Tag Archives: history

What is Sacred to You?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent article in the Seattle Times gave me pause. Some survivors and family members of the Minidoka Japanese interment camp in a rural area of Idaho are celebrating the cancellation of a wind power project that would have been visible from the area where the camp had been. It would not have been built on the site, which is a National Historic Landmark. Rather it would have been nine miles away but visible from the site.

I have been to Minidoka. My first attempt to find it resulted in frustration. On a later road trip through southern Idaho, I made more of an effort and finally found the site. The visitor center was closed that day (it is closed most days), but it was possible to wander the area, ponder the history that led to its creation, and think of the lives of the people who had lived there. It is off the beaten path on roads used by local farmers. Little is left of the 640 structures that were hastily built to house the 13,000 Japanese American families who were uprooted and sent there – just one barrack, one mess hall, one root cellar, and a fire station. Today, most of the site is barren land. 

Japanese American opponents of the wind farm, led by the Minidoka Pilgrimage Planning Committee, objected to it because they claim the site is sacred. “Siting wind projects located in the viewshed of sacred land and over the universal objections of our community and local communities is not clean energy.” 

I fixated on the claim that the site is sacred. Mirriam Webster (online) offer these definitions: 2a worthy of religious veneration, and 2b entitled to reverence and respect. I accept that the Minidoka site is entitled to reverence and respect. But I wonder if the term “sacred” need apply to the entire “viewshed.” This project was shut down by Donald Trump via executive order supported by Republican lawmakers who object to all wind power projects, not by people who are concerned about the “viewshed” of a historical landmark considered sacred by some.. 

Am I wrong to worry that concerns about the viewshed of any site that is worthy of reverence and respect could lead to unintended consequences? Are wind farms so offensive to our eyes? I thought so once, but as I’ve traveled across the west, visions of wind farms have failed to diminish my enjoyment of open spaces. And what about the declaration that a part of the earth, our common home, is sacred? Who gets the privilege of making such a claim? Does everyone else have to accept it? This feels like a sticky wicket to me. Am I wrong? 

Absolutely this history is important. I visited the site knowing something about these camps, but it was sobering to see the actual site and read more of the history. I hope many, many people take the time to visit either Minidoka or one of the other sites of these internment camps. 

Yet, I am truly curious to know how this issue strikes the rest of you! Please, take a few minutes to read the Seattle Times article and view the website for Minidoka. Comments, please.

Middle East Options

Posted on by
Reply

The joy of being a nobody is that I am free to think and write whatever I want because no one could do anything to me even if they could figure out who I am and where I am. So here are my Middle East Options.

Option 1: Move Israel Somewhere Else

Even though one goal of Hamas is to convert the entire world to Islam, I think they’d take a break from this goal if they could just get the Jews out of  Israel/Palestine. They (and their fellow jihadis) have been banging this drum ever since they first heard that Jews wanted to come to Palestine to create a Jewish state more than a hundred years ago. 

Usually population transfers are from one area to an adjacent area. Everyone grumbles for several decades, but if they realize they are not going “home,” they go on about their lives. Think Greeks and Turks after WW I, think Germans and Poles after WW II, think Indians and Pakistanis after the “decolonization” of the sub-continent. Or, according to Wikipedia, think of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the 900s BCE. People have used population transfers for millennia, it seems, to solve one problem or another. 

The movement of Muslims and Hindus post WW II involved 32 million people. Just imagine. So, if you think 7 or 8 million Jews could not be moved out of Palestine, you just need to stretch your imagination a bit more. Of course, there is one problem that India and Pakistan did not have: there is no adjacent territory that wants the Jews or that the Jews want. Yet, it’s something to think about. And in fact, people did think of alternative places for a Jewish homeland – for about five minutes. Aside from Antarctica, there just aren’t many open spaces left on earth. 

Except, perhaps, Nevada. Or the vast plains of North America, or the Gobi Dessert, or the “stans” of Central Asia, or the Amazon. Let’s face it, except for some sites with religious significance, Palestine didn’t have a lot going for it a hundred years ago, and honestly, I don’t know why people are fighting over it today. But people are, so the Jews could consider moving. Again. Perhaps another millennia-long diaspora, just waiting for people to learn to get along?

Option 2: Move the Palestinians Somewhere Else 

This idea has a lot going for it. There are many adjacent countries that could absorb the 7 or 8 million Palestinians living in Israel/Palestine. The primary downside to this plan is that the Palestinians have made themselves unwelcome in countries that have accepted them in the past. Jordan kicked them out. Egypt regards them as troublemakers; things didn’t work out so well in Lebanon; Syria has its own problems. Frankly, I suspect that if the Jews left and Palestinians had all of Palestine to themselves for a decade or two, they’d soon kill each other off. It’s not as if the Arabs/Palestinians are good at “getting along.” Perhaps the Jews, instead of resettling elsewhere, should just go on a very long holiday after which they return to Israel/Palestine to pick up the pieces. 

Option 3: Learn to Live with a Two State Solution

AAAARGH!!! Why can’t this be the answer??? Neither the Jews nor the Palestinians want to be “second-class citizens” in a country ruled by the other. (Never mind that 20% of Israelis are actually Arabs/Palestinians who are not racing to the exits.) Personally, I’m so peeved about the settlements that I wouldn’t care if they ended up in a Palestinian state even if they are technically legal according to someone. Then Palestine would have a minority of Jews in their precious state, and there could either be a population exchange, or everyone could treat their minorities with respect. Ha.

Option 4: The One State Solution. 

Yeah. OK, so either Hamas defeats Israel, or Israel defeats Hamas – and then every other jihadi group. Or maybe the UN rethinks its 1947 solution and gives all of Israel/Palestine to one side or the other. And internal terrorism continues until the end of time if Jews were awarded control. Or there is massive out-migration of Jews to America and any other country that would accept them, and the Palestinians are left to fend for themselves, something they are not especially good at. So they’d come begging to the UN and the US and the EU, and especially the UK for support because, well, just because. Personally, I would expect Israel to treat its Arab/Palestinian residents (citizens?) better than I would expect the Palestinians to treat the Jews, but please, surprise me.

That’s right. There really is no Option 4. War until the end of time? Seriously, that’s not much a solution, is it?