While perusing YouTube during incubation periods, as I do on occasion, I discovered that a movie I bought several years ago is now available on YouTube.
I have refrained from reviewing movies on this blog in the past, because I can get very touchy about the movies that I adore and so usually keep those opinions to myself. I will make an exception in this case however, because although this movie is not in the category of you're-not-allowed-to-criticize-this-in-my-presence, I found it an incredibly interesting movie.
It consists of a fictitious documentary, conducted by the BBC about the (relatively) modern-day United States, as history would have been had the South won the Civil War. It is aired on fake-American T.V. and thus complete with fake commercials in between segments of the documentary. Some of them are jarring, and when I first watched this movie I thought it was a little over the top. Until I got to the facts in the closing credits, and then it blew my mind.
It blew my mind so much that I have since recommended it to everyone I came across. Although you have to be in the mood for a movie consisting of a classically slow-paced history documentary, if you are in the right frame of mind and have an hour and a half to kill, this is well worth watching.
The last time I found myself in Rome I had only brought two books to cover me for the weekend, silly me, so come Sunday I found myself browsing the English section in the bookshop for something to keep me company on the train ride back. I stumbled upon this new biography of Malcolm X by Manning Marable and I thought great, why not. As I only ever took one year of US history in my life in high school, and we only made it to the 1920s I knew absolutely nothing about Malcolm X, except that he was a big name in the African American struggle for civil rights and he was murdered in the 1960s. Shameful, I know, so I decided to buy the book.
First thoughts: I was extremely impressed with the quality of this biography. I found it to be extremely interesting, containing some information that I felt outright stupid for not knowing (Malcolm X had red hair?! o.O? And yes, I had to Google Images "zoot suit") as well as being full of extremely interesting insights into the inner workings of some American sub-cultures that I had been completely unaware of. The peculiar theology of the Nation of Islam, for example, that apart from the name could not possibly be further from the original religion it apparently stemmed from. The bizarre story of Yacub's history and the fact that they could be so blasphemous as to suggest that Allah took a human form, walked and preached around the US, and that therefore there was another new prophet after Muhammad.
The sheer amount of research that went into this book was astounding. Every day he tracks, every detail he goes over is backed up, especially when what really happens seems to differ from what Malcolm X said in his autobiography. But that is exactly what I most enjoyed about the book. There is no building up a martyr and ignoring anything that makes him look bad. There is no embellishment or fanciful descriptions of things the biographer could not have known. When the evidence is scarce or ambiguous he tells you, presents the evidence available, and lets you make up your own mind as to what might have happened. While some might find that kind of writing a little dry, to me it was the best aspect of the book and exactly why I enjoyed it so much.
Manning Marable certainly pulls no punches. He goes over every single detail of Malcolm X's life, from revealing some potentially embarrassing details (such as his probable episodes of homosexuality-for-hire or stealing from his family to feed his drug habit) to the flaws in his ideology (like his misogyny or his erratic anti-Semitic comments) to the unequivocal awe that he inspired in even the most unlikely of people ("He is a MAN, whom it is impossible not to admire, even when blasting the White Race for its mishandling of the Black Man", now how many black men get that kind of praise from leaders of the fucking Nazi Party?!). Only once does the voice of Manning Marable step in to criticize the history he is retelling:
To sit down with white supremacists to negotiate common interests, at a moment in black history when the KKK was harassing, victimizing, and even killing civil rights workers and ordinary black citizens, as despicable. Malcolm's apologetics and negotiating with with white racists were insufficient.
Having said that, at no point do you walk away from this book thinking badly about Malcolm X. His presence, his strength radiates out of this book, and you feel it not in spite of, but perhaps because of the honesty of its telling. He was human, and humans make mistakes, learn from them and grow in their ideology and philosophy as they become more educated in life. It is the way that Malcolm never shut himself off from this growth to sit and get fat in a comfortable position within the Nation, despite the inconvenience and outright danger this caused him, makes you respect him enormously. If you try to portray someone as 100% perfect from the start, the amazing courage it takes to revisit and restructure the way you look at life as you grow as an individual is completely lost.
I could go on for hours about every little aspect of the history, chapter by chapter, but for the purposes of this review I don't think it is relevant. At the end I have to say that, although the middle portion of the book can get a little confusing to follow (not by fault of the writer, it mostly has to do with the fact that they all have similar names, and then they keep changing their names as they enter into the Nation of Islam), it is a fascinating book, and it saddens me that the life of such a visionary was cut short. During the time that I was reading book I was constantly asking myself "What would Malcolm X think about that?" or "What would he say about Obama's presidency, or the Black Republicans like Allen West?" in a way that it felt like Malcolm X's speeches and words had really affected me, despite the fact that I had never had the privilege of seeing him in the flesh and listen to him speak. It is definitely worth the read, and I highly recommend it.
Today is Mardi Gras and the day before Ash Wednesday. It is for this reason that Mardi Gras is a day for going batshit insane. For kids, it's the day you dress up in a costume and throw paper confetti and silly string all over the place (see? we have a kind of Halloween too). For teenagers, it's a day to pull pranks on your friends and egg a few people. For adults, it's a day to throw a very decadent (and often a raunchy sex) party and get smashed. For everyone it's a day to eat as much shit as you want, because tomorrow is supposedly the first day of lent and so all this decadence will not be allowed. I of course will not be participating in lent this year, but as I said before, I'll take a holiday as an excuse to do something fun any day. I didn't get an invitation to an exclusive Venetian party, but I'm sure I'll find something to do tonight.
By living in Dublin for 5 years I actually missed Carnevale/Fat Tuesday/Mardi Gras every year, because I never knew what fucking day it was on until it was all over. I know it's 40 days before Easter, but how the hell am I supposed to know when that is either? Have you ever wondered why Easter changes every freaking year, and how the hell they decide when it's going to be, and why is the Orthodox Easter different than the Catholic one, and who the fuck can keep up?! Well, have yourselves a little history/theology lesson, on me:
Apparently, Easter Sunday falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, or March 21st. Phew! The reason the Orthodox Church has a different Easter Sunday is because they use the Julian Calendar when calculating their dates, instead of the Gregorian Calendar that we all know and love.
Sounds weirdly arbitrary doesn't it? Not to mention a little pagan? Bah who cares, it's not like anything these institutions do or believe makes any sense anymore...
As the years go by I realize that this holiday has more people who hate it than those who don't. Why, do you ask them? Because it's a made up holiday! It's all about consumerism!! It's the florists and the card companies that profit!!! GRRRRR.
To which I respond yes, that's true. Only thing is, all holidays fit that description!
As most others, February 14th also has a vague religious root, but having a religious reason doesn't make you any more or less of a made-up holiday. The 25th of December was bogarted from the pagans in an attempt to convert more of them to Christianity, the logic behind it being that they would be warmer to the idea if they didn't have to give up the holidays they already had. Halloween is based on the pagan All Hallow's Eve, which was a sort of New Years and when they believed that the veil between the physical world and the spiritual world was at its thinnest. Your birthday is an arbitrary day on which you celebrate having made it for another year on this planet, though in reality you get no older on the day of your birthday than you do any other day of the year. Same goes for January 1st. So honestly, who the hell cares if it was made up or not?
Valentine's Day is a good excuse to do something spontaneous and romantic for your lover, which is especially useful for couples that have been together for the long haul and maybe their romantic life has gotten to be a little routine. Christmas is an excellent excuse to really think about your friends and family, choose a gift you think they'll love, be together with them and have fun. Easter is an excellent excuse to eat a load of chocolate without feeling guilty, and Mardi Gras is a great excuse to have a really raucus partAY. Your birthday is a day for you to feel special, and for you to get to do whatever the hell you want to do and your friends have to go along with it because, after all, it is your birthday. New Years is an excellent excuse to go out with your friends, get smashed and have a blast. Well, can't you do these things on any day of the year? Of course you can! But it's always nice to have a little reminder in the calendar that you are long overdue a nice present for your mom, or a candlelit dinner for two to tell your lover how much you love them.
The holidays you prefer will depend on what they mean to you, what childhood memories you associate with those dates, what you enjoy doing on those specific days. You don't have to love them all, just acknowledge that a specific day of the year is only as special as you want it to be. Nothing more, nothing less.
So please, chill out! Don't want to give your money to that greedy corporate hallmark? Then fucking don't! Make your own card! Or don't give a card at all, just spare me your snide remarks, you who shits all over February 14th but starts putting up the Christmas tree in October.
Disclaimer: I actually hardly give two shits about V Day, I'm just making a point :)
So remember how I took the hundred dollar challenge? Well, the creator of that video has had some responses to me in the form of PMs. I think it's safe to say that money will never be paid out. I never expected it to of course, but I felt it was worth while to post these emails nonetheless. At first, he writes me this:
Hi CrystalEye736
This is Luca and you may talk to me in both English or Italian.
Nevertheless, the youtube channel "ModernItaly" is in English (ItaliaModerna is in Italian). I am also on skype "Luca di ItaliaModerna" for better clarification of the question "ad hoc".
I only care of two points
1) The freedom of conscience (freddom to have a personal opinion in philosophy, cosmology, science, art), the basic of democracy
2) The law is the same for all people, no gods, no indulgencies, no godfathers above the law... (personal choice, personal responsability) another principle of democracy. "You" did it, for whatever reason you like, and God doesn't justify any crime.
I am not surprised the Italian schoolbooks make some intentional confusion on this topic, and this is the reason why I am duing the videos.
Freedom of conscience links with personal responsabilities,
no freedom no responsabilities... This is a good reason to consider the freedom of conscience as a sin (freedom of choice), an heresy, especially if "you" plan to be a faithful criminal.
Meanwhile the godfather is ruling Italy with laws "ad personam". This is just tradition in the daily news, the italian indulgency system is as strong as it was 1000 years ago.
Including journalists, politician, judges, academics, all the intellectual society with no exception...The point is the "No Exception" I documented for a few international institutions few years ago... Actions were taken but I am not to discuss this by mail, you must get the point first.
How did the catholic heresies turned up to be catholic legacy?
Starting from the freedom of conscience... What is the probability no italian ever asked, in 80 years of history?
What is this? a miracle or an holocaust?
Luca
Well, instead of clarification he repeated the exact same thing he has in his description. I had told him that if he felt more comfortable in Italian then to go ahead and explain is issues with the vatican in Italian (I know all to well what it's like to try to express yourself in a language that you don't have full mastery of) but he decided to plod on in English. OK fine, none of these things address the final points I had made, so I pressed him again:
What I am trying to understand is whether or not you accept the fact that the Vatican is hypocritical. It always has been and this is nothing new. It was a Pope that ordered the crusades, and it was a Pope that told the world that they shouldn't have happened. It was a Pope that supported the persecution of certain people in WWII and it was a Pope that apologized to those people for his predecessor's actions. The vatican changes their mind ALL THE TIME, I fail to see what is surprising about this. You cannot say it is "impossible" to do so, the very fact that it has happened so many times is, by definition, what demonstrates that it is very possible indeed. You can say that it is impossible without being hypocritical, and I would agree with you on that, but that seems to be besides the point since we have already established that the Catholic Church is hypocritical all the time. Also I feel you have not provided your reasons for believing that these reneissance principles have become "catholic legacy", which is why I have provisionally responded to your questions on the supposition that they have, though I don't know whether that is even a false statement or not. Once again this could be an issue of semantics: just because an institution (like the Vatican) no longer persecutes people for believing something does NOT mean that that belief has become a "legacy" of that institution.
He had this to respond:
Dear CrystalEye736
I understand we are saying almost the same things.
Beware because often, is not the one talking the problem, but the one understanding, with his believes and preconceptions.
I will answer to you, there is a video reply in the queue for you but I am very busy and I will do my best to do it this week (ncluding weekend).
I do repeat, I understand your point is critical concerning the Vatican, but that is not enought, there is much more to say you probably never imagined. Exactly the same points that make difficoult for you to understand my words. And please don't confuse Eloquence with Meanings, clear and crystal I express in my videos, if you cannot put it together, the reason is different.
Luca
Yes I realize that he included a little jibe in there calling me stupid, but I let it pass. My very first video response! I was curious to see what he had to say and I was more curious to understand where his information was coming from. After a few days though, he had this to say:
Hi
I am sorry to disappoint you but I didn't realize before that you anonymous on all your web pages. I was to record the video for you during the weekend but I am very busy and for anonymous I have no time at all.
If you like an answer for your questions you have to provide a valid web identity with name and picture.
I do confirm to you, YES, my web identity is clear and transparent (IANA) and my statements concerning the 100 Euro (or dollars) are LEGALLY VALID.(same of a bet).
I am serious on this, but you are anonymous.
Concerning the video I am also disappointed because I really enjoy your questions. You really made clear questions focusing the Italian prejudice and preconception I like to talk about, the italian brainwash, and It was my intention to answer to you "ad hoc" because of the stereotype you clearly stated with your arguing.
If you like to be anonymous, you have to find someone with dignity and guts to ask the questions for you... Ask the professors of the Padova University to came forward for you...
Meanwhile you may have your answers bit by bit in my old videos. Start with this, if you pay attention you will find all your questions explained
Luca
I felt slimed. It reeks of condescention, so I responded accordingly:
I don't understand what my full name or a picture of my face has to do with answering me, or thinking that my questions are valid. I could invent a name and put a random picture in my profile and you would have no idea if that was really me or not. Welcome to the internet.
If you don't have time or want to answer me that's fine, but please don't invent such a pathetic excuse. Questions have merit based on their content, not who asks them. If my same exact words came out of a Professor's mouth they would be no more or no less worth answering.
Thank you for showing your true, patronizing colors.
Today, he fired back with this:
well your answers are not really valid as you believe, and if anybody is patronizing anything, that is not me, you can post it on your blog.
You are correct the questions have nothing to do vith personal identity, but anonymous are last.
The reason is that all my videos are dedicated to the anonymous surfer of the YouTube and I am not to do video reply for anonymous... You could have 10 anonymous blogs and ask me 10 video reply... be serious... !!!
When I will have finished the video I am doing, I will be back to explain ONE of your supposed "valid answers".
Meanwhile I have sent you an old video with the answers to your questions. Luca
Ha!! William Lane Craig would be proud. Notice that I never asked him for a video response, all I wanted was for him to cite his sources and explain himself just a tad more clearly. Notice that he was the one telling me that he "enjoyed" my "questions", but then spun it to seem that I was giving my statements unjust validity. Notice he told me to go find a Professor whose skirts I could hide behind and only then would he deign to answer me, and then turns around and tells me it's simply because he doesn't have the time of day to answer everyone that is clamouring for his attention. I wonder how he would validate people's youtube channels to make sure that those 10 people asking for his response were not just pseudonyms of the same person? Avoiding that kind of internet stalking was the precise reason I decided not to post my full name in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that he's the one who sent me the challenge in the first place, asking me to respond.
I will be looking at the videos he sent me over the weekend and if I find that they're not repeating the same exact phrases as his innane overdrammatic questions (I should have known better, when anyone refers to anything as a holocaust other than the actual holocaust be on your guard for conspiracy theory) I might have something more to add. It is then that I'll decide whether or not to add another dead horse to the pile.
The Renaissance Culture was made of Catholic Heresies, persecuted by the Catholic Inquisition, starting from the Freedom of Conscience to have a personal opinion, in Philosophy, Cosmology, Science, Arts. I want to know, how did the Catholic Heresies turned up to be Catholic Legacy? How did the Catholic Heresies turned up to be intellectual legacy of the most Catholic civilization in the world? Starting from the Democratic Values. Starting from the Freedom of Conscience to have a personal opinion, in philosophy, Cosmology, Science, Arts ...
I'm sorry, but I am going to need a little clarification as to how this is a different question from question 1, just worded slightly differently. The only difference is that there is more emphasis on the freedom to have a personal opinion.
Once again, I feel the most important distinction here is that there there is an unfair equation between Italian culture and official Catholic doctrine. The fact that Italian culture is progressively inching away from the church every year is a wonderful thing, the two cultures need not be related. Italy existed before the existence of the Church and hopefully it will exists after Catholicism has fallen, there is no reason to tie together two things that are consistently moving apart.
When it comes to the Vatican, free will has always been a core value of the Christian faith. You have the personal choice to accept Jesus as your savior and to worship God or not. It is simply the consequences of that choice and personal opinion that have changed throughout time. Once upon a time it meant exile. After that you got torture and possibly execution. Now, all you get is excommunication and Hell after you die, but in life you are always "free" to do whatever you want. These rules change with the times and they always have, depending on how bloodthirsty or nutty the guy in charge happens to be. I still fail to understand how any of this is inexplicable, let alone a surprise. I might have failed to understand the question, in which case I sincerely hope that they will be better explained to me so that I may be able to give a more adequate response.
And now, for question 3:
The Renaissance Culture was a Revolt, a Rebellion against the Catholic tradition, against the practice of Corruption and Simony, against the practice of the Indulgences, and especially against the Saints Above the Law, in the name of the "Cultural Primacy". (Like The Indignados do Today) So I conclude, just answer this question, and I'm paying you $ 100. Tell me how did the Catholic Heresies turned up to be Catholic Legacy? Starting from the Democratic values. Starting from the Freedom of Conscience to have a personal opinion, in Philosophy, Cosmology, Sciences, Arts...
Now this question is undoubtedly the exact same as question 2. The only additional thing that I could say is that I do not fully agree that the Renaissance was a full-out "revolt". The fact that it was a time of such enlightenment after so many years of darkness may make it seem like that in retrospect, but I do not think that the majority of the people that contributed to the Renaissance set out to defy the Church. A select few of them, particularly the philosophers surely had more contempt for the institution, but most of them were not factoring the Church into their artistic process. That in itself was revolutionary at the time, to not consider what they were creating or discovering in terms of what it meant to Catholic doctrine, but that is a far cry from joining arms and actively rebelling against the Holy See. Most of them were too busy discovering science, inventing flying machines and creating art to be bothered telling the Church to go fuck itself.
Once again I concede that I may have misunderstood these questions, especially since to me they seem to be very very similar. This is my first attempt, and while I admit it is fairly basic but it answers the questions insofar as I have understood them. If there is more to this debate than what meets the eye I will be happy to revisit it. However, for now, this is where I stand:
1. Italian culture is not interchangeable with the Catholic faith
2. It is perfectly logical to consider the Renaissance culture as a fascinating and inspiring part of Italian history since these people were in fact Italian
3. Catholicism, along with other major religious institutions, absorbs foreign things into their doctrine and morph their morality all the time. It is what makes them successful and prevents them from dying out. The fact that the Vatican does this with the men that they once persecuted is nothing new nor is it at all surprising.
If there were aspects of these questions that I did not address, feel free to point them out as I have obviously not understood them.
So a while ago I got sent this video from youtube user modernitaly inviting me to take his 100 dollar challenge
His terms are very simple: answer the three questions in the description using whatever sources or help you need. If you are able to answer the questions he will give you 100 dollars. The only catch is that you cannot use the answers that he lays out in his other videos, which I think is fair. Now I don't know how serious this guy is, or if he'll creationsist-style plug his ears and refuse to concede that any opinion other than his own has merit, and I highly doubt I'll ever get paid, but why not give it a shot anyway. Also it should be noted that I have not watched his videos because I wanted to approach these questions from a fresh, nonbiased (apart from my own personal bias) perspective. If I do wind up repeating some of the things that he has said in his videos then I apologize and be assured it was done accidentally.
So, without further ado, let's take a look at question number 1:
At the time of the Renaissance in Italy was the Catholic Inquisition and the Counter Reformation. All the representatives of the Renaissance Culture, in Italy, have been persecuted and censored, including those survivors of Michelangelo and Galileo. Maybe the Renaissance Culture was Contemporary to the Catholic Inquisition, and to the Catholic Counter-Reformation, but have nothing in common. What I want to know is how the Renaissance Culture turned up to be glory and pride of the most Catholic Civilization of the Planet? How did the Renaissance culture turned up to be intellectual legacy of the persecutors of the Renaissance Culture?
Hmm.. well, first of all I really have to be annoying and point out the error of referring to Italy as being "the most Catholic Civilization of the Planet". It is a common misconception, seeing as the Pope lives in Italy (well, he lives in a tiny independent state that is surrounded by Italy), but in fact Italy is far from being the most Catholic country there is. Brazil has the world's largest Catholic population, followed by Mexico. While Italy has a very high percentage of people that define themselves as Catholic, only one third of them (36.8%) say they are active members. Compared to other Catholic countries, Italy is not on the top of the list when it comes to Catholicism.
That covered the question is really divided into two questions: how did the Renaissance culture turn out to be the glory and pride of the (quite catholic, though not most catholic) Italy, and how did it become the intellectual legacy of the persecutors of the Renaissance culture (by which I think he means the Vatican itself)?
Tiny overview: The Renaissance (in Italian "Rinascimento" meaning "reborn") was a cultural movement that most agree was born in Florence and later spread throughout Europe. It is when Europe slowly and painstakingly pulled itself out of the Dark Ages, and is characterized by a surge in everything from literature, art and music to philosophy and science. Of course the Catholic Church did not like that. People thinking for themselves? Trying to figure stuff out objectively instead of blindly following and believing everything that the Vatican officials claim is truth? Fuck that. Although the Catholic Inquisition was born some time before, it suddenly found it had a whole lot to do.
Now the Vatican has never been anything but cunning. When you see the times changing you have to change along with them without ever losing control. That is what brings me to the second factual error that I feel obligated to point out. It is not correct to state that every single person representative of the Renaissance was persecuted by the Vatican. Michelangelo, one of the men that most represents the Renaissance period, was commissioned repeatedly by various Popes for everything from Basilicas to the freaking Sistine Chapel. If you ask people "name a Renaissance man" they say Leonardo da Vinci, and he was entirely left alone by the Vatican.
The Vatican left you alone so long as you didn't rock the boat all too much. So long as you didn't come up with any discovery or philosophical argument that was contrary to the teachings of the Church you were pretty much alright. This is why it was the scientists and the philosophers that really got the brunt of the Church's wrath during the Renaissance period. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his scientific and philosophical pursuits, while Galileo had to renounce his findings and spend the rest of his life under house arrest to avoid the same fate. So back to the question, why is the Renaissance the cultural pride of Italy?
Well, because these people were Italian. Some were dissenters, others were not, but there none of that makes them or their contributions to humanity any less Italian. It is not fair to equate Italian culture with the Institution of the Vatican. What about us atheists, or Catholics by name but not in practice? How can you say that Italian history has to agree with Catholic doctrine to be a source of pride for all Italians?
The second part of the question is how it became the intellectual legacy of the Vatican. Well, is it? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is, is that really all that surprising? Religious institutions are wonderful at stealing things created or invented by others and incorporating them into their doctrine. The 25th of December, the Christmas tree, most of the story of Jesus' life, all stolen from other religions and incorporated into Christianity to make the religion more palatable to people wanting to convert. In the 19th century the Bible was used by many Americans to morally justify the use of slavery, but nowadays they would be crazy to suggest that slavery is moral because the Bible says so. It is the same with the Vatican and they've been doing it for centuries. At first they fight change, but when they see that the battle is lost and there is no longer any possible way to logically deny them they change their mind and declare that now everyone can believe in it and it doesn't actually go against the Vatican doctrine at all. They did it with Galileo's findings, evolution, anything that became demonstrable fact. Of course such an important part of Italian history would follow suit. Since when is hypocrisy something that the Catholic Church avoids? That shit is their bread and butter!
Today, the 21st of November is a sacred day in Venice, where thousands will be marching in the streets holding candles to celebrate the Festa Della Salute, or the Holiday of Health.
From 1630 to 1631 Venice was hit with a terrible plague that was decimating the town. Such a thing was certainly not uncommon in those times, particularly in an area relatively isolated from the mainland and thus with lower genetic variation. Once a plague hit, it hit good. So the people of Venice prayed to the Virgin Mary to help the city survive this terrible plague. While initially their prayers seemed to fall on deaf ears, the people subsequently voted to erect a huge temple dedicated to Mary. Only after this show of opulence did the Virgin Mary give in (you know the ladies, they can't say no to expensive shiny things) and the plague miraculously stopped. To this day, a candlelit procession occurs every year to commemorate this glorious sparing of the Venetian people.
Now I'm all for a day off school and work, regardless of what the reason that holiday may have sprung up. However, something that I found strange when visiting Venice yesterday was the lack of information regarding the subject. And by that I mean factual information.
Nowhere, on any of the signs, do they explain what actually happened with the plague during that time. What was the bubonic plague? How did it get there? What really caused it and what really stopped it? When you read about these sorts of things happening in Roman times this is the kind of information you expect to be included, even if the information can only be based on an educated guess given the lack of evidence. But that is because the Romans believed in other gods, so no one will be so silly as to suggest that their supposition that "Jupiter did it" would be true.
In this case, however, the information available all seem to indicate that it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that it was a miracle bestowed upon the Venetian people by the Virgin Mary. While I am in no way opposed to having a holiday, I felt it to be extremely lacking. While some people will undoubtedly choose to believe in the miraculous nature of the plague's lifting, I don't see that as a reason to ignore the fact that the plague was not caused by human sin, nor all of the cool and interesting sciency stuff that was discovered since then about it's transmission and nature. A missed educational opportunity, particularly for the children who participate.
What do you think? Am I reading too much in to this, or am I being too soft on them? Indoctrination of the children into believing in miracles at face value, or just a procession that really isn't important at all?
