When they claim it's all about ancient hatred...

When Russia first invaded Ukraine, I spent every spare minute helping a scrappy group of aid workers evacuate Ukrainian refugees from the war. At the same time, I was juggling my intensive work with my kids with special needs, including mountains of paperwork.

A family member would take my kids for an hour or so, and I’d shoot out a message on the encrypted chat saying that I had a few minutes to help. I was immediately sent the coordinates of and basic information about a small group or family of refugees and the border crossing they hoped to get to. My job was to use Ukrainian Cyrillic maps, my knowledge of the region and a steady stream of military reports to plot a safe course for the refugees across hundreds of miles of hot territory.

The situation in war changes minute by minute and while some roads were better than others for a while, there were no actual safe zones. I had to keep up with the incident reports of the war. More than once, I was about to route refugees down a well-used road or over a bridge, only to have it bombed and have to call them back at the last minute.

Creative /Commons image by vasenka photography

It was always a race against time, no matter when I logged on. Once we had foreign drivers headed for a children’s home to evacuate orphaned babies and they couldn’t find the street address in the identified town, because in accordance with Eastern European custom, the address was listed as being in the town, when it was actually in one of the outlying villages. Knowing this, I found it just in time and the drivers were redirected.

Then something started to raise my hackles.

More and more of the people I worked with in the international organization expressed animosity toward Russians. By this I mean toward ordinary people. We always hated Putin and the oligarchs and the military. But increasingly there were vicious jokes and fantasies about killing Russians in informal comments.

At first, I said nothing. They had reason. It was stressful work and they were letting off steam. From what I could tell, the Ukrainians among us would have no part of it. They had more reason, but they were more reticent to start with the talk of hate and killing. Maybe it was too real to them. Eventually, I mentioned that hate wasn’t what we were about, and several of my colleagues became irate.

Didn’t I want the Ukrainians to win? Clearly, the Russians are the aggressors here.

And despite levels of complexity I am aware of in the conflict that some of my colleagues were not, yes, I agreed on general principle.

BUT that doesn’t change the issue. How many times have Americans been the aggressors in a war or invasion? If being a citizen of an aggressor nation made one worthy of death, then I and most of the volunteers would be sentenced too.

And I know well what it is like to disagree with a powerful military machine in one’s own country. When I was involved with international organizations against the US invasion of Iraq, alongside Iraqi dissidents, no one talked about wanting to kill Americans. Thank goodness.

Beyond even that though, I strongly dislike fueling the narrative of hatred in this war. It isn’t good in any war, but in this case, it makes even less sense than usual. I’ve yet to see a war that wasn’t utterly senseless and stupid, but this one takes the cake.

I know some reasons why our Ukrainian colleagues may have been silent that many of the Americans and Europeans in the group might not. One reason is that Ukrainian citizens are about a third Russian and there is no clear dividing line. Families are mixed. Friends are intertwined. No one made much of it until recently.

This has, of course, made the shock and terror of this war even worse for the people most closely effected. In the first days of the war, I noted that many of the refugees speaking to journalists as they crossed into Poland were actually speaking Russian, not Ukrainian. Of course, the fighting was heaviest in the eastern part of Ukraine, where most of the people speak Russian and have strong ties to Russia. In the first days, the war was not just a war of Russia against Ukraine, but also a war of Russian power holders against people they saw as their somewhat disloyal serfs.

Still, there has been some real tension between Ukrainians and Russians for years, though most of that was among the political elites and those involved in nationalist groups. Ordinary people, especially in Eastern Ukraine where the conflict has centered, have been so intermingled that few can say they are one-hundred percent Ukrainian or one-hundred percent Russian.

Twenty years ago, some of my closest friends in Prague were a group of artists from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv who called themselves the Tender Russian Painters, though their last names—Boyko, Chernenko and so on—named them more as Ukrainian than Russian.

Though Russian was the language they spoke most often, they were eclectic artists, mostly not even painters. They also weren’t particularly tender.

They set up a safe house for refugees from the authoritarian regimes in Russia and Belarus without any official backing and took no crap. I entered their world as a journalist but soon became an honorary member. The safehouse often had its electricity cut for lack of funds and we’d talk by candlelight with groups of dissidents who had to flee their homes due to incredibly minor disagreements with the Russian and Belarusian regimes. I’d bring a giant pot of potato and cabbage soup and listen to their stories.

None of these people ever made much of their various ethnicities. Ukrainian, Russian, Rusyn and Belarusian flew around in a swirl of eastern Slavic words that I certainly couldn’t untangle as the lone American in the bunch. Soon they adopted a German and a Nepali migrant worker as well. There was little room in that atmosphere for nationalism or ideology.

Later, when I worked in Ukraine there were ethnic tensions only among fringe elements of society. Most Ukrainians and Russians in eastern Ukraine had plenty of both in their family trees.

When issues did crop up, they were more political than ethnic. There were those who were nationalist and wanted monolithic state languages to stand undiluted. There were also more liberal or cosmopolitan opinions, not just among smaller minority groups but among both Russians and Ukrainians as well.

Recently, reports in the news have revealed the activities of both Russian and Ukrainian extremist and paramilitary groups—precisely the type of rogue combatants who were responsible for the most heinous atrocities in the Balkan wars.

The development of such groups was inevitable, I suppose, even given the scarcity of actual neighborly hatred between ordinary Russians and Ukrainians. A population can only take so much war before some elements crack and become vicious.

Now there are pundits on the region who mutter about “ancient ethnic hatreds.” That’s what they said about Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia too. But when I went and walked the streets with the people in those places, I found bewilderment more often than extremism.

“We were neighbors! We were friends.”

“We worked at the same factory. We went to the same school.”

“I didn’t even know what side I was supposed to belong to.”

That is the reality for the people in the towns and villages of eastern Ukraine as well. Yes, there were Russian activists and hot heads who took money from Putin’s stooges to stir up controversy and make an appearance of widespread grievances among the Russian minority. But the actual concern for locals was limited to wanting to use their native language at school or wanting more investment from the Ukrainian capital, not less.

And on the other side, yes, many Ukrainians felt the oppressive weight of Russia as a foreign superpower glowering over them for years. That was why many Ukrainians voted for measures to require that all citizens of the country learn Ukrainian as well as any minority language they might speak. But that was about as far as the tensions went for most people.

Both Russia and the US meddled in this. Russian interests funded Russian nationalist groups and the US funded Ukrainian nationalist groups, including most unfortunately some with ties to neo-Nazi associations. Both superpowers attempted to interfere in Ukrainian elections for at least twenty years.

The fact is that Russia felt the diminishing of its national power and influence as Ukraine became a separate country, and the US wanted anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine to increase for geo-political purposes. The extremist groups were the only ones either major power could get to raise their concerns locally.

The fact that I point out these uncomfortable issues does not make me an apologist for Russian aggression. There is no excuse for the kind of illegal and idiotic imperialism that Putin and the Russian military have unleashed on Ukraine. Ukrainians have a right to self-determination. Even if US involvement was, in this case, less brutal and bloody, it was also an infringement of that right, which then handed Putin an unfortunate propaganda bludgeon in this war.

The fact remains that this is not a war based on “ethnic hatred.” Most Ukrainians and most Russians have been dragged into the conflict kicking and screaming. This is instead a war of geo-politics.

But wars do create hatred and deeply held enmity. These militarized nationalist groups won’t disappear even if a ceasefire is signed or certain powerful leaders die or undergo regime change. Both governments are likely to deny responsibility for ongoing violence by the paramilitaries they created.

Why does this matter now? Why discuss it if there is nothing we can do?

Because talk of hatred will inevitably lead to a withdrawal of empathy, not just for those we see as the enemy but even for those we think of as the victims. When we in countries that have not recently fought a war at home dismiss the conflicts of others as the product of some implacable “ancient ethnic hatred,” we tell ourselves that this is something that happens only in such barbaric places and we set ourselves apart from the kind of backward people who engage in “ethnic hatred.”

In reality, the US shares responsibility for part of this mess. The US supported extremist groups that have morphed into the kind of paramilitaries that escalate communities toward hatred.

Ordinary Ukrainians and Russians were about as ready to go to war with each other as Oregonians and Idahoans (which if you live in Eastern Oregon, you’ll get that analogy even more explicitly). Yes, there were differences. Yes, some even rallied to secede and join their eastern neighbor. But it was geopolitics that made it erupt in war, not hatred among people.

It is crucial that we do not use such easy explanations to dismiss and distance ourselves from people suffering war on the other side of the world. They are more like us than is comfortable.

Time for more war?

I’m still at my computer late at night. I shouldn’t be, but I am still here, because on the other side of the world there is a driver in a minivan in a city just west of the front lines in Ukraine, sitting with her phone, trying to get a signal from the struggling cell towers, praying for a map to guide her and her cargo—a family with a disabled child—out of the path of indiscriminate bombs and gunfire.

And I’m the one with that map.

How in the hell…? Well, life is weird. I was in Ukraine many years ago. I can read the maps. I can sort of understand the language. I was also in the Balkans during conflicts there. I was a journalist, but I was also known as “that one is good with a map.”

Image of the Carpathian mountains by https://www.flickr.com/photos/bortescristian/

There was the time when no one could get across the Macedonian front lines and somehow—visually impaired as I am—my eyes were drawn to a faint logging trail on the hiking map I was using to navigate our team around the war zone. It seemed to avoid all the hostile checkpoints and the shelling areas, though not quite all the sniper ranges.

We decided to try it and we got through, so that we could give reports on the situation—kids hiding in basements listening to blasts that rattled the windows—back to the Red Cross, humanitarian aid groups and the world at large.

That was twenty years ago, but as it turns out, I’m still good with a map. Or so my colleagues say in a network of volunteers trying to evacuate the most vulnerable people who don’t have their own cars from Ukrainian hotspots. There are kids hiding from bombs in basements again, and I’m stuck in La Grande, Oregon amid snow melt, muddy roads, preteen basketball games, family dental appointments and IEP meetings, but there are those who still want to call me back in.

That’s the part that floors me. Isn’t there someone with a paid job, who can do this ten times better than I can. “Nope,” says the guy I get orders from. He’s ex-military but he’s a volunteer too and on disability. Some of the other volunteers are civilian employees of the military, but they aren’t getting paid to do this. The US military is strictly hands-off, even when it comes to evacuating kids. The situation is that touchy.

For the past few days, we’ve been evacuating children in orphanages, families with small children, the sick, the disabled and the elderly, people who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten out. Our group has evacuated more than 500 independently and our maps have helped many others picked up by other organizations.

I don’t really have time for this, given that my life was already jammed with multiple health crises—mine and my kids’—as well as bureaucracy and trying to be a writer. That’s why I’m on it after my son is in bed.

And one last report is coming in... I watch in horror a video forwarded from Twitter, showing a bomb falling onto the bridge I was just about to guide that van across. The guy videoing nearly dropped his phone, the blast shook him so badly even hundreds of yards away. His voice is hoarse, in shock, “The bridge… the music place… hit.”

It’s heartbreaking. But I don’t have time to think about it. I am back to the map, scanning feverishly for another route. OK, that one. Yes, it goes by a military zone but it’s only an old training center, no buildings, unlikely to be a target. It’s the only way west left anyway. Send them that way.

I send it off. Pray. Think of the dim photo I’ve seen of some of the drivers in one of our minivans, smiling through exhaustion. Maybe the same one. Maybe a different one. Then I have to sleep, to force myself not to think about it any more.

I have been almost entirely absent on social media and in real life social situations. My friends ask why I don’t have much to say about Ukraine. They know I’ve been there. Don’t I care? Isn’t it terrible that Biden won’t impose a no-fly zone to protect the Ukrainians? Don’t I think it’s all about Putin going after the natural gas reserves in Dombas? Shouldn’t NATO be doing more to help?

I’ve always had an opinion because I have been a lot of places, know a lot of things first hand and research what I don’t know. And my first field was Eastern Europe.

But I’ve seen several of today’s top “experts” on Eastern Europe and Russia on TV admitting that we’re bamboozled. The “old Russia hands” as we used to call people who were supposed to know this stuff said Putin was just posturing. Before Feb. 24, if you’d asked me, I would have said the same. And we were disastrously wrong.

What is worse is that we’ve woken up to a geopolitical world that has shifted in fundamental ways. Our confidence is shaken and we have to recalculate most of our assumptions about the world.

The one thing we do know is that Russia has nukes, a lot of nukes. And yes, their tanks fall apart and their supply lines are in utter chaos. (This is actually something any old Russia hand could have told you ages ago. Russians even have phrase for that sort of thing, “That’s Russia!” delivered in a sarcastic/resigned tone.) But that does not mean all of their nukes will malfunction and their missiles seem to fly well enough, if not always straight.

Russia—the state structure that is—still has a lot of fight in it, a lot of corrupt flexibility and a lot of technical expertise, though often concentrated in certain places rather than spread out across general manufacturing. I like Russiasn in general and consider several to be good friends, but I have never had any doubt about the villainous nature of their authority figures or state bureaucracy.

Just as we thought Putin was posturing, we think—we hope—enough Russian officials are as worried about the prospect of nuclear war as we are that “they wouldn’t go that far.” But we’ve just been taught a hard lesson on what our speculations are worth after the bombs fall.

So, when asked I am much more likely to look troubled, shrug and say “for once I’m glad I’m not in charge.”

The Ukrainians have every reason and right to demand greater help from the west. The west, the US specifically, mucked around in Ukrainian politics, financed this or that party, supported western-leaning figures and nationalist groups. Now our diplomats put their palms forward and say, “Hey, we never promised anything.” But the promise was implied. It is even implied for anyone in all the wordage of UN documents on human rights and peace.

But the choices are stark. Putin has little left to lose. He will likely not survive, if his war fails. And he doesn’t strike me as the self-sacrificing type. I fear he’ll use chemical or nuclear weapons before he’ll allow his forces to lose. That would likely be inside Ukraine for now… likely… again the value of these speculations...

But while I would very much like to believe that the Russian operators with the actual physical means to either launch or not launch long-range nuclear weapons won’t go through with orders to use them, that’s one hell of a bet.

So, I don’t know what to tell our policy makers, except this: I’m a disabled person, living in a basement on disability and I’ve got two kids with special needs to take care of. And I’m now a “key component” in the urgent humanitarian effort to evacuate Ukrainian civilians from the war zone. That is ridiculous!

I’m badass and all—har har—but the people doing this should be paid and have the proper software and childcare and so forth.

Some people are clamoring for a bigger military budget, when our military can currently do diddly crap about the current situation, and there is nothing saying this will be the last time. At the same time, we have only minuscule humanitarian forces.

If we’d had a huge professional humanitarian corps—say funded a third as much as we fund our military (that would be incredibly huge)—ready to step in in crises, including doctors, drivers, administrators, IT support and yes, the occasional map analyst, we could have evacuated the Ukrainian population so fast Putin’s war would have been merely an infrastructure loss that we could have forced his cronies to pay off for years to come.

But we don’t. We have volunteers scrambling, disorganization, chaos and ad hoc efforts.

I know this is scary. (I’ve had nightmares about nuclear war too—like I had as a kid, for the first time in 30 years. I know. I know.) But please don’t be pulled into the same old cycle that goes nowhere. Beefing up the US military and filling the coffers of military contractors is not going to fix this or prevent the next one. The thing that can actually counter the nuclear threat is a humanitarian corps that has the strength and power of a military machine without the weapons.

Maybe some covert ops team will get in and neutralize the Russian capability for launching nuclear weapons. I hope they do, and that would be a good focus for military people. But that does not require all the gigantic hardware or even a fraction of the budget and personnel of the US military. That kind of operation requires focus, specialized skills, people who not only know languages but know the cultures intimately.

So, increase spending on that kind of thing? Sure.

But that’s a long shot and it might easily not work. What is not a long-shot is funding a humanitarian corp that could prevent an entire country from becoming hostages in the first place. Fund a humanitarian corps as big as an army. Train people to fight fire, floods, wounds, disease and every other type of crisis. Have equipment and vehicles ready the way a military does. The reason armies have those things and humanitarian agencies don’t is just money, not any difference in commitment and urgency.

Next time, let’s have an answer that renders the next tyrant impotent.

We don’t send Ukraine fighter jets, not because we don’t have the money, but because the Russians could use that as an excuse to launch a nuke, maybe at us, but maybe just at western Ukraine, into the midst of the millions of refugees streaming toward the west. That’s the scenario I fear most acutely. We have sent humanitarian aid but not enough and not with the logistical coordination that would really matter, and that we could do, IF we were prepared.

I hear the pleas of Ukrainians, begging for NATO—essentially that means the US, my country—to “close the sky.” That sky is raining death and destruction on them every day. And they believe we could stop it. But military analysts know we might well not be able to stop it and it would mean all-out war between superpowers, mostly on top of the Ukrainians. As understandable as their cries are, it would be unlikely to save them.

More armies, bombs and guns has rarely been a good answer in human history. Maybe it was different before the nuclear age. Maybe. I don’t know what it was like to live during WWII. I have generally thought we had to fight the Nazis. And I think the Ukrainians have to fight this war, and the individuals going to fight with them are on there right side of history. But making a bigger war won’t help Ukraine or anyone else.

So, if you’re one of those people wondering what exactly we should do. Build a humanitarian corps. Build international peace and security structures. They matter.

The one time I was facing the barrels of guns in a war zone nose to nose, it was not more guns that saved me and my vulnerable interpreter. It was three unarmed peacekeeping personnel, who put themselves between us and the gunmen. That war could have blown up but it didn’t, and that was one of the reasons why.

My prayers go with all those fleeing war tonight—the people navigating dark back roads winding ever westward or packed into train cars hoping the missiles won’t find them. My prayers go with the drivers heading toward the war with a trunk full of food and winter coats and seats waiting to carry out refugees. My prayers go even with the soldiers, those who have to fight for their homes, those forced to fight, those misled by lies and those who turn aside from killing by jamming their guns or snipping wires in a tank.

I hope against hope that this war, as awful as it is, will not drag out into a longer war, will not cause longstanding hate in mixed families and mixed neighborhoods, will not spill over into other countries. But like so many others, I can’t do much about those things besides hope. What I can do is help to save one more van full of refugees. That won’t change the course of the war, but it will matter to that one.

3 Comments

Arie Farnam

Arie Farnam is a war correspondent turned peace organizer, a tree-hugging herbalist, a legally blind bike rider, the off-road mama of two awesome kids, an idealist with a practical streak and author of the Kyrennei Series. She grew up outside La Grande, Oregon and now lives in a small town near Prague in the Czech Republic.

Grist in the mill: Fury and awe over vast inhumane systems

Four O’clock in the morning. I’m washed up in a basement apartment in a town I struggled mightily to escape thirty years ago. No sign of dawn yet and I am learning the full meaning of “circumstances beyond my control.”

Let me try to tell this story without giving you the headache I have. Six weeks ago, I shipped twelve boxes with the majority of everything my kids and I own in the world from the Czech Republic back to Oregon, where I was born. I was scared by tales of US customs debacles, so I used a moving company—one recommended by a friend of a friend.

But that company passed me off to an international corporate shell and that company put my stuff in a warehouse in London and doubled the price of the shipment, held my stuff for ransom and threatened to destroy it if I didn’t pay within three days. I paid—emptying out the bank account set up to give my kids a start in a new country and a new school year. What choice did I have? Five thousand dollars all told, maybe not a catastrophic sum by middle class American standards but a decade’s savings for me—and an unimaginable sum to much of the world.

Then, the company insisted I hadn’t paid, claiming the money never arrived. I’d paid by Visa debit card. My bank sent confirmation that the company had received the payment and the money was gone from my account. The corporate hacks on the other end of a $83-dollar international phone call insisted I had not paid and refused to trace the payment.

Tears. Rage. Frustration. I have never wanted to do violence so badly. But I couldn’t even cuss at them safely. My children’s momentos and photos of childhood are at their mercy. The irreplaceable pottery made by Dave Waln, a family friend, is at their mercy. They’ve even got the clippings of every newspaper story I ever wrote.

(Call me stupid but this was supposed to be the safest way to transport our most precious stuff, safer than the mail, safer even than airline luggage, which does sometimes go astray.)

I’ve felt lost and betrayed and utterly bereft a handful of times before—when dumped by the love of my life five thousand miles from home at the age of nineteen, when I miscarried and lost the hope of having a biological child, or when my adopted child’s diagnosis of a serious disability was confirmed to me while I sat in a crowd of judgmental mothers of perfect children. I’ve hit low spots, sure enough.

But none of those were engineered by giant systems with inexorably turning wheels that grind some people into dust while others feed the machines with their little daily labors. Mostly the lowest points are things no human person is responsible for—acts of nature or of the gods. And while they prompt a dark night of the soul and even futile anger, you know that there is no one and nothing that can change the situation.

In this situation, there were people who could change it, people causing it and cheerfully insinuating that my only recourse would be through international lawyers, which would cost far more than their demand to pay the doubled price yet again.

I tried to go through channels, of course. But back here in Oregon, I am the expert in all things international. My family and friends look at me with wide frightened eyes when I describe this. It’s beyond anything they can cope with. I called a national FBI fraud hotline and was told that they couldn’t help me because I had actually intended to pay this company, whereas the fraud they chase is only when someone’s identity or card information is stolen outright. I called Visa and was told again that they could not help because I am not a bank.

i spent more money I couldn’t spare to call the distant bank that had handled the transaction back in the Czech Republic. They insisted their document should be respected and negotiations with Visa through them would take at least three weeks—by which time the threats of the ransomers would no doubt be long since carried out.

I considered trying to get a lawyer, but I’ve heard how different British law is. They don’t even have lawyers exactly. They have “barristers.” How much would that cost? No doubt the hacks who taunted me on the phone from London were right that it would cost more than just paying them again.

Dawn comes gray and pale through the basement windows. I heat water for tea. The water is acrid with the smell of chlorine and something worse. The tea is barely discernible. My heart is so heavy. This is my life now. An apartment with bare walls and frugally filled shelves, missing keepsakes, bad water and a neighborhood full of endless asphalt, gaunt addicts and warnings to lock every door tight.

Creative Commons image by Ekaterina Didkovskaya

Creative Commons image by Ekaterina Didkovskaya

Hands shaking, I tap NPR on my phone screen. I don’t have the focus for an audio book or even one of the blogs or podcasts I follow. The soothing voices on this radio station of my childhood will help a little, I hope.

But the news breaks into my despairing gray morning with Afghanistan—desperate families standing in the desert outside Kabul airport, American humiliation and the vicious Taliban. I have to sit down. I’m reeling, pulled back into my own past with the young interpreter I fought so hard to get out of a war zone where he faced execution.

Even if they are completely anonymous to me, those families in the desert haunt me and goad me. As hopeless as my situation seems, as much as I may be nothing but grist in the ginormous mill of the international finance system, that system needs grist, damn it!

In theory, that system is supposed to work for me. And somehow there must be a way.

That’s maybe the most essential difference between the “first world” and the rest. We may be cogs in a giant system, but the system needs cogs and mostly it is built to keep us more or less alive.

I think of the families of Afghans who worked for American organizations, all those who believed in the dream that American imperialism offered. Now mostly they are trapped and the Taliban has lists of who they are. Journalists say the country is about to go dark for a long time and those people will be utterly at the mercy of ideological zealots who previously killed anyone who stepped out of line.

The ginormous system of international borders, citizenship and asylum claims is not rigged to work for them. Not even in theory. I know with absolute certainty that there are women like me there in Afghanistan, who have worked for NGOs or written as journalists, like me, and who now stand in that place of utter despair and helplessness, knowing they may die for it. Their children may die. And there is nothing they can do to stop it.

That helplessness and complete disempowerment. That’s the worst part of this day and age.

I’m sure life was hard back in the day. And yes, there were warlords who took over and massacred people. I’m not saying there weren’t. The difference with Afghanistan today is that we did this. Not just the war. Let’s put all the convoluted arguments about “nation building” aside.

I’m talking about not letting them get on a plane and come to the US earlier, not giving them visas years ago. That’s how our country caused this at the most basic level. We have borders and immigration policies. And yes, I know all the arguments about why we need them. Maybe some of those arguments even have merit, but the fact is that people in offices made those decisions and turned down visa applications.

And people are dying who wouldn’t have if the stamps had fallen elsewhere or the papers were pushed into a different pile. Systems made of people did this. And those systems are by and large a creation of modern times.

That’s why I feel a kinship with the Afghans, no matter how disproportionate the stakes. Our family belongings are at the mercy of multiple systems made of people—the corporation itself, the international finance system and the systems of international freight shipping. All of these are systems made of people.

I’ve lived through natural disasters—devastating storms, floods and even fire. Those things can make a person feel powerless in a way, but there is also a lot of empowerment in it.

When my family lost their home to fire while my mother was pregnant with me, they rebuilt… in the snow… with hand tools. When a storm isolated us from civilization and electrical power for a week, we put chunks of ice on the stove to thaw for fresh water and survived on stored food. When Covid hit, I didn't have to join the frenzy at grocery stores because I already had a well-stocked pantry and homemade masks weren’t hard to make.

Disasters feel indiscriminate, but they are not entirely disempowering.

Creative Commons image by RNW.org

Creative Commons image by RNW.org

These massive human systems take my breath away in a different manner. There is no recourse, no hope, utter disempowerment. That’s the curse of our times.

Six weeks later…

I’m in the backyard dressed in rag-bag clothes, painting stain onto boards to build shelves. I’m already smiling because my father has come to help me saw and hang them. The sun is shining. I got a really heavy-duty water filter and I can actually make tea, even if my beloved mugs may be gone forever.

Then a guy in a baggy trucker’s shirt comes in through the open gate and looks around uncertainly. “I think I have a delivery for. you.”

“Twelve boxes?” I gasp with fluttering excitement.

“Well, it’s a pallet. I didn’t count them.” He replies.

There are a few more anxious minutes as we direct him to drive around back, so that we can unload the pallet near my apartment door. Then, as he lowers it I count quickly. All twelve are actually there!!!

And they are battered and crushed with corners blown out but mostly the cardboard and plastic wrap held. There’s one large rip in the side of a box. I peer through and find it entirely blocked by a large copy of Erik the Viking, an out-of-print childhood favorite of mine. Good hold on the shield wall, Erik!

Over the next several days, I unpack each box carefully. A few legos and the odd rock from my collection of too many crystals may have fallen out a corner hole, but mostly our stuff is in remarkably good shape. The pottery was packed in layers of tightly secured cardboard. This wasn’t my first rodeo. Almost all made it through. One glass and wood picture frame smashed beyond recognition, one pottery diffuser crushed to gravel (it wasn’t one of Dave’s), some dented tins and a few cracks in plastic toy containers… But really those are small losses against my very real fears of never getting any of it at all.

How did I get them to stop the scams and let go? I’m not even sure what exactly did it. I held off their threats with official sounding emails and a friend letting them think he was my lawyer. I did get the bank to follow up with Visa, though it took weeks. I contacted a British moving industry association and a London-based consumer rights organization. I learned to write brief, very stern, very business-like, non-emotional, realistically threatening emails. I spent countless hours battling this particular incidence of corporate greed and hubris.

And eventually they agreed to trace the payment and they found, of course, that it was in their account all the time. So, they grudgingly fulfilled their side of the contract.

For the record, the company is called Baggage Hub. Mark it down. Tell your international friends and family. Stay away. Beware! Bad reviews don’t even cover it, but when there is time, oh, will I ever be writing some reviews.

Life is looking better here as well. I found a medical transportation service covered by insurance, so I can get to doctor’s appointments even if I can’t drive and public transit is minimal. My son’s school seems to be working out. My special needs kid may be getting a bit more of the help and treatment she needs. Piece by piece, bit by bit. It’s still chaos but there is progress.

And there are stresses that are no longer there. The interethnic conflict of Central Europe is far away. The unfriendly neighbors who shouted and threw stones when I rode my electric scooter have been replaced by smiling, chatty neighbors, even if some of them are in worse shape than I am. I look forward to getting up in the morning and I sometimes get to walk in the dry, semi-desert mountains.

We don’t hear about Afghanistan anymore. The news has moved on, but I think of them, the ones who didn’t get out. And the one’s who did but had to leave loved ones, homes, keepsakes and old photos behind. I still don’t understand why them and not me. OK, I lost my savings and had a few weeks of great stress, but really in the end, I am still one for whom the large systems of humanity mostly work, not one they work against.

My heart carries you, Jayesh and Makai, my Afghan friends met 23 years ago among refugees in Kazakhstan.

Postcards from American social studies class

It has been a month since I pulled my son out of Czech school mid-week and put him in an American online elementary school. It’s been a month of complete reorientation. I even feel like I have jet lag.

Our living room now looks like a homeschooler lives here. We aren’t technically allowed to homeschool because of Czech authorities, but we have been able to enroll in an American online school, thanks to technology that has only existed for a few years. And even with school online the physical environment is starting to look different.

Now we are surrounded by three US maps (two of them in puzzle form), a daily schedule on the wall, science projects involving balloons, makeshift beakers and lots of rocks, a writing lab and color-coded notebooks with big bold labels in English. This isn’t how Czechs do school. My son’s previous school room had piles of identical gray notebooks—six or more per class—a couple of textbooks and nothing with color or three dimensions.

Image by Arie Farnam

Image by Arie Farnam

In other rooms of the house, I am packing and stacking boxes. I came here twenty-two years ago with a single backpack, a laptop and equipment to make a documentary film. In a few months, I’ll be going back. One acquires things in twenty-two years—important things… and people. I’ll be heading back with two kids and about ten large boxes full of books, clothes, special dishes, candle-making equipment, herbalist paraphernalia, children’s toys, board games and much smaller electronics.

I’ll still be leaving behind a lot of value—the huge wooden table my Egyptian carpenter friend made for me, my antique sewing machine, my house, my garden, my animals, a husband. This isn’t all celebration. There is a lot of loss and heartache.

This morning I realized for the first time that we will technically meet the definition of refugees. We are leaving because of community harassment and particularly racially motivated physical and psychological attacks on my son, from which authorities refuse to protect us.

Sure, unlike most refugees, we actually have a pre-set safe harbor to go to. We have citizenship and an apartment already waiting, But still… this isn’t how I ever imagined going home.

The ever-intensifying Covid lockdowns here leave us in a limbo where we might as well have already crossed the ocean. A thick blanket of fine sifted snow has fallen and the temperature has been well below freezing.

We haven’t seen neighbors even poke their noses out of doors in days. But we are out and about, feeding animals, sledding, snowboarding, skating on a nearby pond and shoveling snow. It’s a wonderfully quiet and blissfully unthreatening world for a change with only the sounds of neighborhood dogs and a few engines down on the county road.

Our trans-Atlantic transition has already begun. I’ve got the measuring cups out and we’ve been baking—preparing for a world of cups, ounces, pounds, quarts, gallons, feet and inches. My son is justifiably confused.

“Why, Mama, why do Americans do this? Centimeters are lots easier!”

Oh honey, you have no idea.

The complexity isn’t just in units of measure by a long shot. Europeans don’t study fractions much, which are mostly a consequence of weird American units of measure.

And did you know that European and American cursive handwriting differ significantly? No wonder I haven’t been able to read handwriting for the past twenty years! I thought my eyes were just getting worse. But as it turns out, almost all the capital letters are different and many of the lower-case letters are quite different.

Of course, there is the whole language thing. I didn’t get out of home teaching by going for American school, even if the online teachers do actually teach concepts. My son needs vocabulary help roughly every two and a half minutes, and that definitely includes math class.

The most foreign class though is social studies. Czechs do have a somewhat similar class. It is called “homeland studies,” and is completely nationally focused. In fourth grade, American social studies is quite similar actually—just with information about a different country. A few concepts, like how to read an elevation map, are transferable, but all the facts are, of course, different.

Before enrolling in American school, my son could just barely find the United States on a world map, primarily because “Grandma lives there.” (Not to mention a passel of cousins.) But that’s as far as his knowledge of America went—to my dismay. I thought I’d done a half-way decent job, importing hundreds of American children’s books over the years, many of them about American history or regional cultures. But apparently my son assumed these were every bit as much fantasy as the fairytales and let them go in one ear and out the other.

The social studies teacher in our new school is also the weakest of the teachers, in terms of teaching style and even knowledge base. He’s a middle-aged guy from Ohio named Todd, and I was warned by reviewers that this school has a conservative bent.

But even so, I was disturbed when the first lesson was on the hemispheres of the earth and the teacher insisted that the earth has four hemispheres—northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest. “Hemi-sphere” means “half of a ball.” You can’t have four halves of one ball.

Next, the teacher just goofed. He was trying to explain to the kids how landforms have an impact on weather patterns. One of the simplest examples of this comes from my home turf in Eastern Oregon, where the Cascade Mountains block the wet sea air from the Pacific Ocean to the west and force it to rise, cool and dump all of its moisture before continuing on to the eastern part of the state. That’s why Eastern Oregon and Washington are mostly desert.

But Todd from Ohio got his mountain ranges mixed up and insisted that it is the Rocky Mountains that block the wet air from the Pacific, despite the fact that the Rockies don’t really start until you get into Idaho. And he put it on the unit exam.

But those things are non-controversial, just mistakes, that in reality any teacher makes. We just don’t usually have to teach our classes with parents looking in, analyzing and rewinding the video recording to harp on every little thing. So, I wrote to Todd and told him about the issue gently and I don’t hold it against him. (Well, the bit about the earth’s hemispheres counts against him maybe just a smidgen.)

But the real trouble started in the unit titled “Who are Americans?”

First, the teacher proclaimed that all Americans are immigrants. He made a point of calling out any Native American kids watching and specifically denigrating anyone who says Native Americans are not immigrants. He explained the archeological land bridge theory, though he neglected to mention that this is our best guess as to how Native Americans got there. Mostly it was his tone that was irritating at this point.

But then he made a point of insisting that those first migrating humans or pre-humans were also immigrants and thus “all Americans come from immigrants.” First of all, this isn’t technically correct. “Immigration” describes the movement of specific persons from one inhabited country to another inhabited country. An immigrant goes “in” among those already there and does it during their own lifetime.

The people who crossed the land bridge, if that is indeed how it happened, were not immigrants. They were nomads. They didn’t make the trip all in one lifetime. It took many generations. They didn’t go to live in another country. They just slowly moved around and eventually found themselves on a different continent.

Now, I’m not Native American and I don’t know if Native Americans care whether or not they are considered to be the descendants of immigrants or not. But I do care about the evident reason Todd was making this assertion—to prepare kids to believe that Europeans had every bit as much right to the land of North America as Native Americans did back in the 1400s. That’s a problem.

If that were true any invader could just declare themselves immigrants to any country and might would always make right.

Furthermore, If Todd were right about all Americans being immigrants, it would mean that Europe is a continent of immigrants too… and Asia and Australia as well. The only continent with any claim to having indigenous people would be Africa and all humans would either have to be considered indigenous Africans or African diaspora of various time periods. That is clearly unhelpful and not the meaning of the concepts involved.

This is where the fundamental building blocks of a vast social misunderstandings start—at least some of them. Conservatives in the US have long complained that teaching the facts of US history constitutes the shaming of the white portion of the nation. As a result, I had to learn much of this history outside school from reading and from experiences with people. The primary shame I ever felt over it was that we didn’t learn it in primary school.

This is a political ploy in the classroom. I’ve heard right-wing politicians say the same thing on TV, “we all came as immigrants and we all had the same opportunities.” It’s a comfortable falsehood to shake off uncomfortable feelings that arise from acknowledging historical and present-day injustices.

In the next unit, Todd opened up the topic of the economy of the United States. He defined “free market economics” as “a system where you can make as much money as you want. You decide how much money you will make.”

Creative Commons image by Kath B. of Flickr.com

Creative Commons image by Kath B. of Flickr.com

He never hinted that you don’t just get to say, “Oh, I’d like to make $200,000 please,” and it’s done. Well, I suppose that Todd had that option because he’s an abled white man from a privileged socio-economic background, so maybe he actually thinks that’s an option for everybody. He does point out that he chose to be a teacher, even though it doesn’t pay as much as some other things. But he never hints that not everyone gets to simply point to a dollar amount and choose their salary, as if it is an ice-cream flavor.

Next, Todd addresses America’s political system. America is “unique,” he says, because it is a democracy. He digs deeper into the idea that America is alone in being a democracy when he defines the concept of a political region as “America is a democracy, so that is a political region,” as if the border around the United States was the border around the democratic region of the world.

This, despite the fact that the fairly conservative Pew Research Center found in 2019 that more than half of the countries in the world are now democratic.

And then this morning, a whopper that left me breathless. In discussing America’s borders and neighbors, the teacher claimed that the Mexican-American war was a border dispute over which river should be the border. It was presented as a silly little argument in which the United States proved that the Rio Grande was the right border. In reality the Mexican-American war constituted a massive land-grab on the part of the Americans. It was so unjust that there were quite a few Americans who fought on the Mexican side. And when the United States won anyway, the border was moved and the USA gained 500,000 square miles of territory, increasing the nation’s size by a third. This was no minor squabble over “which river the border should follow.”

One of the ways I deal with the problems with social studies class is to supplement. I brought out the world-map puzzles and eventually my son got the idea of cardinal directions and the hemispheres of the earth. I also got a topographical map of the US. so we could study. the real positions of the mountain ranges and their effects on Eastern Oregon high desert country. And at the moment, we’re reading children’s books about the historical labor movement led by young women in textile mills for a bit of perspective on our economic system. We have books about Native American kids—both present-day and historical—as well.

But now I see the divide in American social studies education in all its glory. To be on the side of facts and history puts me in the position of sounding like I am constantly harping on some injustice or another. This isn’t the choice of those of us who care about our children understanding the real world. I am not in fact against America or focused on complaint and gloom. I don’t even think America is really any more unjust than the vast majority of countries in the world.

But when teachers strip out any sign of the injustices of the past and focus on the myth of glorious European “Founding Fathers,” it makes it hard for facts to come across as anything else.

I find myself longing for a social studies class that would just teach the facts and the story of the country and its many peoples with integrity in the first place. This was one of the reasons why I wanted to homeschool my kids early on, a dream I gave up on due to bureaucracy, special educational needs and the wishes of my children. That’s why I have all these picture and story books on historical, geographic and social matters.

To counteract the sense that even my. blog posts are often a litany of complaints in a world of unrelenting hardship and injustice, I let myself dream about the way I would teach social studies.

We’d build maps where the equator was actually in the middle of the map, rather than in the lower third. We’d sing the oceans and continents. We’d make food from various countries. We’d mix the same paints to get the various shades of brown that color all the peoples of the earth, including those of very light-brown hue. We’d read real or realistic fictional stories about children in different countries.

When we turned, as we eventually must in an American school, to a more in-depth exploration of the United States, we would first spend quite a long time on the first several thousand years of American history and study the physical regions of the country in that context. We would have to search to find child-friendly books and materials on Native American civilizations and we would study their many discoveries and the development of mature democracy in some of them.

Then we would move on to all the history that came after and the nation of immigrants that largely replaced those civilizations. We would study the stories of those immigrants, including real stories of children in those times. We would not look away from hardship, desperation or exploitation. We would see how even good intentions sometimes brought tragedy and not all intentions were good. We would look at how people in the past viewed those of other groups and how that influenced what they did.

We would look at the founding of the United States and the Constitution as significant events, but not as the all-defining, most important events they became in the social studies of my childhood. We would look at exactly who designed the Constitution and why and how they hoped it would work and what worked and what didn’t and how it has been changed and whether or not it now works better. We wouldn’t be looking for saints or devils but rather at people, who were shaped by their times and circumstances.

As we moved toward more recent history, we would have more stories of real people to work with. We’d break down myths and tell the stories with nuance. Rosa Parks would take her rightful place as a savvy, planful activist, rather than just someone who was too tired.

We would learn that there are rarely easy answers, and that while there are sometimes people with dishonorable intentions, most people throughout history took the actions that seemed right from their own perspective at that time. And yes, this would mean in the end that we would not be able to cover everything in one year, because nuance takes a little while, but we could cover it all in the end, since we wouldn’t spend every year repeating the same tired myths.

I hope—I have reason to hope from what I haver read—that there are schools in America that now teach social studies more like this. I have no illusions that we are returning to a country that is truly safer or gentler than the one we are leaving. We are simply going because we must go, due to clear and present danger, and that is the place we can find safe harbor just now.

Tolerating those with beliefs you (strongly) disagree with

I live among many people with beliefs I dislike—often abhor.

I live in a small town in Central Bohemia in the Czech Republic. It is almost entirely white and affluent. Recently a few Asian families have moved to town to open businesses. There are also a handful of oddball people of color—one kid at school with a mother from the Caribbean and so forth.

The opinions of most of my neighbors reflect that. They are inexperienced, fearful of people with different skin tones, and resentful of the hardworking Asian business owners (who keep their shops open hours after everyone else has closed up). They blithely “pop out to the Vietnamese” at 8:00 pm to get a snack when no one else in ten kilometers is open, but they’ll be back at the Asian-bashing the next morning… or often as not, on the way home from the store..

Beyond that, the country is not very diverse. We are among the handful of countries in the EU who have taken in the fewest refugees as a percent of population. My neighbors are always telling me about why we shouldn’t take in refugees, particularly not from Muslim countries.

This isn’t backwoods ignorance but rather pseudo-intellectual rhetoric:

“European culture is founded on Christianity and the enlightenment. Even though most of us are not really Christians anymore, that’s our cultural foundation. Muslims don’t fit in here and they will make enclaves where they enforce their culture and beliefs. They’ll also change our overall culture. They have a lot more children than we do. In the end, you know they want to force us to live under Sharia law.”

There are so many false assumptions in this common public story that I hear from every side daily, even within my own family. that it would take at least five blog posts to cover them all:

  1. No, Europe was actually Pagan. Christianity came from the same general area as a large number of the refugees.

  2. Refugees don’t erase your cultural foundation. Throughout history, nations that accepted refugees have done better economically and become more culturally enlightened. I’ve never seen a historical exception to this fact.

  3. Poor and desperate people have more children. Secure people with access to education and health care have fewer children. That’s a very basic biological fact about humans as a species. If you want to curb population growth, give people education and health care.

  4. The majority of Muslim immigrants don’t want Sharia law. Fanaticism is often a top reason they left their homelands. Even in Muslim majority countries, opinions about Islamic extremists are overwhelmingly negative.

Creative Commons image by Andy Blackledge

Creative Commons image by Andy Blackledge

The fact remains that I live next to, converse politely with and even maintain a shallow level of friendship with many people who hold a lot of bigoted, inexperienced and hateful opinions. I have little choice, since I live in a country where these are the views of the vast majority of the population. Unless I want to be a hermit, who only shops at the family owned Vietnamese store (with nice people) and who doesn’t even use social media, I have to learn to live in the vicinity of horrid opinions.

But the original question that sparked this post on befriending or respecting those with beliefs you don’t like came from these same people—just the other way around. I have been asked many times how I can have Muslim friends and express respect for Muslims, when I am not a Muslim and I clearly disagree with some common Muslim beliefs and even the very basis of that religion.

Once I had a party with a lot of international friends from the city. There were probably thirty people in my yard and living room. One of my foreigner friends from the high-energy activist culture of Prague, a Palestinian student, had brought a couple of his friends.who I didn’t know as well. At one point they approached me as a group and asked if there was some quiet place where they could pray, given that they really did pray five times a day.

The choices weren’t spectacular. The yard was full and mostly dirt at the time anyway. The house was tiny with the main room, one bedroom with too little floor space and my office area, which also included a couple of beds behind a curtain. I took them to the office, which at least had a door that could be closed.

The office not only had rumpled beds and a pile of my folded clothing but various Pagan statues and artwork scattered around. I noticed that the Muslim students seemed a bit uneasy about the arrangement, but it really was the only viable option. They quickly rallied and expressed their appreciation. I pointed out the direction of southeast, which was easy since my practice involves compass points as well. Then I left them to it.

Before that, I once accompanied a Muslim woman in Kazakhstan on a pilgrimage to a holy site in Turkestan (which is a town, not a country). My interest was journalism and personal experience. This woman narrated much of her beliefs and practice along the way, while I went through the motions as a sign of respect and as a way to broaden my own understanding.

All this, and I can still say I really don’t agree with Islam.

I know some Muslims like to point out that the word “Islam” is closely connected to the word “peace,” but let’s face it, the history of Islam has been far from peaceful. Show me a major religion without copious amounts of blood on its hands.

The Koran says some violent and intolerant things, whether about the particular battles of Mohammed’s time or about the way the world works in general. And so does the Bible and so do lots of original Pagan myths. I’m not arguing that we have to take these things literally or that I’m better than anyone else. But the fact is that there are plenty of things in the Koran that I don’t like.

There is that controversy over the “Verse of the Swords,” which can be read to mean that a Muslim should fight, hound and persecute non-believers wherever they be found or it can e read to be referring only to a specific incident when some Pagans broke a treaty with Mohammed. Mohammed sounds to me like a pretty normal leader, trying to deal with the realities of the world and getting confused about how much force should be used in defense of what he believes—hardly someone copying down directly the words dictated by the one and only true God.

Another controversy arises out of verse 4:34 of the Koran regarding relations between husbands and wives. It states that women should be obedient because God put men over women and if a wife disobeys, her husband should first advise her, then refuse to have sex and finally“strike” her if she doesn’t submit. Scholars like to argue over the many possible meanings of the word “strike” in Arabic, some insisting that the verse does not actually condone domestic violence.

But that isn’t even my primary concern. I’m still stuck on the part about women being obedient and God putting men over women. I know this was written for a violent and harsh time and women did often need the protection of men. But men needed the life-giving power of women. And this is supposed to be directly inspired by God. And hopefully God—even a regular god, let alone the one and only God—surely ought to be able to see beyond the local, current context when dictating the ultimate rules for everything.

So, it isn’t a religion for me. I can’t go with both believing the Koran is literally inspired by the only true God and that we have to take the stuff about women being inferior in social context. I really don’t like these beliefs. But it is the peaceful way of life and the respect toward women shown by the Muslims I meet that makes them welcome for me.

A few years ago, I decided to read the mythology of every major religion to my children for a year. I obtained children’s versions of the important stories from Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and a wide variety of Pagan and indigenous faiths.

Some of the Jewish and Christian stories made me pause. I skipped a few of the more gruesome ones that I just couldn’t conscience reading to young children. But when I got to the Islamic stories, I couldn’t find ANY that were not deeply problematic from the perspective of modern, sheltered children. Maybe I had the wrong book, though it had an author who professed to be Muslim and it was specifically for children.

I’ll grant that Pagan stories have been sanitized over the years. We don’t have such old texts, so we will likely never know how gruesome the versions of our stories from 1,500 years ago would have been, if we could read them in the original. And again, I don’t encourage literalism in mythology.

But there is also the matter of the whole Islamic thing about how there is only one God and some intolerance toward those who believe otherwise. I do have many gods and I dislike intolerance in Islam as much as I dislike similar intolerance in my neighbors.

But here is the thing. I tolerate in society those who do not impose their beliefs on others.

Islamic extremists do impose their beliefs on others. I will always speak out against such extremists and I won’t tolerate them or welcome them to a community. The same goes for Christian fundamentalists who seek to impose their beliefs on others. The same goes for those who may call themselves Pagan or Heathen, while usurping my spiritual symbols for the purposes of intolerance and hate.

Those Muslims I do tolerate are those who have been, in my substantial experience, considerate and accepting of others. I do not claim to understand why they believe in a faith I don’t always like.

All I ask in return is that they don’t instantly judge me for the actions of white supremacists who steal Pagan symbols and defame my spiritual path.

Those people I befriend are those who are willing to have open conversations, those who come into my home and treat me, my family and my beliefs with respect and care. Again, I don’t have to like or agree with all of the beliefs of my friends, although to be friends I do hope to have conversations about such things and at least seek to understand each other’s perspective.

Europeans who fear Muslims often ask me, “How can you trust them? I read that Muslims are taught to lie to non-believers and behave nicely so that they can get into a position to either kill us or force us to convert.”

I have read the same allegations. And I know for a fact that some Christian groups teach this very thing in the US: “Work your way into their confidence. Use gifts and friendship to get close to them and then bring them to Jesus.” I haven’t personally encountered an emphasis on killing unbelievers among American Christians, but my pacifist brother was once beaten by kids in a youth group while Christian adult leaders looked on and encouraged them to “beat the devil out of him.”

So, yeah, I believe Muslim extremists probably teach something like this too. I don’t have real personal experience or evidence of it. But it stands to reason, given the similarities to other religious extremists and their preferred interpretation of the “Verse of the Sword.”

Do I believe that my Muslim friends are secretly plotting to someday stop being nice, force us to convert and kill us if we refuse? No, I just don’t believe that.

Why don’t I? I have several other friends who were raised Muslim but aren’t practicing Muslims, who are critical of the religion or just turned atheist. And I have no doubt that if Muslims across the board were taught that doctrine, many such people would have talked about it openly by now. It just is not a mainstream Muslim thing,

So, I don’t actually find it at all difficult to tolerate or befriend Muslims who probably hold beliefs that I dislike. They don’t bludgeon me with their beliefs. They are tolerant and respectful of others. Do I understand? No, not really. But I’m willing to have deep philosophical conversations with them and maybe someday I will understand.

I find it harder to tolerate and befriend racist and isolationist neighbors. I mostly do it because I have little choice. I have friendships where I have to avoid a lot of topics of conversation. Those friendships are shallow, utilitarian and mostly for the children involved.

And even so, I entirely avoid those who really go overboard with expressing racist and isolationist opinions. I don’t want that around my kids. I don’t really even want it in my own ears.

Do I fully understand them? No. I am willing to have deep philosophical conversations, if they’ll stop bludgeoning me with their caustic opinions long enough to have a deep philosophical conversation, and maybe someday I will understand.

Children of drought: Dry dust and roaring flood

Wet, singed air. A heavy blanket of heat interrupted by eddies of cool. That sizzling sound that comes from the earth. Blessed, blessed rain. After long drought, rain at last!

There is nothing quite like the smell and the sound of rain on a parched landscape. The Summer Solstice brought the rain here--unexpected, unpredicted by the weather services. The storm winds lashed the land and broke our prime plum tree like a match stick. Still it was a gift at that.

We'd had three months of drought and the impact on agriculture and the municipal water is dramatic. Our small town is trucking in drinking water daily. and what is usually a lush verdant landscape in June is parched yellow and brown like the semi-desert where I grew up.

This isn't the semi-desert though. It's soft, green Central Europe.

Creative Commons image by Kate Russell 

Creative Commons image by Kate Russell 

Yet climate change has brought the drought, pushing the arid climate of the Balkans north over the past ten years. Both winters and summers are drier and warmer. For several years there have been water shortages but this year is the worst anyone can remember.

And with the drought comes another kind of desperation up from the south. Trails of refugees,, clinging to tiny boats to cross the salt water and then walking in lines so long you don't see the end.

The media doesn't report their stories much. You see a mother with a small child alone, no men. They two are huddled against a fence, sleeping on pavement for three days while they wait for authorities to say whether they will be deported back to a place with no food and certain death in the war. We know little more of their stories. 

And most people don't care to know. It isn't about opening up to a ragged and persecuted few anymore. Now we are seeing the first lapping waves of what will be a roaring flood. Climate refugees.

In Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Egypt they once fed themselves. It was dry but they had methods of conserving water. Now, there simply is no water to conserve. Nothing will grow without water. And there are millions upon millions of people who cannot under any circumstances be fed in those lands of much greater drought. And we are well aware of the chaos even our little drought has caused.

I sat in a cafe with my husband on the eve of the Solstice. It was our first time out together in months. The kids are on their annual overnight school trip  It was a rare treat and we sat eating grown-up cuisine and little goblets of iced coffee and tiramisu. 

Gods, we needed it.

We had been at each other like irritated cats for weeks. Every criticism bites and there is plenty to criticize. We're exhausted and neither of us gets done what we're supposed to most days.

He talked loud about despair: "The politics in Europe and America are just spiraling into hate and I can't even blame them. Left or right, it doesn't even matter. Someone is always there to take advantage of the frustration and hype fear."

I try to get him to speak more softly in the restaurant, but he doesn't care anymore. "Yeah, people hate immigrants. But these aren't the kind of immigrants we used to get. Those were the small business people who wanted to seek a better life, political dissidents and intellectuals. Now we get everyone, whole countries, because they are starving. Climate change, you know. The deserts are taking over. People fight over land. Wars and hunger push people out and they come here. But we're too small and if we really took them in, we could end up a minority in our own country."

Before you sneer at that final line, ask a Native American if it is possible for migrants to take over and make you a minority in your own country. Climate change is that kind of phenomenon--so massive that it will likely move whole populations within our lifetime. 

I tell him about the children in cages along the southern border in the US. We know more than most about the trauma of separation that will follow those children for a lifetime. Our own children started their lives in orphanages. They were materially comfortable, but one screamed almost non-stop for the first two years he was home, a high-pitched terrified scream that both drove you away and broke your heart at the same time. The other kid still totters around speaking in baby gurgles most days nine years later, even though she tests average for IQ. 

This is not an "Oh well, they had to go to mandatory summer camp," kind of thing, Separation from family in childhood, being housed in impersonal environments and the terror of not knowing when or if familiar people will return cause lifelong trauma.

Creative commons image by Freedom House of Flickr

Creative commons image by Freedom House of Flickr

My husband shook his head. "What are we supposed to do?" He gestured helplessly toward the main road of town. Cars were backed up miles, not even crawling. We got to the cafe on bikes. 

It's a single lane road. In places two large modern cars cannot meet and pass each other safely unless one stops. Our once rural area is over-crowded and parched. The local school is bursting at the seams. That's what he means.

In America, there is lots of open space and the refugees are more like a trickle than a flood. Here in Central Europe--without large oceans to both sides--the decisions about compassion are getting harder. 

"What we do is be the kind of people we want to be. I don't know if we'll survive, but I won't send innocent people back to die at the hands of terrorists and I won't support putting children in cages." That's my answer. Not a great one. Principled but light on solutions.

My husband has always espoused humanist values and I realized that this past year he has not wanted to talk politics and social issues the way he used to. He hasn't just been prickly at me. He's frustrated, even hopeless. He turned his face away, but he still had lots of words--loud and angry words and none of them constructive. 

When he quieted, I gave him what little scrap of hope I still have. "When I was a kid in the 1980s, the intellectuals and activists--the people like we are today--were convinced there would be a nuclear war. A lot of people really believed my generation wouldn't grow up."

He nodded and let me speak for once. He had been on the other side of that possible war in the old East Bloc and doing  mandatory military service for a totalitarian Communist regime for part of that decade. 

"But it didn't happen. Then there were parts of the ocean that were technically dead. Environmentalists believed they would take centuries to recover. But they recovered faster than expected. Now if you look at climate change and migration, the bare facts are grim. It looks like we're headed for massive disaster in a few short years. And it is a very serious situation. We have to do what we can. But the earth regenerates better than the bare facts indicate. It's about resilience. I don't know what will happen, but it is likely to be something no one is predicting right now."

For once he didn't argue or criticize. I can't say I gave him hope exactly, but for a few days afterward things have been more peaceful at home. The rain helped. We walk around each other on egg shells, trying to be polite and considerate in the hectic schedule and amid the needs of the troubled children we've made our family with.

Each day we choose our own qualities, our soul, our values.

If we choose to put children in cages today or put up razor wire to keep out starving refugees, we become that. If we choose to struggle for what we can, to fight climate change with our garden beds and bicycles and hand-lettered signs, to fight drought with rain barrels, drip lines and solar panels, to fight hunger with lentil soup and tortillas and to fight despair with stories and songs, then that is what we become. 

Are we choosing to live our values and thus make our own survival harder? I don't know for sure. I only know that survival without meaning is the road to depression.

How sure are you of right and wrong?

Thirty years after the war was over, a young father and history buff bought the shell of a house in the hills near a hotly contested border. He was a poor factory worker, but it cost only the equivalent of a month's salary because the old stone and timber dwelling was in desolate disrepair and the local fire department had been planning to destroy it in a practice drill. 

The new owner started to rebuild the house bit by bit. He wanted his children to grow up in the beautiful natural surroundings and he loved to learn about the tragic history of the land. He saved to buy new tools and materials and slowly over many years he rebuilt the old house to look like the pre-war photographs in the village archives. 

Creative Commons image by Heather Katsoulis

Creative Commons image by Heather Katsoulis

Then one day after the border was reopened, a middle-aged woman approached the house. She said she had lived there as a child, that the house belonged to her parents. Forty five years earlier when she was a child, militia men had come with guns and forced her family to flee. The armed men had stolen the family's bicycle, their only means of transportation, and forced them to walk over the mountains into the neighboring country with only those few things they could take with fifteen minutes warning. 

This is a real story. I knew both the man and the woman. They are real people. It's the kind of story that happens on contested borders. 

Ordinary people looking for a place of home and safety buy or stake a claim to land and homes. Other ordinary people are caught on the wrong side of a political, national, linguistic, racial, religious or economic divide are killed or forced to leave their homes. And so it goes.

And now tell me this. Who should own that house?

Should the man own it? He bought it with his hard earned wages, worked on it with his own hands and saved it from destruction. 

Should the woman own it? She was an innocent child forced to flee her home and she still has the birth certificates, deeds and other documents to prove that she should have inherited it. 

Your answer will probably depend on which border, which side of that border and which war you think I'm talking about. This isn't ancient history but a relatively modern and well-documented situation in which most of the questions can be answered. 

Take note of your instinctive answer and then consider whether the following facts change it.

The woman was part of a German-speaking minority and the house stands in the border region of the Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia. The war was World War Two. Hitler annexed this border region of Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the war and the German-speaking minority was noted for significantly supporting the Nazis. 

That was the reason for their mass expulsion. Many, probably most, of the woman's group supported and cheered on the Nazis. And so--brutal and indiscriminate as it may have been--some people justify the forced expulsion of German-speaking people from Czechoslovakia.

But this woman was a child at the time, living in a remote rural cabin, no more to blame than any other child and less powerful than some.

I tell this story not to win sympathy for the Sudetten Germans. But rather to promote the practice of skeptical, mindful ethics.

If you were sure in the beginning of the story that the new owner should be compensated but the house should be returned to the old owner and then you changed your mind based on the added facts, you must admit that moral certainty is hard to come by. 

We want children of about ten years old to "know right from wrong." And yet educated and caring adults often find it difficult to say exactly what is right or wrong in a complex situation and which way the scales turn can depend on details that require an understanding of social, political, economic and historical forces. 

I don't personally have a definite answer for which is right or wrong in this real-life story that I stumbled upon as a teenager new to Czechoslovakia twenty-five years ago. The law here has retained the rights of new owners in that case. The man's claim is upheld by the law. But if the house had been confiscated by the Communist authorities and the family expelled after the Soviet invasion in 1968, the law would favored the old owners.

The law is not ethics. It's just the law. And one would be naive to believe that laws are consistent. 

Image by Arie Farnam

Image by Arie Farnam

I am happy to say that this woman did not demand her house returned or even seem bitter about the law. Instead she was thankful that the house had been preserved and reconstructed, so that it looked much like her beloved childhood home. The man invited her to come and stay and lovingly helped her to reclaim her memories and a family treasure buried on the property. Theirs was a story with a happy ending.

But so many similar stories are not. 

The past few weeks have had me thinking a lot about ethical dilemmas. The news has hit on story after story in which passions run high and there is more than one side with a claim. 

It isn't that I don't have strong opinions. I can clearly say that the killing of unarmed Palestinian protesters by Israeli soldiers is wrong, even a crime against humanity. But what exactly should be done to solve the situation? Whose homes should be sacrificed in a small country with limited land and water? 

That isn't so simple. One way or another in our crowded world, there are people in need without homes, often with a valid right to the land or homes where others, including those innocent and unaware of any injustice, are now living.

My entire native country is based on stolen land. And yes, we can say that those who have been wronged should be compensated, but by whom? Some of the descendants of those who stole from or enslaved others are wealthy from the profits of exploitation. Others are barely scraping by. And yet if there is a debt to pay, shouldn't everyone be required to pay all the same?

Even the question of the infamous Chinese prom dress leaves me befuddled. A white girl decided to go to the prom in a traditional Chinese dress, which she wore in inappropriate ways and seemed to mock in one photo. Many people are furious over this. It's called cultural appropriation, taking something from another culture, particularly one that has been exploited by your own in the past or present, and either claiming it as your own or using it inappropriately or mockingly.

Don't get me wrong, I can't abide people who set up shop as a "Shaman" or pen books on Native American spirituality who have no legitimate connection to either Siberian or Native American culture. Making a profit off of a stereotyped fakery poached from the struggling remnants of cultures nearly destroyed by exploitation is clearly wrong. 

But as I put Vietnamese spring rolls made with my own fresh garden greens down on the table for my children, while wearing a shirt with Guatamalan patterns, I am not so sure where the line is. I know where these things come from. I love them and treat them with respect. I want those cultures which have been endangered to be represented and kept alive. And I simply prefer the cuisine and color coordination of some cultures over others. But I can't say in every instance what is right and what is wrong.

If the girl with the Chinese prom dress had not publicly shared a mocking photograph of her dress, would it still have been wrong? Western prom dresses are, in my not-so-humble opinion, a fashion travesty of modern times. Please any culture that is willing to save us from them, please  step forward! Despite the problems, I still say the Chinese dress was the--hands down--prettiest in those photos.

Looking at all these less-than-clear-cut situations and modern problems, one is tempted to say that it all depends. Certainly, we should be critical thinkers and respect the opinions of others. It is tempting to say that there is no absolute right or wrong. Even when we teach children right from wrong when they are ten years old, we end up pointing out that a child in a storybook who steals food to survive is not really so bad. 

But these are terrible times to abandon ethics and claim moral relativism. Are the opinions of Neonazis equal to all other political opinions in political discourse? And if not theirs, then where is the line? 

We live in a time when political leaders preach an extreme religious doctrine and claim to be for high morals, while dallying with pornography, blatantly lying, taking and giving out huge bribes, poisoning their rivals, fixing elections and claiming it's legal, and abusing anyone vulnerable they can touch--without the scandals even making a large ripple. Gods help us, if we don't even know what is right and wrong anymore ourselves. 

Many intellectuals I have discussed this with say that an opinion is valid in so far as it is not against someone else or does not harm someone else. That seems like a good rule, but it is easier to to say than to apply.

Among the most vicious arguments I have seen in the past few days have been over the silent and non-violent actions of people protesting what they saw as deeply wrong. A week ago, dozens of graduates and their family members silently stood up and walked out of their own graduation ceremony at Notre Dame in protest as Mike Pence gave a graduation address.

When questioned, the protesters specifically mentioned Pence's support for extreme racist organizations and for Donald Trump's rabidly anti-Muslim policies. Pence is also noted for pushing extreme religious agendas and promoting the interests of large corporations, specifically the Koch brothers, in public policy. But regardless of whether one agrees with the reasons the protesting students walked out, the vicious verbal attacks and threats against them imply a certainty of the wrongness of protest. 

Pence himself called the banning of athletes who kneel to mourn the killing of unarmed African Americans during the National Anthem "winning." There is no question of right or wrong in that statement. It implies a game with winners and losers 

The actions taken to penalize the protesting and mourning athletes and their teams and the words often deployed against them are extreme, while their actions are mild, respectful and silent. 

I can understand a parent being upset if their child walked out of graduation to protest something the parent didn't understand or feel is important. I can even understand people brought up to believe that the National Anthem is sacred disagreeing with someone kneeling during it. But none of these are violent acts that harm another, and yet violence is threatened against those who take quiet actions in defense of their ethics. 

There are plenty of situations where I cannot say with certainty that I am right and another is wrong. Ddetails and historical context do matter. But I hope we will not lose the most basic concepts of right and wrong through this. If a person quietly stands, sits, walks or kneels to protest violence and hatred, they should have that right. I may not always agree with their side of the story, but I can always respect a quiet statement of ethical concern.

Learning interconnection: Where did we go wrong in trying to eradicate racism through education?

"She's kind of brown!" my daughter's friend from first-grade giggles, holding her hands over her mouth. 

My daughter giggles along with her, but covers her drawing with her hand. I'm glad to see my daughter adding realistic skin tones to her drawings, but also frustrated at how quickly she is getting an embarrassing reaction from peers. What are the chances she's going to draw a brown-skinned figure the next time she draws with a friend?

We live in the Czech Republic where political correctness and multicultural education has never been a societal or political priority. Until recently, I had difficulty explaining the confused and even outright racist comments of many Czechs when writing for American readers. Even last summer, comments on my posts about racist or ableist problems in the Czech Republic were met with shocked disbelief. 

But this past winter that has changed for painful reasons.

Creative Commons image by Guilherme Jofili

Creative Commons image by Guilherme Jofili

Jewish landmarks have been vandalized in the US. The winning presidential candidate called Mexicans "rapists and criminals" and publicly mocked a disabled journalist. The numbers of people killed by white supremacist vigilantes because they are or were mistaken to be of Middle Eastern background grows every other day. And of course, there hasn't been this open a display of racism against African Americans or Native Americans in decades.

We are no longer shocked by what used to be almost unthinkable. We thought our system of multicultural education was enough, that general social norms had shifted and that racism, ableism and faith-based discrimination was fading, if not entirely gone.

We've been rather rudely awakened to reality as Americans. The situation begs the question. If racism is still so alive and well in the US after so many years of celebrating Black History Month. teaching a unit on the Holocaust and a chapter on Native American history in elementary school, where did we go wrong and what should we do differently in the future?

I have thought a lot about these issues for the past ten years because I have been living in a country where racism is much closer to the surface and I am the adoptive mother of children who are among the primary targets. Their situation is like being an Arab Muslim in America. I worked as a journalist for years before I adopted children and I knew very well what I was getting into. I had seen Romani children harassed in schools, segregated by teachers and sometimes physically attacked.  I had seen them bravely and cheerily go off to first grade only to be beaten down and in complete despair by third grade. 

I knew that if I made my family this way, I would have to deal with the issues daily. I would have to educate teachers, schools, other parents and even my children's classmates. I have now begun that work, talking to teachers and volunteering to do multicultural education in the schools. The situation is so tense that I am lucky to be allowed to broach these subjects in a classroom at all. 

I know that my efforts are too little alone, but my experience has given me some understanding of what can actually change attitudes. Here then is my recommendation from the trenches on what can and should be done to provide real diversity education: I call this model "interconnection education."

Creative Commons image by Oregon Department of Transportation

Creative Commons image by Oregon Department of Transportation

  • Start in preschool. This is the time for multicultural exposure programs. Use holidays and events from various faiths and peoples to create a lively and fun multicultural curriculum that will serve students well both in understanding the society they live in and in future history and geography courses that are crucial to general education and responsible citizenship.
  • Require teacher training in bullying-prevention, understanding the roots of prejudice and cultural sensitivity from preschool on up. In designing such programs both the perspectives of people of color and of those who have experienced a shift in understanding from isolation to diversity must be heard in order to design programs that are both sensitive to vulnerable groups and accessible to those without much experience in multiculturalism. A moralistic "we are multicultural because we're not bad racists" approach may silence prejudice temporarily, but it will not erase it from the classroom or from society. Teachers must be the first to understand how interconnection works and why we take these issues seriously is a matter of self-preservation.
  • When conflicts arise between children over sensitive cultural, racial or faith-based issues, avoid an immediate punitive reaction and call parents from all involved sides in to discuss the issues with involved children and trained teachers present. Be staunch in support of vulnerable groups in these situations, but ensure that complaints by parents and students of majority groups are addressed fully rather than being quashed and swept under the carpet without discussion. We will not solve prejudice by labeling those who have less cultural experience as bad and further isolating them.
  • Many holidays are primarily religious and so they are a difficult point in non-religious, diverse schools. There is always the issue of holiday programs in elementary school. We want our children to experience community holidays and yet it is logistically difficult to include the holidays of all groups. One way to ensure a better balance is to focus on a given holiday fully for a day and move on to another the next day, rather than spending weeks on majority holidays. Another way is to have a general seasonal holiday program and assign students or small groups to learn about and reflect a holiday from a particular culture through art, costumes, food and song that can be shared with the rest of the class.
  • While holidays extend beyond the individual and thus must be dealt with by the group in some way, individual differences that point to culture, race or faith must be allowed expression by individuals. There have been extensive arguments about the wearing of garments required by one's faith in public schools. One argument is that allowing, for instance, Islamic head coverings for girls promotes the oppression of women. If other parts of the program are open and diverse, it must be noted that whereas it is possible that a girl might be pressured to wear religious clothing by a family, being included in a diverse school would certainly provide greater multicultural education than a requirement to conform to a dress code would. I still see no reason for the restriction and significant harm can come from imposing it. In many other cases, the wearing of identity-specific jewelry or other symbols is simply a means of ensuring confidence and should be encouraged rather than discouraged. 
  • In elementary school and high school, diversity education need not be a separate program. It should be an integral part of language arts, social studies, history and geography programs. If we hope to have a democratic and multi-racial society and if we hope to weather the currents of international relations as a nation, the next generations must have an understanding of history and geography that is balanced. rather than focused through the lens of immigrants to our nation from one particular continent and their struggle for freedom from Britain. Each piece of the puzzle that is history and geography should be set in its context. History is not about blame or victimhood, but rather about an understanding of social, economic,religious and political currents that affect us today. Historians from a wide variety of backgrounds MUST have real and active input. A balanced account of history would require significant changes in history textbooks and teacher education. But it is crucial. Without that our current troubles will recur. 
  • In each of these tactics it is crucial that we recognize the need for identity concepts for all students, not only those from backgrounds outside the majority of a given community. A healthy sense of one's own cultural roots and appreciation for one's traditions as specific rather than "the way everyone does it" is the best defense against resentment of other groups. Students should recognize specific origins within larger continental or racial backgrounds. Africa is not one culture, any more than Europe is. People of European descent differ in cultural perspective, just as various groups from Africa differ. An understanding of culture as the complex ecosystem in which the various parts move and affect one another will go a long way toward practical understanding in the social sciences as well as diversity education. In music, language and art, students should be encouraged to combine cultural influences consciously rather than by automatic cultural appropriation and learn about the natural mixing and divergence processes of human history. 

Clearly these methods and strategies are far beyond our current capabilities. We must have clear-eyed goals. We can also use the concepts of this type of "interconnection education" even on the smallest scale. 

One of my current projects in this direction is the Children's Wheel of the Year series. This is a set of books aimed at families in the earth-based or Neopagan traditions. This is the fastest growing religious group in the United States and Europe and in many areas has more adherents than more widely recognized groups such as Buddhists. This is also a group struggling internally with racial and historical tensions. 

The stories in the Children's Wheel of the Year series are first and foremost engaging and fun for children. High quality educational materials are those that encourage learning through genuine interest. Secondly, they provide a realistic, modern view of how families in the swiftly growing earth-centered religions may celebrate eight major holidays. Each holiday embodies important cultural and ethical values that are important to the adventure story of the book. 

Throughout these stories there runs a common thread of interconnected diversity. While the stories focus on one particular faith, they are inclusive and irrepressible in the joy of connections to others and supporting others in their own strong and unique identities. The Children's Wheel of the Year attempts to provide a model for addressing specifics within an overall interconnected diversity program.

The story Shanna and the Pentacle specifically addresses the issues of multicultural and diversity education in the schools, while focusing on a practical issue many earth-based families report encountering in the United States--namely the banning in some schools of pentacle jewelry. While this story addresses a difficulty encountered by one group and the responsible methods children and adults can use to solve such difficulties, it does so while bringing the reader closer to the perspectives of other cultures in the story, emphasizing the need for mutual support. 

Our need is clear. We must foster an interconnected openness and the strength of diverse identities in our society and in our schools. No matter which group we belong to, we need this and our safety depends upon it. If any group is marginalized or denied expression of their identity, we know it is only a matter of time before that same marginalization and denial is visited upon others.