January 2010

Mighty magic is a mother,

in her there is another issue

of fixture, repeated form, the race renewal,

the charge of the command.

-Robert Creeley, from "Somewhere" 1959

For joy, as everyone knows, let's sorrow soon be forgotten.

-Chretien De Troyes, from "Yvain, Knight of the Lion" 1170

A Poem for 2009

TURNING UP...

Look at the ways we have grown

by hands we pursue each other

by ways find purchase and make pursuits together

these are already yours

take the rest

press on my skin and take refuge

here is a place to be gracious

where falling isn't called that

but being good and getting faster

it's even in the quiet of our minds

much better than being laser-like

our falling good and getting faster

TURNING DOWN...

I eat the good

but add a spoiled morsel

waste my own hunger from the way these mingle!

even sleeping well in your care

I hesitate to return

to the favors in your hand

I cling to your promise

but reverse polarity with your promise

estimate you just about

soon is good enough

and taking just

it adds up

tiring us in all the ways we do anything

but be in harmony

and what else there is to blame

TURNING CLOSE...

My tongue is on the ground

not like the time before

when I sucked the forest floor for joy

for all the distance I am digging

at least I am closer

and shame can not follow me so low

let's find the child

and for holy sakes

wake up to him listening

be here with me

cheering us on

balancing the needle on it's head

I'll measure the stories only so much

and feel them more instead

that's not much but it's a lot

Earth Day?

THE WATER REVOLUTION

OF 2016

This is a parody of the future -- a world in which water replaces diamonds as a luxury item. You can find this coming reality in the fine print of deeds and contracts that put our public resources into private hands. 

by Raphael Rice, rafirice@hotmail

By the year 2014, years of war, unchecked pollution and global warming have left most of the world's fresh water supplies severely diminished.

North America is in dire straits except for Vermont, New Hampshire and Quebec...

which have pristine water sources protected by the most severe industry and land-use codes in the world.

Inspired by surging prices and out-of-state investment dollars, local landowners with springs and "Blue Gold" rights move quickly to take profits.

Incomes go from trickle to flow, as VT turns a new shade of green and NH decides to "live free and consolidate" with shiny corporate banners and a flourish of public service promises.

These corporate entities begin reaping billions of dollars in profits, dwarfing those of Exxon & friends during the 2nd Gulf War.

Meanwhile, the rest of the nation is reeling under the inflationary pressure of water prices that fluctuate wildly due to market speculation, politics, threats to the water supply and other seemingly unrelated events.

APRIL 7, 2014:

Disgruntled employee at Maple Water Corporation releases toxic waste. MWC pays $50,000,000 in fines but takes billions for the quarter in windfall profits.

JULY 4, 2014:

Party of teenagers busted at Green River Reservoir. Burlington Free Press, now a subsidiary of Friendly Farmer Inc., reports they were seen peeing in the water.

SEPTEMBER, 2014:

A grainy photo of the Lake Champlain "Monster" surfaces; fuels concerns about the mutative effects of toxic waste. MWC is fined another $50,000,000.

OCTOBER 8, 2014:

The press upgrades "Blue Gold" to the "Wet Diamond," making ice everyone's new "best friend."

NOVEMBER, 2014:

Having been inundated with poor immigrants from New York and Massachusetts seeking jobs, social services and water; legislators in VT & NH shore up public budgets by passing retroactive windfall taxes on all "Wet Diamond" revenue. The water industry is offended; prices double.

December 7th, 2014:

During a rousing Pearl Harbor day speech, President Cheney, who had humbly accepted his own nomination in 2012 as a last-minute Republican ticket replacement for an increasingly befuddled and

senile John McCain, reassures water lobbyists. He says that he will challenge the legality of the VT & NH tax code and veto any attempt by congress to enact similar federal legislation. Cheney also prepares Americans for the tough choices they will face in confronting the growing threat of militant fanaticism in the Amazonian River Basin.

JANUARY 15th, 2015:

Senator Barack Obama is finally able to prove that a damaging photo, which shows him giving a Black Panther Party salute at the Million Man March in 1995, was just him standing next to John Kerry at a rally in 2008. He also announces he will run for president again.

His first campaign promise is to pass his Four Point Pledge; a plan to protect captive consumers who have no choice but to rely on water and other privately owned natural resources for their health and livelihood. Obama builds support for his position by calling profit-driven private controls over public resources, "a formula for public vulnerability in the best of times, and a potential crisis of epic proportions during the worst."

The Four Point Pledge:

1) Seizure, by eminent domain, of all water resources

2) State partnerships with commercial water distribution companies

3) A full examination of similar actions to be taken regarding other captive consumer industries; primarily oil and the burgeoning bottled oxygen industry

4) An affirmation of free-market principles in the form of low- interest small business loans to be funded by the first three years of nationalized water revenue

THE REACTION

The Council Of Freedom-Loving Americans To Elect Anyone For President But Barack Obama, Who Doesn't Like Freedom, saturates the media with a relentless Anti-Obama campaign.

On Election Day 2016

Supported by Mamas everywhere, Obama wins the election by a landslide; losing only the six electoral votes of Vermont and New Hampshire. Both states threaten to secede but soon get distracted by the nations new and unexplained addiction to maple syrup.

All water and oil resources are nationalized and decriminalized by constitutional amendment six months later, as 70% of the world's nations had already done by 2008.

Child and Caregiver; Humanity's Relationship to

The World & The Plural Pronouns in Genesis 1:26.

An ecological commentary on the bible.

By Raphael Rice, rafirice@hotmail

As the bible continues to be an influential document in our culture, an environmental mission sourced in Genesis could be useful to anyone, secular or religious, who seeks support for such a view of our role in the world.  I will posit here a straightforward interpretation of Genesis, particularly verse 1:26 - among other verses for context and support - that emphatically urges such a mission.  This interpretation will clarify humanity's appointed "dominion" over the natural world to reveal that it is laden with responsibilities, in the same way and for the same reason that a child is obliged to fulfill the role of a caregiver for vulnerable parents.   In this effort, I hope to satisfy readers of any faith with a meaningful description of biblical intent.   Our only necessary common ground is an acknowledgment that this ancient text intends to be an instructive guide, the intent of which is worth gleaning.  

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the cattle, the whole earth, and all the creeping things that creep on earth.  (other English translations)

Like many passages from the bible, the implications of these words can vary widely depending on a reader's perspective and motivations. Genesis 1:26 comfortably straddles two ends of an environmental debate; presenting on one hand that we are empowered to use the resources of this world as a means towards achieving our own spiritual and material health, or conversely, that our spiritual and material empowerment is a means towards ensuring the health of this world.  It is easy to see how our own convictions can influence our choice between these two views.  To come to a full understanding of this verse's implications, outside of our motivations, it is helpful to start with some context. 

Genesis 1:26 is the bible's first reference to the creation of humanity, yet it is commonly overshadowed in our culture by the verse that follows - Genesis 1:27 -  which states anew, "God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."  This verse is more direct than 1:26, which may be the reason that it has become the common reference to our creation in Judeo-Christian culture.  But there is another important difference between the verses that may have favored 1:27.   I am referring to the focus of this analysis; the puzzling use of plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness."  Because these pronouns appear to confound the notion of a singular God and creator, it may have been in an effort to comfort our vanity and avert confusion that we have focused on the singular lineage from God that is indicated by Genesis 1:27.  Such a choice between the two verses may have been promoted by esteemed 11th century Rabbi and Torah commentator Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi, more commonly known as Rashi, when he warned of a danger in the ambiguity of the plural pronouns by writing that these could be misapplied by "heretics" to suggest the potential of another God or co-creator. 

Though the plural pronouns may have been diminished in the popular recitation of man's creation, they have been continuously studied and dissected by scholars.  Discussions of them exist in Jewish Talmudic commentaries like Rashi's, as well as more contemporary Jewish and Christian analyses.  What can be agreed upon by these interested people is that this inclusive way of describing the creation of humanity is a dramatic departure from all preceding creations.  On previous days in Genesis, and even previously on the same day as man's appearance, creations come about through God's singular declarative statements; "Let there be light", "Let there be an expanse", "Let the water... be gathered", "Let the waters bring forth swarms" and so on.  It is only when the creation concerns man that God says, "Let us make man in our image."  This begs the questions that will be addressed here; Who is this "us"? Why does it appear only and suddenly in regard to man?  And if we know who the "us" is, what does it mean that we are also made in its image?

Other Interpretations of  Genesis 1:26

There are many theories that attempt to address the puzzle of the plural pronouns.   To provide context it may be helpful to look at a prevalent example.  One such interpretation, commonly supported by Jewish commentary, sees these pronouns as referencing a combination of God and angels.  In this tradition, angels are thought to have always existed along with God and are therefore present during the creation of the universe.  Hence, God turns to the angels and states, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." It follows that this collaboration gives "man" unique qualities, not totally like God or angels, but having parts of both. 

This idea, which I will call "Angelic Collaboration", has a certain elegance, but also contains flaws.  In part, this is because angels have not been mentioned in Genesis yet.  Their presence during the creation is a presumption construed from later references.  As a result, Angelic Collaboration requires a complex defense to make it fit the text of Genesis.  But more importantly, we do not glean from Angelic Collaboration any practical application for us in our lives, which is something that Torah/Bible commentaries typically seek to do.  In other words: if it is Angelic Collaboration, what do we do with that knowledge?   Since descriptions of angels are ultimately the same mystery that the God of the bible can be, what clarity does a potential Angelic Collaboration contribute to us as we try to understand ourselves and our role in the world.  What bearing does it have on the way we should use the power appointed to us later in the same verse?  By adding mystery to the story of our creation, Angelic Collaboration does nothing to link itself to our empowerment in a practical way, rendering the close proximity of these two events incidental.  This is a significant weakness that begs the possibility of a more meaningful interpretation.

For further reading about Angelic Collaboration and other theories, I have come across a very detailed essay on the internet titled "Plural Pronouns Used for God" by Jason Dulle, Phd. Theology.  This essay gives a clear, strong and detailed defense of this interpretation, as well as brief descriptions of three other popular interpretations, including a Christian theory.  Mr. Dulle also offers analyses of translations from Hebrew of the words concerning us here, as well as comparisons to other plural references to God which may be useful.  

A New View of "our image"; Humanity as Child and Caregiver.

Environmental Jews and Christians alike have preferred to see in the second line of Genesis 1:26, which refers to humanity's appointment to power, that man is to rule as a caretaker.  However, this meaning is not implicit in that line alone.  For this, I am suggesting they go to the first part of Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image after our own likeness"; to the plural pronouns which will describe precisely why man must be such a caretaker. 

First it is necessary to answer the 'who' of the plural pronouns; "us" represents God and who?  It is a very straightforward and sequential reading of Genesis that shows us that at the moment of humanity's creation, nature is all that has come to exist because nature is all that has been created.  Therefore, this is the only possible 'other' in "let us make" and "in our image".  With this view, Genesis 1:26 takes on a density of meaning, practical and mystical, as we are led to imagine God turning to the heavens and the earth, the light and dark, the land and the sea, the sun, moon, stars, plants and all things that creep upon the earth, saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".   

A Practical Application

To address the purpose behind this description of nature's collaboration in the creation of man, it is useful to start by looking at an interpretation provided by a 19th century Torah scholar, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.  It will be helpful to receive his support by way of a nearly identical interpretation, and so too will its differences help to elucidate the full meaning that I will suggest.    In an essay titled "The Stewardship Paradigm in the Torah Portion of Bereishis/Genesis", Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks references a commentary by Rabbi Hirsch in order to explain the departure in Genesis 1:26 from God's singular creative efforts.  Rabbi Sacks paraphrases Hirsch in the following way: "Who would God consult in the process of creating humans? The 'us,' says Hirsch, refers to the rest of creation. Before creating the human, a being destined to develop the capacity to alter and possibly endanger the natural world, God sought the approval of nature itself. This interpretation implies that we would use nature only in such a way that is faithful to the purposes of its Creator and acknowledges nature's consenting to humanity's existence."

Hirsch's description of nature consenting to the creation of humanity satisfies much of what I will say here regarding the environmental implication of Genesis 1:26.  But I offer that the intended message of this verse is even stronger than Hirsch conveys.  In addition to the quality of consent and agreement, a more intimate interaction is taking place between the Creator and nature.  The words, "Let us make", suggest an act of collaboration.  So too does,"in our image, after our own likeness", suggest that this collaboration yields a new hybrid result.  When the full value of these words are accepted, it is possible to see that a  joining together - even a marrying or mating, if we need to understand it this way - of God and nature is occurring in order to create humanity, the child.

There is further support for this intimacy, when such a mixing of divine and earthly substances is described in Genesis 2:7, "God formed man from the dust of the earth.  He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being."   This graphic expression of humanity's creation, where divinity enters the body of dust to create new life,  encourages us to fully relate to a collaborative view by resembling the union we understand is necessary in our own bodies for reproduction.

Creating the first man from the dust of the earth also bolsters the notion, already laid out by the sequence of creation, of nature as a predecessor to man.  In the context of modern theories of evolution we can take such a concept for granted, but in a biblical age, support for nature as a predecessor would have been helpful to a people trying to glean its origins and place in the natural world.  

There appears to be an instructive purpose in portraying a diverse environment of parents for man; where man is the child of both God and all things in the world.  Recognizing our familial relationship with nature only strengthens Hirsch's commentary that humanity remains beholden to nature even as God gives it dominion over the same.   Indeed, it seems that a clarification of our "dominion" may be the very purpose of closely pairing it with a description of this familial relationship.  Is power over a parent or elder ever purposefully assigned for a reason other than protection?   Interestingly, while Rashi's commentary would seem to reject the notion of nature as a co-creator or parent to humanity, he offers a surprising support for this view by pointing out that the Hebrew for "dominion over", can also be translated as "descending from". 

If it is an intent of the bible to instruct us in the great responsibilities we will have as children of the world, these responsibilities, relationships, and even their rewards are made explicit again with the 5th commandment given to Moses and the Israelites in Exodus 20:12 which states, "Honor your father and your mother that you shall live long upon the earth that God has given you."   In the context of this discussion, it now seems purposeful that our longevity on the earth is connected to the ways in which we honor our "parents".  Of course, this author does not wish to diminish the meaning of this verse as it regards good old mom and dad. 

The notion that our dominion is laden with the responsibilities of a caretaker is consistent with a biblical God that never gives power freely.  Genesis alone is filled with examples of God coupling privileges and responsibilities.   As early as Genesis 2:15, it is described that man is placed in Eden, "to till it and tend it".  Throughout the rest of Genesis there are covenants; promises that are made over and over with Abraham, his children and all of their descendants.  These promises are always paired with great responsibilities; undertakings and obstacles that are expected to be continuous and contain hardships.  That Genesis 1:26 would offer humanity dominion over all of God's good creations without pairing it with an imperative for responsible use would be shocking compared to the ways in which God metes out power in the rest of the bible.

It may have only been in our vanity that we have seen our appointed power as a gift to us; a birthright intended to identify us as supreme on this earth.   There is no need to add to humanity's special qualities with such a gift, as it is already unique in the bible for receiving both God and nature's legacies through their collaboration.  The power appointed after our creation can only be seen in such a view as the burden of a descendent; to be applied carefully lest we harm our own.    Such is the practical application for us, described and repeated in the ancient text with prose, metaphor and direct instruction.  It urges us to understand and see our family in the heavens and the earth, the light and the dark, the land and the sea, the sun, moon, stars and all living things that creep upon the earth.  It prevails upon us to use our power - our natural and unique skills - in such a way as would honor and protect these like doting children;  caregivers for our vulnerable parents.

*Special thanks to Leigh and Danny Bar-Yakov for their helpful comments and suggestions, some of which I have used in this essay.

8 Mile Lake Swim

On August 5, 2006 I swam the eight miles it takes to cross Lake Champlain as part of the 10th annual Burlington YMCA Lake Swim.   Though it was not technically a race, I finished in 4 hours and 29 minutes, 7th out of 35 entrants.   Five women finished before me, testifying to their superiority when it comes to endurance, and over me in general.  Speaking of superior women, Lindsey Hescock provided support by kayack, supplying direction and offering water and food (similar to her role out of the water as well).  Thanks Lindsey

November Art Show at Bad Girls

1st of series: "judenraus"

CLICK on drawing to ENLARGE

Introduction to series:
This is the first cartoon I did in a series that was essentially a response to an invitation to submit holocaust cartoons from President Ahmedinejad of Iran. Dismayed that the European/Islamic culture clashes over Danish Caricatures of the Prophet Muhamed were boiling down to anti-Jewish rhetoric, I set out to intrude upon the invitation and the cartoon form to show a perspective that might bring relief to others as frustrated myself.

The cartoon form, and specifically the political cartoon, has certain demanding parameters which I quickly found to be both a limit and a guide.

The rules are there are no rules but it helps to learn the rules.
I found these rules to be essential;

The cartoon must be honest, even if it is ignorant.
The cartoon should be ironic, but not smug.
The cartoon must fit in a box,
The cartoon should be interesting to look at.
The cartoon must be legible.

Hopefully it's self-explanatory. I can't even approach fairness, but maybe clarity is possible, bridge-building, healing?

I would be happy to receive your thoughts, as well as suggestions for clarifying these drawings or their explanations.

"judenraus":
The action taking place here is of a flashback to WWII Europe. Jews are being collected. Family members peer out of the window as soldiers abruptly interrupt their existence. There may be a habit of belief that a veil of protection surrounds them, particularly since they are still together. Here the curtain is almost drawn for the last moments of this hope. A practical man has made a hiding spot for himself. He says "I wish I were in a Muslim land". At that time there would have been no Irony in that statement. For the most part, throughout the history of Islam, Jews thrived and suffered in Muslim lands as their neighbors did. Class systems offered confinement but also protection and were by no means applied particularly to Jews. Current Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khameni said, while rebuking the Iranian president, that anti-Semitism was and continues to be a European problem and not a Muslim one. I feel this statement is also present in this cartoon. I hope my drawing is an olive branch and message to Muslims of our traditional mutual respect. For all the nuances of persecution and liberation in Christian and Muslim lands, systematic genocide was a European creation building to climax on a foundation of rooted and pervasive anti-Semitism. Such a foundation did not exist in Muslim lands before European culture collided with the Middle East in modern history (more on that later).

2nd of series: "nations and people"

See 1st of series for introduction.



Shalom Aleichem and Alekum Salaam are greetings in Hebrew and Arabic meaning "Peace be on you". Next to the hard lines of geopolitical realities, this drawing speaks to the rift that national identities have put between the two Semitic cultures of Arabs and Jews.

Modern historical traumas at the hands of Europeans and violent events between Arabs and Jews have been experienced so separately that their implications for the present and future are a matter of widely divergent perspectives. This separate experience is buttressed by guarded and closed borders and increasingly polarized views of ends and means.

Israel is made up largely of Jewish immigrant/refugees of European and Arab origin. Palestinian Israelis are a significant minority, integrated and segregated in the mode of other class oriented western democracies. Israeli society could potentially be culturally and economically available to Palestinians and Arabs at large (and vice versa), but for modern geopolitical events and pressures.

Arab traditional hospitality to the alien has been disrupted and Jewish social psychology is steeped in the debilitating "Masada Complex" (a sense of being constantly under siege), which Israelis have now successfully passed on to their Palestinian cousins. As seen in the "arab jewish timeline", this is a purely modern disconnect.

3rd of series: "arab jewish timeline"

see 1st for series introduction.



Read left to right. The timeline begins before the arrival of the Prophet Muhammad and ends in modern history. Continuing the themes of Muslim protection of Jews in "judenraus" and their common heritage in "nations and people", this drawing shows that a relative coexistence was the norm for Jews in Muslim lands and seeks to highlight an ebb and flow of culture and economy between Jews and Muslims that made such coexistence not only possible but vibrant and profitable.

It is difficult to resist being romantic in this drawing. The need to make a point, the desire to honor Muslims and limitations of space, make it difficult to spend any more space clarifying what this "protected status" really meant for Jews. You could say... it's relative (and I did). But actually, in the context of this series, it's black and white. In one place genocide is possible in the other, it is not.

Meanwhile certain realities and facts of history are quite romantic for Jews, like an environment so comfortable and respectful of learning that it yields and protects the Talmud and its' subsequent manifestations.

The information and movement of the drawing becomes muddled towards the right, which was difficult to avoid. This confusion reflects the complex differences of perspective surrounding modern Middle East history as well as my own inability to be step out of my Jewish Perspective.

Perhaps this drawing is most effective when placed next to the "christian jewish timeline". Notable in the Arab timeline is the lack of a centralized religious or political power over long periods of time. This in turn results in an absence of linear and singular themes of dogma. The presence of these very same things in Europe sets the stage for a rooted anti-Semitism that has the continuity it needs to build upon itself, even as Europeans later try to reverse it.

absor"p"tion? who knew.

4th of series: "christian jewish timeline"

see 1st for series introduction.



This was the most difficult drawing to render in this series. The "rules" mentioned in the introduction forced me to reconsider and redesign every aspect of this drawing many times. It is my hope that it succeeds in being plain. It should plainly say what is beautiful, truthful, ironic, and tragic about the common history of Christians and Jews.

This drawing succeeds where the "arab jewish timeline" has no need to; in creating a progression of events that become building blocks to a singular and tragic event. It is unfortunate to summarize something so complex so abruptly, but that is how the story went.

Reading left to right.

Around year 1 CE:
The loosely cohesive "nation" of Jews is broken by the Romans. Having been broken before and experienced an exodus to Babylon that resulted in the codification of the Torah (Bible) and a strong initiation of the Talmud (An elastic Commentary on the Bible and guide for Jewish ceremony), Jews are better prepared for their renewed status of immigrant/refugee as they emigrate en masse over a period of centuries.

1st Century CE:
Towards the end of this century, many Jews have heard about a Jewish rabbi of special quality named Jesus. There are many stories being told about this man and widely diverse points of view regarding his importance. A significant segment of Jews consider him to be a prophet at least and many of these come to believe that he is a Messiah, God or Son of God. Preachers of these ideas find ready audiences and safety in Mediterranean Jewish communities because; often they themselves are Jewish, they preach about a Jew and the basis for this quickly evolving theology was the Torah. For some generations during this crucial incubation period (6th in series, incubator event), Jews and Jewish devotees of Jesus live side by side.

1st through 4th Century:
Being a devotee of Jesus is a new faith with accessibility and significant meaning for non-Jews as well. Many such people develop their faith in close relationship with Jewish devotees, sharing cultural and economic resources and forming new communities. At various points, early devotees of Jesus, particularly Jewish devotees, find it necessary to stop emphasizing what they have in common with Judaism and begin emphasizing their differences. It is a fateful psychological shift that will loose ties and help them to better assimilate into their new identity as Christians. Jews who resist this movement, note the phenomenon and react protectively by ignoring (probably even prohibiting) the story of Jesus and diminishing its importance in their communities. In spite of mutual theological and even familial origins, these events solidify separateness as a staple of Christian/Jewish relationship and becomes an enabler of future mistrust and conflict.

5th Century and beyond:
Jews have migrated widely into lands that have now officially embraced Christianity. Theological exchange is possible between Jews and Christians, and even necessary, as nascent Christianity borrows directly from Jews and local cultures in order to develop it's own traditions. With the codification of the New Testament and empowerment of the Church, the passionate diversity of theology that marked early Christianity is narrowed and becomes more dogmatic. It is also more focused on maintaining it's power. It is politically important for Rome to emphasize the Jewish role in the death of Jesus, thereby minimizing its' own. This has the effect of overshadowing core Christian traditions which hold that the Passion of Christ was a divine plan and all players merely a backdrop for this precious sacrifice. This would eventually become the "blood libel", and a Christian justification for Jewish Persecution for the next 1500 years. Jewish minimization and outright rejection of "Christ their King" would also continue to be a source of friction, just as the progressive theologian Martin Luther would later turn from learning with Jews to railing against them in his last years because they would not "save themselves".

Meanwhile:
The experience of Jews in Europe is by no means singular. Safety, culture and prosperity are possible for moments that last longer than our current distance from the Holocaust. However, this is always precarious and applied by the will of their hosts. Both the church and secular powers were capable of being protectors and persecutors of Jews.

Layer builds upon layer:
Theological competition and notions like the "blood libel" become church institutions and form the first building block of an irreversible trend. Institutional anti-Semitism begets cultural anti-Semitism which in turn supports conditional changes like political and cultural oppression and violence, beginning in earnest with the Christian Crusades. This would continue in various forms until the European "age of enlightenment", which would inspire emancipation efforts. However, the traditions of cultural violence had become so rooted it would eventually erupt exponentially again in the form of the holocaust.