This reminds me distinctly of something I read on the Stuff White People Like blog, that white people (or really white educated liberal urban hipsters, but the shorter title is catchier) like knowing what´s best for poor people. And I wonder if we really do.

Is governing themselves what is ¨really best¨for poor people? This editorial takes a strong tone against Santa Cruz´s autonomy moves even back in 2005, which is the date on the editorial. The first time I read it, I thought, ¨Can Santa Cruz really be that bad?¨ and on a second read, I thought, ¨Maybe not, but there may well be some significant truth to what this writer says.¨

This paragraph stood out to me:

And what do they (Cruceños) want? Autonomy. To govern their own lands? Yes. Which lands? Ah, well, that depends, because among their demands, the city of Santa Cruz wants to see more of the benefits of gas exportation, and the department of Santa Cruz (Bolivia is divided into departments as opposed to states or provinces) has more gas than any other Bolivian department. But the gas is not in the city, it’s in the south, in a region known as el Chaco, inhabited mostly by… indigenous people, the Guaraní, who of course do not participate in the angry demonstrations up in Santa Cruz. Would they have even been invited? I doubt it…

I knew him as a very generous man, who has given tremendous support to the Stansberry Home, and has hired several of the kids over summers to gain practical skills while working on his ranch. From what I remember, these were very positive experiences for the kids. So that’s my personal connection, and it’s hard to know what to make of what transpired. Shooting out tires was a poor decision.

So Skylark, I echo some of your struggles in trying to sort out what to think of Larsen and the situation that transpired.

Samasoul, I think you are right, people aren’t necessary just good or just evil. I think the same can be said for many controversial issues, there is often a lot of gray area.

On a recent trip to China, I read that people there think of Mao (guy who lead China’s communist revolution) as 70% good, 30% bad. His critics reverse that ratio. So the same can probably be said for Larson.

So when Jesus says “Walk with him two” he is saying to be a servant to the oppressor for twice as long as is demanded of you.

Jesus crazy-assed proclamations don’t end with “Sell all your things” or “turn the other cheek”.

But yes, back to the topic. Since Jesus’ statement about walking two miles isn’t directed at the oppressor (if making someone walk with you for a mile is oppression, and I don’t really know much about the cultural context of that), I’m not sure how to take it. It might be a “bearing up under suffering” thing. Or, it might be a “go with the oppressor further than he wants to take you because you might find out some dirt on him and be able to wreck his reputation later” thing. ;) Just kiddin’. That’s a high school tactic.

*Back on track*
Jesus is both an advocate of the oppressed “blessed are they that are persecuted” and an advocate of the oppressor “If someone compels you to walk with him a mile, walk with him two.”

Interesting. I wonder what Jesus is saying? What is this man’s worldview that presents, in himself, a seemingly contradictory duality?

When you’ve been a vegetarian for eight years, hearing the same old lines from different people, each thinking they’re being original… it gets tiresome.

Thank you, somasoul, for pointing out the blatantly obvious that I was somewhat overlooking. It’d be nice if people could be put in simple boxes for ethical/moral classification, but I can’t even do that with myself, let alone other people. Most of the people I would consider to be generally wonderful and delightful human beings are either Christians or vegetarians, but not both. I’m not trying to belabor the vegetarian thing here, though. :)

I think it’s okay to be torn. Maybe some of it about Larson is true. People aren’t necessarily good or evil. We are both. Hitler was supposedly a great family man. Martin Luther King Jr. was an adulterer. Ghandi beat his wife. Stalin……..well, he was just really bad.