Sunday, June 5, 2011

The Story of TASSC Founder Dianna Ortiz

I remember, on the ride back from the panel discussion, mentioning to our local DC director of TASSC that it seemed so pointless for Katherine Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights to continue to pursue indictments against American officials in foreign courts.  Gallagher and the CCR have been attempting to prosecute members of the Bush and Obama administrations for their involvement in torture carried out during the 10 year “War on Terror”.  There is a legal opening pertaining to torture that allows international jurisdiction.  But does it really matter?  What is the point of attempting to take down members of the most powerful empire on earth?  Who would enforce it?  The panel discussion was held on June 1 in Washington, and featured the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, himself a survivor of torture from Argentina. 

The pointlessness that I felt, and heard in Gallagher’s tired voice, was the same feeling I had while reading of Sister Dianna Ortiz’s attempts at obtaining justice for her torture in Guatemala in 1989.  She had, unfortunately, been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had fallen under the dark umbrella of “CIA assets”.  She takes us through an account that undoubtedly has been repeated thousands of times:  the reality of walking through the dog and pony show that victims receive when coming up against a government bent on protecting its controversial “interests”, regardless of who the victims are. 

The US government commits torture today.  We know that now, and official documents state this fact.  I doubt that there has ever been a time when the US has not supported torture in some way.  Any amount of reading and critical thinking will raise questions about our domestic and foreign policy and will uncover nightmares if one digs far enough.  Ortiz own investigation and interviews of Guatemalan and American officials, along with the work of her lawyers and the review of declassified documents was enough to tell her that there was some serious American support of torture and murder going on in Guatemala, and that was continuing to go on when the book was published in 2002.  That is without seeing the many additional classified documents about her case that remain closed to the public. 

Ortiz was subjected to abduction, burns, gang-rape and the forced torture/murder of another woman during her ordeal in 1989.  Her story is only one of thousands quite similar that have come out of Latin America and all over the world.  The question in my mind when reading accounts like this is what can we do about it?  It was the same question that Ortiz struggled with, and the “doing something about it” was for a long time her only motivation to continue living. 

As I was talking about the panel discussion with our director, it seemed to me that the most effective action we could take begins from the ground up, not from the other direction as Gallagher was attempting.  Maybe Katherine Gallagher and others like her are doing some good by continuing to be active on the international level.  However, reading a book written by someone like Dianna Ortiz, and listening to similar tearful accounts in my daily work at TASSC, puts a human face on all of the madness that our government practices in the world today.  It is hard to be involved in this work.  It drains a person emotionally and physically, and will drive one insane with anger if they allow it.  However, the victims more than anything need someone to be there to listen; to validate; to point out the way to healing and purpose.  To simply stand beside them as they try to piece their lives back together.  This is where the real difference can be made:  at the grassroots.  We practice the principles of love in our world through the individual contacts we make.  As power grows, it moves further and further from humanity.  To return to that humanity, we focus on the micro, on the person, the individual.  Then we see our own humanity reflected in the other, and realize, like Ortiz, that power doesn’t have to be all pervasive.  Faith in humanity can be restored in others by the way we choose to live our own lives.  

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Thought Control or Free Speech?

Throughout my courses at Eastern Mennonite University this year, one principle has been drilled into me in every class I took.  This ranged from philosophy to history to conflict analysis.  The message was to always look for multiple ways to read any academic literature when analyzing a situation/conflict/issue/historical account.  This is the logical/rational method, and it’s the same method used in the scientific approach; that is: coming up with different hypotheses. 

This academic approach has endured a head-on collision with journalism and government reports ever since 9/11, and has been re-kindled this week with the reported killing of Osama Bin Laden.  The reporting of the events have been consistent for the most part on the macro level, and this included the Arabic outlet Al Jazeera, and none of them have varied from the report of the Obama administration.  By now, I’m sure most of you are aware of the main facts, although the details continue to change daily about how Osama actually died, who was present and whether or not he was armed.  That is, if you accept the fact that Bin Laden was actually killed in the first place, or who the man even was, where he was, and if he was even alive to be killed (not to even mention the lingering questions around 9/11 itself). 

But despite the simple presentation of the facts (whatever they may be), there is a great deal of virulent discourse happening towards certain free-thinkers, and undoubtedly it’s because we are no longer in shock, and people have had 10 years to think things over and develop some legitimate questions about parts of our one-sided national story that don’t make sense.  This is exemplified over the past couple of days with the tweets of Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, who is being castrated in the media for mainly two tweets:

1.  "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style."
2. “What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak."

To me, it sounds like Mendenhall has not only had a certain level of healthy questioning about the actual events of 9/11, but has a genuine compassion for human life, even the life of a portrayed “enemy”.  Jesus, Muhammad, Gandhi, Buddha, Krishna, and all the great love traditions teach this same great truth.  But to feel so pressured to conform to a command to celebrate the death of a labeled enemy, comes dangerously close to feeling like we’re living in Orwell’s Oceania. 

Whenever a major announcement concerning the “safety of America” happens in this country, we are expected to cease all thought and profess total allegiance to the flag and the President.  It apparently never occurs to most that power structures could be hiding some facts, because at the moment a major news network makes an announcement, permission is given to have thinking outsourced to outlets whose sole purpose is to make money or control public perception in any possible way, and the more sensationalism, the more fear, the better. 

Mendenhall now faces the possibility of endorsement losses, the certainty of receiving threats (he’s already had some), and continued incitement of hatred towards him from the media.  Mike and Mike on ESPN were doing a stellar job at this these past two mornings as I was watching at the gym [Let me take this time to say that normally I don’t follow sports, but this isn’t a purely “sports” issue].  “Unpatriotic”, “Insensitive”, “Ignorant”, and “Uninformed” were just a few of the words being used.  However, they always backed it up with his right to “free speech”, but that he would “have to suffer the consequences for that speech.”  But then how is that free speech?  If Mendenhall has been black-listed in the media because of his right to free speech, stands to lose his endorsements and reputation, and even the possibility of being released from the team, it doesn’t sound so free after all.  In fact, it sounds like the purges involving the stripping of power or social standing that I heard so much about in my recent reading of Mao’s China.    

This should be deeply disturbing to all of us, as it appears more and more that we are not truly free to publicly announce our opinions on 9/11 and Bin Laden in this current climate.  I’m thinking myself about what my deep questioning and refusal to conform would cost me if I aired my viewpoints in certain quarters.  Would it cost me a job?  Access to a certain academic program? Or simply violent threats from people if I was still on the radio professing these opinions?  Now I pose the question to you:  Is this the mark of a country with truly protected free speech, or is it the mark of a society that has developed thought control and an atmosphere of fear because, as Mike and Mike say “you’ll have to suffer the consequences”?


Friday, February 18, 2011

A Current Code for Living

Many of you have been asking how I've been coping with the recent tragedy of Sarah's death, and one thing I've loved about being at Eastern Mennonite University is the way that we can use the classes for personal reflection.  We were asked to write a "manifesto of life", and that was the perfect opportunity to take stock of where I'm at with everything and it forced me to look at what exactly were my sources of strength; the things that have kept me sane.  Well, here's a partial glimpse. 

This is a perpetually evolving manifesto of life as this specific context of writing will be different tomorrow, and might not even be remotely similar within the next few minutes.  At any time something climatic could happen; something which has once been described as a “rift in time”.   These are the periods of life where everything seems to stand still; where massive changes in direction occur.  These changes can be positive, negative, or a unity of the two.  Much of this depends on perspective, and therefore definitions; the terms with which we use to describe our world.  In fact, much of what we consider to be climatic or consequential is dependent upon definitions.  All of these definitions, upon closer examination of our perspective, incorporate some form of the conflict of opposites, the conflict that is basic to the universe and the meaning we ascribe to it.  There are choices to be made because of this conflict.  The idea that some choice is good and another bad is apparent, but why is that the case?  By whose standards do we govern our lives and by what view do we see the conflict?  Through the conflict of opposites, is there a universal thread that can be found?

These are the kinds of questions that occur when life is stripped down to the basic.  For most, it comes at a time of crisis, even if that crisis is simply an existential anguish as to the meaning of it all.  This kind of crisis is basic to human existence and will occur to you, or at the very least must be acknowledged in every human being if happiness is to be found.  This crisis is the conflict of opposites.  You must face it, unless you want it to make itself known at a time not of your choosing.  The crisis itself is comprised of opposites; an example being the fear yet potential for liberation of the unknown.  It is the point where one may feel like all that is left is their breath, and even that may be slipping away. But there is still something, even if it’s ugly, even if it has no map, even if no one cares. What happens next is a choice. You can choose to take the basics of life that are left and build around them. What you make becomes something on your terms. Why else does adversity create some of the best art? Adversity sheds that which has arrived from the outside; from the structural aspects of society, family, culture, religion, nation, ethnicity and any unquestioned belief system.

It is only when all externals are devalued completely that freedom can be found.  This is the freedom to seek, to discover truth, to recognize the universal; the love that pervades the universal; the love that most refer to as God.  This is the love that we recognize in each other.  It is the same love that prohibits us from valuing ourselves no more but no less than the other; the love that finds the non-dualistic balance in the conflict of opposites that is so crucial to a meaningful existence.  But this is also the love that demands risks; that has its opposite in loss or even hate. 

When we love, we are on the path to knowledge of the divine, because we begin to discover ourselves, and through ourselves we see the other and validate the other’s voice and purpose as inseparable from our own.    We learn that truth is inside, not outside, that society is a set of assumptions; of agreements that we have made between our various individual egos.  We learn that much of life is absurd; that the meaning which we ascribe to externals is utterly senseless at base.  Ultimately, we learn that we really don’t know that much at all, because most of what we do know has been handed to us by a non-rational environment.   

We have choices, real choices; choices which incorporate the questioning of everything, absolutely everything in life.   Outside of basic subsistence, question why you work, who you’re hoping to please, and why you’re hoping to please them.  Question whether it is more important to work towards an external or internal goal.  Question what working towards the external or the internal involves.  Make the choice that breathes life into you, not the choice that drains you of life.  Question all that you hold dear, but do that questioning using the light of love.  Question with the love that is justice; with the love that is compassion; with the love that is selflessness; with that love that practices the Christian Anarchism of Tolstoy; the nonviolent resistance of Gandhi and MLK, and with the love that would choose death rather than see harm come to the other. 

Choose to disobey in love, rather than conform to hatred.  Question why you pay taxes when your government uses it to kill and destroy others with a force greater than the world has ever known.  Ask yourself what is the absolute minimum you need to do to survive.  Then spend the rest of your time in discovery, both of yourself and the other. 

Choose to share that ultimate human love with a life partner.  Through that love, give of yourself fully and completely, and you’ll find that you’re ultimately giving to yourself.  To give that completely, you must know what you’re giving, so know yourself.  Find the greatest joy in the realization that the giving of yourself to the other is a sharing of the universal that comprises the both of you.  Realize that though death or temporal events may separate you, there will always be an element of your individual souls in the other.  Realize further that this intimate partnership is a micro example of the macro universal love.  It is but one element of the universal that comprises the very essence of who you are. 

As you move through life, the questioning and the choices you make determine your story, your individuality, your narrative, your approach to the conflict of opposites.   Living the kind of life that takes on the challenge of tough questioning is a process, not a static event, so may this manifesto and your life be forever evolving and moving forward, and may you constantly realize the rewards of an ever increasing awareness of self, others, ultimate reality, and the unity that brings it all together.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Purpose and Voice

This essay, written on January 1, 2011 serves as a marking of significance in my life as it was part of my application package for the renowned Conflict Transformation and Peacebuilding MA at Eastern Mennonite University.  I received my notice of acceptance to this graduate program on January 19, 2011 at a difficult moment as my first and only wife, Sarah Elizabeth Morton Hartman (we'd been divorced since 2008) had passed away on January 15, 2011.  I sense that this will mark a turning point in my life's progression.



One of the most courageous things we can do is question the very foundations upon which our lives our built.  Some sociologists and existentialist philosophers have cautioned us that through this kind of questioning, we might find our entire world unraveling, with nothing but pure consciousness to show for it; meaning that consciousness is the ending point.  However, I take their thinking (which I’ve found to contain elements of truth) and go further with it, believing that the consciousness/soul/Atman is where we touch the divine; I extend the consciousness towards the universal or God.  The inclusion of the divine leads to other questions.  If I am to acknowledge the divine as the ultimate foundation of my being, what does that mean practically?  What have I been searching for in this process of discovery?  The easy answer would be that I’m looking for self-identity.  But I think that through self-identity, human nature inevitably looks to find purpose and voice. 

Purpose and voice brings in a host of other elements.  There must be someone to recognize this purpose and voice, whether that someone or something is transcendent or in the here and now.  I believe it should be both, but one cannot exist without the other.  In order to have voice, there must be a validation of that voice.  In order to have purpose, one’s validated voice must be combined with a community that recognizes the unique gifts of the individual.  This community must be filled with a spirit of mutuality and equanimity that can only come from the self-recognition of the universal in one’s self and the other on the part of each member of that community. 

 I fully believe that the lack of voice is one way to describe the hopelessness of the human condition.  Validation is a gift to others that cannot be obtained unless the givers know themselves.  When self-discovery happens, we see ourselves reflected in the other, and can eliminate the threat that comes from the unknowns of the external differences between us.  Conflict happens when we do not recognize the other as one of our own.  Therefore, when there is no validation, it can be observed that there are various methods with which people use to discover their voice.  From my viewpoint, it seems that much of this is a useless groping for externals in the various ways with which we try to “shout” through forms of power.  That power can be expressed in such areas as materialism, status, career, politics, war and violence. 

For me, I hoped to find my purpose and voice through the gifts that I’d been given in broadcasting.  I discovered at the young age of 15 that I was a natural behind the radio microphone, and I turned that gift into a career that spanned nearly 20 years.  However, there was an ever present restlessness at the heart of my being that never left me satisfied.  I was playing a role; I was an actor for the sake of a career and entertainment.  Playing that part for nearly 20 years turned life into an illusion.  Eventually the illusion started to chip away at my soul, and eventually led to the question of: “Is this all there is?”

The older I’ve become, the more I’m convinced that everyone goes through a crisis of some form.  This can be a trying period of external adversity in life that causes a forced re-direction, or it can be internal in the form of an existential anguish as to the meaning of it all.  For me, it was both. 

I’d begun to question my path in life during my time living amongst the excesses of Las Vegas.  I spent 10 years there as a radio personality, but all the while I was looking around me and couldn’t help but see the pain and despair of the lifestyle with which I’d immersed myself.  At first I recognized it in others, but more and more I began to recognize it in myself.  Everywhere I looked, there were people hurting and in need of purpose and fulfillment.  This was not to be found in such a superficial environment where there was a total void of empathy, compassion and love.  I quit full-time radio, quickly went back, and then quit again.  I knew that I hadn’t discovered myself, but I had no idea from where to begin to look.  The fast-paced life which I was forced to live through my career allowed no time for reflection, and the questioning that the reflection would have required could have led to answers that would have cost me my livelihood.  This was my reality, and it quite possibly is the reality of many in our world, although I’m not narrow-minded enough to think that “livelihood” is universally equivalent to the Western career model.  Everyone has their own externalities which give them false identities.  However, I believe the problem is in fact universal.  We have no proper structure for people to reflect and discover their true purpose without the terrifying prospect of giving up everything that they’ve come to value, and that allows them to subsist.  We need validation through supportive communities, we need more peacemakers, and we need people who know themselves enough to practice the principles of empathy and justice.   

On July 21st of 2009, I experienced the final event in my personal external crisis.  In the year prior to that date, I had suffered a morbid financial collapse from the declining real estate market, a loss of opportunities in the increasingly homogenized radio industry, and a divorce.  That July day brought me closer to eternity than at any previous point in my life.  I inexplicably blacked out while driving at around 8 am that morning, and awoke 45 minutes later to the sound of paramedics and firefighters working as I was suspended upside down in excruciating pain from a shattered knee, right foot, and massive blood loss. 

That accident led to a 6 month recovery period that stripped away the attachments keeping me from discovery of myself.  Prior to that time, I had always known that I had a passion for human rights, but I never fully realized how to apply that to my life and broadcasting career.  I did some volunteer work at a mission in Las Vegas, and joined a non-violent Socialist organization after leaving Vegas, but none of those contexts provided the answers or meaning that I was looking for because I wasn’t starting at the beginning or immersing myself deeply enough in the mode of discovery.  The near-death experience changed all that. 

Now there was a degree of clarity that I’d never had before, because I had nothing to lose by asking the tough questions.  Certainty in the form of knowledge began to take shape in my mind as I read and reflected to the degree that I had subconsciously always wanted to.  I read challenging books about philosophy, nonviolence, equality, politics, social justice, comparative religion, the great scriptures of the world, and novels that gave insight into the human condition.  I reflected on my heritage; on the great work that my uncle Dr. Vernon Jantzi has done and is doing at Eastern Mennonite University; on the work of my cousin Dr. Terry Jantzi at EMU; on the work of my mother, Virginia Hartman, in clinical pastoral care and nursing and on the work of her sister Sharon Kraybill and my uncle Herb Kraybill through two decades of peacebuilding in Ethiopia.  I thought about my Anabaptist past and what that might mean for me in the form of a newly redeemed life developing out of a knowledge of where I’d come from.  

Through all of this, I have discovered that there is a common thread that unites.  We often hear that kind of terminology when discussing hermeneutics or canonical interpretation, but I have come to see that no religion has a corner on the truth.  Love is universal, and a love ethic cannot be truly practiced except through a life narrative that is congruent with that ethic in all dimensions.  Whether my role is a student, son, friend, peacebuilder, worker, mentor, intellectual, writer, broadcaster or activist for social justice, I must hold that role up against the universal standard of love, and must be consistent in practicing that standard in all areas of my life.  

This revelation has brought me to the place where I am now.  I have discovered a passion that I can only interpret as a calling to serve others.  I am grateful to the mentorship of Vernon in helping to guide me through this process.  He is just one of many who have been there for me over the past couple of years, but it is partly through his insight and encouragement that I’ve found myself at Eastern Mennonite University.  EMU has been a perfect place to continue my intellectual and personal development as it is consistent with the principles I’ve discovered through my own trial by adversity.  The more I learn, the more I see how everything ties together, and the more I believe that a life of helping to establish peace on this earth is one of the most noble and honorable professions that one can have. 

As I think about my future direction, I am drawn towards the reconciliation amongst believers of various faiths.  I see our world as one which is discovering new forms of identity and new ways of clinging to the familiar.  We have been in the midst of an unprecedented cultural and global reorganization, and many ways people are now relating (in my view) is through religion versus the brief historical sidetracking of nationalistic identity.  What saddens me is that I see these religious identities as being one, if not the main source of conflict.  This has perhaps been the case to some extent all throughout history (at the very least religion is just the latest version of tribalism), and it completely goes against the grain of what these various religions stand for.  There is a commonality amongst the believers of the world’s great traditions, and those commonalities are the highest principles of love, justice and peace. 

So, it is obvious to me that the foundation is there for us to build upon to establish greater unity in our world.  Through places like The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University, there are effective practical methods being taught as to how to engage in giving people appropriate avenues to find their voice and purpose in order to avoid the conflicts that plague our time. 

I am particularly interested in the area of Western-Islamic relations as one of my initial introductions to human rights issues was the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Furthermore, I have watched with great despair the development of Islamophobia in the Western world since 9/11.  I have worked at developing friendships with Muslims from around the world, and I have acquired a deep empathetic desire to facilitate dialogue in the process of allowing their voices, and all voices to be heard.  It remains to be seen what pragmatic application this desire and calling might have for my future, but I know that the next step is to obtain my MA Degree through the Conflict Transformation Program at CJP. 

Everything that has happened in my life has pointed me in this direction.  I am grateful for the adversity and for all that I’ve experienced as it’s not only given me incredible clarity, but it has brought me back from agnosticism and given me a degree of happiness that I’ve never had before.  I want to use the time I have left on this earth in the service of others, as that is the best way I know to honor the divine unity that I’ve found in myself and that is reflected in everyone I see in the world around me. 



Thursday, December 23, 2010

An Encounter With Tolstoy

I took the past few days to read Leo Tolstoy’s classic Anna Karenina, my first full-length encounter with his work, and am ever more convinced that what makes a great artist is a great degree of self-knowledge.  The 19th century English poet Matthew Arnold said on the back of my edition that the book was not to be taken as a work of art, but as a piece of life.  I think he misses the point of the kind of awareness that authors like Tolstoy possess.  Art and life overlap and are intertwined…how do we define one without the other?  How can we say we understand life without resolving conflicts, without understanding that those conflicts do exist, and without having the ability to “separate” from the absurdity of it all to recognize what reality is really comprised of? 
                A book as layered as Anna Karenina is hardly explained through any particular theme or genre.  Tolstoy believed in the novel as a treatise on life, and to reduce this work to a story of romances interlaced with episodes of “realism” would be to miss the point.  My first thought after finishing the last page was that the romances were used by Tolstoy to point us towards the larger love that IS.  The tragic element of the love myth is emblematic in the main character’s fate, and the base desires of the libido are interspersed at various points throughout the book.  The search for the higher love of the universal is best portrayed in the philosophical yearnings of the character Levin, Tolstoy’s alter ego in the novel, and the character that I most identify with as well. 
                The great artists must have a deep understanding of life, first of themselves, and then of others.  Understanding of self leads to understanding of others through those embodied interconnections that are what makes us human.  Through being able to clearly identify those incoming and outgoing signals in relation to our own humanity means that we can also understand the other.  When Tolstoy addresses death in the book, he uses this embodied understanding in the character of Kitty dealing with Levin’s brother.  Levin had all the intellectual knowledge in the world about death, but it took the understanding of the reality of death, apart from the abstract, for death to be dealt with.   Kitty had the ability of empathy, that element of love, which was essential in the context of the situation.  Levin was only to develop that ability later, and through a different path…which was illustrative of one of the many subtleties that Tolstoy incorporates into his writing. 

                Anna was searching; she was going through the normality of life.  However, Tolstoy made the book real in the sense that Anna, as the main character, was the one person who we thought had a handle on “who she was”.  Anyone would have been attracted to Anna, and everyone was.  However, as much as Anna seemed to transcend the absurdities of society, and to be able to see right through it, she was still looking at it from a vantage point that left nothing to be seen past it.  We saw this with a lot of the characters, and this was one of the fascinating elements that Tolstoy incorporated.  “Realism” as the style of this type of writing was apt as the book took us down many paths where I thought I knew the character, only to be confronted with some element of their personality that blindsided me.  Tolstoy gave us the idea of the character, and let the reality develop on its own and in its time. 
                This was a book that was written over a period of four years.  We can see Tolstoy’s view on life developing, especially at the end of the book, with the existential and spiritual crisis that we find Levin articulating.  Levin eventually discovers his peace, as did Tolstoy in his own life.  From that point on in Tolstoy’s life and writings, he further incorporated his convictions of nonviolent Christian anarchism…or resistance to power structures through a life lived with the highest principle of love.  Love as power, and not power as power was what Tolstoy believed in and exemplified. 
                I became fascinated with Tolstoy from a course on nonviolence that I took at Eastern Mennonite University this past semester.  Hearing that Tolstoy had a huge influence on Gandhi and MLK made me resolve to dive into his works the minute I had the chance.  Through further research, I can see that Tolstoy went through the same restlessness that I’ve gone through in my own life, and that many of us go through.  Ultimate meaning for him meant seeing himself in the other, and seeing the divine or the universal in all of us and through all of us.  This continues to be the common thread that is always presenting itself to me, and that I find in scriptures, philosophy, metaphysics, art, literature and music.  Perhaps it’s the paradigm I’m incorporating to view life, but it’s the only paradigm I’ve discovered that makes sense. 
                There is a line that runs through the philosophy of Tolstoy as portrayed in Anna Karenina.  It is a line that Levin discovers at the end of the book, and is grounded in Levin’s heritage.  Levin acknowledges the narrative structure of the individual life, and starts to make sense of his own story just as the book ends.  This is what can be said to be the discovery of voice.  Tolstoy certainly found his, and recognizing what he discovered as the foundation of his voice is the key to understanding Anna Karenina, and is the key to understanding life.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

An Anabaptist Heritage

When I began my radio career, I was told to imagine that I was talking to a single person, conversationally.  The “singular” person would ideally be the stereotype of the target demographic the radio station was hoping to attract.  For example, in Las Vegas, the prime audience for our advertisers was females between the ages of 18-34.  So my ideal imaginary listener was probably a 25 year old female, single, fun-loving, without children. 
                Over the years, this form of vocal delivery became second nature, and if I was to think of an image of the person to whom I was speaking, it would be vague, indistinguishable, faceless and nameless.  The sociologist George Herbert Mead came up with the concept of the “Generalized Other”, which might be an apt description, for even though I was talking to a single person, that person represented the common understanding of all other individuals just like her, so there was a universal element to my delivery.  Language obviously was central to this universality; however there was no true individuality, either from me or reciprocated from my audience.  Everyone in this exchange engaged in a layer of culture that was superficial and concentric, for although I was talking to one person, I was also talking to society at large, in the language of that society (Collins, 1994) (Connolly, 2002). 
Radio and media attempt to turn the concentric around and bring the superficial or surface elements of culture back to the individual, instead of out from the individual.  Either way, this paradigm is illusory to authentic identity.  I cannot possibly reveal any sort of my true nature through this mode of communication, nor can the listener learn anything about her identity through the reception of this message from the radio.  However, if it is the authentic that one is attempting to avoid, then media, entertainment and other forms of escapism are the perfect avenues. 
The example of my past career is a part of a narrative, a layer of my narrative, therefore a part of me, but only on a surface level.  William E. Connolly talks about layers of perception, thinking and culture, while James McClendon refers to narrative ethics as being the only true way to see morality; that is, to see it as a story.  I find no dissonance in combining the two concepts in the form of narratives having their own layers.  Perhaps the media/career aspect of my life was an outer layer, one that was most susceptible to adjustments from the elements.  It was unprotected, constantly changing, having no real substance, completely transparent (Connolly, 2002) (McClendon, 2002). 
An Anabaptist Heritage
This essay is an attempt to articulate the process in which I now find myself; the process of returning to the innermost layers of my narrative to define what living a good, ethical life means to me in the context of the part of the universal from which my story is shaped.  I am learning to acknowledge my heritage, my Anabaptist heritage, because I have reached a point where that acknowledgement no longer frightens me.  It has become painfully obvious to me that the main reason people run from true identity is the perceived sacrifices that they believe they might have to make if they peel back their layers.  The outermost protection that they think they have is often the most harmful element of their lives.  This is where we start to hear clichés about the difficulty of leaving one’s “comfort zone”. 
When Christ talked about denying self, he wasn’t referring to the denial of who we are, he was trying to help us remove the construct of society, the caricature, the costume, the distortion, that was covering up our true identity.  It was only in that discovery of identity that the divine could be found, and therefore the love that could be extended to others.  Some traditions, such as Hinduism, may refer to this in different ways, such as the removal of the ego standing in the way of Atman.  Understanding heritage in the context of narrative is to understand a part of the life-giving process.
Heritage clearly has a tie to the past, but what is that tie?  Isn’t it a coming out of an endless set of contexts, going further and further back, an eternal sense of the ever present now that transforms into the future?  Our role in the heritage is to take the past as a starting point, a grounding and a place where we’ve grown out of the universal God /grain of life, and then transform that past into the present where we find the embodied self. 
Heritage and Ethics
At Eastern Mennonite University, studying under Dr. Christian Early, I was told that “the better we understand who we are, the more grounded our ethics will be” (Early C., Ethics Lecture, 2010).  There is a tension in that statement, a conflict of opposites, because self-discovery through a look at heritage will involve pain as well as pleasure.  But pain, adversity, uncertainty, even suffering, are often necessary parts of forward movement, for they create questions, and it is through questioning that we discover. 
This discovery of self, at any level, can only be navigated by the embodied self.  Referencing Antonio Damasio, the feelings and emotions that influence and guide us are received through the body, but I must question from where they originate (Damasio, 2003).  Could many of these feelings arrive out of the body itself, out of a past life?  I’m not referring to reincarnation, but to the connection that heritage brings into our lives.  To state this in a somewhat scientific manner, we embody the genetics of our heritage; we carry the blood of those who came before and their actual DNA.  Traced back far enough, we could even say that we are the embodied community of all humanity.  The parallels between the universal soul/consciousness/Atman/Brahman/Allah/God and this embodiment are not to be missed. 
Recently, I’ve been especially interested in my mother’s family, as the mother symbol has fascinated me in the process of personal study and discovery.  Carl Jung was the one who opened my eyes to the effect of the anima, the female/mother archetype in the mind, and the role that it plays in a life narrative.  I’ve always been aware that my mother’s lineage has provided me with the greatest family mentor figures in my life, even though I do realize that this is not the case for everyone.  However, the insights of Jung, and the further ideas of attachment theory as introduced to me by AnneMarie Early, have only increased my focus on the maternal (Jung, 1976) (Early A., 2010).  My mother’s maiden name is Jantzi, and her mother’s maiden name is Swartz.  Both families came out of the Alsace Lorraine region of Europe/Switzerland.  The Swartz were Jewish, and it is only recently that I’ve realized my bloodline connection to the Jewish people.  It was in the 1700’s that the Swartz converted to the Amish lifestyle to avoid the rampant Anti-Semitism that has had varying degrees of intensity in Europe for hundreds of years.    From the Amish, they gradually evolved their thinking to the identifiably Anabaptist tradition that we know today.  Despite hoping to escape persecution for their Jewish beliefs, they encountered it anyway with their pacifistic Anabaptist stance (Swartz). 
So, my mother’s parents met and married in the context of a close knit community of Anabaptists that included the Swartz and Jantzi people.  These people had traveled to America together, and set up a life and a style of worship together.  It is said that they were known to “share earthly possessions, as well as joys and sorrows” (Swartz).  They were a people who loved life, and knew how to work hard and intelligently, while desiring to better the world around them. 
A Narrative of Service
The restless energy of service is evident in my more recent family history.  I remember my grandparents as being full of the kind of life and laughter that can only come out of that knowledge of the self that desires to care for the humanity of the other.  This energy was transferred to their children, and is evident in my mother, who has served as a nurse, pastoral counselor, and care-giver to her parents at their life’s end, as well as to my sister and I in our youth, and most recently to me as an adult following my near-fatal car accident.  My mother’s work has always poured out of a life filled with the highest of moral standards, love and the desire to work for people rather than the material.  This is a common theme throughout my maternal family narrative. 
The energy of service is evident in my mother’s brother, Vernon Jantzi, who is a familiar name and figure on the Eastern Mennonite University campus and community, as well as the various communities with which he has participated through his years with Mennonite Central Committee.  Vernon has taken on the role of a sage figure to me.  He embodies all that is good about the Anabaptist tradition, and is a model as to what it means to live out, through the powerful practices of virtue spoken of by McClendon, a morally upright ethical life; one that has to be taken as a narrative to be understood (McClendon, 2002).  His direct actions for peace, such as his work to help establish the Center for Justice and Peacebuilding on EMU’s campus, resonates both forward, back and horizontally in his own heritage.  By horizontally, I mean that his peaceful actions are congruent.  His narrative is consistent, authentic, and reflects his own path to discovery through heritage.  His various roles of uncle, husband, father, grandfather, teacher, mentor, scholar, leader, activist, university administrator and advisor are all in line with a universal love ethic.  He is a man who knows himself, in the truest sense of knowledge. 
My mother’s sister Sharon and Sharon’s husband Herb show a similar narrative in their lives.  They have a passion for the African continent, and their children were born in Ethiopia during their nearly two decades of service to that country.  Their approach to missions, like Vernon’s has never been of the “beneficiary” mentality; meaning they don’t practice a mission characteristic of hubris.  They look to learn from others more than they hope to teach others. 
This humility in service recognizes what McClendon refers to as “Perspectivism”, which I interpret as a humble pluralistic acceptance and acknowledgment of different shades on what comprises truth.  It is a realization that the truth cannot be simply implanted into the narrative of those whom we’re serving, but must be looked for out of that narrative of the other (McClendon, 2002).  I believe it was Mohandas Gandhi who once said that we should hold others to the highest standard of their own traditions.  I don’t think Gandhi meant for the truth to be relativistic, but that we should recognize and validate the ethical narrative of those we encounter.  This recognition of pluralistic narratives can only come out of a security with our own narrative, so when we practice Gandhi’s principle, we practice self-discovery and a discovery of the other.  This is an ethic of community, a multi-sided narrative of life. 
A Love Lesson
I agree with the idea that the primary narrative of humanity is a love story.  I credit Dr. Christian Early with that idea, and its corollary of the tragic element in love.  The past couple of years have seen numerous life-shaping rifts in time (spoken of by Connolly) that have revealed tragedy in my own narrative, but through the tragedy has come a greater love and awareness (Connolly, 2002).  One rift, which I have mentioned in a previous writing, was a near-fatal car accident in the summer of 2009.  Another rift was a unique intellectual awakening that I can clearly see in hindsight as I look back on the spring of 2010.  It was a period where I encountered the writings of Richard Rohr, and was introduced to the concept of mystical non-dualism for the first time (Rohr, 2009).  That rift was followed by the discarding of labels and beliefs that were blocking my own vision of identity.  There was a great deal of clarity immediately following my car accident.  There was a great deal more with that second rift this past spring.  Both rifts involved a letting go, and I’ve found that the more I can discard attachments, the more I am able to comprehend concepts, ideas, history, knowledge, and the more I am enabled in the examination of heritage. 
In a way, I may have more questions now than I’ve ever had in my life, but I consider that a sign that I’m able to name what I’m trying to answer.  When, for example, I’m able to recognize and therefore question why I’ve always been restless, I can look to the heritage of my family narrative for some of the answers.  Perhaps the restlessness, pain, struggle and redemption of the Jewish people is encoded in my DNA.  The Jews are a historically restless people both literally and figuratively, but they have also been commanded and called out by God to an ethical narrative that incorporates love, service, and humility.  The idea of homeland is very important to them, but it is something that has been evasive and insecure throughout their history.  Now, we can see their pain exemplified in a tragic way by their desperate struggle to retain their homeland by the harming of others.  This goes against the divine, and will only involve more tragedy in their cultural narrative unless they can learn to recognize that their calling out does not place them on a morally, ethically or physically superior level to the rest of humanity, but requires them to be an example of how to practice validation and recognition of all who live. 
No longer do I run from who I am.  Now, I embrace my heritage, on all sides of my family.  I have given a slight glimpse into my maternal past as it is with me on the path I’m currently walking.  I am becoming ever more aware of the pull that service has on me, and I can observe the next part of my story taking shape.  It wasn’t and isn’t inevitable that this story would or will turn out positive.  I fully place myself and my idea of God in a paradigm with no deep structure.  I like the idea that “God” is what holds the intention of the universe, but not the agenda.   And yes, I can see that we are fundamentally a result of our connections (Early C., Ethics Lecture, 2010).  Heritage is a starting point, not an ending point.  Heritage is not a definition.  Heritage is a place where we’re grounded in the divine.  Heritage is the root planted in Krishna, Brahman, Allah, God, Yahweh.  





References
Collins, R. (1994). four sociological traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Connolly, W. E. (2002). Neuropolitics: thinking, culture, speed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Damasio, A. (2003). Lookng for spinoza: joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando: Harcourt, Inc.
Early, A. (Performer). (2010, December 6). Attachment Theory Lecture. Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA.
Early, C. (Performer). (2010, December 10). Ethics Lecture. Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA.
Early, C. (Performer). (2010, December 1). Ethics Lecture. Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA.
Early, C. (Performer). (2010, September 24). Ethics Lecture. Eastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA.
Jung, C. (1976). The portable carl jung. New York: Penguin Group.
McClendon, J. (2002). Ethics: systematic theology, volume 1. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Rohr, R. (2009). The naked now: learning to see as the mystics see. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.
Swartz, M. Swartz History.

Greenpeace and Music

 By coming here tonight, you are making possible a trip for life and for peace”, said Greenpeace co-founder Irving Stowe to the crowd of 10,000 gathered on the evening of October 16th, 1970 in Vancouver, British Columbia (Amchitka, 2009).  The event was the Amchitka benefit concert, and not only was it the launching pad for Greenpeace as an environmental organization, but it also marked the beginning of the marriage between Greenpeace and musical activists. 
Although Greenpeace was founded out of that concert, no one really knew the current name of the organization until almost a year later.  The Amchitka concert was an effort by Stowe to raise money intended to fund a protest-by-sea against the U.S. nuclear testing facility on the Amchitka Island of the Aleutian chain, a part of Alaska.  The three headliners of the show would have been a music lover’s dream at the time, and they were all in the prime of their careers:  Joni Mitchell, her then boyfriend James Taylor and Phil Ochs.  They all agreed to perform for free, and Mitchell and Taylor have continued to support Greenpeace to this day (Ochs having passed away in 1974) (Greenpeace, 2010) (Kurutz, 2009).  

The Initial Mission
The concert ended up being a huge success, raising enough money to fund the initial activity of the boat that had been renamed the Greenpeace for the inaugurating voyage in September of 1971.  The group of ragtag activists, hippies and lawyers on board had formed a loosely knit organization called “The Don’t Stop the Wave Committee” before the Amchitka concert, but after the voyage, they believed the only good thing to come out of the trip was that they had finally settled on the name Greenpeace, taken from their sailing vessel (Greenpeace, 2010). 
The plan for the mission was to park the Greenpeace right in front of the nuclear facility on Amchitka Island, but the boat was lightly rammed and ordered to abort by a U.S. navy boat, albeit manned by sailors who were in fact sympathetic to the cause.  This turnaround in the middle of the course was discouraging to the crew of the Greenpeace, and they thought the entire year to be a wasted effort until they arrived back in Vancouver and discovered that they had received unprecedented media attention from around the world.  The particular nuclear test that they were protesting did happen, but many future tests did not, as Amchitka was shut down by the U.S. government five months later, and Greenpeace was officially in business (Greenpeace, 2010).  

The Perfect Match
Greenpeace is now one of the most visible environmental organizations in the world.   They are involved in a broad spectrum of environmental issues from climate change, ocean and forest preservation, anti-nuclear causes, promotion of a toxic free future, sustainable agriculture and visible protest activism.  Greenpeace has long recognized their mission as being a perfect match for the passion and spirit of many artists and musicians, and they have pursued these artists as much as the artists have pursued them (Carothers, 1989). 
At the beginning, the artists at the Amchitka concert and the founders of the organization would literally have hung out in very similar scenes, with both parties coming directly out of the 60’s counter-culture movement.  “When I encountered the people at Greenpeace, and saw the work that they were doing, and they way they engaged this [environmental] problem, I felt a huge sense of relief that people were working on it” said James Taylor in 2009 upon the long-awaited public release of the recording of that landmark show.  Both Taylor and Mitchell have agreed to donate all proceeds from the sale of the recording to Greenpeace (Amchitka, 2009). 
Other artists that have done significant activism over the years for Greenpeace include U2, Annie Lenox, Sting, Michael Stipe of R.E.M., Peter Gabriel, Public Enemy, Chrissie Hynde, Jerry Garcia, Sade, Green Day, Pink, Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Bryan Adams, Jack Johnson, and many more who have supported the organization in principle (Greenpeace, 2010) (Carother, 1989). 
 
The Personal Factor of U2
Growing up on the music of U2, Greenpeace was literally the first environmental organization I’d heard of.  Since then, I’ve always had respect for Greenpeace, in large part due to that initial visibility provided by U2.  There was a period of time in the late 80’s/early 90’s when Greenpeace was the sole organization officially supported by the band (Flanagan, 1996).  So, I can personally attest to the benefit Greenpeace sees in uniting with artists (especially those more politically, socially and sustainably inclined) to increase the awareness they’re trying to promote, as Greenpeace was effective in attracting me through this method. 
U2 was involved in one of the most visible Greenpeace events in history with the Sellafield concert and subsequent protest action in June of 1992.  U2 and Public Enemy headlined the concert, which was held near the Sellafield nuclear facility on the coast of England bordering the Irish Sea.  Sellafield had been dumping radioactive waste into the Irish Sea for some time, causing increased cancer rates around the site, but the final straw for Greenpeace and the bands was when Sellafield decided to open a second facility to take on the radioactive waste of other countries.  This was too much, and the fact that Ireland, Wales and Scotland were seeing some of the worst of the effects only angered the band that much further, especially considering that Sellafield was directly owned by the British Government (Flanagan, 1996). 
Sellafield had obtained an injunction prohibiting U2 from setting foot anywhere near the actual facility, but no matter.  The thought was that if they entered by sea the injunction couldn’t be enforced.  So, the members of the band sailed in rubber rafts with three drums of radioactive sand from the beaches of the UK, and deposited them at the front gate of Sellafield (which was basically right on the Irish Sea anyway).  Overall, the project was a success in the sense that it brought awareness to a facility that was previously unknown to the masses (Flanagan, 1996).   

Why Greenpeace?
In researching this topic, I initially approached it from the vantage point of why artists were particularly attracted to Greenpeace.  It was only through research that I discovered the attraction actually went both ways.  Still, I have wondered what is it about environmental organizations or any socially conscious causes that seems to draw artists; at least more so than other types of people. 
I discovered a quote from Annie Lenox that I think is illuminating to this question:  “Music is the language of the soul articulated,” she says. “The inner world is very potent for me – I don’t ascribe to any God or Jesus or Buddha – I just have a sense of it and revere it along with the natural world and human consciousness” (Drakakis, 2010).  I think all artists, like Annie, have a sense of the unity, the one great force that is the universe, even if they don’t acknowledge it. 
Having been around and interviewed many artists during my radio career, they all seem to recognize something bigger than themselves that gives them their creative inspiration.  Most can’t explain where it comes from, but they sense something, and they have that unique passion that drives them to purpose.  I feel that same passion, and it is a uniting feeling.  It causes one to question the world around them, and when questioning starts, the questions inevitably lead to “how can we do this better; make this world better?”  These questions can be equally applied to the artist’s music, or their environmental consciousness, and striving to answer this question has been Greenpeace’s mission as well. 
I think the efforts that Greenpeace has taken over the years to engage artists is exemplary, is unique, and is to be commended.  They have not altered their message to attract these artists, they’ve not had to.  The original crew of the Greenpeace sailed with the theme of “bear witness” which they took from the Quaker pacifist tradition (Greenpeace, 2010).  Continuing to honor this practice will keep the actions of Greenpeace and our own actions in line with the grain of the universe, and that grain is hope, love and unity.  When we practice the genuine good in life, everything else falls into step.  May we all continue to question how to make this world a better place to live.  


References
Amchitka. (2010). Retrieved from Amchitka Concert Web site: http://www.amchitka-concert.com/
Carothers, A. (1989, November 1). Can rock 'n' roll save the world?: music's mission to moscow and beyond. Retrieved from @U2: http://www.atu2.com/news/can-rock-n-roll-save-the-world.html
Drakakis, H. (2010, November 29). Annie lenox: Music icon and Woman of the Year on drug-taking, adopting children in Africa and redefining feminism. Retrieved from The Big Issue in Soctland Web site: http://www.bigissuescotland.com/features/view/423
Flanagan, B. (1996). U2: at the end of the world. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.
Greenpeace. (2010). Retrieved from Greenpeace Web site: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/
Kurutz, S. (2009, November 22). Speakeasy: Lost 1970 Amchitka Concert Featuring Joni Mitchell and James Taylor Surfaces. Retrieved from Wall Street Journal Blogs Web site: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/11/22/a-long-lost-1970-benefit-concert-featuring-joni-mitchell-and-james-taylor-surfaces/