News & Articles

I’ve said before, “quite contrary” is not the sole property of Mary. Contrary disposition belongs to many, and rather than a role or style has a societal function. Purpose is not, however, always appreciated by the mind’s-made-up crowd not interested in another think.

The purpose of the contrarian (as I see it) is to remind “us” of other, often missing, elements worth considering. F’r instance, hearing Lepanto, most of us will go “what-who?” The odds might be slightly greater Vienna 1683 will be recognized, slightly, maybe, but not by many or why. 

From a contrary view there’s a stack of causes, one of which being our view of European history (from whence ours arose) has some fairly dramatic skews that bend or pre-shape our recognition of facts. In a way, interesting to consider, though I expect some readers will get quite irked with me.

But, where to start? How ‘bout here? Not long ago the election of JFK was sorely tangled with his Irish Catholicism because the U.S. was profoundly and decidedly Protestant, as God and they had fully intended all along. Amen. 

Not trying (and certainly unable) to be funny, that divide in Christianity has (for believers or not) a major impact and echo. To today. It’s not easy to separate religious from social bias when they coexist, so simply consider the largely Protestant victory in Europe was as far reaching as the rise of non-monarchal government. 

The French Revolution a good example kicking out monarchism and Catholicism. It’s a big deal in how people reflexively see and react. The bias against recognizing Lepanto and Vienna stems from animosity (mutual) so strong it was logical for Protestant leaders to enjoy Catholic countries attacked by Ottomans, deserving it as punishment. Luther, big name in Protestantism, said as much until Muslim forces got too near his followers, at which point he experienced some change of view. 

If nought else, you can picture a very different Europe and the USA if the Ottoman instead of Europeans were the prime colonizers.

(Some argue Catholicism has been trying to fix itself by appearing more Protestant, action that doesn’t fool Protestants or uplift its own cause. If you don’t stand for your own identity who will?)  

A contrarian might enjoy sweet irony, such as Alfred Nobel generating explosives to blow things to hell and then deciding to make up for that with a Peace Prize. (Although explosives as an industry spawned fertilizer production that saved lives.) 

The strength of bias in support of this while ignoring that is something a contrarian remembers. How deep can bias run? Very. 

An example both ironic and sad rises from Luther’s Swedish followers so sure of goodness they justified repeated military adventures into Poland to show the faulty Catholic the wrongness of their beliefs. Big deal? Yes, very. 

One in four or five (20% to 25%) of Poles were reformed by Protestant execution. I’d call that a huge miscarriage of faith and I’ll wager among those bemoaning current events few will remember that or the earlier Viking role capturing and trading in European slaves. 

Speaking of, what seems to be the largest, longest lasting genocide of record? Would half (or more) of a millennia count? Long time for attackers to attack and defenders to resist. But who was doing what? Well, wasn’t India marching toward Caliphate lands to bring Buddhism and Hinduism to Islam. Was the other way around. Hmmm. And a very, very big deal, so big that those attempting to wipe out all Hindus and Buddhists were defeated by numbers – too many to kill, too many holes to dig, too many trees to cut and haul to burn bodies. A million unbelievers need a million trees burned to cleanse that much death. Not easy. Also not cheap. 

The cost could be less using enslaved nonbelievers to do the work, but even so, a hundred thousand slaves need a lot of looking after. Being the supreme faith of the planet was not as easy as it appeared. Even the most ardent and zealous were put off by the volume of sacred cows to kill and shrines to destroy. That required lots of hot, dirty work, hardly suited to followers of perfection.

Plus, another feature of bother to the genocide tactic is the requirement to get them all. Every last one, because if you leave or miss any they might rise up in future to repay your kindness. That’s a tough order. Kill ‘em all is easier to say than do. Even at Babi Yar (Ukraine) a few survived the slaughter and of course had to snitch, tell the story and mess up an otherwise quite acceptable genocide. It’s unfair. Genociders loathe survivors with passion not only because they are so apt to spill the beans but (much worse) tell about it and expose the failure. In genocide terms, not killing all the witnesses is a serious failure. Tough to live down that mess.

I think it unwise to consider contraries as skeptics, though skepticism is part of a contrary’s way.

Such as when hearing a claim I reflexively think, “Oh, really?” Ninety-five percent of scientists agree do they? Must have been a busy time rounding them up for the survey. What survey was that, where and how given? 

And yet, how often was an overblown claim used to prove and justify? Too often. A false claim doesn’t make good science (which is method more than result) or make a thing true by desire. 

Now walk we back to genocide in the region of North Africa. The U.S. alone can point back 250 years to oppose cultural, economic exploitation on a scale much larger than that of the newly formed US. If we didn’t like our ships taken and sailors and citizens help for ransom or as slaves, we were but a tiny part of predation that had been going on to ruin the lives of many (mostly African) others. 

A contrarian might say “OK, fine idea. Let’s start and see what’s needed.” So we begin, and centuries later some progress made. Slavery and cultural-ethnic hostility still exist. Not good enough? 

The contrary says, “I agree. Try your magic wand. See what that’ll do.”