Radical <ME. of a root < radicalis, having roots adj. 1. Arising from or going to a root or source: basic
I've thought a lot about what on earth I'm doing writing a column like this. I have many more questions than answers. In fact, I'm prone to question answers. Especially when I hear those two-word answers that threaten a revolution to throw out what I hold dear about this country.
Here's a paradox. Check out the oldest roots of the word "radical," from Webster above. Maybe this dusty word in our usage is useful after all. This reminds me of an incident in China that had me quaking in my shoes. Looking back, I couldn't believe how "radical" I spoke, and how well it turned out.
My department head, with a lead from the Communist Party boss of our department at XiHua University, called me into his office. He said he heard complaints I was talking about my faith in my classes. I told him I think the Judeo Christian Bible is the most important source book on our nation's culture, and so should be part of a class on American culture. I explained how, though a Christian, I deeply respected the views of all my students, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever. I also explained that I trusted his judgment on whether the students could handle reading this material usefully, and would definitely follow his recommendation. Amazingly, he agreed, after a conversation of almost an hour, and encouraged me to use the passages I had chosen. We parted friends.
I went to my apartment and sweated over how close I was to being labeled "Foreign Proselytizer." It was beyond me to pull this off. I remember a confident, calm spirit about it all from the beginning of my conversation. I'm confident it was a Spiritual source that helped me answer with a back-to-the-basics radical approach, with respect. Similar sourcing can help resist the inflammatory ideas hiding paradoxes around, us pushing us to cast off basics of our country's existence.
Here's another example of the convoluted problems that arise when we fail to get radical, by which I mean go back to the roots of issues and take them into account when we make decisions.
We have a problem now in this country with forest fires. They have become more and more destructive. Many more homes each late summer go up in flames in the West.
Suppose we go back to before the "government takeover" of forest fire fighting. At that time, people had sense enough to build their houses away from forested areas. And if they didn't, they either planned very well, or they paid big insurance bucks, or stayed in their house and burned. Now everyone who buys or builds houses in forested land is grateful for the government takeover of forest fire fighting. So are the local young people who hire on with the government to fight fires in Arizona and California.
But because the government stepped in to aggressively tackle wildfires, we also reduced the incentive to plan, have insurance, and be smart about fire prevention. Homeowners didn't have to think about those issues.
Now think with me, beyond the opinions, to the root of the matter and its paradox: Has the increased government-paid fire suppression of the last century in the forested west led to increased occurrence of hotter, larger, longer-lasting forest fires? Isn't it worth risking a responsible scientific study, regardless of the outcome?
--
David Graber
RR 1 Box 1211D
631 Woodley Ln
Hardin, MT 59034
www.greenwoodfarmmt.org
