Category Archives: Moral Humility

Mohács: A place of Syncretism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Hungary, Moral Humility, Music, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, religion, syncretism

 

After seeing the watermills, the next thing we did was to tour the town of Mohács. The first thing that struck me, was the lovely pastel colours of the buildings.  I could not remember seeing anything like them. I could not resist photographing them.

The most interesting thing in the city centre where we walked was a large concrete Catholic Church. What interested me is that the church was designed in the style of a mosque.  And as we know, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. It was not a case of a mosque being taken over by Christians; it was a case of Christians giving a nod to Islam.

 

This area of the world had been rocked by wars with a deep element of religious opposition for centuries, but here was a case of one religion admitting maybe the other religion had something good as well. This was a case of them living together in peace. A marvel. Imagine that, Christians admitting they could learn something from Muslims. For once, after the Christians took over Mohács they did not have to destroy a mosque or cover it with a new building, they could admit we can learn from each other. Could this herald a new world order? I sure hope so.

I have for a long time thought that syncretism, as a philosophy, is the way to go.  Syncretism refers to the  blending of elements from one culture, religion, or philosophy with another to create something new in the process. Religions, or philosophies, or cultures don’t have to compete, they don’t have to claim superiority. They can join hands and make something better.

One good example, is the celebration of Christmas in Europe and North America actually merges various traditions of their own with traditions in the Egypt or the Near East  and with traditions of the winter solstice in northern Europe.  Some claim this is heretical. Personally, I celebrate the combination. Another good example is combining elements of Christian religion with spiritual traditions of North American Indigenous people. The fusion can create wonderful new creations.

This photo is from inside that church.

Musicians and artists have been doing this forever . For example, combining  Jazz artists with European musical notations and African elements  to produce a unique sound. For another , I have long loved the combing of rock, country, and bluegrass music.

No single genre or culture has the secret to it all. No single religion has a monopoly on truth. No philosophy has all the answers.  Culture is always a rich tapestry of strands that multiply the magic.  James W. Loewen, the author of the book Lies My Teacher Told Me, said this: “ultimately syncretism illustrates he interconnectedness of human societies and the shared nature of cultural development.”

In my view, syncretism can be used to defeat the narrow-mindedness of those who live under the illusion that their philosophy, or their religion, or their ideas are the fount of all wisdom.

Nationalism and Pluralism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Hate, Moral Humility, Pluralism, Polarization, Serbia

 

I think we all know what nationalism is. It has been with us much longer than pluralism. Unfortunately, nationalism is also much more common than pluralism.

 

Nationalism is usually considered an ideology which emphasizes loyalty to a particular nation. It can be a force for good. Often it is a force for bad. It often promotes devotion to one’s own country above all.  The lates strong iteration of it, is the MAGA movement in the US. Make America great again. Or for those who already think it is a great, make it greater.  America First would be a more important principle for American nationalists. When it leads to feelings of superiority it has usually gone too far. A strong love of one’s own country is a natural feeling and unobjectionable.  But feelings of superiority are often unjustified and not very productive.

 

Pluralism is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a society, where different groups, interests, and beliefs coexist and interact peacefully. It sees strength in diversity which all can benefit from. It not only tolerates diverse views, and even peoples, it celebrates in diversity. Respect of other cultures is essential to the philosophy of pluralism.  Feelings of superiority are an anathema. Nationalism can be a fierce opponent of pluralism. In such a case, in my view, nationalism has gone too far. Pluralism is incompatible with extremism. You can one but not both. Pluralism is born out humility.

 

The struggle between nationalism and pluralism is often fraught. For example, recent examples close to home, are the relationship between Quebec and its separatists, who want to form the independent, or sovereign nation, as they like to call it, of Quebec. In Canada, Alberta is the latest example of where feelings are tending towards separation. How far those feelings will lead that province are not known.

 

In Yugoslavia feelings of pluralism were swamped by nationalism, except in those states where a yearning for separation by smaller groups  prevailed. After their leader Tito died, many Croats wanted to have Croatia secede from Yugoslavia. At the same time, Serbians within Croatia did not want to secede because they felt they would become a minority in the new country, when they had been a majority in power in Yugoslavia. As well, some Slovenians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia, and that was opposed by the Croats within as well as Serbians.

 

The struggle for separate national states often leads to serious political problems. It can, and has, frequently led to serious conflict. Around the world people have come to favor nationalism at the expense of pluralism. That is usually a serious mistake. In the former Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, clearly nationalism had the floor. Pluralism seemed dead. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all wanted to be sovereign states even if violence was the only way to achieve it.

 

There was no credible force for pluralism.  I often quote William Butler Yeats who described this phenomena well: The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Serbia claimed to be the leader for unity of the states, but all the others lacked confidence that its claims were not based solely on its interest in dominating the other states. No one argued for all for one and one for all that is the precondition pluralism requires.

Pluralism was dead; war of all against all commenced. And the people suffered.

Arrogant Ignorance

Death of Truth, Moral Humility, The Sleep of Reason

 

Andy Borowitz has written a book with a very interesting title: Profiles in Ignorance: How American politicians got Dumb and Dumber. With a title like that it is hardly surprising that the author is pretty arrogant. Horowitz has looked at how Americans have embraced anti-intellectualism. He thinks it is so bad the nation is in danger. He was interviewed by Walter Isaacson on Amanpour & Co. to discuss the subject broadly.

 

Borowitz said he could have gone back to the birth of the nation to show how this developed, but he held back and basically started with Ronald Reagan. That is as good a place as any.

 

Isaacson focused on the last 50 years of ignorance: ridicule, acceptance, and celebration. According to Borowitz Ronald Reagan really kicked off the ridicule phase. Until Reagan in the ridicule stage, politicians had to pretend to be smart. Reagan was good on TV. That was why some California millionaires recruited him to run for Governor. However, as Horowitz said, “…he did not know anything; he knew very, very little.” That did not matter to the millionaires. They wanted to sell the sizzle if they could not sell the steak. They liked what they saw.  Reagan sizzled.

 

As Horowitz said, “they had to pump him full of information. It seemed like he knew stuff and he won the election by a million votes. That really got the whole party started.”

 

Walter Isaacson challenged Borowitz on this claim. He asked him to say who was smarter Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan? After all, Reagan won the election. Did that not make him smarter? Borowitz said clearly Jimmy Carter was smarter, which of course, millions of American conservatives would never accept. Horowitz acknowledged that he was not a neurologist so was not qualified really to give that opinion, but of course, he was not shy about making it. He added this,  “And that is usually reflected in how much you read.”

 

According to Horowitz Jimmy Carter read a ton.

 

Ronald Reagan did not open a single book in college. That is deliberate ignorance. When his Chief of Staff James Baker prepared a briefing book for a big economic summit, he didn’t touch that and  then James Baker said, “Why didn’t you read that last night?” Reagan replied. “Well Jim the Sound of Music” was on TV.”

 

He was not ashamed of that. He just was not very curious about economics or policy. He was interested in how he sounded on TV. That is what mattered. That might have been smart. At least politically smart.

 

Again, Isaacson pushed back, and said Ronald Reagan was a very successful president even though he didn’t read much. And his adoring fans did not care that he read so little.  He was able to get done what he wanted to get done. Often Carter did not. In fact, according to Isaacson “Jimmy Carter was remarkably unsuccessful.”

Horowitz did not think Reagan was a very successful president. But he did get his agenda through. According, to Horowitz “that agenda was very redolent of his own ignorance.” He let the AIDs crisis spiral out of control because he was very unaware of what Aids was. As well, he really created homelessness in this country, according to Horowitz. He told David Brinkley, “the homeless just want to live outside.” That sound very doubtful to me.

Reagan was much better on TV than Jimmie Carter. He will be able to get an agenda through but his agenda was hopelessly inadequate. “That is why it would help, according to Horowitz, if he actually read a book.”

To this Isaacson posed an alternative  book, written by David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest.  These were those guys that John F. Kennedy relied to get his agenda done. You don’t’ get smarter than those guys but they were disastrous when in power and drew America into the swamp of Vietnam.  There was not much good about that.

To this Horowitz said, “Well smart people make mistakes.” Very true but is that enough?  Horowitz said Carter was an elitist who wanted people in power to be smarter than he was. According to Horowitz the guys who have been allergic enough to learning and who refused to read a briefing book and refused to read a book of any kind got us into a lot of trouble. They got us into things like the War in Iraq one of the biggest boondoggles in our history. At the same time, they ignored things like Aids and the Coronavirus. “Yes smart people make mistakes, but …I would still rather put my money on the guy who has read a book” he said.

 

Some are very smart and have very bad judgment like Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush didn’t read the presidential briefing book that said Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And the US paid a very heavy price for that ignorance. Ignorance can be very costly, particularly when wedded to power.

 

Horowitz said that FDR was not that smart. He graduated with Cs in High school. But when he had to deal with a big problem like the Dust Bowl which the country had never seen before, FDR was smart enough to surround himself with experts who were smart. He wasn’t like Donald Trump who pretended that he was smarter than everyone else when he clearly wasn’t. “Arrogant ignorance” is a terrible disaster. This is what Trump exemplified he said. Horowitz said “that FDR was an example of a person who had intellectual humility.” That is a sign of being smart and it is something Trump definitely does have. I agree that this is very important. More leaders should have humility.

 

Now when I listened to Horowitz, I could not see him as modest or humble. Far from it in fact. So he does not qualify as smart.

 

When people think they are the best and the brightest and they don’t have anything more to learn that is very dangerous. As Horowitz said, “Smart people sometimes fall into that trap.”

 

According to Horowitz, with the arrival of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin we moved into the age of acceptance. Bush learned that accepting his ignorance was actually a political advantage. He bombed early in his career when he was unable to name some foreign leaders to a radio host, exposing his serious ignorance. His advisor came out and said “we are electing the president of the United States not a Jeopardy contestant”.

 

This led to an era where political candidates said I don’t know very much but I am like you. We have come to the place where political leaders who profess to be smart have a big disadvantage. Many people don’t like that. This is also dangerous.  Ignorance should never be glorified. Too many people do that now.

 

Who would you rather have a bee with. Al Gore a pointy headed intellectual or George W. Bush?  To most people in America the answer was clear. Sarah Palin moved us into the celebration phase.  As Horowitz said, “She really embraces the fact that she did not know many  things. She replaced facts with non-facts.” Embracing ignorance is very dangerous.  That to me seems to be our current status.

 

As Horowitz said, “With the celebration phase which we are now sadly in, ignorance now has become such an asset that it is preferable to people being well-informed.”  Americans like ignorance. It’s not just Trump. Many Americans agree with him on this point.

 

As Horowitz said, “Donald Trump has never read, he doesn’t know very much, so he combines ignorance with arrogance that he thinks he knows more than the generals and scientists and every expert. Marjorie Taylor-Green also comes very naturally to this phase. She is extremely ill-informed, and she thinks that a Petri dish is a peach tree dish and that Hawley, or a Ted Cruz, or Ron de Santis who have the finest education that money can buy in America but are wilfully trying to sound dummer than they are. That sort of spectacle is so regrettable. We looked up to people who we used it to look up to people who were smart, to experts.

 

This of course brings us to the ultimate question. What can we do about it?  Horowitz suggested we stop watching so much cable TV That is sound advice. Don’t spend so much time on Twitter. And we have to start getting active in our democracy. Stop always nationalizing our problems. We get obsessed with the national elections, but the other elections are very important. We have to start working locally where democracy really is at its best. As Horowitz said,

 

“In a town meeting you really can’t be jerk, because you might meet that person next week. I have to curb my natural tendency to be caustic and contemptuous and I have to be civil instead. I think that is the answer. We have had trickle down ignorance in our country where our leaders have said ignorant things. And we as a population have grown more ignorant because of that.”

 

The most important thing is not to cherish ignorance.

Pluralism around the Sault

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Colonialism, History, Indigenous People After Contact, Moral Humility, Pluralism

 

 

The Clergue blockhouse at Sault Ste. Marie

 

The Clergue blockhouse was right beside the Ermatinger house and was part of the original North West Company post at Sault Ste. Marie. Both of which were right beside our hotel.  Of course, I don’t think too many elites stayed in this block house. That was for the lessers.

This area of North America where Lake Huron and Lake Superior meet, including Sault Ste. Marie, Ignace Michigan, the Mackinac Straits, and St Joseph’s Island, were vitally important in the fur trade. There were many varied First Nations, and the French and English, and later the Americans and Canadians. Barbara Huck called it “The Crossroads of Humanity.” Often they fought each other; at other times they lived together peacefully. As Huck explained,

“For a half-century. Michilmackinac [a little south of Sault Ste, Marie] flourished. Living at a crossroads of humanity, the people of the straits were at home with diversity, unfazed by racial, linguistic, or religious  differences. A multilingual, multiracial community evolved as French traders married local Odawa and Ojibwe women. Prefacing the Metis community that would grow up around the forks of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in Manitoba a century later, their mixed blood children soon became the dominant population of the straits.”

In Manitoba as well the Métis people became dominant, for a while.  When Manitoba became a province of Canada in 1870, 80% of the people were Métis. A lot of Manitobans have forgotten this. Some of the Indigenous people had left and the hordes of European immigrants, including Mennonites were not yet there.

It was also interesting what happened after America declared its independence from England. As Huck said,

“In 1775 the New England colonies rebelled, and the British turned to their new-found native allies.  Weighing the situation, the Odawa, Ojibwe, Winnebago, Sauk, Fox, Menominee, and Sioux decided that as rigid and obtuse as the British might be, they were not as bent on clearing and settling the land as the American rebels were.”

 

Where many nations live together, they have to make serious efforts to recognize each other and not assume, that all wisdom resides in their own community. They did learn that in the area around Sault Ste. Marie. Sadly, such lessons are sometimes hard to learn and too often not passed on to the next generation. I am a great believer in pluralism. It breeds humility, something always in short supply. Live and let live. We can all learn from each other. None of us have a monopoly on the truth. Pluralism is not always easy, but it sure beats warfare.

As Sally Gibson wrote in a chapter of Huck’s book,

“Sault Ste. Marie has long been a stopping place for travellers. Once a seamless zone of trade, the area is now separated by the Canadian-American border and twin cities name Sault Ste. Marie on either side of the St. Mary’s River Rapids. The rapids drop almost seven metres over less than three kilometres, draining Lake Superior. Travellers today can enjoy the natural beauty of the area and find remnants of the fur trade that stimulated early European settlement.”

 

Of course, once European countries arrived on the scene it did not take them long to make claims on the land. That’s what Europeans (later Canadians or Americans) do.  As Gibson said,

“The territory around Sault Ste, Marie was claimed for France by Sieur de Saint Lusson in an elaborate ceremony…recognizing the importance of the location, New France granted a seigneury on the St. Mary’s River to Chevalier de Repentigny in 1751.”

 

Of course, Gibson did not say by whose authority France did that because none of the people from Europe had any authority to make such grants. Americans always claimed land by conquest, but the locals in Canada had never been conquered. And the locals had never ceded the land. So there really was no basis for the grants. France could have used some humility.

Chevalier de Repentigny farmed the property and fortified it but he left within 5 years as soon as the 7 Years War broke out between France and England. After the French fell in that war, the English took over, but they really had no authority either. Of course, that did not stop the English from granting exclusive rights to the land in 1765 to an English trader Alexander Henry. He was given authority to the Lake Superior area. What did mean? I would say, as a recovering lawyer, that such a grant would be void for uncertainty. What area was covered by the grant, if the grant was otherwise valid?

I have always wondered what would be the legal effect of the United States placing a flag on the moon?  Would that give the Americans ownership of the entire moon?  Half the moon?  The light side of the moon? A square mile? An acre?  Or no part? How can you make such a decision? When you get right down to it claims of “ownership” are usually dubious at their root. Once more that should generate some humility.

Take another example. Indigenous people roamed the North American continent for thousands of years. Many of them were nomadic. Others were more sedentary farmers. What part did each First Nation own? How can you tell? By what right?

Really all claims of ownership are dubious?  Whether you are talking about the jungles of the Amazon or the plains of North America or the city of Steinbach?  All of them are fundamentally dubious!

I taught real estate law at the University of Manitoba Law School for about 10 years and nothing I learnt or taught there gave me any more certainty.

When Compromise is Heresy

Extremism, Hate, Moral Humility, violence, War Between Israel and Hamas

 

People are calling for a cease fire in the war between Hamas and Israel. Israel says it won’t stop firing until all of its hostages are released.  Hamas has not offered to release the hostages it recently captured at great expense. It likely sees them as their only hope right now. Neither side seem inclined to compromise. I would love to see a ceasefire. How to get there?  I don’t know.

Here is what I do know. This bloody war is the consequence of turning states over to the extremists as both Gaza and Israel have done. Extremists, particularly when filled with religious zeal, even if they are not particularly religious, inevitably see compromise as heretical. Such groups are extremely unlikely to compromise. When two groups under the dominance or influence of extremists with such religious zeal, the end result is bound to be bloody. Don’t look for quick and easy ceasefires.

The tragedy of the Middle East is that both sides (or should I say all sides?) in this seemingly intractable dispute are chained to murderous theological ideologies that leave no room for compromise or resolution. Each side just wants to bludgeon the other side to death—to oblivion. How can you make a deal with the devil, both sides ask. The answer—of course—is that you can’t. Neither side can make a deal with the devil so they go on pummeling each other to death. That is the inevitable result when both sides have an unshakeable conviction that the other side is the side of the devil. Then your own side becomes the sole bearer of truth and justice for the only rightful god.

We can do better. To do that, murderous ideologies with their murderous certainties,  must be discarded.

 

Newt Gingerich Revolutionary

Extremism, Hate, Moral Humility, Right-wing Extremism

 

After the massive Republican victory in the American mid-term elections of 1994, Newt Gingerich  became the new Leader of the House, and he was obviously a firebrand. Nothing else would do. Moderates were scorned.  It was time for a new Tea Party.

The Atlantic magazine said that Gingrich “turned partisan battles into blood sport, wrecked Congress, and paved the way for Trump’s rise.” Polarization in American politics was jump started. American politics would not be the same for decades (or perhaps forever?). He called himself the “most serious systematic revolutionary of modern times.”

Here is one of his early incendiary remarks for which he became famous:

“You cannot make civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-old shooting each other, 17- year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting a diploma they can’t read.”

 

Interestingly, this also established Gingrich as part of the culture wars that have taken over American politics, both on the left and the right.

Justin Ling said this about Gingrich on The Flame Throwers podcast:

 

“What he really was, was a pugilistic bomb thrower who was willing to tear down the entire American political structure with his bare hands if he had to.”

 

These were the type of guys (usually they were all guys) that the American right-wing loved. And still love! They were bombastic; they were confident, and they mocked all the namby pambies of the liberal camp. Later they referred to them as “woke.” Gingrich was Rush Limbaugh’s kind of guy! This was a guy he could support, just like Donald Trump later was the kind of guy he could support.

Gingrich, again like Trump later, called Limbaugh for advice. They ascended together. They joined in hatred of  liberals, an in particular the Clintons, and dragged a nation of conservatives with them. According to Justin Ling, “together they remade the language of politics. Liberals are anti-flag, anti-child, traitors, thieves.” Together they helped create the astonishing polarization of American politics. Their extreme language helped establish extreme hatred for “the other party.” There was no room for moderation. This was a battle between Satan and Jesus. It was the beginning of a new age of extremism in which we are still living . Humility found no home in this new movement.

And it had American talk radio to thank.

A Safe Place to Hate.

Conservative, Evangelical Christianity, Fear, Hate, Moral Humility, Politics & Religion, Right-wing Extremism, Trumpism, Woke

 

There had been a lot of social change just before Rush Limbaugh arrived on the scene. There was gay liberation, women’s rights, and liberalism. Many felt they could no longer say what they wanted to say. Political correctness was seen as a stifling chain. They also thought no one was speaking like them or to them. They were ignored and invisible. As Justin Ling said in his CBC. Radio series , “In the universe of right-wing media compared to the Wall Street Journal and like the later Fox News Limbaugh’s listeners were older, whiter, more conservative, and more religious. For this slice of America Limbaugh created a safe space.” He created a safe place to hate.

Surprisingly, because there was a Republican in the White House, as Ling said, “he convinced these old, white, conservative, and religious Americans that they were disenfranchised!” Even though they were in the majority! It was pure alchemy. He told them they were looked down on. He milked them for their resentment—the elixir of devils. As Ling said, “He formed a kind of counterculture; a resistance against the liberals, and the progressives, and the feminists.”

In the mid-80s he syndicated to about 50 stations across the country but by 1990 he got 450 affiliates. He was the rock star of talk radio and the conservative movement. He led a Rush to Excellence Tour to various stadiums around the country with as many as 10,000 people.  As Justin Ling said, “Limbaugh declared a culture war”. Limbaugh put it this way:

“We are in the midst of a culture war. What are rights? This culture war illustrates precisely what is going on. We in America are in the midst—it’s an exciting time to be alive—we are in the midst of a redefinition of who is going to define right and wrong, what the punishment is going to be for those who violate the limits that we place on our behavior. We are arguing about who has the right to tell us what is right and what is wrong. We’re arguing over what censorship is And to me its pretty scary.”

 

And there it is again—fear—the secret sauce of paranoia and right-wing hysteria.

Like Trump later, Limbaugh went from being a spoiled rich kid to a champion of the working class. People all over America were starting to take notice of Limbaugh. I remember at the time hearing about him from a friend of mine, a trucker. Truckers loved Limbaugh, just like they later loved Trump and basically for the same reasons. They liked to have a wrecking ball in their corner as did my friend the trucker, and much later the truckers convoy in Ottawa in 2022. They got a rush from Rush Limbaugh.

As Justin Ling said, “On his radio show he was the voice of God on a one way street. And he loved nothing better than to run over liberal women. On his radio show he said, “this is a show devoted to what I think.” On the Dave Lettermen show he said people were bugged by him because “I have almost a monopoly on the truth.” No one could ever accuse Limbaugh of humility. Humility was a liberal vice. And his fans loved it.  He also said “This is a benevolent dictatorship. I am the dictator. There is no first amendment here except for me.”

Now he was entitled to be the dictator of his own show. If we don’t like it, we don’t have to listen to it.

 

Good People Can Get It wrong

Hate, Indigenous People After Contact, Moral Humility, racism

 

A lot of people—good people—are excited about Manitoba electing an indigenous person ad premier.  I admit it. I am excited about that too. I think Wab Kinew is bright, likeable, and filled with empathy. Those are good qualities  for a leader to have that will serve him well.

I just want to pour some cold water on the expectations.  Many seem to suggest that the fact that an indigenous man has been elected proves that Manitoba is not racist. I wish that were true.  But I don’t think it is that simple.

I am reminded about the election of Barack Obama to the American presidency. That also raised many hopes, not all of which were fulfilled. Many thought too that this proved America is not a racist society.  Many events since that memorable election have proved that to be wildly over optimistic.

Racism in the US, as in Canada, runs deep. Very deep.  The same goes for hate. That does not mean that racism is forever embedded in our societies. I don’t think it is in our DNA as some have suggested.  It does mean we must be modest in our expectations and humble in our assumptions. Eradicating racism will be a big job, over a long haul.

In the US after Obama was elected that supercharged the extreme racist fringes of American society. Many of them could not bear the image of a black man and his black family living in the White House. The racists found this intolerable. This was part of the reason for the amplification of the Tea Party in the US. Racism erupted. It was not pretty. I remember seeing disturbing posters and bumper stickers in the US. It was ugly.

The same thing could happen in Manitoba. Images of Wab Kinew and his family could trigger a new political faction here as well. How about the Beer Party?

We must remember the obvious: Good people can get it wrong.