Custodians of wondrous places

Glittering fish amongst the coral. Seagrass meadows the size of Dorset. Rat-hunting giant drones. A fortnight ago at the Chagos Conservation Trust AGM, I was indulged again in views of paradise.

A world full of people has little room for wonder. The shores of the Indian Ocean are teeming with mankind, reshaping everything we touch into an artifice to serve out turn. A view of how nature can mature in the absence of man is a precious insight, and it is beautiful.

The islands are not wholly untouched:  rubbish washes up on these shores from the seas around – the ocean is filling up with the detritus cast off from fishing boats, the packed coastlands of India, Ceylon and Sumatra, the foulness of Thilafushi Island (and discarded Starships). Inevitably it poisons fish, snares turtles and washes up even on what should be the pristine islands of the Chagos Archipelago. The giant drones dropping poison on rats (another legacy of man) have also been carrying off heaving sacks of rubbish from the beaches.

Paradise does not maintain itself. Fishing boat prowl, awaiting a gap in the Royal Navy’s vigilance, to strip the reefs of fish and dump more rubbish overboard; rats and introduced invasive species need to be cleared. Even a thousand miles of ocean are not a wall against the outside world, alas.

Into this role comes the Chagos Conservation Trust. Their surveys and statistics teach us and instruct us. Their work teams strive to restore natural balance. The one clean part of a tortured ocean depends on such work. The preservation of the islands relies on the Marine Conservation Area – if that is removed, or not enforced, the world will fall upon the islands in its foulness, never to be restored.

Churchill’s thoughts on the day

A gathering in Westminster from all walks of life, packing into the Gothic Glory of the Speaker’s House in the Palace of Westminster, for a St George’s Day function, and I squeezed in among them.

All sorts of interests were there – the Church, cultural champions, a scatter of journalists, entertainers, the economic and political worlds. After the rousing speeches, from The Speaker and others, came the Churchill moment. An actor, giving us Churchill to the T, delivered part of a speech from a St George’s Day function in 1933 (during the Great Depression, and just after the Austrian housepainter seized power in Germany).

The whole of Churchill’s speech that day is interesting – not just the ‘St George for Merrie England’ part. He expressed some frustration that in his time it was becoming frowned upon to say ‘England’ to mean the whole of Britain, so he talked of England, and left the audience to guess which he meant. To hand the rest of the article to Winston S Churchill then, as first he looked down at the BBC microphones recording every word said:

They have been placed upon our tables at their own responsibility by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Think of the risk these eminent men are running, of their suspense. We can almost see them in our mind’s eye gathered together in that very expensive building with the questionable statues on its front. We can picture Sir John Reith with the perspiration mantling on his lofty brow, with his hand upon the control switch wondering whether it will not be his duty to protect his innocent subscribers from some irreverent thing I might say about Mr. Gandhi or about the Russian Bolsheviks, or even about our peripatetic Prime Minister.

And after an amusing diversion, imagining a modern St George facing the Dragon not with a lance but with a secretariat, handing it taxpayers’ money and signing a trade treaty, then he found his main theme which showed his foresight in newly the darkening world, and which is a lesson to us to this day:

Historians had noticed all down the centuries one peculiarity of the English people, which had cost them dear. We had always thrown away after a victory the greater part of the advantages gained in time struggle. England, so resolute, so dogged, so invincible in danger, had always collapsed in spirit and action after time danger has been warded off. The worst difficulties from which we suffered did not come from without. They came from within. They did not come from the cottages of the wage-earners. They came from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who if they added something to its culture took much from its strength.

Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. Religion, we are told, has its part except to teach us humbleness. Patriotism, they declare, is worn out, except where paying income tax is concerned. Our clever talkers have derided these ancient themes, but what have they to put in their place but a. vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible Utopias? That is all they offer us in a world where the struggle for national self-preservation is daily becoming intensified.

They tell us that our day is done, our sun is set, and night is coming on. They declare, some with crazy exultation in their tones, that the decline and fall of England’s glory is at hand. If that be true it will be our own fault. Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then, indeed, our story is told.

Why should we break up the solid structure of British power for dreams which may some day come true but are now only dreams—some of them nightmares?

We are, as a race and society, perhaps more capable of bearing shocks and strains—especially long strains— than any other. Our institutions are capable of chancing with time and circumstances. We ought, as a nation and Empire, to weather any storm that blows at least as well as any other existing system of human government. We are at once more experienced and more truly united than any people in the world. It may well be that time most glorious chapters of our history are yet to be written.

See also

Books

Raising Low Sunday

Thomas Sunday, or Low Sunday, or Back-to-Normal Sunday? It should not be: Easter, the Resurrection, is a starting point, not an end. Jesus appeared to his disciples over the course of time, building excitement of what was to come next – the fulfilment of all he had been teaching them  in his ministry. After a week, they were still fizzing with it.

John’s Gospel alone gives us the story of Thomas, and a date:

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

This gives us ‘Thomas Sunday’, when that chapter is read – Thomas’s scepticism followed by joy of worship. The theme in many a church is doubt, or the question of truth (and if I hear one more sermon where the preacher tries to be ‘relevant’ by talking about Donald Trump, I may bellow and run out).

We should hear the chapter, and much more, but perhaps we should think more about the joy, and the terror? (Aye, the terror – after the Crucifixion, the Disciples must have had a reaction of despair mixed with guilty relief that their rollercoaster ride was over; now it was starting up again, redoubled.)

For most though, the calendar has ticked over, the holiday has ended and we have been back at work. I watched the people gathering in Coventry Cathedral this afternoon for their Low Sunday evensong, and it was a dribble of folk – not the joyous crowds of Easter Day. Admittedly Coventry’s Modernist, Sir Basil Spence edifice is not so edifying as a grand Gothic Cathedral is, but the Church is the people, not the building. No – it was a Sunday of back-to-normal.

It will be an effort to remember we are in the joyous post-Easter time. It is an effort worth taking, which should bring joy.

See also

Books

Who is the Moon?

To dream of the Moon; so familiar yet mysterious, is part of humanity. I do not need codified myths, nor do you, nor scientific precision. Myths come down to us, but we can each invent our own. The ascent of Artemis II, named for a Greek moon-goddess, brings exact science to the matter, when we would prefer to indulge in fancy.

Brewer tells us that “Harris, in his Hermes asserts that all nations ascribe to the sun a masculine and the moon a feminine gender”, but Harris was not so dogmatic. It may be that way round in Mediterranean lands and the Near East, but in the Germanic world, the Sun is feminine and the Moon masculine.

In those classical lands, the Moon has a smooth, shining face; a welcome coolness after the working day, accompanied by adoring attendant stars; changeable, fickle, and the essence of romance. The Sun however is a harsh task-master, glaring down during the labours of the day with a lash.

In our lust frosts, the Sun is a gentle, warming presence; a delight we long for, stirring life in us, to whom we open our arms as she casts her golden locks about her. The Moon is icy, marking the passage of time; he marches with the hunter, and as a watchman betraying the night-stalker; he stands above, wearing a white beard in the cloud.

When we stopped looking up, we stopped marking the Man in the Moon (and his dog). When telescopes and science explained the marks on his face, we stopped making our own stories about the Moon. When we filled the night sky with the lifeless glow of our earth-bound lamps we shut the sky to to our imagination.

As Artemis II coasts onward towards the Moon, taking people to a place abandoned over fifty years ago, it is done with cold science, even if it evokes in its name an ancient myth. Maybe though it will make us look up again and, looking up, dream.

See also

Books

Fiction:

250 Years of the modern world

Today is the quarter-millennium of the event which overturned centuries of folly and allowed the world to prosper; an event which would come to bring peace more than any other of the modern age: the publication of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

I would say it is hard to imagine the mindset before this day in 1776, but the same bad instincts arise amongst every new set of politicians, but we now have Adam Smith’s work to set against them.  From the Renaissance to before The Wealth of Nations, Europe and much of the world followed by instinct the Old Mercantilist System. The stronger nations seized colonies to build a trading monopoly. No nation but Spain was allowed to trade with Spanish America – one of the causes of the War of Jenkins’ Ear was the withdrawal of the Asiento, allowing English merchants to trade slaves at certain ports in South America. Many Georgian-era wars were fought to capture plantation colonies. Part of the reason for the American rebellion was that the mercantilist system forbade the rest of the word  from trading with the American colonies, when the homeland Britons could trade anywhere. Had the Americans but waited a year or two for Adam Smith’s lessons to be learned, a major cause of discontent could have been lifted.

Our whole understanding of economics comes from The Wealth of Nations. It cannot be overstated. Even those who do not accept the economics of the free market have to start to frame their opposition from the axioms of Smith’s work.

In Britain, Smith’s work was swiftly accepted, and we began to prosper all the more. Tariffs and taxes were lifted (and tax revenue increased). The system of slavery in the colonies, which Smith hated for moral reasons, began to evaporate as the logic of labour was understood, until slavery could definitively be banned.

To Smith too can we attribute the relative peace of the world. It seems odd to say that the publication of The Wealth of Nations brought peace when it was immediately followed by the ruinous American War and then twenty-two years of continual war with France, but it was so, even if the effects were delayed. After the loss of the colonies, Britain and France found peace in trade, in a brief summer before their the Revolution. Even during the two bloody decades before Waterloo, Bonaparte noticed. His strategy against Britain was to cut our trade: that was why he invaded Portugal, and why he compelled Denmark into his war; and why Nelson destroyed Denmark’s fleet. When the war ended, Europe began to see the necessity of peace. The economy is a fine-tuned instrument, fed by trade, and cutting trade off will hurt everyone.  Not a single British bullet was fired in anger in Europe between 1815 and the Summer of 1914.

Over in the rebellious colonies, they have a chief who is turning his back on Adam Smith’s lessons, imposing tariffs despite those sage words that should tell us that tariffs mainly hurt those they are intended to benefit.  Perhaps someone should give him a special Semiquincentennial edition of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Rather than just celebrating 250 years of their independence, America would do well to celebrate 250 years of The Wealth of Nations, and learn from it.

See also

Books