1. Samuel C. Hyde, Jr., Pistols and Politics: The Dilemma of Democracy in Louisiana’s Florida Parishes, 1810-1899, page 142:
Starvation loomed in large areas of eastern Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi. Faced with an acute shortage of meat, prominent Livingston Parish planter directed his overseer to kill as much wild game as possible while he sought provisions in New Orleans. Through the fall and winter of 1865, his employees killed hundreds of squirrels and ducks, selling some to their equally destitute neighbors. Freedmen’s Bureau agents across the region regularly petitioned the bureau headquarters at New Orleans for provisions. Like many local farmers, John Haney virtually ceased planting cotton and concentrated exclusively on food production, though the initial results were less than encouraging. Governor J. Madison Wells informed President Andrew Johnson that in the last phase of the military campaign, the Federals confiscated a large number of horses and mules used for agricultural purposes by the population. The governor concluded that this action, more than anything else, contributed to the “great distress and fear of pestilence and starvation plaguing the country.” Most unconfiscated cattle and hogs had been slaughtered or dispersed by the Federals, greatly exacerbating the food crisis.
Post-Civil War Reconstruction apparently tried to help starving people in the South, for it petitioned authorities for provisions. Yet, there was also a dark-side to the Northern interference there: Federals confiscated the animals that Southerners used to produce food, thereby aggravating the crisis. In my reading today, Hyde’s point has been that Union forces oppressed the Louisiana Florida parishes, creating a lot of resentment against Northern intervention. That resentment continued after the Civil War, as the Union tried to shape Southern governments through Reconstruction. Cruelty engendered hate. We’ve seen this sort of thing before: France and other nations oppressed Germany after World War I, and that contributed to Germany’s reaction of hatred, in the person of Adolf Hitler.
2. Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, pages 80-81:
But Smith had already learned that these creatures, so much like himself in some ways, could endure emotions dreadful to contemplate and still not die. His Brother Mahmoud underwent a spiritual agony five times daily and not only did not die but had urged the agony on him as a needful thing. His Brother Captain van Tromp suffered terrifying spasms unpredictably, any one of which should have, by Smith’s standards, produced immediate discorporation to end the conflict—yet that brother was still corporate so far as he knew.
Yes, we sure can survive a lot, can’t we? Often, after surviving an ordeal, all I can do is sigh. People have told me that I shouldn’t fret about problems, for I have survived them. “Whoopee”, I think to myself. “What’s the point of survival, if life is filled with so much suffering and uncertainty?” But I guess it’s also filled with good things—more so for some people than for others. And yet, even those “others” may enjoy life in some manner. Just because they’re poor, that doesn’t mean they can’t appreciate things that more affluent peoples take for granted.
Then there’s Brother Mahmoud, who feels that his personal spiritual agony makes him a better person. That reminds me of depressed Christian C. Michael Patton’s statement that he won’t take anti-depressant medications, but will handle the problem with God. Deep down, I have the same sort of feeling: if I take medications, am I displaying a lack of faith in God? And yet, if depression incapacitates me, then medication may be necessary! I don’t think I’ve gotten to that point, though.
3. Erhard Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, page 181:
“Light” is a symbol of God’s communication and the human perception of truth and strength…The concept of “light” that enlightens and leads in the right path and is “sent forth” to bring the supplicant to the “Holy Mount” and the “apartments” of God…may herald the concern of the later Jewish community for Jerusalem and the tora.
Light. What is it? Is it learning how to navigate one’s way through life, a light being shone on the path that we should follow, thereby making it clear to us? I certainly appreciate those who give me advice on how to navigate my way through the world. A lot of times, that means learning how to deal with harsh realities and self-serving people. That doesn’t necessarily inspire me.
On Ghost Whisperer, light is associated with things like love, joy, peace, etc., whereas darkness encompasses stuff like hate and selfishness. According to that show, we let in the light and repel dark spirits when we do what my Grandpa Pate says: yield to that right spirit! (Of course, Jennifer Love Hewitt doesn’t mention my Grandpa Pate!)
Sometimes, one can hear somebody say something that gives one a new way of looking at things: a way that works. I was getting my hair cut today, and the lady cutting my hair talked about meditation. She said that she met people who practiced it and noticed they were at peace and “living in the moment”. That’s what convinced her that it works. There are conservative Christians who may look down on meditation, but don’t they validate their worldview as my hairdresser did for meditation: they point to people who are living better lives as a result of Jesus Christ, people who are calm in the midst of life’s storms and loving towards their fellow man?
4. Richard Sarason, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: A Study of Tractate Demai, page 205:
The sharecropper works the field in return for a certain percentage of the total yield. The field itself remains in the possession of the landowner, since he shares the attendant risks. For this reason the sharecropper does not tithe that part of the produce which he gives to the landowner…He rather divides up the total yield at the threshing-floor in the landowner’s presence, which ensures that each party receives his proper share.
So the entire harvest is tithed in one setting. The sharecropper doesn’t tithe the part of the produce that he gives to the landowner. But is the same amount tithed in both scenarios? That would be a good story problem for mathematics!
5. Baruch Levine, Numbers 1-20, page 89:
…the JE narratives retroject certain events and realities of the settlement period and of the period of the monarchy into a prior age, about which we know relatively little historically. By doing so, the JE authors laid a foundation for later realistic relations between Israelites and some of their enemies—such as Amalekites, Midianites, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites—as well as between Israelites and some of their friends.
This reminds me of Jon Levenson’s book review of S. David Sperling’s The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible’s Writers. Sperling does not view much of the Torah as historically-accurate, but he believes that it reflects the political concerns of later times. He sees Moses as a symbol for Saul, and he likes to tie things in the Torah to Jeroboam I and Jeroboam II.
Conservative scholars, however, often try to demonstrate that the Torah does not reflect later times, heightening the chance that it is historically-accurate. I think it was Nahum Sarna who pointed out that the twelve tribes in Genesis do not reflect later political realities. In Genesis, Reuben is the firstborn, but that’s not how it was in the monarchical period, when the prominent tribes were Judah and Joseph, and Reuben was rather insignificant. For Sarna, Reuben as firstborn reflects a pre-monarchical reality. At the same time, Genesis does talk about how Reuben lost its status. Maybe it reflects the political reality in which Reuben was minor, while recalling a time when it was greater. The Torah can contain early and late stuff.
6. My ATLA is back, and so I read five book reviews. Here is a quote from Steven Fraade’s Enosh and His Generation:
The Christian Fathers, employing allegory and typology, treated pre-Israelite and antedilivuiam history as a paradigm, claiming that the Church’s election and travail was like that of the righteous Sethide “sons of God”. The rabbis, employing what might be called “etiological exegesis,” treated pre-Israelite history as a foil, tracing the origins of humanity’s sorry state to the pre-Israelite generations. Such universal figures as Seth, Enosh, Enoch, and Noah were denied significant redemptive and revelatory functions.
I don’t get all of this, which highlights the problem with relying solely on book reviews as I prepare for my comps. Some books do not appear to be worth the effort of reading all the way through, but there are some that I’d like to read, just to see certain lacunae in the book review’s summary filled up, to some extent. But reading book reviews gives me a good overview of scholarly trends!
Is Fraade saying that the rabbis tried to present humanity as corrupt before the onset of Abraham? This coincides with things I have heard: Christians wanted to emphasize the existence of non-Jewish saints, to support its belief that one can be righteous apart from the nation of Israel. The rabbis held that Gentiles could be righteous, but they still thought that Israel was God’s chosen people, so they sought to stress Abraham’s righteousness and downplay the righteous people who came before. After all, didn’t God choose Abraham and his seed to be God’s solution to humanity’s problems, to be a light to corrupt humanity? A way to promote this narrative is to show that humanity was corrupt before Abraham came on the scene.
This is rather simplistic, but there is probably some truth to it.
7. Okay, at my hair appointment, a guy walked in who also practiced meditation. He was lauding this one teacher he listened to, because she spoke from the heart. He said that one of her jewels is that the goal of meditation is not for us to change, but to become our true selves. Yet, that entailed taking a break from a lot of the garbage and rushing thoughts that perplex us.
That makes some sense to me, since trying to “change” is often a dead end for me. I’d like to become comfortable with who I am. Yet, in a sense, that is a change. But it’s not a change imposed by law.
I’m not sure if taking a break from negative thoughts will make me a better person at all times. Who knows? I still think it’s a good idea, though.
I’m hesitant to try meditation, though, for I associate that with the New Age Movement and channeling spirit guides, which conservative Christians consider to be demons. But the practitioners of meditation I heard today did not mention spirit guides. Rather, they talked about focusing on your breath, or a cupcake, or whatever—anything other than the things that stress you out or cause your mind to rush. As my hairdresser said, “Our minds need to take a break.”