Friday, November 16, 2018

"If you wish to be on good terms..."

 If you wish to be on good terms with God and have his grace direct your life and come to the joy of love, then fix this name “Jesus” so firmly in your heart that it never leaves your thought. 



And when you speak to him using your customary name “Jesu”, in your ear it will be joy, in your mouth honey, and in your heart melody, because it will seem joy to you to hear that name being pronounced, sweetness to speak it, cheer and singing to think it. 

If you think the name “Jesus” continually and cling to it devotedly, then it will cleanse you from sin and set your heart aflame.  It will enlighten your soul, remove turbulence, and eliminate lethargy;  it will give the wound of love (The Song 5:7-8) and fill the soul to overflow with love; it will chase off the devil and eliminate terror, open heaven, and create a mystic. 

Have “Jesus” in your mind, because it expels all wickedness and delusion from his lover; and greet Mary frequently, both day and night.  Great will be the love and joy you feel if you are willing to act in accordance with this instruction.  There is no need for you to be very eager for a lot of books: 

Hold on to love in heart and deed, and you’ve got everything which we can talk or write about.  For the fulfilment of the law is love:  On that, everything depends. 

 - From The Fire of Love, by Richard Rolle (1304? - 1349)  English hermit, religious writer and Bible translator

Saturday, November 10, 2018

The Rise and Fall of the "Other" Blue Ridge Parkway


The Blue Ridge Parkway is the setting for some of my earliest memories and some of my fondest memories.  I’m certain that many thousands of other people would say the same.

The Parkway has become so much a part of our lies that it is hard to imagine the mountains without it.  But, of course, it wasn’t always here.  Construction started in 1935.  The segment leading to Waterrock Knob didn’t open until 1959.

Early construction on the Parkway

Some people still remember the mountains before the Parkway, and several years ago, I listened to their stories.  Every summer they would drive cattle up to the open range between Old Bald and Richland Balsam.  Gathering blueberries and camping out to watch over their livestock was part of a subsistence lifestyle, not an annual vacation.

Summit of Richland Balsam in the 1930s

Today, looking at these places, one thing is obvious.  Had the Blue Ridge Parkway not been created in the 1930s, it might not be there today.  Given a delay of thirty years, the outcry over a road desecrating the mountain summits would have almost certainly brought the project to a halt.

An almost forgotten incident illustrates the changing attitudes toward the scenic road.

Construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway extended from 1935 to 1987.  During that same half century, officials pursued a two hundred mile extension of the Blue Ridge Parkway into Georgia.

As contemplated in 1937, the extension would branch off from the southernmost point of the Parkway at Beech Gap, near the current milepost 423.  From Tanasee Bald it would cross Panthertown Valley, skirt Cashiers and Highlands in North Carolina, and approach Brasstown Bald and Springer Mountain in Georgia before terminating near Kennesaw Mountain, north of Atlanta.  

Except for a 1953 field study of the proposed route, the effort languished for more than twenty years.

That changed when Representative Roy A. Taylor of Asheville went to Congress in 1960.  One of his first initiatives was to promote the Parkway extension, and his bill authorizing $35,000 for a study was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in August 1961.

Map of proposed extension - July 1963
(Click to enlarge)

Within two years, the National Park Service and the United States Forest Service submitted a report grading the project as “highly recommended.”  Agreement by both agencies was crucial.  The Parkway was a unit of the Park Service and the extension was routed to make the most of Nantahala National Forest in North Carolina and Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia.  Any acquisition of private land for the road would not only cost much more, but disrupt farms and homes along the way.

Taylor continued to champion the project, even after it was voted down twice in Congress.  When he became chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Taylor had the leverage to get a bill passed.  In January 1968 Congress authorized 87.5 million dollars for the Parkway extension.

This legislative victory grabbed attention.  In Georgia, real estate advertisements promptly touted “land for sale along the proposed Blue Ridge Parkway Extension.”  On the other hand, a letter writer to an Atlanta newspaper warned “the Parkway extension will destroy more than 50 of the 75 miles of the Appalachian Trail in Georgia.”

In 1969, details of the linear park emerged.  Plans included picnic areas every twenty miles, a pioneer homestead in Rabun County, Georgia’s Plum Orchard Valley, and the Rattlesnake Knob visitor area near Highlands, providing access to Cliffside Lake.  A recreational development slated for Panthertown Valley would offer overnight lodging, dining, a 120-unit campground and a spur road to the top of Toxaway Mountain.

An ominous turning point came in November of 1970.  Vocal opponents of the road packed a public hearing in Georgia.  A spokesman for the state Game and Fish Commission expressed concern about the impact of the extension on the environment of the North Georgia highlands.  Conservation groups coalesced for a long fight.  

Meanwhile in North Carolina a different obstacle arose.  A real estate company, the Liberty Corporation, owned 40,000 acres in Panthertown and surrounding areas, directly in the path of the Parkway extension.  The first prospective route threatened Liberty’s plan for a resort development of second homes, a golf course and lodge.  Liberty intended to dam the headwaters of the Tuckasegee to create a lake, which would have inundated Schoolhouse Falls.  Construction of the Parkway was acceptable to Liberty, but only if it complemented their own development plans.  Environmentalists in North Carolina raised alarms over the irreparable harm to the unique natural features of Panthertown posed by the Park Service and Liberty proposals.

Schoolhouse Falls

By 1976, the Park Service withdrew plans for a Parkway extension in Georgia.  Then, at public hearings on alternatives for the North Carolina portion, many attendees favored the option of “no action” on the road.

The Parkway extension did gain support in South Carolina.  In July 1976, the General Assembly passed a resolution promoting a new route, connecting with the North Carolina link at the state line near Whitewater Falls.  The path in South Carolina would meander westward for forty miles, through the most mountainous region of the Palmetto State.

South Carolina’s overture was not enough to save the Blue Ridge Parkway extension, though.  After several more years attempting to iron out differences with environmentalists and developers, the Park Service calculated the rising costs of construction and abandoned the project in the early 1980s.

Liberty Corporation’s development in Panthertown never materialized either, and eventually, the Forest Service acquired the huge tract for the Nantahala National Forest, commemorating the addition as the “Roy Taylor Forest” in 1982.



One of Congressman Taylor’s final acts before leaving Washington in 1977 was to introduce a bill, later signed into law, adding 900,000 acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System.



A bronze plaque beside the Blue Ridge Parkway honors a man whose hopes for the scenic road’s southern extension never became reality.  It bears the words:

“Man in his wisdom has made many wonderful and useful things, but no man can make a wilderness.”

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

I'll Take My Stand



From:

I'LL TAKE MY STAND

The Twelve Southerners

(1930)

INTRODUCTION: A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

THE authors contributing to this book are Southerners, well acquainted with one another and of similar tastes, though not necessarily living in the same physical community, and perhaps only at this moment aware of themselves as a single group of men. By conversation and exchange of letters over a number of years it had developed that they entertained many convictions in common, and it was decided to make a volume in which each one should furnish his views upon a chosen topic. This was the general background. But background and consultation as to the various topics were enough; there was to be no further collaboration. And so no single author is responsible for any view outside his own article. It was through the good fortune of some deeper agreement that the book was expected to achieve its unity. All the articles bear in the same sense upon the book's title-subject: all tend to support a Southern way of life against what may be called the American or prevailing way; and all as much as agree that the best terms in which to represent the distinction are contained in the phrase, Agrarian versus Industrial.

But after the book was under way it seemed a pity if the contributors, limited as they were within their special subjects, should stop short of showing how close their agreements really were. On the contrary, it seemed that they ought to go on and make themselves known as a group already consolidated by a set of principles which could be stated with a good deal of particularity. This might prove useful for the sake of future reference, if they should undertake any further joint publication. It was then decided to prepare a general introduction for the book which would state briefly the common convictions of the group. This is the statement. To it every one of the contributors in this book has subscribed.

Nobody now proposes for the South, or far any other community in this country, an independent political destiny. That idea is thought to have been finished in 1805. But how far shall the South surrender its moral, social, and economic autonomy to the victorious principle of Union? That question remains open. The South is a minority section that has hitherto been jealous of its minority right to live its own kind of life. The South scarcely hopes to determine the other sections, but it does propose to determine itself, within the utmost limits of legal action. Of late, however, there is the melancholy fact that the South itself has wavered a little and shown signs of wanting to join up behind the common or American industrial ideal. It is against that tendency that this book is written. The younger Southerners, who are being converted frequently to the industrial gospel, must come back to the support of the Southern tradition. They must be persuaded to look very critically at the advantages of becoming a "new South" which will be only an undistinguished replica of the usual industrial community.

But there are many other minority communities opposed to industrialism, and wanting a much simpler economy to live by. The communities and private persons sharing the agrarian tastes are to be found widely within the Union. Proper living is a matter of the intelligence and the will, does not depend on the local climate or geography, and is capable of a definition which is general and not Southern at all. Southerners have a filial duty to discharge to their own section. But their cause is precarious and they must seek alliances with sympathetic communities everywhere. The members of the present group would be happy to be counted as members of a national agrarian movement.

Industrialism is the economic organization of the collective American society. It means the decision of society to invest its economic resources in the applied sciences. But the word science has acquired a certain sanctitude. It is out of order to quarrel with science in the abstract, or even with the applied sciences when their applications are made subject to criticism and intelligence. The capitalization of the applied sciences has now become extravagant and uncritical; it has enslaved our human energies to a degree now clearly felt to be burdensome. The apologists of industrialism do not like to meet this charge directly; so they often take refuge in saying that they are devoted simply to science! They are really devoted to the applied sciences and to practical production. Therefore it is necessary to employ a certain skepticism even at the expense of the Cult of Science, and to say, It is an Americanism, which looks innocent and disinterested, but really is not either.

The contribution that science can make to a labor is to render it easier by the help of a tool or a process, and to assure the laborer of his perfect economic security while he is engaged upon it. Then it can be performed with leisure and enjoyment. But the modern laborer has not exactly received this benefit under the industrial regime. His labor is hard, its tempo is fierce, and his employment is insecure. The first principle of a good labor is that it must be effective, but the second principle is that it must be enjoyed. Labor is one of the largest items in the human career; it is a modest demand to ask that it may partake of happiness.

The regular act of applied science is to introduce into labor a labor-saving device or a machine. Whether this is a benefit depends on how far it is advisable to save the labor The philosophy of applied science is generally quite sure that the saving of labor is a pure gain, and that the more of it the better. This is to assume that labor is an evil, that only the end of labor or the material product is good. On this assumption labor becomes mercenary and servile, and it is no wonder if many forms of modern labor are accepted without resentment though they are evidently brutalizing. The act of labor as one of the happy functions of human life has been in effect abandoned, and is practiced solely for its rewards.

Even the apologists of industrialism have been obliged to admit that some economic evils follow in the wake of the machines. These are such as overproduction, unemployment, and a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth. But the remedies proposed by the apologists are always homeopathic. They expect the evils to disappear when we have bigger and better machines, and more of them. Their remedial programs, therefore, look forward to more industrialism. Sometimes they see the system righting itself spontaneously and without direction: they are Optimists. Sometimes they rely on the benevolence of capital, or the militancy of labor, to bring about a fairer division of the spoils: they are Cooperationists or Socialists. And sometimes they expect to find super-engineers, in the shape of Boards of Control, who will adapt production to consumption and regulate prices and guarantee business against fluctuations: they are Sovietists. With respect to these last it must be insisted that the true Sovietists or Communists-if the term may be used here in the European sense-are the Industrialists themselves. They would have the government set up an economic super-organization, which in turn would become the government. We therefore look upon the Communist menace as a menace indeed, but not as a Red one; because it is simply according to the blind drift of our industrial development to expect in America at last much the same economic system as that imposed by violence upon Russia in 1917.

Turning to consumption, as the grand end which justifies the evil of modern labor, we find that we have been deceived. We have more time in which to consume, and many more products to be consumed. But the tempo of our labors communicates itself to our satisfactions, and these also become brutal and hurried. The constitution of the natural man probably does not permit him to shorten his labor-time and enlarge his consuming-time indefinitely. He has to pay the penalty in satiety and aimlessness. The modern man has lost his sense of vocation.

Religion can hardly expect to flourish in an industrial society. Religion is our submission to the general intention of a nature that is fairly inscrutable; it is the sense of our role as creatures within it. But nature industrialized, transformed into cities and artificial habitations, manufactured into commodities, is no longer nature but a highly simplified picture of nature. We receive the illusion of having power over nature, and lose the sense of nature as something mysterious and contingent. The God of nature under these conditions is merely an amiable expression, a superfluity, and the philosophical understanding ordinarily carried in the religious experience is not there for us to have.

Nor do the arts have a proper life under industrialism, with the general decay of sensibility which attends it. Art depends, in general, like religion, on a right attitude to nature; and in particular on a free and disinterested observation of nature that occurs only in leisure. Neither the creation nor the understanding of works of art is possible in an industrial age except by some local and unlikely suspension of the industrial drive.

The amenities of life also suffer under the curse of a strictly-business or industrial civilization. They consist in such practices as manners, conversation, hospitality, sympathy, family life, romantic love-in the social exchanges which reveal and develop sensibility in human affairs. If religion and the arts are founded on right relations of man- to-nature, these are founded on right relations of man-to- man.

Apologists of industrialism are even inclined to admit that its actual processes may have upon its victims the spiritual effects just described. But they think that all can be made right by extraordinary educational efforts, by all sorts of cultural institutions and endowments. They would cure the poverty of the contemporary spirit by hiring experts to instruct it in spite of itself in the historic culture. But salvation is hardly to be encountered on that road. The trouble with the life-pattern is to be located at its economic base, and we cannot rebuild it by pouring in soft materials from the top. The young men and women in colleges, for example, if they are already placed in a false way of life, cannot make more than an inconsequential acquaintance with the arts and humanities transmitted to them. Or else the understanding of these arts and humanities will but make them the more wretched in their own destitution.

The "Humanists" are too abstract. Humanism, properly speaking, is not an abstract system, but a culture, the whole way in which we live, act, think, and feel. It is a kind of imaginatively balanced life lived out in a definite social tradition. And, in the concrete, we believe that this, the genuine humanism, was rooted in the agrarian life of the older South and of other parts of the country that shared in such a tradition. It was not an abstract moral "check" derived from the classics-it was not soft material poured in from the top. It was deeply founded in the way of life itself-in its tables, chairs, portraits, festivals, laws, marriage customs. We cannot recover our native humanism by adopting some standard of taste that is critical enough to question the contemporary arts but not critical enough to question the social and economic life which is their ground.

The tempo of the industrial life is fast, but that is not the worst of it; it is accelerating. The ideal is not merely some set form of industrialism, with so many stable industries, but industrial progress, or an incessant extension of industrialization. It never proposes a specific goal; it initiates the infinite series. We have not merely capitalized certain industries; we have capitalized the laboratories and inventors, and undertaken to employ all the labor-saving devices that come out of them. But a fresh labor-saving device introduced into an industry does not emancipate the laborers in that industry so much as it evicts them. Applied at the expense of agriculture, for example, the new processes have reduced the part of the population supporting itself upon the soil to a smaller and smaller fraction. Of course no single labor-saving process is fatal; it brings on a period of unemployed labor and unemployed capital, but soon a new industry is devised which will put them both to work again, and a new commodity is thrown upon the market. The laborers were sufficiently embarrassed in the meantime, but, according to the theory, they will eventually be taken care of. It is now the public which is embarrassed; it feels obligated to purchase a commodity for which it had expressed no desire, but it is invited to make its budget equal to the strain. All might yet be well, and stability and comfort might again obtain, but for this: partly because of industrial ambitions and partly because the repressed creative impulse must break out somewhere, there will be a stream of further labor-saving devices in all industries, and the cycle will have to be repeated over and over. The result is an increasing disadjustment and instability.

It is an inevitable consequence of industrial progress that production greatly outruns the rate of natural consumption. To overcome the disparity, the producers, disguised as the pure idealists of progress, must coerce and wheedle the public into being loyal and steady consumers, in order to keep the machines running. So the rise of modern advertising-along with its twin, personal salesmanship-is the most significant development of our industrialism. Advertising means to persuade the consumers to want exactly what the applied sciences are able to furnish them. It consults the happiness of the consumer no more than it consulted the happiness of the laborer. It is the great effort of a false economy of life to approve itself. But its task grows more difficult even day.

It is strange, of course, that a majority of men anywhere could ever as with one mind become enamored of industrialism: a system that has so little regard for individual wants. There is evidently a kind of thinking that rejoices in setting up a social objective which has no relation to the individual. Men are prepared to sacrifice their private dignity and happiness to an abstract social ideal, and without asking whether the social ideal produces the welfare of any individual man whatsoever. But this is absurd. The responsibility of men is for their own welfare and that of their neighbors; not for the hypothetical welfare of some fabulous creature called society.

Opposed to the industrial society is the agrarian, which does not stand in particular need of definition. An agrarian society is hardly one that has no use at all for industries, for professional vocations, for scholars and artists, and for the life of cities. Technically, perhaps, an agrarian society is one in which agriculture is the leading vocation, whether for wealth, for pleasure, or for prestige-a form of labor that is pursued with intelligence and leisure, and that becomes the model to which the other forms approach as well as they may. But an agrarian regime will be secured readily enough where the superfluous industries are not allowed to rise against it. The theory of agrarianism is that the culture of the soil is the best and most sensitive of vocations, and that therefore it should have the economic preference and enlist the maximum number of workers.

These principles do not intend to be very specific in proposing any practical measures. How may the little agrarian community resist the Chamber of Commerce of its county seat, which is always trying to import some foreign industry that cannot be assimilated to the life-pattern of the community? Just what must the Southern leaders do to defend the traditional Southern life ? How may the Southern and the Western agrarians unite for effective action? Should the agrarian forces try to capture the Democratic party, which historically is so closely affiliated with the defense of individualism, the small community, the state, the South ? Or must the agrarians-even the Southern ones-abandon the Democratic party to its fate and try a new one? What legislation could most profitably be championed by the powerful agrarians in the Senate of the United States? What anti-industrial measures might promise to stop the advances of industrialism, or even undo some of them, with the least harm to those concerned? What policy should be pursued by the educators who have a tradition at heart? These and many other questions are of the greatest importance, but they cannot be answered here.

For, in conclusion, this much is clear: If a community, or a section, or a race, or an age, is groaning under industrialism, and well aware that it is an evil dispensation, it must find the way to throw it off. To think that this cannot be done is pusillanimous. And if the whole community, section, race, or age thinks it cannot be done, then it has simply lost its political genius and doomed itself to impotence.

Thursday, October 25, 2018

An Exile on Earth

From The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis (ca. 1380 - 1471)

The Seventeenth Chapter
Monastic Life

If you wish peace and concord with others, you must learn to break your will in many things. To live in monasteries or religious communities, to remain there without complaint, and to persevere faithfully till death is no small matter. Blessed indeed is he who there lives a good life and there ends his days in happiness.



If you would persevere in seeking perfection, you must consider yourself a pilgrim, an exile on earth. If you would become a religious, you must be content to seem a fool for the sake of Christ. Habit and tonsure change a man but little; it is the change of life, the complete mortification of passions that endow a true religious.

He who seeks anything but God alone and the salvation of his soul will find only trouble and grief, and he who does not try to become the least, the servant of all, cannot remain at peace for long.

You have come to serve, not to rule. You must understand, too, that you have been called to suffer and to work, not to idle and gossip away your time. Here men are tried as gold in a furnace. Here no man can remain unless he desires with all his heart to humble himself before God.