“A Little Girl Lost” by William Blake

Children of the future Age,
Reading this indignant page;
Know that in a former time
Love! sweet Love! was thought a crime.

In the Age of Gold,
Free from winters cold:
Youth and maiden bright,
To the holy light,
Naked in the sunny beams delight.

Once a youthful pair
Fill’d with softest care:
Met in garden bright,
Where the holy light,
Had just removed the curtains of the night.

Then, in rising day,
On the grass they play:
Parents were afar:
Strangers came not near:
And the maiden soon forgot her fear.

Tired with kisses sweet
They agree to meet,
When the silent sleep
Waves o’er heavens deep;
And the weary tired wanderers weep.

To her father white
Came the maiden bright:
But his loving look,
Like the holy book,
All her tender limbs with terror shook.

Ona! pale and weak!
To thy father speak:
O the trembling fear!
O the dismal care!
That shakes the blossoms of my hoary hair

I found this poem interesting and somewhat different from most of the poems in the Songs of Innocence and Experience. Blake starts the poem with an introductory stanza where he addresses the poem to the readers of “the future Age.” None of the other poems are addressed in this manner, even though, in “The Little Girl Lost” (a poem similar in title), Blake begins by stating that he has a vision of the future. So there is that parallel between the two poems.

In this poem, Blake presents sexual love as something natural and beautiful between two young people. When the maiden returns home, flush with the glow of love, her father is immediately angered. His thoughts and emotions are controlled by the “holy book,” implying that religious dogma is what dictates his actions more so than compassion and understanding for what his daughter is experiencing.

I referred to the endnotes in my copy of the book to find out more about the maiden’s name—Ona. Geoffrey Keynes, the commentator on my version of the text, asserts that the name is “perhaps the feminine form of One” and may be a “poetic conception of the feminine principle.” I kind of like this interpretation. I view the divine as a dyad, containing masculine and feminine aspects. I would like to think that Blake also recognized the divine feminine as part of the One.

As I read this today, I couldn’t help thinking about the controversy regarding marriage equality and gay rights. I suspect that the “Children of the future Age” will also look back at this time in history and wonder how laws could be considered that deny a person’s right to love another.

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to read my thoughts. Cheers!

“Love America and March for Peace” by Umberto Eco

Image Source: The Guardian

 

This essay is included in Turning Back the Clock and for me highlights the issue of people’s tendency to see complex issues as clear and simple. There is a new paradigm where individuals are expected to support one side or the other, regardless of any grey area that may exist. Examples: If you do not support the US war on terror, then you are an ISIS sympathizer. If you support Israel, then you are a fascist that supports the oppression of Palestine. If you do not condemn the officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, then you are obviously a racist. This is all a manifestation of what I personally like to call the “football team” mentality. People pick a team or side and support their “team” regardless of what they or the opposing side does. Nowhere is this clearer than in politics nowadays. Support for political parties is more polarized than it’s ever been.

As Eco points out, this mentality leads to deeper social divides.

At the heart of these painful but not yet bloody rifts, you hear statements every day that lead inevitably to racism, of the type “All those against the war are allies of Saddam,” but also “All those who think the use of force is justified are Nazis.” Shall we try to think about this?

(Turning Back the Clock: p. 32)

It seems that individuals love to label other groups as “Nazis” to emphasize that these opposing groups are crossing some moral boundary. The problem that I see in doing this is that it diminishes the memory of the atrocities that were actually perpetrated by the Nazis. For example, after a recent Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on gay marriage, the City Council here in Asheville displayed a rainbow flag to show support. Opponents of marriage equality immediately condemned the members of City Council and called them Nazis because they acted without their approval. Personally, I see no correlation between City Council’s hanging of a banner and the crimes committed in Nazi Germany.

This is all connected to the “with us or against us” mentality, where any opposition or questioning is immediately condemned.

These few observations are sufficient, I hope, to suggest that the situation in which we find ourselves, precisely because of the gravity, does not admit of clear-cut divisions or condemnations of the kind “If that’s what you think, then you are the enemy.” This too is fundamentalism. You can love the United States, as a tradition, as a people, as a culture, and with deep respect due to those who won on the field the rank of the world’s most powerful country. You can be deeply touched by the injury America suffered in 2001, but without denying the need to warn Americans that their government is making a mistake and that they should see our position not as a betrayal but as frank dissent. Not warning them means trampling on the right to dissent—the exact opposite of what we learned, after years of dictatorship, from our liberators of 1945.

(ibid: pp. 35 – 36)

I hope that this trend of vilifying those whose opinions differ changes soon. It’s very destructive and prevents human progress, and progress is essential. If we are not moving forward as a society, then we are most likely moving backwards.

Applying “Common Sense” to Current Issues

Last year for my Independence Day blog post I read and commented on the Declaration of Independence. This year I opted for Common Sense by Thomas Paine. I’d read it years ago in college in my “Survey of American Literature” class, so I understood the concepts that Paine was trying to convey, essentially making a “common sense” argument in support of independence for the colonies.

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense. (p 23)

Overall, I found this to be pretty dull reading. Paine is slow in getting to the point and as far as his simple facts go, he sure uses a lot of words to state them. That said, I approached the text with the intent of seeing what, if anything, is still relevant today. I found a couple of passages that could be applied to current issues.

The first issue I would like to address is marriage equality. In the US, we have a history of failing to acknowledge that discrimination based upon sexual preference is morally wrong. Many people are still attempting to pass legislation narrowly dictating what types of marriages should be accepted in this country. Essentially, this behavior is what Paine asserts is the defense of custom.

A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. (pp 1-2)

I see the tumult finally subsiding, as demonstrated by the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The antiquated ideas that have been promoted as custom and tradition are finally being swept aside.

The next issue is that of commerce. Paine states that when commerce, or capitalism, becomes the main focus of a country, that country suffers. People become complacent and are not willing to take the risks necessary to advance society as a whole.

Commerce diminishes the spirit, both of patriotism and military defence. And history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements were always accomplished in the non-age of a nation… The more men have to lose, the less willing are they to venture. (p 51)

Paine concludes his pamphlet by addressing the issue that has plagued us from the beginning: the separation of church and state. Today, there are still people who use religion as a reason for promoting laws, especially laws that deny or restrict the rights of others. We must always remember the words of those who founded this country and oppose the influence or religion on politics whenever it rears its head.

And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, MAY BE DISAVOWED AND REPROBATED BY EVERY INHABITANT OF AMERICA. (p 73)

Have a happy and safe Fourth of July, and help keep freedom and equality safe in this country.

The Shame of Amendment One

“I read the news today, oh boy.”

I’ve been finding it difficult to express my disappointment this morning with the latest chapter in bigotry and intolerance: Amendment One. As I watched the church buses yesterday shuttling people to the polls to joyfully strip an entire group of citizens of their civil rights, I felt waves of disgust. I suppose I had hoped that as a society we had made more progress.

Asheville Citizen-Times columnist John Boyle eloquently sums up exactly how I feel in today’s article: “Amendment One becomes our state’s shame” (click here to read the article).

I am going to try to remain optimistic and hope that this sad event becomes the catalyst that drives the movement for equality forward.