THH’s readers are a smart set — well informed and willing to stretch their imaginations. I’ve always imagined that we come from a tremendously wide variety of ages, backgrounds, philosophies and worldviews. I’ve also figured, in the last few days, that many of us have at least been distantly aware of the turmoil in Iran. It is not my intention to get political here, and please do not take this post as such.
But, I sometimes find myself reminded of the power of a word, description, or scene. It’s easy to read a scene like Harry’s walk in the woods with his family to what he knows will be his death, and understand that he has accepted it. But, an honest mea culpa: as much as I love literature, it’s sometimes easy for moments like these to remain somehow abstract in my mind. Again, I understand so well what that scene is after. But, I always tell my students that the true power of literature is its ability to make the reader feel what it’s after.
Harry’s scene near the end of Deathly Hallows took on a whole new light for me yesterday when I stumbled into this passage via Andrew Sullivan’s blog, The Daily Dish:
I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…
It’s an anonymous passage from an Iranian blogger prepping to confront the trials happening today in his country. Reading it even now, I find a lump in my throat and I’m pushing back a few tears. And reading past my initial shock and trauma yesterday, I couldn’t help but think of Harry’s walk. The conscious decision to very possibly and knowingly walk into the face of death became extremely concrete to me. The description of simple, mundane parts of this person’s world, their importance to him or her, the 7 words stretching the note’s reach into the future…
I wanted to share this, not for some sort of activist reason, but as a reminder (if only to me) of the real nature of what I teach my students. As much as we analyze (especially me — it’s what I’m trained to do) and put together what we think, I often wonder if we should be asking “What do we feel?” Both good and bad… The real reason I want to read something like Harry Potter is because of its ability to make me reimagine my world and my place in it. As different as so many of us are, literature and deep, respectful desire to understand one another is what has brought us to this place, as ethereal as it is. And I’m so happy we have that ability.
And on a final note… Amidst all the human tragedy spilling through Iran at this moment, I sincerely and deeply hope this person gets another day with his or her family — and many more after it.
Tom on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Perelandra on 
Loading ...
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Good parallel, DTL
Since we’re confessing, I have to confess that the description of Harry’s walk in the forest always brought tears to my eyes: I felt what you feel, reading the words of the anonymous Iranian student who is about to go out and do battle with the forces of despotism.
And of course, I also feel for that child – how old can he or she be? a few units from a bachelor’s degree – twenty one? I feel for the fact that he or she is making preparation for death. I’m guessing it’s a girl, because of the eyebrow thing, but it could be a guy – more guys are getting into grooming now.
But the thing that strikes me most strongly is the conviction that she (or he) is doing the right thing – the most important thing, the only thing. The writer is so clear about this. And then I read different perspectives – I made the mistake of going on the internet where anyone can post a comment and I saw some people calling the protesters western puppets – which makes this act of supreme self-sacrifice look misguided if not treasonous. And I realized that the main difference between fiction and fact is that fiction is so clear in depicting who is right and who is wrong, and in real life it can be so hard to know what is the right thing. But you still have to act, because the consequences of not acting are more of the same old bad, so you put on your black outfit, soak a scarf in vinegar to try to filter out the tear gas, and confront the soldiers who have batons and guns with real bullets in them.
So far, no reports of fatalities, but lots of beatings and lots of wounded. Hope our blogger is ok, or if not, hope that her sacrifice – and those of many other children – will actually bring about the freedom that they have been denied.
Very thoughtful, Dave. And a nice response Red Rocker.
Briefly commenting on the situation in Iran, it’s quite likely neither side is right & that the issue is not about democracy or freedom but on having your guy in power rather than that other guy. But then if you haven’t noticed, I’m a cynic regarding politics.
But Red Rocker is right, too, that you have to act sometimes, even when you don’t know all the right or wrong answers. You just have to make your best effort with the best information you have. And you have to do it despite the consequences because not doing it is to let things you feel to be wrong continue.
But then again, nobody ever really sees themselves as the bad guy.
It is much simpler & clearer in books. However, the best sort of literature is there to help us sort out all the hard questions of life & to give us a perspective outside our own & to move & support us in making hard choices.
But if Ahmadinejad was actually the winner of the election (which is not as unlikely as most people seem to think), then are these protests really against “despotism”. Or are they an attempt to subvert democracy?
We don’t like Ahmadinejad —- for good reason. But is our dislike enough to support the overthrow of a democratically elected leader?
Thank you Dave for giving a real life example of Harry’s walk through the Forest. The parallel could not be anymore striking. The situation in Iran is a tough one. The same people that opposed the Shah are now disillusioned with the results of the Revolution. revgeorge hit on something when he said that it’s more to do with “having your guy in power rather than that other guy.” I don’t know if the election results were corrupted or not, but SPT does raise an interesting question if it turns out to be the latter. Whatever the case, the anonymous Iranian blogger had to act as Red Rocker said. How will things ever change if people choose not to act?
SPT, it was a rigged election controlled by the mullahs; it’s not a real democracy regardless of the exact number of “votes” Ahmadenijad got. The protests are over the despotism and repression inflicted by the mullahs, the real rulers for the past thirty years.
See, e.g.:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/19/obama_clueless_on_iran.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6544249.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2270657
revgeorge, I disagree about whether the protestors want freedom and democracy vs. their guy in power. It seems pretty clear that the vast majority want more freedom and less repression. Whether Mousavi would bring that is another question. The Iranian revolution 30 years ago started off as a protest against the repressions of the Shah’s monarchial regime and a hope for more freedom and look what the Iranian people got instead. Nevertheless, regime change is not going to happen without the efforts of the Iranian people to help themselves.
Dave and Red Rocker, I, too, was thinking when I read Deathly Hallows how much courage it would take to stand up to repressors when the result might be torture and death. It’s one thing to write it in a book where the author controls the outcome and another to be faced with an actual real-life situation where one’s sacrifice might well be for nothing or, worse, might lead to the murder of one’s family or friends in retaliation, under a cruel regime entrenched in power for years. How much easier it would be to just do or say nothing.
Well, I will reiterate one thing: I make no assertions concerning Iran’s politics. I’ve followed the Twitter streams and bloggers for information — far better than any news sites IMO. I’m not a total political cynic, but I am suspicious of any kind of “unified” statement. From what I’ve read on the subject, Mousavi may only be a marginally better alternative to Ahmadenijad from an American perspective. And as far as Lily’s and revgeorge’s different perpsectives go, neither of you have to be wrong — both elements are at work in any kind of powerplay situation.
But, I don’t think anyone can deny the human suffering there. If you happened to see what was dubbed “the Neda Video” circulating YouTube and Twitter yesterday, you probably had your heart ripped from your chest.
I just wanted to write a reminder of what literature can teach, if only for myself. And just as we debate Snape’s motives, or Harry’s faults, it’s also a reminder that, like Iran, there are no easy answers. And we’d all be better for it if we were to quite looking for them.
Have to say something about SPT’s comment. Democracy and despotism are not mutually exclusive. Hitler is the most famous example of an elected despot – although he did come into power by way of a minority government, he came in through the front door. Same for Mussolini. And Milosevic’s government was voted in as well. I don’t think the Khmer Rouge, won an election, but they were popular. Ironically, the Islamic Revolution, which overthrew the Shah in Iran and put in the present – equally despotic – system – was a massively popular one at the time.
My point is, just because a government is elected democratically doesn’t mean that it will respect the rights of its citizens. That is why we have a Bill of Rights, or in your case, a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. There are some things more basic than a democratically elected government.
Having said which, the demonstrations on the streets of Tehran might be in the name of freedom from despotism, but they were triggered by a perceived violation of the democratic process: a lot of people had voted for Mousavi but the supposed results did not reflect that. The refrain on the streets is: “Where is my vote?”
Sorry for hijacking the thread away from the literary theme, DTL, but it’s hard to ignore people dying for both freedom and democracy.
Sorry about the bolds. I wasn’t trying to shout. I just forgot to turn them off after SPT
Red Rocker, you’re certainly right in saying that democracy & despotism are not mutually exclusive. Most of the time when we think of despotism we think of an obvious sort of oppression going on. But there’s also soft despotism identified by Alexis De Tocqueville. From the wikipedia entry on it:
“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by “a network of small complicated rules” might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called ‘hard despotism’) in the sense that it is not obvious to the people. Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the “habits of the heart” of its 19th-century populace.”
Which perhaps pertains more to the point I was trying to make & didn’t state so well. That many people in Iran might want freedom but whether they’re going to get it or not through the political system is another matter. Whether people are going to feel like they live in a democratic Iran if they have Mousavi as President as opposed to Ahmadinejad doesn’t mean they actually are going to have any more influence over the government at all.
Anyway, none of the presidential candidates are allowed to stand for election unless they are vetted & approved by the Guardian Council which is comprised of 6 clerics appointed by Iran’s Supreme Leader & 6 lawyers approved by Parliament. Also, the President of Iran has very limited influence over foreign policy & no control of the Iranian military.
None of which probably has anything to do with Dave’s point but as long as the thread’s been hijacked already…
I’m curious, Red Rocker, where you live. I thought (assumed, I guess) that you lived in the U.S., but it sounds from your comment like not?
Well… to help hijack my own thread a bit…
Red, your point is well taken, but I should point out that neither Hitler nor Mussolini were elected to their ultimate positions.
While the Nazis won more and more power in electoral terms, Hitler was actually appointed to the Chancellorship, and consolidated his grip on power after the Burning of the Reichstag was blamed on Communists… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#Rise_to_power
While Mussolini won several elections to more minor positions, he and the fascists came into ultimate power the old fashioned way: coup d’etat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome
Still, your point holds, I think. It’s also one reason why “democracy” exported to other parts of the world rarely looks like we want it to. It’s not entirely the “democratic” idea that makes the US and many others what they are, but the underlying laws and rights by which those societies live.
Thus, Afghan or Iraqi democracy will look very little like American democracy. A summer writing course I was teaching until this Friday provided an interesting perspective for me. I had only four students, and all were from Saudi Arabia. Most were Shia, and much of their writing for the course concerned Shia rights (or the lack thereof) in a Sunni dominated society/government. They constantly wrote of a desire for democracy, but what they ultimately articulated was very different from what I understood that word to mean.
At its core, democracy is nothing more than a fairly literal expression of the majority’s will — and that is why Plato considered it to be extremely dangerous. He couldn’t conceive of a democracy underpinned by a set of individual and humanist values because the values themselves were alien to himself and his culture. Thus, democracy could only be “mob rule.” And, well, Plato didn’t trust the average Athenian citizen to be all that worthy of the Athenian ideal. He thought the smartest people should make decisions…
…you know…Philosophers!
For example of democracy leading to despotic behavior, we need look no further to America’s recent past: the treatment and forced internment of native-born Americans of Japanese heritage during WWII. Though by no means comparable to Hitler and Mussolini, it is a definitive blight on Roosevelt’s tenure.
Oh well. We’ve certainly wondered off topic here.
But, to drag it back a little… I imagine a recognition of this tendency in his own character is what drove Dumbledore to reject repeated offers for the Minister’s post. And, has anyone ever wondered what was meant by those “offers”? Did someone who held Dumbledore in their good graces offer to help him seize power? Fudge certainly seemed to think so. It’s interesting that the Ministry has no functional form of democracy. And I don’t catch any implication in DH’s epilogue that such has become the case during Harry’s adulthood…
LL, I live north of you. And actually, we don’t have a Bill of Rights, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We used to have an Implied Bill of Rights. Then we had an actual Bill of Rights, and now we have the Charter.
DTL, I knew that Mussolini and Hitler’s paths to power were convoluted and finalized by extra-democratic acitivities, but my point was that they were popular before they became dictators. But yes, the real point is that it’s not democracy per se, but recognition of “inalienable rights” (I love that phrase) – and the rule of law – which make some countries better than others. And I do mean that in the absolute sense.
I think that Socrates also mistrusted democracy because it could lead to mob-rule. I believe that during his life this was the case in Athens where skilled demogogues swayed public opinion in order to exercise power. I suspect that unlike Plato, he would not have trusted anyone with power, but that may just be me projecting my image of the ideal philosopher on him. He certainly didn’t leave behind a written record to say either way.
But returning to Potter, what I”ve read of Socrates does remind me a bit of Dumbledore. For one thing, he refused to enter politics, saying he needed to understand himself before he could presume to dictate to others. For another, after he was condemned to death – ironically, for corrupting the youth of Athens – he could have escaped and avoided his death by hemlock, but elected to stay. According to Wikipedia, one of his reasons was:
He believed such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has
Sounds like our DD’s take on the “well-ordered mind”.
Well, I am not going to argue that Iran is a model of freedom and enlightenment. But there are certainly plenty of countries much more despotic than it, such as our friends Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who have a king and a general for leaders. Ahmedinejad is a populist politician. Whatever you may think of such politicians, there is no particular reason to think that one cannot be popularly elected.
Ahmedinejad, after all, has only been president for 3 years, after he won a very close election over Rafsanjani —-with about the same percentage of the second round voting as he received in this election (admittedly with far fewer voters).
While there are undoubtedly some irregularities in the Iranian voting, I reluctantly have to agree with the Iranian Supreme Leader that you can’t steal 9 million votes.
Red Rocker, yes, your argument ad Hitlerum is well-taken. I will not invoke Godwin’s Law, since the Hitler example is, in this case, made relevant and material by Ahmedinejad’s own statements.
That said, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a dictator state run on the principle that only an Iron Man of Destiny can lead the “Aryan” people to mastery. It is a constitutional democracy with reasonable protection for (most) minorities.
Ultimately, our dislike of Iran is not based on “despotism” or “oppression”. It is based on our calculation that their policies are dangerous and destabilizing to our interests.
Such calculations need to be made, of course. And we have no obligation to respect an elected leader simply because he is elected, regardless of all other considerations.
But calculation of geopolitical interest is not the same thing as morality. I admit I am having a little trouble flipping from opposition to Iranians seeking martyrdom for Palestinian freedom to encouraging Iranians to seek martyrdom for democratic freedoms that they probably have not even been deprived of.
This is fun stuff, despite how Travis doesn’t normally like us to discuss politics!
Dave, I might mention that our founding fathers in the United States also were wary of democracy, seeing it also as mob rule, which is why they tried so hard to set up a constitutional republic, wherein the majority would be diluted & also reined in by competing institutions & also a Bill of Rights. We’ve unfortunately gotten away from that idea in most of America & in the world, I think, & believe that everything should simply be settled by a majority vote.
Regarding the Ministry of Magic, to bring it back to Harry, I always wondered who appointed the Minister of Magic. His power seems fairly limitless as long as he has popular support but when people get dissatisfied he can be removed. But who removes him & who appoints a replacement? Fudge talks of being sacked but who did the sacking? And if there’s somebody above the Minister who can sack him, then aren’t they the real power in the wizarding world?
Perhaps JKR never really worked out answers to those questions because she figured nobody would ask the questions. Kind of like Lewis being baffled by someone asking how bananas got to Narnia & how people survived all those years during the Witch’s reign of winter without any agriculture.
This is good stuff, and please proceed! I don’t mind political discussion, as long as we don’t turn into jerks with each other – which none of you are doing.
Agree that calculation of geopolitical interest does not equal morality. Agree that there are countries who are allies of the US – and Canada – whose citizens lack rights and freedoms. Which fact we conveniently ignore. And it was my point – see above – that despotic rulers can be popularly elected. Hence the need for charters and bills of rights which enshrine individual rights above the will of any government.
But obviously even a constitution doesn’t guarantee rights and freedoms. Iran’s constitution gives supreme power to the Guardian Council of the Constitution, which is composed of six clerics and six lawyers.
According to Article 96 of the constitution, the Guardian Council holds veto power over all legislation approved by the Majlis (elected Parliament). It can nullify a law based on two accounts: being against Islamic laws,[15] or being against the constitution. While all the members vote on the laws being compatible with the constitution, only the six clerics vote on them being compatible with Islam.
The Council has played a central role in keeping only one interpretation of Islamic values from influencing Iranian law, as it consistently disqualifies reform-minded candidates—including the most well-known candidates—from running for office and vetoes laws passed by the popularly elected Majlis (parliament).
The Council is unelected, yet frequently vetoes bills by the popularly-elected legislature.[29] In the 2008 parliamentary elections, one-third of the disqualified candidates were members of the outgoing parliament who had their credentials revoked, despite having been approved once by the Council.[11] It repeatedly vetoes bills in favor of women’s rights, electoral reform, the prohibition of torture and ratification of international human rights treaties.[28]
All quotes from Wikipedia.
In actual fact, the Council is totally subservient to the Supreme Leader – an Ayatollah, or rather The Ayatollah, the one who calls the shots for the entire country. He is in theory answerable to the Assembly of Experts, composed of 86 Islamic scholars, but in fact:
The assembly has never dismissed a sitting Supreme Leader, and as all of their meetings and notes are strictly confidential, the assembly has never been known to challenge or otherwise publicly oversee any of the Supreme Leader’s decisions.
This constitutional democracy sounds like a one-man theocracy to me.
I think one thing can be said here about “democracy”: it’s really only an abstract, descriptive term. And in this day and age, it often seems that its connotations matter more than its actual practice.
Maybe that’s an important point to consider re: Dumbledore. That I can recall, Dumbledore never once talks directly about “democracy”, but he speaks extensively about equality, and more specifically “justice”. Those underlying values are so important that democracy is worthless without them…?
But those values are, ultimately, as abstract as anything else. In America, we’ve went about founding our society not upon what people can’t do in the face of government restrictions, but upon what government can’t do in the face of people’s “inalienable rights”, to bring up Red’s favorite language. At its base, the US Bill of Rights is predicated upon the inherent value of the individual over that of the government. From the Bill of Rights’ Preamble:
The original “rights” are put forward as “restrictive clauses” not on the average citizen, but upon the government. Reading the original 10 amendments that constitute the actual “Bill of Rights”, it’s striking how much of the language is negative: lots of “no” and “not” with respect to the government’s powers.
I often think that’s sometimes emblematic of the fact that philosophies which value the individual and the power of humanity can easily point out injustice when they see it, but often find it difficult to give a precise definition to what is “just” in positive terms. I can easily point out that taking another’s life is almost always unjust, but we still argue quite vehemently over the just way which to respond to such a crime. No easy yardstick exists by which to measure such a quandry.
In theory, then, our government is supposed to work in pursuit of justice. But, if it’s all this amorphous and vague, institutional expressions of “justice” will almost always be problematic and imperfect.
But, then, that seems Dumbledore’s point, doesn’t it? Oscillating between “what’s right” versus “what’s easy” is an implicit recognition that “justice” is a virtually undefinable term in constant need of vigilance and never ending pursuit. It will change contingent upon the circumstances. If “justice” were easy, no debate would be necessary.
And in a universe where magic is a functional tool, why not create a magical (technological?) method of enforcing it? They tried: taboos, regulations on underage wizards, stratification of non-human magical creatures. In defining their world in positivist terms, they automatically instituted unjust policies because they worked under the fundamental flaw of positivism: universal application. “Rules” aren’t designed to account for different contexts.
So, is Dumbledore a proponent of a disturbing thought: Is “justice”, perhaps, not a universal and permanent idea? Is it ever evolving, and our challenge as people is constantly chase after it? Does it even exist as anything other than a human construct, contingent upon evolving human relationships?
Some pretty big questions there, DTL, which I of course take as challenges, being one of those who believe in universal and permanent ideas.
BTW, I don’t see democracy as one of those ideas; it’s just one of the best tools we have to ensure justice and all that.
Is justice a human construct?
Have I ever described the study with monkeys and slices of cucumber? The study which illustrates the concept that equal pay for equal work transcends humanity?
Red Rocker, the Guardian Council does abuse its power and is a valid target for reform. But it isn’t really relevant to the popular election for president.
In fact, if the Supreme Leader is a dictator in control of every facet of Iranian politics, then the matter of who becomes president is unimportant. But the Iranian people do not see it that way. They turned out in huge numbers to vote in the election and lots are outraged at the result. So clearly they think the president has real power and that their votes are important. This seems to be as good an indicator of democracy as anything.
DTL, Very hard questions. If we had a spell which made everyone good, would we want to use it? I think most people would answer ‘No’. But it is difficult to pinpoint why. Does ‘freedom’ trump ‘good’? It would seem that the answer is Yes.
But, SPT, what my experience teaching my Saudi students made ever so concrete to me is that “freedom” can have a level of abstraction to it, as well.
I said earlier that that their version of “democracy” was rather different from what I would have conceived. Well, the differences were at least partially contingent upon what they saw as “freedom”. In their writing, I found myself pushing them to consider freedom in specific terms: speech, press, religious worship, etc. So, the experience drove home to me that “freedom” is better considered a practice, and not simply a noun.
It was interesting conversing with all of them. In all their arguments for reforms to their culture and government (including a vehement condemnation of terrorism in all forms), they never once said anything about ridding the KSA of its monarchy. When I broached the subject of maybe forming a more representative, republican government, they asked a simply question: “Why?”
SPT wrote: “But the Iranian people do not see it that way. They turned out in huge numbers to vote in the election and lots are outraged at the result. So clearly they think the president has real power and that their votes are important. This seems to be as good an indicator of democracy as anything.”
Possibly. Of course, noting what I quoted about soft despotism earlier, the Iranian people may think they play some role in the process & what they say about the President is important when it really isn’t & the system doesn’t change no matter who’s in power.
Anyway, all this talk of democracy & politics reminds me of one of my favorite political songs.
“We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that’s all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
No, no!
I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There’s nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss”
Bypassing the political discussion; Red Rocker, you said: “And I realized that the main difference between fiction and fact is that fiction is so clear in depicting who is right and who is wrong, and in real life it can be so hard to know what is the right thing.”
That is so eloquently and succinctly put. At a remove through the page, it is often to easy to see clearly (guided by the author) that which can be quite bewildering in the dust raised by confusion, persuasion, deceit and actual battle.
You also said: “But you still have to act, because the consequences of not acting are more of the same old bad, so you put on your black outfit, soak a scarf in vinegar to try to filter out the tear gas, and confront the soldiers who have batons and guns with real bullets in them.”
Yes, just like the student standing in front of the tank at Tiannamen Square, with his “Harry’s walk” courage, ready to die…only he stood completely alone without comforters such as Harry had. (Or did he? Might not the Holy Spirit have been with him in a tangible way?)
Would I, could I do this? I have pondered this many times, and now regarding the Iran situation. There must be a tipping point of numerical strength, as in Eastern Europe and the Soviet satellites, for people under tyranny to gain freedom. Minus one courageous person, that point may not be reached. But until it is, how fearful it must be to join in building to that point by publicly standing against an evil governement, ready to fail, be imprisoned, killed or cause other suffering.
Thank you for posting this, Dave. It was very moving. Is Andrew Sullivan the same writer who used to write essays for TIME? I miss him.
Would I, could I? What would it take to make me?
Good questions, Arabella Figg