SO, WHAT MATTERS MOST – YOUR THOUGHTS OR YOUR FEELINGS?

By Edwin Cooney

I’m fortunate enough to have a lot of friends which means I’m exposed to a lot of opinions concerning all kinds of events, personalities, and subjects, especially religious and political beliefs.  A few days ago, I read an observation which the late Maya Angelou once made: “I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”

That observation resonates with me because until I was around 50 years old, I thought that what one said and did was what most people depended upon.  I even believed that if you warned people regarding what your response to a given behavior might be, at the very least they would give you credit for being true to your word.  After all, if I had a nickel for each time I’ve heard someone excuse their abrupt, rude, or aggressive behavior in a sensitive situation by saying “at least I was honest!” or “didn’t I at least tell the truth?” then I’d be a very wealthy man indeed.  Of course, honesty is a behavior all of us admire and depend on, especially in others, but all of us wince just a little at “brass knuckles” honesty – that is, the “brass knuckles honesty” of others!

It’s my experience that women, more than men, are sensitive to feelings.  More often than is good for us, we males insist that principle and logic (especially logic!), is what makes the world function as it should.

I have a close friend whose biggest criticism of women is that how they feel is more important to them than what “makes sense.”  When he’s disgusted with men, usually liberal men, he refers to their “feminine” logic.

American history clearly demonstrates that how the people who conduct our national affairs ultimately feel is what finally prevails as national policy.  Our very insistence that popular government even with all its drawbacks is superior to any other form of government is ample proof that how most people feel is ultimately more preferable to what a lot of very smart people may think.  How often, for example, are you and I pleased when we see a news story reporting that the experts on any topic were baffled at the outcome of a particular event?

One of the most incredible events in American history is the preeminence our “Founding Fathers” freely and easily gave to a reluctant George Washington.  No historian I have ever read suggests that Washington possessed an intellect comparable to Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay or John Adams (just to name a few potential leaders of that era).  Still, these men of considerable intellect obviously trusted George Washington even as he advocated the establishment of a strong central government, the authority of which would have precedence over state government.  These men felt Washington was sufficiently above doctrinaire politics to establish the kind of government that would balance authority and judgment for the benefit of the whole people.

We are the only living creatures who have the capacity to alter the socio/physical environment in which we live. Logic and scientific applications are essential elements of any conclusion or decision we make. Still, Ms. Angelou is right in her conclusion that invariably how people feel ultimately matters more than what people may think.

The history of twenty-first century politics is a prime example of the truth of her observation.  Three men, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have occupied the White House since Saturday, January 1^st, 2000.  All of these men evoke especially strong emotions from their supporters and detractors.  There is, of course, nothing new in this.  Over the past 80 years the beliefs, actions, and personalities of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan brought forth comparable hopes and fears, warmth and loathing.  However, the pace of a changing nation and world environment seems to be intensifying people’s feelings of uncertainty to a degree unknown in America since just before the Civil War.

So, what forces have a tendency to energize your feelings?  What kind of information modifies how you feel about any person, place, or event?

I offer the above because our capacity to feel rather than react by instinct is what separates you and me from every living thing on earth.  Feelings drive most of our day-to-day activities.  Politicians, merchants, entertainers, the clergy and certainly your closest friends and family members depend on your good feelings for reassurance that what they have to offer you really and truly matters.

If you feel that this topic is rather trivial, consider this likelihood especially in the wake of the anniversary of World War I:

Awareness of what energizes our feelings may be all that prevents some irrational politically or religiously motivated national leader from launching humankind’s final war.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER – IS IT 1914 ALL OVER AGAIN?

By Edwin Cooney

With all of the deadly clashes occurring in this changing world of ours, between religious and secular Arabs, Assad and rebel Syrians, Israel and Hamas, Russians and Ukrainians, a number of historians and pundits are reminding us that 100 years ago at this very time of the year, that the old world order of kings and emperors was submerging into the horrible chaos of World War I.  One hundred years ago this very day, Tuesday, August 4^th, 1914, Britain declared war on Germany over the German Kaiser’s violation of Belgium’s neutrality thus turning an eastern European squabble into a worldwide conflict.

Historians along with other academicians will forever debate the origins of “the Great War.”  Some will argue that it actually was a continuation of the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war.  Others will insist that it had its origins when Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Uncle Bertie (formally known to the rest of the world as Edward VII of Great Britain) concurred in the Triple Alliance his ministers signed with Russia and France on Friday, August 30^th, 1907, to check future German military expansion in Europe.  Kaiser Wilhelm II, whose maternal grandmother Queen Victoria (who was also Uncle Bertie’s mother) often addressed him as “Willie,” was quite jealous of his Uncle Bertie who, after all, headed a vast empire that Willie couldn’t possibly duplicate.  (Note: Kaiser Wilhelm’s mother was Victoria, the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria and “Princess Royal” of Great Britain.) He would feel no less snubbed by Cousin George who would succeed Uncle Bertie as Britain’s constitutional monarch on Friday, May 6^th, 1910.  Meanwhile, Kaiser Wilhelm had his own alliance with Austria-Hungary’s Franz Joseph and in 1912 he signed a pact with Turkey.  Thus, by 1914, six great European powers, Great Britain, France, Russia on one side, and Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey on the other side, were armed to the teeth.  Russia had signed an agreement to protect Serbia and the other Slavic states which invariably made Austria-Hungary, as well as Turkey, very uncomfortable.  Then, suddenly on Sunday, June 28^th, 1914, 19 year-old Gavrilo Princip, a radical Serbian nationalist who feared the power of Austria-Hungary to dominate his native land, assassinated the heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie as they visited Sarajevo, Serbia.  With that assassination, the “fat was in the fire.”

In less than two months, the great powers of Europe, all of them strong and smelling of gun powder, would be at war.  If Austria-Hungary sought to punish Serbia for the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Russia would protect Serbia.  Germany’s alliance with Austria-Hungary would require it to stand by the old Emperor Franz Joseph in protection of Austria-Hungary’s grief, and aroused sense of honor. Turkey, anxious to protect the Dardanelles Strait against almost certain Russian expansion into the Mediterranean, would stand by both Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Meanwhile, France, still smarting over its defeat by Germany during the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War (particularly its loss of Alsace-Lorraine), would, as part of the Triple Entente with Russia and Great Britain, enthusiastically go to war to avenge its late 19^th century humiliation.

The parallel between 1914 and 2014 can be found, I believe, not only in the relative military parity among the world’s potential combatants, but in our learned assumptions about the nature and causes of war.

You and I have been taught by almost every American leader and president since Harry Truman that the best insurance against aggressive war is strength, especially military strength.  (Note: Winston Churchill made that very point during his Iron Curtain speech on Wednesday, March 6^th, 1946 before President Truman at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.) Today, Israel, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and of course Russia all possess sufficient resentments and grudges, political alliances and weapons of mass destruction to set off a conflagration that would make World War I the proverbial tea party or, if you prefer, “the Teddy Bear’s Picnic.”

Since British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s “appeasement” of Adolf Hitler, the ideas put forth by men such as former President Jimmy Carter and our current leader, President Barack Obama, among others, that the causes of war and the antidotes to prevent wars are varied in their complexities, have been largely pooh-poohed by almost every other president since “give ‘em hell Harry Truman” with the possible exception of Gerry Ford.

Thus we find the state of the world in 2014.  As we Americans, smug in our socio/economic heritage, snuggle behind our nuclear missiles and computer-guided drones – argue over the motives and even the legitimacy of our twice elected president to occupy his office, while we insist that we’re morally superior to one another because we’re conservative, liberal, religious, or secular, the world writhes in turmoil.  Righteous resentments and anger justify every possible punitive reaction whether socio/economic or violent.  We appear to believe that everyone except our pure and righteous selves needs putting in his or her place.  All grievances or slights must be redressed if we’re to claim our rightful inheritance of peace, prosperity and well being.

Thus it was in 1914.  Some point out that World War I was little more than a family feud since most of the European heads of state were related through the British royal family and were connected both intimately and distantly to one another in the wake of generations of intermarriages, jealousies and clashing family values.  All of those who directed World War I were not only from the most respected families, they were supposedly the most pious Christian leaders of European society whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox Catholic.

The cost of “the Great War” in human life was very high.  There were about 37,000,000 military and civilian casualties on both sides.  That includes 16,000,000 dead and 20,000,000 wounded.  The allies suffered 6,000,000 killed while the Central Powers suffered approximately 4,000,000 military deaths.  Causes of death were injury, disease, malnutrition and crimes against humanity.  As for the fate of the assassin of the Archduke and his wife, Gavrilo Princip spent the 3 years and 10 months remaining to him at Terezin prison in Bohemia under a sentence of 20 years.  Too young to receive the death penalty under Austria-Hungarian law, his death on Sunday, April 28^th, 1918 from a combination of tuberculosis and malnutrition was nevertheless a painful one.  He weighed only about 88 pounds at the time of his death.  His bones had deteriorated to such an extent that his right arm had been amputated to avoid further infection.

 If 1914 possesses an abiding moral lesson applicable to us, the children of this era a hundred years distant, it is this: war will prevail until what we desire for others is of equal importance to what we demand for ourselves.

Look over your shoulder – the ghosts of 1914 are indeed trying to catch up – not to haunt us but rather to share with us a wisdom they lacked during their own time.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY