a collective ‘looking-away’ (p.26)
·
The
potential ‘effect the post-war silence about Hitler’s attempted genocide had
had on Germany’s children… the children
themselves were often willing co-conspirators, so to speak, in that they sensed
the need to turn their eyes from something hidden and appalling - they knew not
what – for the good of their families.’ (p.69)
‽ And then we heard from those
speaking up and speaking out and speaking about the alleged behaviour of
Russell Brand[ii]. And
‽istis wondered about enabling and ‘complicitism’[iii]…
those who may have commissioned,
represented, promoted, bought a ticket, enjoyed, laughed along to, tolerated, not challenged
…and endured.
‽ Policy announcements followed
from a lectern[iv]
from a Prime Minister elevated and enabled by those who were second and third
and fourth (and on, and on) among equals. Future renegotiated relations between
a potential new-hued government and the European Union were also talked of. And
‽istis pondered mandates, voting and who just might be responsible for the
outcomes of an election or a referendum – and their consequences.
‽ Another TV programme aired[v]
and a question raised by naturalist Chris Packham: “Perhaps I have to take
another route. Does that other route mean that this is the time for me to break
the law?” And ‽istis wondered about objection and protest – about the potential
costs and benefits of ‘not just following orders’.
So, at this week’s ending, final
disturbing ponderings and wonderings linger:
What perhaps, possibly, might ‽istis be representing,
promoting, enjoying, laughing along to, tolerating, not challenging, enduring, allowing
others to endure, ‘complicitising’[vi]
and enabling…‽
And what could be the consequences in this
generation and the next‽
©‽istis
NB: further reflections and
comments linked to this week’s theme and past blog entries to be found on
Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t necessarily indicate approval,
sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’: @Pistis_wonders. Twitter ‘follows’
and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...
[i]
Paperback edition: Bloomsbury 2002 ISBN: 0 7475 5804 3
[iii]
Is that a word‽
[v] Review
in ‘The Big Issue’: https://www.bigissue.com/culture/tv/chris-packham-break-the-law-review-climate-activism/
Programme: Chris Packham: Is it Time To Change The Law? Channel 4 Wednesday
September 20 at 9pm https://www.channel4.com/programmes/chris-packham-is-it-time-to-break-the-law
[vi]
Now that surely is definitely not a word‽
