A Vanilla Legacy

Did you ever hear about Edmond Albius? Yes, he had a name like a Harry Potter wizard, but he was more than just a name, and our lives would not be the same without him. Albius was born into slavery, but in 1841 he invented something that changed our world forever.

Before Edmond Albius changed things, Mexico was the only place in the whole world that could grow vanilla. There's a sting-less bee in Mexico that is the only bug in the world that naturally pollinates the Vanilla Orchid. Without pollination these orchids won't produce vanilla pods, and the pods are the tasty part. Sadly leaving Mexico means leaving the bees. No bees means no pollination and no pollination means no vanilla.  A Belgian botanist did invent a way to pollinate the orchid artificially, but his method was unusable and laborious.  Then in 1841 Edmond Albius took a stick and invented a simple technique to pollinate vanilla orchids. After over 150 years we still use that technique. Almost all vanilla on earth is pollinated this way.  He is the reason I get to enjoy vanilla. Oh yeah, Albius was only twelve years old when he figured it out.

This story stirs my desire to be remembered. Vanilla is grown globally because of Edmond Albius.  I may never do anything so globally important as that boy did.  This bothers me.

It's a basic human impulse: We want legacies. We want to leave something indelible that will be around after long after we're dead and gone. People build companies, challenge governments, break records and even wage wars with this end in mind. We do so in vain. This world is temporary. None of our legacies outlast us.  C.S. Lewis talks about this in The Weight of Glory:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no 'ordinary' people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit, immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment."

I love this quote. It makes me question my longing to be remembered. I hope it makes you do the same because we are more permanent than any of our accomplishments. Our neighbors, enemies and friends are more lasting and valuable than anything we can build.

Challenge:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6:19-21

What do you treasure?  Is it of earth or heaven?  Lay down your worthless treasures.  Jesus is happy to forgive you if you have clung to the wrong things.  He is also happy to replace those old "treasures" with beautiful new ones, because he treasures you.

RE: Psalm 42 Our Panting Soul

The Touch by: Alan Levine

This is a singularly sensuous psalm; I love it. It initiates with an image of thirst, wild thirst, uncurbed by propriety which become the driving force of one's whole being (Psalm 42:1-2). I feel that thirst; we all do. Rarely do we see it for what it is: a thirst for God which is sated in him alone.

Unaware of it's true purpose, some idolize this kind of thirst, imitating and paying homage to it with stories of passionate romance, wanderlust, and lofty dreams that refuse deferment. Others have been disappointed by the world's inability to fulfil their innermost longing, and they live in fear of the thirst, telling cautionary tales like that of Icarus. Fear and idolatry both miss God's purpose for our thirst.

“Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” (C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity)

Challenge:

Read Psalm 42. Remember that no matter what life is like now it is God's desire to make you whole, to satisfy your deepest longings and unite yourself in perfect intimacy. Say the words of Psalm 42:11 today, “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.”

RE: The Great Divorce

Reading The Great Divorce is like walking through a garden of beautiful dreams.  Lewis is a master of senses and setting and can write heavenly bliss as no one else can.  Sadly I have made the terrible mistake of finishing the book this morning, and I now have no treat awaiting me at the end of my day.  Perhaps I will read it again.

            Read this book.  It is in the best interest of your soul and imagination that you read this book.  It is like an extra chapter from my favorite parts of The Chronicles of Narnia, but it is even better.  It’s better for two reasons.  First it is written to adults, and second it is much shorter.

            The content is as mature as it is beautiful.  Lewis explores many of his delicious ideas from Mere Christianity, but here does so through rich characters and conversations instead of through dry abstractions.  It is more readable than Mere Christianity, and more substantive than the Chronicles.

            You should read this masterful book.  It is reminiscent of Dante in its arc and of Plato in its method.  It is a work of art anyone can enjoy in a single afternoon.  I mistakenly believed that it was a dry theological tome, and so I deprived myself of enjoying its garden of delights until now.  I was mistaken, but you can learn from my error; you need not deprive yourself.  Read this book.

RE: The White Man's Burden & Kony 2012

In the weeks since the Kony 2012's viral launch the expression “White Man's Burden” has been thrown around quite a bit. The expression has generally been used badly, so I've written a short guide to help us better understand the expression and where it comes from.

The White Man's Burden is an expression that comes from an 1899 poem of the same name. The poem was written by Ruyard Kipling. If you don't recognize his name he's the same author who brought us The Jungle Book. While the book version didn't contain Disney's famous “I wanna be like you” song, Mowgi's story in the novel and in the film are very similar. The story goes that Mowgli, a feral jungle “half devil and half child” who was raised by wolves finally found redemption once he left the jungle for civilization. If you're not picking up on the symbolism I'll just say that Kipling had some racially biased opinions about who was and was not civilized.

The Jungle Book has a lot in common with The White Man's Burden. Both works depict non-whites as a poor souls in need of a civilizing outside influence. Kipling proposed in The White Man's Burden that it was the responsibility of “civilized” white men to “fix and reform” the “savage” colored peoples of the world; the arrogance of his proposal is astounding. Sadly many people thought Kipling had the right idea and they used their whiteness and alleged moral superiority to excuse the exploitation of Africans, Indians, Native Americans and countless other peoples. C.S. Lewis calls this sort of morally motivated oppression the “worst sort of tyranny.”

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C.S. Lewis

So “The White Man's Burden” in a nutshell is the flawed idea that white person's supposed superiority gives them both the responsibility and authority to take leadership and resources away from anyone who is not white. This ideology couples tightly with the tyrannical idea that non-white persons are unfit to govern themselves. “The White Man's Burden” is an abominable propaganda tool that is used to excuse exploitation and oppression. This isn't what I've seen from Invisible Children.

I personally haven't seen this idea represented in Invisible Children's videos or literature. The founders of the organization, and many of it's volunteers, are white. The citizens of Uganda are largely black. As long as Invisible Children isn't attempting to take power or resources away from Ugandans then I don't care in the slightest what color any of them are. The core problem with The White Man's Burden poem is not that it promotes people of one race helping people of another race, its problem is the awful idea that one race can be inherently superior to another.

There need be nothing racist about a white person supporting a program that assists black persons, just as there need be nothing racist about a black person supporting a program that assists white persons. Race may not be an issue. I would take issue with anyone who refused to help their neighbor because of their neighbor's race, and I may even take issue with someone demanding to help their neighbor because of their neighbor's race. Those actions are racially motivated. Invisible Children's work doesn't appear to be racially motivated. They talk about children and they talk about soldiers, but not race. Invisible Children promotes people helping other people; more specifically they promote students helping other students. It is hard for me to see that as racist.