This time I am posting a book I have not read as yet. I received it in the mail today. I was asked to write a review for a scholarly journal, and as an historian who specializes in that very narrow field ‘Anglican history’, I agreed. Writing reviews is often something done by junior scholars fighting to be noticed. This is not the case for me as long ago I became resigned to the world of the part time university lecturer, with an income slightly less than that of a city bus driver. I accepted it because I have a genuine interest in the history of religion and in Anglican history in particular.
My interest was sparked because I want to read this book. I want to think about it. I want to write about it. I will write a review but also I will think about it in my religion blog/book to be. Unlike the growing numbers of scholars who have become politicized (usually to the Left) I delight in study, thought, debate, all unhindered by poltical (aka political – I have left the error in to remind myself about editing) correctness.
Ooops. Where did this last side issue come from? Well, today I had a debate with a tenured prof working in the same history department where I soldier on part time. I mentioned something I have noticed for a very long time, but which is not politically correct to say. Another facebook friend, also a History PhD but one who never found regular work in acadaemia, posted a CBC story about a clash between Left wing protesters and neo Nazis. I wondered out loud who were the Nazis as the only violence was a punch thrown by a Left winger, connecting with the face of a neo Nazi (well, at least I think it was the face, though it could well have been a shoulder, I suppose). I noted how street violence, even riot was a common technique of the Left these days, but the Right less commonly. I am thinking here about the inevitable violence accompanying meetings of the WTO dating back to the 1999 Seattle riot, and more recently the protests after the election of Donald Trump to the U.S presidency. Trump, it might be added, is hardly right wing, in fact he seems to have no wings, yet still jumps off tall buildings. Then I went on to note that the real Nazis were socialists in that they closely controlled the German economy much as liberals today control western economies. My debating opponent noted correctly that economies have always been controlled. I assented to this, but on third thought, I would not now agree with always, and I would provide further nuance by noting that it is the degree of control that is new. Well, new in that it began with the Nazis and the Soviets in the 1930s and the Chinese ersatz Marxists in the late 1940s. This large and intricate degree of control has been happily taken up by Western governments. This is a largely popular move because most of the populations of these lands of milk and honey want government intervention – at least since the dreadful collapse of the 1930s. But there it is, a similarity invented by the socialism of the 1930s. I also noted that the real Nazis controlled speech as now the modern Left does. The only difference I could see was technique. The real Nazis and the Soviets used fear and violence to control the economy and speech, while modern liberals do it with a smile.
The reaction from the tenured prof was appalling. He decided that equating economic policy and control over speech between Nazis and the modern Left meant I supported Naziism in all its vile goals. I hope this was just a clever misdirection technique to score a point in this debate, and not a considered opinion. But I was appalled because I didn’t expect a scholar to use a politician’s methodology. I teach students to use evidence and reason based on evidence.
Sigh.
I mentioned too that I had said the modern left is similar to the Nazis and Soviet socialists, not the same. I was then further appalled when my esteemed opponent openly claimed that the words similar and same had identical meanings. So I posted the definitions of the two words from the Concise Oxford – thinking that a nice irony as my esteemed opponent is a product of that famed and venerable institution. I was not sure what to say here. I am a member of the Facebook group called The Apostrophe Police. Is there a similar venting place for imprecise use of words? I am not a product of such an august metropolis of learning and thought, but of much more ordinary places. Yet, I wrote my first essay when I was 13 years old on a subject that Interested me: religion & science. I wrote it because I delight in thinking and in thinking from all angles and I further delight in seeing my thoughts transcribed into words, where later I can revise, or just see errors in my reasoning and use of evidence. Much like this little perambulation in the vagaries of my mind, which I have altered and honed a few times now.
Anyway, this wasn’t what this post was supposed to be about. I was going to write about the joy of getting a new book, unread and pregnant with ideas, stories, new worlds. But, sadly what is the point if the finest minds begin with conclusions rather than with hypotheses, and only use the evidence that supports their pre-conclusion and ascribe ideas falsley to their debate opponent? What indeed. Back to poetry for me, until the Left decides to tell me which poems I am allowed to write. And I will read this book and write about it, despite the predilection of some to replace thought with emotion.
Bookstory 