|
By John T. Crestwell, Jr.
July 27, 2004
(Story told before sermon not
included) … We are all a product of what we hear, smell, taste, and
touch. We’re all a product of the environment we’re reared in; we’re
all a product of the culture that influences us. We’re not as
self-made as we think. When we come into contact with others, from
different walks of life, it is inevitable that there will be
cultural clash in some capacity.
I was watching the movie “The Last Samurai” starring Tom Cruise who
plays a very disenchanted post Civil War American soldier who’s
struggling with his life and with his belief in the American way. He
was a war hero who had killed many Natives to the land in America on
his way to helping his young country establish the new territory.
Well the Japanese government calls on Cruise’s character to help
modernize the Japanese army and to help them rid the country of its
rouge Samurai. Anyhow, the point of the story is that Cruise’s
character finds himself in the middle of a culture battle in 19th
century Japan. Here, Japan is facing a new day with railroads, the
telegraph, western dress codes, commerce, and gunpowder, and this
clashed with the traditions of ancient Japan, a very closed-culture,
a very “tight” culture. But the clash was most dramatically affected
the Samurai warriors who had protected the land and people for
nearly 1,000 years. Their sword represented the “power” of the
people. Their code of law was the moral standard. And now the young
Emperor, torn between the past and present, chooses to establish a
new imperial army made up of western influenced soldiers. No
Samurai. In fact wearing a sword is outlawed. This was old—
primitive. Japan must be progressive, you see…
The movie has a great twist and ends with Cruise fighting with the
Samurai against the Japanese army. The Samurai put up a gallant
fight but swords are no match for rifles and cannons. Japan’s old
way gives way to the new.
When we look at cultural clashes, we are talking about something
that is technological, sociological, biological and anthropological
in scope, and of course they are all interrelated.
First, from a technological standpoint, modern man is inventing
faster than we can learn how to use new technologies. It’s easy to
see the cultural clash with technology. One needs only to drive
through the mountains of Pennsylvania where there was once an
expansive coal-mining community and find it empty. Or check out the
factories in Philadelphia that are mostly closed, or the rundown
steel mills in Pittsburgh, there are many examples. The human mind
is always striving to make a better widget. Stagnation is always at
odds with innovation. The ancient is always at odds with the modern.
Yesterday seems to find a way to clash with today, and today finds a
way to conflict with tomorrow. My son, J.T. has a Play station and
every time I turn around he wants a new game that I can’t afford.
Yes, the technology is at odds with my wallet as well. Amen.
Second, there are the sociological clashes we face. I mentioned this
a bit earlier. We are all a part of the human race but we are also a
part of many sub-groups. As an example, we grow up a part of a
family, which is a part of an ethnicity, which is a part of a
tradition; which is a part of some religion, which is a part of a
community, which is a part of an educational system, which is a part
of a town or city, which is a part of a state, which is a part of a
country. All of these things factor into our belief system. And we
base our judgments on life and others on this foundational
structure. We are what we eat. There is no such thing as separating
the message from the man. You cannot separate the church & state
inside of me, so to speak. When we are born we are on our way to
developing many cultural biases and prejudices even before we can
think for ourselves.
Third, there are the biological clashes. For starters, we have
differences because of gender. Males are subject to certain thought
processes and females are as well. And of course there are conflicts
and we agree to disagree on a few, well sometimes many things. Amen.
Also, there is this tension and clash at the very heart of who we
are biologically. That is, when you look at the human mind, we think
in polar opposites. Maybe it’s because of how are made, I don’t
know, but look at yourself, you have two hands, and two feet and two
eyes and two hands and two spheres to the brain (you get the point).
At the core of our humanity is a sort of dualism, a fitting word
that describes a battle between two sides. It’s a symbiotic
relationship dual. One needs the other. We don’t live in world that
says, hot, cold and lukewarm. The world we’ve created in our minds
says hot or cold— black or white— right or wrong— up or down, good
or bad… The philosopher Hegel described history as progressing
toward perfection through the dialectic of the thesis and
antithesis, the conflict of the opposites. And so, biologically, the
human mind, just as it seeks to make things better all the time, is
always contradicting its most recent thought. And so, perhaps our
biological make-up is to blame for the clash?
Then fourthly, there are the anthropological clashes. This is
closely related to the biological. Daniel Quinn says in his book
Ishmael that there are two human groups, “Takers” and “Leavers”. One
group lives by an aggressive agricultural expansionists mythos,
while the other lives by an earth-centered tradition that is
hunter-gatherer based. Quinn argues in his fictional novel, that
this is based upon a clash of environmental cultures—one cold and
one hot. One dealt with the cold air and evolved a mindset that
said, “Store it up, get all you can while you can so we don’t
starve,” while the other from the hot air fished as needed, picked
figs and berries that were growing on trees, food was abundant. So,
from Quinn’s perspective, what we have are bio-anthropological
worldviews in conflict.
I’ve titled the sermon this morning, “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” a
phrase I’ve heard mentioned by Naom Chomsky, a noted political
scholar, as well as Samuel Huntington, author and professor Harvard
University, and what I mean, is that these clashes we have as human
beings are real and quite complex. There is no simple formula to
figure out how to make people get along. There is not simple way to
get that gentlemen who hates Iraqi’s to at least respect them. There
is no “cookie cutter” plan for us to embrace as the human race.
My goal is not to sound so relative that we sit back and do nothing.
It might be easy to take the low road and only deal with those who
are like us. But our challenge today is that we become better human
beings. That’s our call! How do we do that? I’ll get to that in a
moment…
Right now, I’m thinking about this country. Given all I’ve said
about clashes and the human make-up it is clear to me that we must
be very careful implementing our Democracy in Iraq. It is true that
our idea may be the highest ideal, but in praxis it is flawed
drastically. And so the “but” is that there is the human factor that
is flawed immensely. It’s not the ideas of humankind but humankind
itself that is the problem. It’s not Islam that is the problem over
there, it is those who implement the system; it’s not that
Christianity is bad, it’s those who have control of it that make it
repulsive in many areas. And so it’s not that our system of
Democracy that is bad, rather I don’t have faith in those who are
doing the implementing. I don’t feel they respect the inherent worth
and dignity of all humanity. I don’t believe this administration
truly believes in justice, equity and compassion in human relations,
I just don’t believe in my heart of hearts that they want a world
with peace, justice and equality for all human beings. As Ishmael
said and we heard it earlier, “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong
with people”. But there is certainly something fundamentally wrong
with their story.
Well, where does that leave us? It’s good to deal in method and
theory but without a practical application this is just Unitarian
Universalist philosophy. In other words, “mombo jumbo”. Well I want
to offer some solutions… First, we need to listen more, read more
and think more, as Maya Angelou says. We are too reactionary. If I
could get those in power to just do that, we would be well on our
way. There are too many monologue mentalities, we need more dialog
in the world.
Second, I’m reminded of Dr. Bell and Brother Bronner’s military
stories. (I hope they won’t mind me sharing). Both of them have
similar “awakening” stories. As they traveled throughout Asia they
saw thousands of non-Americans living by a different code. They saw
different diets, different religions, different customs. Anyhow,
they have both told me how this changed their worldview. What God
would condemn all of these innocent people? Life had to be bigger
than one religions exclusive claim.
This is solution 2. WE ALL NEED A HEAVY DOSE OF MULTI-CULTURLSIM.
We’ve gotta shed this American arrogance and learn more about other
people and nationalities.
And that leads to solution three, borrowing from Dr. Bell. We must
let go of superiority syndromes and understand as mentioned that
systems may be superior to others but there are no superior and
inferior races. This sounds like an abused point over the years but
I really don’t think we get it.
The last two points go together with the others… Solution 4 is that
we must develop a new story that embraces all people. We cannot
accept war and bloodshed as the norm. We made the story we can
change it. It never fails when my friend tells me that we are
fulfilling Revelations from the Bible that I say, “I know. We
created it. Many believe it and so we’re making it happen.” Perhaps
in this generation and perhaps in this church can begin to say with
boldness, “I’m ‘aint gonna study war no more! I’m creating a new
reality that nurtures, embraces, and loves.” We have the power.
|
