What's an Apocalypse or two between friends?

An interesting article in today’s Ottawa Citizen entitled What 2012 really means by an associate professor in the Department of Archaeology at the university of Calgary, Kathryn Reese-Taylor. The lead-in reads: It’s our culture that is obsessed with the end of the world, not the ancient Maya. Professor Reese-Taylor points out that there are only four books extant from the Mayan empire (the rest being burned by the Conquistadors) and none of them says anything about the end of time. The implied reference to 21 December, 2012 is found inscribed on a column that describes the ceremony to be performed honouring the ending of the 13^th “baktun” (a baktum being roughly 400 years).  That’s it. No catastrophe foretold.  The predicted catastrophe and rise of a new world order is an invention of writers specializing in end of the world scenarios. Sound familiar?

You can find any number of books predicting an Apocalypse in book stores. They are a very popular item. Generally they are written by people who have been granted a special insight into the workings of history from a mythological point-of-view. In other words: they are wannabe cult leaders. Some of them do very well, especially on revenue from book sales, though people are encouraged to send monetary donations to whatever corporate structure has been set up especially for that purpose.

End of the world scenarios are as old as civilization. Maybe older, but we don’t have written records. The Biblical flood story is just one example of the kind of stories told in the ancient Middle East (catastrophic flood stories are popular in most cultures including those of Canada’s west coast First Nations.) A cataclysmic flood is a neat way of explaining how fossils of what appear to be sea creatures wound up on mountain tops. Also, the most popular settlement sites humans pick are usually river valleys. Plentiful water, good soil, attractive to animals, and…prone to flooding. Oops.

We are no smarter than the earliest humans (in fact, they may have been smarter than we are), and we look at events through the prism of our own experiences. As they probably saw floods as punishments caused by a ticked-off god, we are no better at seeing reality. We impose our fears, expectations, insecurities on whatever we find. The Book Revelation (The Apocalypse), written by John of Patmos, is a good one. (Sorry, but God did not write that one.) You can interpret passages in it any way you like. A third of the earth’s water poisoned? Oh yeah, he must have been talking about global pollution. Fiery devastation from the sky must refer to nuclear weapons. World wide pestilence and disease is obviously a prediction of HIV/AIDs.  

Nostradamus is an even better prophet than John of Patmos, as his predictions point to specific events; such as the rise of Hitler, the death of Princess Dianna, the collapse of the World Trade Centre. You name it, he predicted it. His accuracy is augmented by the fact that his original French poetry can be misinterpreted and mistranslated so that it appears to refer to events that have just occurred. Nothing like re-writing a prediction after an event has occurred.

Every major religion and most minor ones have messages about the end of time, when everything will be destroyed (especially the people we don’t like) and a new world order (composed of people we do like) will be established. A comforting fantasy to while away the time. I told you you’d be sorry, has such a nice assertive justifying ring to it.

Two 19th Century Books

I have just finished reading two memoirs set in Canada in the 19^th century. One is entitled The Mysteries of Montreal: Being Recollections of a Female Physician by Charlotte Fuhrer. Written in 1881 it is a marvellous picture of life in Montreal in the 19^th century. The other, Life in the Backwoods of Canada, written by Suzanna Moodie in the1840's, is set in the primeval forest near Peterborough, Ontario. Both authors are “ladies” in the 19^th century sense of the word, in that they expected to have servants and to be spared from the chores of domestic life. Ms Fuhrer was raised in Germany while Ms Moodie grew up in upper class English society.

Ms Fuhrer claims that the stories the book contains are true, but, I have some doubts about that. At the least, they appear to have been somewhat embellished. Each chapter is a story about a woman and her (often extra-marital) problems centering on the birth of a child. Needless-to-say, for a book written in the 19^th century, all pay the “price” for their “crimes” of conceiving a child outside of legal wedlock. In that sense, the book reminds me of the books by Horatio Alger who wrote “morality stories” involving orphaned teenage—or younger—boys whose honesty and perseverance resulting in their being adopted by a millionaire.

I have no doubts about the accuracy of Ms Moodie’s descriptions of her seven years spent in the remotest of areas of Canada at the time. Her husband was an officer in the British military and, was common at the time, was pensioned off with a grant of land in Canada. They arrive at their holdings in two wagons, with children and servants, in mid-winter—which was the best time for travel at the time, as roads, made of logs laid side-by-side (called “corduroy”) were smoothed out by the winter snows. Out of virtually nothing, they clear land and build a house, then plant crops and clear more land. Just as they were getting settled into their lifestyle, Mr Moodie was called up to help put down the rebellions centered in Toronto, leaving his wife, children, and a few servants, to fend for themselves.

In contrast Ms Fuhrer and her husband settled on Montreal as the city where she would establish her practice—partly (and get this!) because the climate was more agreeable than that of the Eastern USA. Also, Montreal was more “European” in outlook and so more likely to accept the idea of a female midwife. (Female physicians were very rare in the 19^th century, and, in North America, at least, all “midwives” were males.) She, and many of her clients, lived in the area now between Concordia and McGill Universities. Mountain, McTavish, McGregor are all streets I recognize. Though many have been torn down or converted to businesses, the elegance of the old mansions can still be seen.

Both women have a generous side. Neither thinks anything of inviting strangers into their homes whether it be single mothers, as in Ms Fuhrer’s case, or indigents, as in Ms Moodie’s case. However, in Ms Moodie’s situation, the poverty was overwhelming, but, what little she had, she shared. The same can be said of her neighbors, both settlers and First Nations (Mississaugian and some Ojibway). Like the famous Plymouth Pilgrims, the First Nations people kept the whites from starvation and helped them to adjust to their strange new environment. There is no trace of condescension in Ms Moodie’s writing about the people she encountered, and, though Ms Fuhrer could be generous, there is a clear distinction in her attitudes towards her English neighbors and the French Canadians she encounters, who appear only as landladies, working men, or nuns.

I found Ms Fuhrer’s moralizing and odd lack of empathy with the women she helped off-putting. However, I genuinely like Ms Moodie. Despite her upbringing she does reach a point where she realizes that she has to work as hard as her servants in order to survive and she does so uncomplainingly. She helps clear land and plants crops despite the blackflies and mosquitoes, hauls firewood and water, and, in one case, goes on a long trek to take baskets of supplies to a woman and children whose husband had abandoned them. It’s as though Ms Fuhrer saw the world through the eyes of someone privileged, but, yet with a genuine desire to help the less fortunate; while Ms Moodie saw the world as a place where we must all work together to ensure our survival, a place where the ability to hunt and trap, to travel the forests and swamps, were highly desirable skills. She judged people by what they could contribute whilst Ms Fuhrer judged them by their moral (in her judgement) character.

As I get older I have come to appreciate more the stories of what would be my grand-parents and great-grandparents. They remind me that we are not so far removed from a world where people had to be self-reliant; they could not call a veterinarian if a cow took sick, or a doctor if a child had a fever. If a tool broke, they had to repair it; if part of a house burned down, they had to rebuild it. Dying of starvation and exposure were very real possibilities. There are places in the world, even in our “civilized” country, where all that is still the case. Something to remember next time you adjust the thermostat, call for delivered pizza, or purchase a new winter coat on the Internet.

"Traditional" Christmas

Contrary to what many believe, Christmas did not begin with the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. For one, no one knows with any precision when he was born. Most estimates put it during the spring of 6 BCE judging by comparing the rulers and events mentioned in the New Testament with historical records. If you want to get technical about it, Christmas, as a mid-winter, late-December celebration began in Europe long before Jesus’ time. Though differing in different regions, generally it was a celebration of the return of the sun.

In Rome the feast of Saturnalia occupied about a month just before and after the winter solstice. This feast was celebrated with hedonistic excess and, in some cases, slaves and masters reversed roles. Specifically December 25 was reserved for the most important celebration of the year honouring the birth of Mithra. The fourth century pope, Julius I, set the Feast of the Nativity on December 25 in order to compete with and absorb the pagan rites and traditions associated with that date. Generally speaking, Christmas was not viewed as a significant holiday during the Middle Ages; Christians saved their biggest celebrations for Easter. However, in parts of Europe Christmas was a day when peasants would approach their lords demanding gifts of food; if they failed to comply, the peasants would play nasty tricks on them. If this sounds more like Halloween than Christmas, well you’re probably right. “Traditions” did have a way of getting mixed together throughout history.

The Puritans did not approve of the excesses and raucousness of Christmas and so banned it where they had the power to do so. When they migrated to North America, any hint of the celebration of Christmas brought fines. The sloppily sentimental picture of Pilgrims bringing the celebration of Christmas to the New World would have been regarded as an obscenity to them; they associated Christmas with Devil-worship. Christmas did not become an official holiday in America until 1870. Prior to that it was just another work day.

So, where did our concept of the “traditional” Christmas come from? The complete picture of Christmas celebrations involving a fat older gentleman in a red suit; evergreens brought indoors and decorated; and the excessive exchange of gifts developed during the early 20ieth century. It was the Coca Cola Company that invented the “traditional” image of Santa Claus for use in their advertising; in fact, their heavy Christmas-related advertising campaigns during the 1920’s are the root of today’s commercialization of the holiday, complete with “holiday madness.” The evergreens were imported from the German worship of Odin, introduced by Queen Victoria and copied by wealthy Americans. The exchange of gifts in some form or other was often associated with December 25^th and so it became incorporated into the celebration of Jesus’ birth, encouraged by American merchants and advertisers.

Of course, the image of the “traditional” Christmas celebration probably would not have become as firmly fixed as it did if it weren’t for Hollywood. The sentimental image of family gatherings, scenes of forgiveness and redemption, and overly-orchestrated “Christmas” music during the Depression of the 1930’s and the World War of the 1940’s created a nostalgia in people for something that had never really existed. If people genuinely craved “tradition” then we would celebrate the birth of Jesus by besieging the rich for gifts and drunkenly crowning a “lord of misrule” for the day.

As for any association between the Biblical story of the birth of Jesus and the modern holiday, I can’t find any connection. The Biblical story is about poverty and sacrifice; about the outcasts and hopes of redemption. More so, it is a story about the power of simple acts of love and kindness. If anything, it is the antipathy of modern towns and cities hoisting huge tress covered with sparkling lights in the town squares; and decorating their downtowns with wreaths and coloured lights. That sounds suspiciously like the Feast of Saturnalia. Apoplexy because people say “Happy Holidays,” instead of “Merry Christmas?” That sounds more like Thought Control to me.

Canada and the United States are not, and have never been, “Christian” nations. In fact, the founding fathers of the American state would be horrified at the almost vice-like grasp that uneducated and willfully blind “Christians” have on so many of their institutions.  And, to add insult to the injuries they are inflicting on our societies, they want us to believe that their concepts and views are somehow universal and fixed since time began? Humbug!