
“Perhaps Love is like the ocean, full of conflict, full of pain …”
(Perhaps Love, words and music by John Denver, allegedly)
The above words came to mind this morning, but it took some effort to uncover the recording that has Placido Domingo and John Denver singing side by side. Denver is said to have written it, but I doubt it – listen to the whole thing here and judge for yourself.
From my view, Denver was a gifted singer, played a mean 12-string, and was chosen for fame, assigned to a military family for management (Lt. Col. Deutschendorf). He was given songs that appealed to the environmentalist mindset coming of age in that time, the post-Earth Day 70s.
One of them, Rocky Mountain High, is now the state song for Colorado, alongside Where the Columbines Grow, a much weaker anthem of a forgone era. Rocky Mountain High comes complete with a backstory, about how his wife Annie and friends were on a camping trip and witnessed a mountain thunder storm that inspired him. I want to believe that, and imagine the real songwriter experienced an event like that, indeed stunning to behold.
(We once hiked into Titcomb Basin in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming and encountered a lone backpacker making his way out. His eyes were buggy, as he had not slept the night before during a thunderstorm. He laid there, he said, in fear, sure his tent would be struck by lightening. He was in a cirque, and in that situation sound echoes and reverberates, and can indeed induce terror.)
I chose those words because of what I’ve been reading and thinking lately, that most of life goes on beneath the horizon, unseen. I mean this both personally and on a wide scale. We seldom say what we think, or mean what we say. Most of our thoughts go unspoken. I think the calm ocean, with conflict and pain going on everywhere below, is a good metaphor.
I’ve been re-reading a book called Doubt, A History, by Jennifer Michael Hecht. I know very little about the author, but gather from the book that she has depth and breadth, wide scholarship in the field she chose to study, atheism. And, yes, of course, she is Jewish, not a problem for me at all. My favorite people are usually Jewish. I came across this book maybe fifteen years ago, and read it and took copious notes. I’ve not referred to the notes in my current reading, but will when done, as I want to know what piqued my interest then versus now.
This is not a book review. It’s a captivating book if you’ve time, or not. I made the mistake of giving the book to someone way back then, and can say for sure that my original copy was never read, and is sitting on a shelf for display only. It is always a mistake to give away books. People will only read what inspires them, and not me. I am not speaking down, but rather across.
The overriding theme of the book is the importance of doubt, and I see that and agree in total. Doubt and skepticism should be our outlook on life, to never trust, and always verify. That latter word, verify, well, good luck on that. Most of history is hidden, as is most of the present. It takes time and effort to uncover that reality.
This writing follows a discussion on history with my spouse, my take echoing that of Henry Ford, that “history is bunk”. Here’s AI on that subject:
This quote, published in a 1916 Chicago Tribune interview, was part of a broader dismissal of traditional history as mere tradition. Ford argued that “We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we make today.” He believed that written history focused too much on kings and generals while ignoring the daily lives of ordinary people and industrial progress.
That makes Ford sound like Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States. That book was a truly distorted lens, as I see it, placing far too much emphasis on individuals and crediting them with movements more likely originating higher above in the power structure. I would call People’s History … bunk, I suppose, for lack of a better word.
I am more inclined to think that Ford meant that history is bunk, that is, false, beginning to end. I do not imagine him as one to soften his words.
I have an image in my mind of historians standing abreast of passing time, walking backwards and re-writing events as they transpire. A guiding hand is on each shoulder, and a quiet whisper in the ear … “Write what I say, Not what you see.”
The American Revolution, for example, was concluded by the Treaty of Paris, the opening line from which follow:
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain …
OK, that’s just formal diplomatic language, but the document itself is only 1,900 words, remarkably short. In it you will find subservience and genuflection among the delegates (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay representing the colonies) and the Potent Prince George III. What had happened? It’s mostly hidden beneath the surface, but as I see it, the colonies, far beyond reach of the King and his troops, had grown weary of British rule and desired to break free. King George agreed to allow that to happen, but on this proviso: that when the conflict was over, Britain would still rule the colonies. Does it trouble anyone at all that all of our presidents save one (Martin van Buren, of Dutch descent) are descendants of British royalty? (AI on that subject: “Context: Such connections are common among people of British Isles descent due to pedigree collapse over centuries.”)
I doubt there’s been a pedigree collapse as stated by AI, and in fact believe that the Peerage is intact to this day, and that, hidden beneath the calm ocean of our historical viewpoint, the Peerage still rules in our politics of high office, our music and entertainment world, and our history books. For that reason, it is best to take Ford at his word, History is Bunk. Those assigned scholars called historians are walking backwards as we go, rewriting reality as we go, and their false reality is affirmed by the likes of Wikipedia and AI.
News is bunk, movies are bunk, education is bunk, reality is hard to come by. For almost all of our vision, our reality is bunk. In fact, I see all of the cast of that era, called our “Founding Fathers”, and in days forward to the present, as British agents.
I tried to dig up the original 1916 article but found only a lot of commentary and recaps. I’m sure it’s available in online archives but not just a web search apparently. Regardless it looks like there’s a LOT of strange context around that quote – it was part of debate over entering WWI, and at a glance it looks like Ford was playing an “anti” role, similar to Trump today – speaking for the widely popular pacifist, non-interventionist view. But being portrayed by the Tribune as an anti-intellectual hick, ignorant of history and culture. Then in 1919 Ford sued the Tribune, and it appears they put on a big show, with eight (of course) days of Ford being grilled by the defense. But he won his suit and got damages of.. six cents. So I guess history is bunk and it appears Ford was manufacturing it himself in addition to autos..
LikeLike
Thanks Tim, I did not think to verify. Just trusted it was real.
LikeLike
I think it was “real” as far as there being an article that attributed that quote to him.. although it was first quoted as “history is more or less bunk” and later shortened in the retelling. I just found the context interesting and suggestive he was playing a “world stage” role even then, like our current titans of industry..
LikeLike
Regarding cloaked peerage etc – somewhere I saw a movie quote that hinted at that. It was a historical drama, British I think and maybe set in the pre-WWI era. One aristocrat is telling another – “In order for nothing to change.. everything must change.” Implying that the coming decades would be a wholly different age in appearances, but they would still maintain their position behind the scenes.
LikeLike
The famous quote (in italian “Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga com’è, bisogna che tutto cambi”), is from the 1963 film “Il Gattopardo” directed by Luchino Visconti, starring Burt Lancaster and Alain Delon, based on the book of the same name by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, a historical novel set in 1860’s Sicily during the italian “Risorgimento”.
LikeLike
Mark, nicely worded essay on why I like to spend my time alone, not interacting with anyone else, or as little as possible. I have had a lot of friends, but am really an introvert at heart. Now that I work pretty long hours as a scientist, I spend very little of my time with other people, and they are mainly my parents and wife. I have extremely little patience for small talk and gossip, or listening to people complain about things, or try to act smart, since very few have anything original to say. I like relying on my raw senses for experience, alone, walking in the forest, swimming in a pond, or sitting on my back porch listening to all the birds, since I live next to a protected wildlife sanctuary designated for migrating birds on the east coast of the USA.
LikeLike
It is widely popular and used, so I suppose you have it, but if not, Merlin, a free program from Cornell, identifies birds by their call, and is perhaps 90% accurate. I say “free” but we donate to them when they ask. They’re worthy.
Each sound a bird makes is charted on a sonogram … part of bird identification is that we must see the bird to ID it, and not depend on Merlin, so I don’t share my findings with Cornell. I let the pros do that.
I’ll bet you have lots of activity there!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark just had a follow up on some of you favorite people being Jeeish? So you’re saying some of your best friends are black?
LikeLike
Huh? Slow down, remember you’re dealing with a senior citizen.
LikeLike