Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Tell me a story…

James told me that he wasn’t a fan of Ghandi.

“Really?” I’d never heard anybody say that before. I almost wanted to tell him to keep his voice down – we were sitting in Credo Café, one of the main hubs of Urban Seed. In that organisation, to deny Ghandi is getting close to denying Christ! “Why?” I wanted to know.
“Well Ghandi called off the independence movement when it turned violent,” stated James, leaning against a wooden bench. A candle flickered while volunteers mopped the floor around us. “I think to myself: how dare he! If the people wanted to take the movement somewhere, stopping it was a complete abuse of power. It wasn’t his movement – it was the people’s!”
I sat there half-smiling, a little stunned.
James went on. “In fact,” he said, “The Ghandi story is simply a narrative that is popular amongst Americans. Same as Martin Luther King. He appeals to a white liberal audience, because he’s relatively nice. It’s all about racial harmony, as opposed to Black power. Actually,” said James, “the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech was made some years before his death. Before he was assassinated, his speeches took on a stronger socialist flavour. But those speeches don’t get remembered and quoted!”

I am not surprised that James has picked up on – or rather has been around people who have alerted him to – the socialist leanings of Martin Luther King. James believes passionately in the power of the grassroots. He is a self-identifying activist, and continually wears a cotton red-and-white scarf that he picked up during his time in Palestine. A dense beard belies a youthful face and a crooked smile, which persists whether he’s extolling the virtues of a polyamorous lifestyle or condemning Israel for genocide.

James reminds me that the stories of the lives of people we love and admire – like Ghandi and Martin Luther King – are simply that: stories. Like any narrative, some aspects are left out and others are emphasised, and this corresponds with the agenda of the storyteller.

The Ghandi story, for many of us, is a principle in narrative form that nonviolent good will always conquer violent evil. We underscore the nonviolent methods Ghandi demonstrated, such as long marches to gather salt and the burning of British cotton. James, on the other hand, emphasises the fact that at a certain point Ghandi calls the movement off – taking power from the people and causing the Indian people to suffer even longer under British rule.

Similarly, we pick and choose from the historical reality of Martin Luther King – constructing a story of the man as a peaceful defender of civil rights, rather than a man of socialist persuasion. In fact, the whole Black civil rights movement is framed by the figure of the peaceful, Christian King, rather than the Muslim Malcolm X who believed in disciplined, violent defence. We construct a narrative and that becomes history.

As I write this, I think that it all seems so obvious it possibly doesn’t deserve a blog post. But it’s something I need to continually remind myself of – that there are so many versions of history, and when you seek to emulate an inspiring figure, all you can do is imitate the ways of a character in a story. A story based on a historical reality, yes, but nonetheless a story.

The Jesus that I know is a story character. A while ago I posted an analysis of a narrative in Mark, in which Christ overturns the tables of the vendors in the temple. Actually my interpretation is very much a product of my time at Urban Seed, where we tend to view the figure of Christ almost as a social and political revolutionary. My Dad doesn’t share these views, and responded to my post with a lengthy comment, arguing that Jesus’ purpose wasn’t primarily political or social

“I don't believe Jesus came to Jerusalem just to cleanse the Temple,” said Dad. “He came to die […] so that Man might live.” Dad went on: “His death would enable Man […] to enter that Kingdom, because without Jesus' death and therefore atonement for sin, NO ONE would be able to enter it.”

For me, Jesus was about restoration on Earth. For Dad, Jesus was about eternal life in heaven. There are many other narratives you can create around Jesus – I even read recently that Jesus’ mission was to free women and teach us about sexual liberation and the ways of the subconscious. The Gospels give us four separate stories about Christ, and we pick and choose from them to construct a narrative that works well for our own agendas.

Somebody turned the main lights off and we sat in semi-darkness. James related a story about the people of Venezuela, who defended the socialist President Chávez against a CIA-backed coup. Of course, James has his own narratives that he follows – his actions are inspired by the stories in which the common people win. Like me, he picks and chooses from what actually happened, constructing something that is useful for his life.

What actually happened? Who knows? All we can do is tell a story. That’s called history.

4 comments:

David said...

I understand the point of this post is that we pick and choose our stories. However to the best of my knowledge though James' story about Ghandi calling off independence misses some important aspects of the story of India. Anyway I though I would give some more about Ghandi from a slightly better source then my memory.. I checked with Wikipedia (not the best source, but a start anyway)

The calling off of his actions initially happened in the flux of after WWII, when the British indicated they would grant India freedom. This halting of actions released 100,000 prisoners and did not jeopardise the independence movement with independence coming only a few years later.

The partition of India agreed to by the Indian Congress against Ghandi's objection is were the huge problems came. It was organised very poorly by the British Government and caused many deaths. Ghandi worked very hard to stop Muslim-Hindu violence, and fasted until Muslim, Hindu and Seek leaders agreed to renounce violence...

Sadly today this truce does not fully hold.

Simon Moyle said...

God help us if we just pick and choose our stories according to how it suits us. This is what rigorous, honest, accountable Bible and history study is for.

Gandhi's power was given him by the people (as all power is). He did not wield it like a sword, he served their best interests. If they did not want to follow him, they need not have. But he had won them by his integrity, not his political spin.

The calling off of campaigns was designed to limit violence and build self-discipline, which was the central part of Gandhi's satyagraha movement (outlined well in Hind Swaraj or 'Indian Home/Self Rule', you can read the whole thing online). When Indians achieved Swaraj, Gandhi said, independance would fall like a ripe apple. What the people wanted was independance, not the ability to be violent toward their oppressors.

James is half right on King - King's most revolutionary stuff is generally ignored (try his anti-Vietnam war speech, for example, given one year to the day before he was assassinated by his own government, and now ignored on days commemorating/coopting him, or his Poor People's campaign in his last days). He wasn't a socialist though, he was a Christian. There's a significant difference there.

Andreana said...

Thanks for your comments - I should be this controversial more often! James is a socialist with what seems to be some anarchist tendencies. He is suspicious of leaders acting out of sync with what 'the people' want and where 'the people' are going. That is his issue with Ghandi. I don't share his concern - personally I think that leaders should be allowed to lead, rather than always do exactly what the people want. I think that James sees 'the people' as some kind of unified voice. Actually, from my experience, the 'grassroots' is often more like cracked soil, with factions and informal power structures based on much more than class. The 'voice' of 'the people' is often just the loudest and most muscly.

Simon - Rigorous Bible study can result in many answers! I think we always view the Bible, as we do any text or any piece of history, through our own lens and biases. As I say, my Dad reads the Bible with the same rigor as myself, but I think we still follow different Jesus'!

James Crafti said...

Actually David the first time Ghandi called off the movement was not on the eve of WWII but February 1922 when protesters set fire to a police station in Chauri Chaura and killed any police who tried to escape.

This protest burnt down the police station after police fired on demonstrators. Ghandi also called off civil disobedience in 1931 so I am not sure where you get the idea that it was just something he did after WWII. It was something he did early in the piece (and repeated) which I would argue set the movement back decades.

Sure Ghandi did oppose the separation of India but the point is Ghandi calling off the movement at its height meant that the Indians were worn down till the British left (as opposed to being forced out) decades later on their own terms.

The British divided India in their wake in the same way they divided Palestine, Ireland etc. as a way of keeping economic domination. The failure to kick out the British "by any means necessary" facilitated the British in this process regardless of Ghandi's intent.

And Simon yes Martin Luther King was a Christian but does that mean he can't be a socialist? He was always a Christian but as you note his politics changed in the later years of his life. Malcolm X was a Muslim pre and post Nation of Islam (NOI) but his politics also changed.

Christianity like Islam (and most other religions) incorporates many political tendencies. Currently the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a Christian who is also the leader of a socialist revolution taking place in his country. Where is the contradiction?

And lastly Andreana I reject your claims that I have anarchist leanings. I have no problem with political leadership and support revolutionary leaders from Lenin to the Castro brothers, Chavez etc. That doesn't mean that I don't have criticisms of them but in general I politically agree with them.

Yes leaders have to lead and they will often come in to conflict with 'the masses.' Sometimes those leaders have been right (in my opinion) and sometimes they were wrong (as I believe Ghandi was).