A Charming Show Tune and Some Unmarked Graves

“That forest-dell where Lowood lay was the cradle of fog and fog-bred pestilence; which, quickening with the quickening spring, crept into the Orphan Asylum, breathed typhus through its crowded schoolroom and dormitory, and ere May arrived transformed the seminary into an hospital . . . . Many, already smitten, went home only to die; some died at the school and were buried quietly and quickly, the nature of the malady forbidding delay.” 

Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre (1847).

I see that burning Catholic churches has become the newest form of peaceful protest in our neighbor to the north.  The incendiaries are reportedly incensed by the discovery of unmarked graves adjacent to boarding schools run by the Catholic Church, because the unmarked graves are presumably filled with the earthly remains of young indigenes who had, until they required burial, attended those schools.  These are not, I should add, fresh graves.  Nor, it seems, were they always unmarked.  It has not even been alleged, so far as I know, that the unfortunate young indigenes were murdered in the course of violent sexual attacks, or executed because they failed to recite the rosary.

Like many of the unfortunate orphans enrolled in Charlotte Bronte’s Lowood School, the interred indigenes died of typhus, or some similarly fog-bred pestilence, and were no doubt buried with all the ceremony the school’s budget and need for sanitation would permit.  Readers of Bronte will recall the description of the grave of Helen Burns, best friend to  Jane Eyre at the Lowood School, who perished in the typhus outbreak.

“Her grave is in Brocklebridge churchyard.  For fifteen years after her death it was only covered by a grassy mound; but now a gray marble tablet marks the spot, inscribed with her name and the word ‘Resurgam.”

The belated marble tablet was presumably the gift of Jane Eyre after she had been “lifted to prosperity” by her marriage to Mr. Rochester, and “Resurgam,” which means “I shall rise again,” was a testament to Helen Burns’ belief in personal resurrection.

Like the now vilified Catholic boarding schools of Canada, Lowood School was established by Christians to benefit unfortunate children.  Jane Eyre of course complained about the meager diet, stern discipline, and absence of central heating, but she does not appear to have reflected that unfortunate children not enrolled in the Lowood School were scavenging scraps from dustbins, being disciplined by pimps, and sleeping under bridges.

When the vilified Catholic boarding schools of Canada were struck by the pestilence that necessitated the digging of those graves, they were engaged in an attempt to assimilate young indigenes into Canadian culture, which assimilation, if successful, would have saved those young indigenes from the ignorance, poverty, filth and alcoholism that was the inheritance of the grossly degraded indigenous culture of their parents.

The recent Canadian incendiaries have been incensed to incendiarism, not because the young indigenes died, and not because their graves were not marked with durable monuments, but because these trivial things happened while the Catholic boarding schools were “stripping” the young indigenes of the indigenous culture of their parents.  This means that the Catholic boarding schools removed the young indigenes from the influence of older indigenes who, as indicted by poverty, filth and alcoholism, did not know how to succeed in modern Canada, and who were therefore incapable of teaching their offspring how to succeed.

Sad, perhaps, but true.

Canada had no use for more filthy, drunken Indians, and the attempt by the Catholic boarding schools to prevent young indigenes from filling this supply for which there was no demand was an act of benevolence.  Far from destroying indigenous peoples, the Catholic boarding schools were giving these young indigenes a chance to say, with the motto on the monument to Helen Burns,


* * * * *

While incendiaries were laying the match to Catholic churches to protest the outrage of long-ago Christians “stripping” young indigenes of a culture that was obsolete, degraded, and guaranteed to produce misery, a gay choir was laying to tape a musical declaration of their intention to strip Christian children of a culture that reinforces their childish instinct to question the intentions of gay choristers (links).  In the lyrics of their charming show tune:

“We’ll convert your children—happens bit by bit, quietly and subtly and you will barely notice it . . . We’ll convert your children: we’ll make them tolerant and fair.”

I will pass over the obvious fact that these gay choristers are neither tolerant nor fair—that they are, rather, bigoted and tendentious—and will simply note that the cultural Left, from which the Canadian incendiaries were no doubt drawn, has no absolute respect for a child’s native culture, and no absolute objection to the abduction and conversion of children.

It simply insists that abduction of children be an exclusive privilege of the Left, and that conversion always be to the disciplines and doctrines of Leftism.  The schools in which the Left is already inculcating its disciplines and doctrines are not as prone to physical disease as Jane Eyre’s Lowood, or the old Catholic boarding schools of Canada, but their relative salubrity has nothing to do with Leftism.

Indeed students of history know that, when it comes to placing earthly remains under grassy mounds, nothing compares to Leftism, and that so long as Leftists have anything to say about it, those grassy mounds will never be marked with a gray marble tablet inscribed with the word “Resurgam.”

11 thoughts on “A Charming Show Tune and Some Unmarked Graves

    • That is extraordinary. With school out of session, there probably are not a thousand people on the planet reading Jane Eyre right now. It’s also an extraordinary coincidence that I was just again this morning attempting to explain to my son that an eventuality can be entirely possible and yet infinitesimally probable.

      • Yes. One would never dare believe it possible, but it happened! I picked up, very cheap, a dozen of the old Heritage Press volumes in slipcover for $50, in great shape, beautifully bound, etc., But then among them was a slightly disbound trade hardcover of Jane Eyre that I took in like a stray, because of its fabulous etchings. I’d love to scan a few and send to you.

      • Please do if it’s not too much trouble. My email is, (the name I post under here) @tamu.edu.

  1. I was remarking to our priest just the other day that Christians really need to learn how to holler “cultural imperialism!”

    • Christians invented Sunday School and Vacation Bible School, and then forgot why they did it in the first place. It’s very hard for us now, though, since so many of our words have been poisoned or redefined.

  2. Have any public figures (even bishops!) strongly condemned the burning of churches? I mean without expressing sympathy for the perpetrators and disdain for the victims. A straightforward “we don’t tolerate hate crimes like this in Canada”. Can you imagine the outcry if this was being done to anyone else?

  3. What I have seen are calls by people with impressive sounding titles for more churches to be burned. I should say that I am not sure the media would report an eloquent and spirited retort from a bishop. I should also say that an ability to deliver eloquent and spirited retorts may disqualify a man for the miter nowadays. The most obvious parallel is the burning of Black country churches in the South, an event that is usually made an occasion for national soul searching. But this parallel is actually spurious, since most (or many, or all) of these Black country churches were disused and abandoned buildings, and most (or many, or all) of these fires were caused by apolitical, although very likely drunken, pyromaniacs.

    • Or by “Baptist lightning.” Not from greed — no deep scheming there — but rather from the impulsive urge to settle scores. Congregational government might seem appealing to you Latins, with visions of subsidiarity dancing in your heads, but in reality, congregational government is almost always an oligarchy of some wealthy families who see their steepled little community as their personal fiefdom. Many a pastor’s family has been sacked because the bougie first families took some offense from pastor’s preaching a few Sundays back. These events lead to many hard feelings and ill will that outlast a generation. The continent many may just up and leave . . . but the less virtuous might seek the Lord’s justice with a match and canister of gasoline.

      Our heathen, deracinated media class knows nothing of these dynamics. For them, every ill that happens to the Negro is the result of white animus. “Whiteness” fills the air like fog-bred pestilence, bringing incessant harm to Black Bodies. Black Bodies, themselves, are entirely passive masses, suffering what they must.

      • Congregational government is alien to the Roman Rite, and to all rites appurtenant to Rome. Indeed, it is alien to hierarchy per se (of such is the root of the crisis of Episcopalianism). Subsidiarity is not bottom up, but top down. It is the sovereign who decides what decisions he should in prudence, and properly, delegate to his subsidiaries; for, prima facie, *all* decisions are properly his to make. There could otherwise be no such thing as sovereignty, or therefore hierarchy and subsidiarity, or therefore social order.

        Rotten sovereigns will decide wrongly; and should – and shall – pay the price thereof.

        This leads to a general observation: sovereignty is a loser’s game, like golf. You win by avoiding errors. The fewer decisions you yourself must as sovereign make, the fewer your opportunities for error, and so for loss or disaster. So the more decisions you can delegate to subsidiary authorities, who are all in the nature of things far more acquainted than you with the conditions now pressing on the ground of battle here or there, of which you must in any given moment be quite ignorant, and so who are far more likely to decide rightly than you might ever do (provided they are your true loyal lieutenants), the better – for you, for them, and for the subsidiaries working under their authority. And, indeed, even for their enemy, withal.

        The sapient sovereign, then, is he who is least interested in controlling his subjects, and most interested to confer upon them as his angels and vassals the authority he himself by nature absolutely and finally owns. So that, if his subsidiaries err, the blame redounds to him; but so that, his subsidiaries being closer to the factors of any given decision, his risk of their agency is less than his risk in its absence.

        So totalitarianism is doomed. No matter what. It’s game theory, pure and simple; a mathematical result.


        NB: None of this is new. It is all in the Tao te Ching.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.