Why I’m Not Writing About Today’s Indictments

Plenty of people will be busy putting their spin on the Manafort indictment.  Unlike those involved in the investigation who are under an obligation of secrecy but leak anyway, I have no obligation to keep quiet.  Yet, I see no point in rehashing the facts because people will read, misread, omit, distort, or whatever as they choose in order to use the current developments to support their own narrative. 

So, this will be very short, with just a few comments/questions:

 1.   I thought that the “investigation” was a hunt to find collusion between Trump and the Russians that affected the 2016 election.  If so, why is the indictment for alleged crimes committed at the latest in 2015 and before?

 2.  Why did Mueller suddenly ramp up and indict when the news was coming out of his possible involvement in the Clinton uranium deal (possible scandal) and his connection with Comey and the FBI and its use of the DNC ordered & paid for dossier on Trump (possible connection with Russia to affect election!)?

 3.  If Mueller’s investigation has this broad latitude to go hunting far beyond and outside of the 2016 election, why is he not investigating the many questionable actions that occurred during the Obama administration or at the hand of Obama’s some or one-time affiliates?

 4.  How can the left possibly read today’s news to justify headlines such at: “Information proves Trump campaign tried to collude with Russia”?

 5.  Why do the democrats continue to insist upon creating a narrative in which Trump is not a legitimate president?

 6.  How long and with what power will this “investigation” continue?

The far broader question can be simply stated:  Why do people jump to conclusions without examining or understanding the facts, or asking necessary questions?  Or, put another way:  Why do people insist that their preferred narrative is fact, whether or not facts can or do indeed support it?  Why cannot people be honest with themselves and others and admit that things are not always the way they wish them to be, but that simply wishing them to be so does not make them so, nor does it justify recreating factual reality in order to support their own narrative?

Perhaps rather than gloating at how today’s (or any day’s) news supports one’s preferred narrative we would all be better suited by stepping back and taking a breath and understanding what the facts really say and what reality really is.

Who’s Really in the Zoo?

The Atlantic has published an article titled On Safari in Trump’s America.  While primarily focused on the “safari” undertaken by a DNC affiliated group called “Third Way,” the article includes mention of the many other “anthropological journeys” taken by left leaning groups attempting to understand “the mysterious ways” of Trump supporters. 

Now, the image this all conjures up for me, a Trump supporter who yes, actually reads and even reads articles in publications like the currently left-leaning Atlantic, is an image of a group of gawkers on a trip to the zoo to see unusual beasts who are strangers to their everyday lives and that are generally viewed as not as intelligent as or enlightened as are they.  What does this say about those coming to look?  Are they really that isolated?  Sadly, it seems that they are.

According to the article, those on safari had assumed that their assumptions about the best path for the country were uncontested.  But, just three days into their “safari in flyover country” they were hearing “some things that disturbed them greatly – sentiments that threatened their beliefs to the very core.”

Guess what people?  One of the beauties of this country is that we do not all have to think and believe the same thing.  If you were to get out of the elitist east-west coast bubble, remember your roots, and study the history of this country you would realize that we are made up of good people who formed this country and its government that protects us from your form of group think.  We formed a country that prides itself in individual responsibility and avoids a large central government that controls every aspect of one’s life.

These safaris, these trips to the zoo, reflect the isolation of the country’s elites and leaders of the DNC.  Since last year’s election, “[g]roup after group of befuddled elites has crisscrossed America to poke and prod and try to figure out what they missed.”  Well, I can tell them what they missed:  they seem to have the inability to accept that everyone does not agree 100% with them; they cannot believe that others might have differing views and values and approaches that are reasonable and sometimes perhaps even better or more effective than their own.  They missed the fact that they are so impressed with themselves that they assume that anyone who holds differing views is somehow inferior – perhaps even “deplorable.”

In many ways it is these elites who are living in a zoo – in cages that restrict them from seeing, hearing, or understanding anything except their own world view.  Interesting that a featured member of the “safari” had to remind herself that she “was there to listen, not to judge.”  For isn’t that what these people tend to do:  judge anyone who holds differing views, who doesn’t see the wisdom and brilliance of their views, as somehow inferior, misled, uneducated, racist, etc.?

In a zoo the animals are kept happy – they are provided with the food and environment that they like.  The elites encaged in their bubbles do the same.  They find news and stories that support them and their beliefs, ignoring anything that contradicts them.  I recently pointed out to someone that a story they were sharing was proven false.  Their response was “even if it isn’t true it should be” as they continued to spread that false news.  

The elites feed themselves only what pleases them.  Today we are hearing hours and hours on the main stream news sources about Flake’s words, as he withdrew from a race he was losing, suggesting that this was somehow the fault of the terrible Trump.   His words about Trump support the belief system of the left, so they will relish in them while ignoring other important breaking news stories.  Stories like the fact that Hillary and the DNC paid for the false dossier on Trump that suggested Russian connections, or the Russia-uranium details that implicate Clinton and the Clinton foundation as well as then president Obama, or the email evidence that the Obama/Holder DOJ prevented settlement payouts going to conservative groups.  None of those stories support their belief system; they are unwanted food and so they keep it from their cages.  

And, even the report of the most recent safari, according to the article, is written so as to give the elites only the food they like.  The author states, “The report surprised me when I read it.  Despite the great variety of views the researchers and I had heard on our tour, the report has somehow reached the conclusion that [the group interviewed] wanted [the same goals as the researchers].”

In a zoo, the animals are kept separated; only the same species are in the same cage.  The zebra knows nothing of the camel and both are perfectly content in their ignorance.  Only if one were to threaten the living space of the other might they become interested, and only with the goal of self-preservation.   The elites and their establishment and ultimately their power are threatened by the strange beasts called Trump supporters and so suddenly they are interested in this group that until November of 2016 were not really worth their attention.  Obviously, Trump does not walk or talk like the “refined” elites.  He talks instead like so many of those “fly-over” Americans that the elites are on safari to view.   He says what he thinks, he doesn’t pussyfoot around with empty phrases or sugar coatings.  He admits he is not perfect.  And he’s proud to be an American.  Clearly, he does not belong in the cage with the elites; indeed, he does not even belong in the same zoo, or so they believe. And, so, for their own preservation they have suddenly become interested in the trump-supporters.

These elites think they know how to remake America.  In Obama they had a president who did much to begin that remodeling, much of it by executive order.  That, alone, is a switch from the interactions of the three co-equal branches of government which is how we normally do things in our democracy.  Now that Trump is using his pen to undo much of those single-minded orders, to return lawmaking to its appropriate branch and in so doing to re-establish our democracy,  the elites complain.  Yet those complaints show nothing but their ignorance of how our government works:  it is not theirs to shape as they will using the power of one man, for that would be a dictatorship.  Rather, the government and this country belong to all of its people.

So, the elites go on safari to “Trump country” (basically all of America except the coasts and large cities).   “Safari” is defined as “an expedition to observe or hunt animals in their natural habitat.”  These expeditions of the left are, then, properly titled safaris, first because the goal is to observe strange beings but not really understand or interact with them.  The term is also well used because the goal is really to hunt these beings; that is, the left is hunting for their votes.  They don’t really want to hear them or understand who they are or what their views, values, and goals are for themselves or for the country.  What they really want to do is to figure out how to get their vote which they need in order to retain their own power. That they see these trips as “safaris” just shows how ignorant these travelers really are, for not only is this concept incredibly insulting to those being observed, it also reflects the demeaning view that these elites have of anyone who is in the least bit different from themselves.  And yet, what they don’t realize, is that they are the ones caged within their own zoo.

Not Me Too

I have been wondering what has been bothering me about the #MeToo campaign.  Certainly it is not the fact that it is bringing to light the number of people who have been or believe they have been the subject of some form of harassment.  Certainly it does not bother me that this may bring about some form of dialog about how we do and how we should respect one another as individuals.  So, what is it then that troubles me?

The problem with the #MeToo trend is first, that it is just that:  a popular trend (more about that below).  The second and more troubling aspect is that this trend seems to create and then celebrate victimhood.  Yes, the (mostly) women who are posting or tweeting or just shouting “me too” suffered some form of harassment or assault and so are indeed a victim.   But, if we think that just saying “me too” is enough, then aren’t we actually saying that it’s just fine to be a victim?  And, the fact that this seems to be a socially popular trend is making it not only OK, but indeed popular to be a victim. 

Harassment and assault are serious.  The focus should be on the crime and the violation as well as the demeaning disrespect that such acts reflect.   And, if we are going to identify individuals, shouldn’t the focus be on the who that perpetrated the act rather than on the me who became the victim?

I realize that there are a variety of reasons why an individual who suffers some form of harassment choses to or to not come forward.  These are very personal incidents and the decisions that each victim makes about their aftermath and how to handle it is also very personal.  I do not condemn those who choose to keep it hidden, nor do I condemn those who choose to make the incident public or to bring charges against the perpetrator.

But what I do find troubling is that so many have suddenly jumped onto the “me too” bandwagon, that regardless of when their “me too” incident occurred they have suddenly chosen to proclaim that they are victims.  But victims of what?  The “me too” is the proclamation of the rape victim, but also of someone who has been whistled at while walking down the street.  Are these really the same? Do we want them to be?  Because what we seem to be doing is simply creating a giant class of victims, of people who are proud to proclaim their victimhood and be done.  Are we really going to have any sort of meaningful dialog about this when the point seems to only be to say what huge number of people can post “me too”?   And those who post the phrase are now part of the fashionable group upon which others will focus attention and sympathy until the next exciting news story comes along (perhaps this is their 15 minutes of fame).

None of this solves the underlying problem that creates the ability of so many to post “me too.”  That, alone, is not good.  But what is dangerous is that it glorifies victimhood.   Moreover, it just seems to be another short act in the series of superficial acts and outrages that almost pass as entertainment today.  And this seems to cheapen and further demean the very real claims and hurt of those who can claim “me too.”   Social media or the news media or some other similar force starts a trend and all the trendy people jump on board. (I am not saying that everyone who in this instance posted “me too” was doing so just to be trendy; I realize that for some even that proclamation was deeply troubling as it recalled seriously hurtful incidents).  The trends don’t last long, boredom or over-indulgence sets in, and so the masses move on to the next subject of hysteria.

What we need instead, and certainly in regard to the underlying culture that allowed so many to have a “me too” event in their life, is a real consideration and discussion of the issue.  In this case, why do so many men seem to feel that it is OK to treat women in a demeaning and disrespectful manner?  Are some women overly sensitive to or resentful of what others might see as normal flirtations?  Do men also suffer similar forms of disrespect, in the workplace or elsewhere? Are behaviors sometimes misinterpreted?  Is the victim always blameless, and, if not, should that matter?  Do people sometimes use their victimhood as an excuse?  These are all uncomfortable questions, but ones that should be part of any discussion.  But, beyond these questions which focus on the currently newsworthy harassing behavior towards women are the even deeper questions that should be part of any conversation.  Questions such as: why do people not respect one another’s humanity?  What causes some people to believe they have a right to demean others, or to believe that they are in some way superior with an accompanying right to take advantage of those they see as inferior?  Why do some who are demeaned feel that they must keep it hidden; why do they fear coming forward with their complaint?

The underlying causes of the “me too” posts are complicated and cannot be solved in a day or a week or even a year.  But what we could do, rather than just making it trendy to claim victimhood and move on, is to open the discussion, teach those who are victims that they have both rights and power beyond victimhood and help them to overcome that victimhood.    I  wish for a day when no one would have cause to post “me too”; but, until that day comes I would like to see people encouraged not to claim victimhood but instead be empowered and encouraged to find both the inner and outer strength and courage to proclaim “I have overcome.”

When Diversity Was Real

I didn’t realize it at the time, but growing up I was exposed to all sorts of diversity.  The fact that I didn’t realize it is a plus, not a minus.  That is, I interacted with people of different colors, cultures, backgrounds, and beliefs.  I came to know them as friends, or as someone I didn’t particularly like, or as someone with whom I enjoyed a particular activity, or just as an acquaintance or someone with whom I interacted merely because we ended up in the same locale or venue on some sort of regular basis.   That is, each was simply a person with whom I related in one way or another, not because of their color or culture or beliefs, but because of their particular qualities as an individual. 

At the same time, I was less aware of the details of their racial or cultural backgrounds.  If they had particular cultural or religious celebrations, even if I was invited to participate, I didn’t (and still don’t) pretend to understand the details, meanings, depth or significance of the celebrations or traditions.  I sometimes found their traditional food unusual and either distasteful or strangely to my liking.  I simply respected these different traditions and celebrations, enjoyed them, perhaps felt a bit uncomfortable or found them odd, but accepted that these were a part of that individual’s life that made that person whom she or he was.

I and many other diverse people simply interacted with one another as human beings.  To this day I cannot tell you the details of some of those people’s cultural heritage or their religious or political beliefs.  The focus was not on the things that made us different, but simply on the many things we shared that gave us a community.  We did not share everything; our cultures, traditions, and backgrounds were different; and, sometimes. we chose to share those traditions only with others of the same background.  We did not have the need to all be the same; what we did have was simply a need and a desire to be a community in which we respected one another as individuals and all supported the particular community (and country) in which we lived.

Fast forward to the present day.  Now the focus is on the identity factors that make us different.  Are you Black, African American, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Republican, Independent, Democrat, Socialist, Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Straight, Gay, Male, Female, Transgender?  These and similar identity factors have become the definition of whom one is.  A Black man is expected to hold certain beliefs; a White is assumed to have come from certain privilege and thus hold certain beliefs; a woman is expected to have an attitude that conforms to the attitude of all other women, a Jew is expected to have political positions consistent with all other Jews, etc., etc.  And, each group identity includes a belief that some other group either is better off or is hostile to their interests, requiring each group to protect itself against the others.

Now, rather than two people meeting, developing a friendship and then learning that they are of different cultural backgrounds or belong to different religions and learning from one another as a result of those differences, the starting place of any relationship is the identity factor that seems to have come to define whom one is.  Hence, where in my childhood I happened to have two peers of a religion that differed from my own, one of whom became a close friend and one of whom I did not particularly like, today most people would likely begin both relationships with the preconceived label of that religion and what all its people are allegedly like.  That is, the pre-formed and labeled identity would likely preclude the development of the true and individual relationships.

We now find “diversity” in these group identities.  Thus, various entities insure that they have a sufficient proportion of people of color on their staffs; schools want some certain number students from varying identifiable groups so as to create a “diverse” atmosphere.   Yet, while I now may be able to walk into a classroom and count a certain number of black and brown and white faces and conclude there is diversity, this is simply a diversity of a superficial characteristic and does not ensure a diversity of individuals. This simply suggests that if one can claim the right number of friends in varying colors or backgrounds that they somehow are in a better place than one who can claim a number of friendships based not on identity characteristics but on true and deep interactions with unique individuals with unique and varying viewpoints, backgrounds, values, and talents.   

As to those differing celebrations and traditions, they too suffer in this era of forced diversity and identity politics.  For example, winter holiday celebrations now often include some sort of recognition of Hanukkah, so that most non-Jews now know that Hanukkah involves some sort of candle lighting and oil that burned for 8 days.  That’s fine, but one wonders how many think that is all they need to know, or that by knowing this that they have a full understanding of the significance of Hanukkah to the Jewish people and how it fits into their history and their religious beliefs.  We tend to merge many holidays together in winter, cheapening the religious significance of all of them.  This seems to be the result of some well-intentioned attempt to teach us respect for differing religious beliefs.  But why not simply respect that someone of another faith has different beliefs; we do not all have to celebrate everyone else’s traditions. (Perhaps a friendship with someone of another faith will result in an invitation to celebrate with that individual’s family; that - through individual friendships – seems a far better way to experience and learn about the different culture of another).

The forced diversity that we see today based upon group identity characteristics seems to be just another way to avoid actually thinking.  If one accepts the label they are given and identifies with a particular group as the definition of whom they are, then they need not worry about what they should think because they will be told what the positions of that group are just as they will be told which other identified groups are their friends or their foes.   Hence, they can avoid developing friendships or even talking with individuals with diverse and unique beliefs and positions. 

Forced diversity results in a false belief that we know and understand people and their cultures.  It is not real diversity, but just something that seems to make people feel good.   What today’s “diversity” actually gives us is labels for people based on identifiable characteristics, along with a definition of the supposed characteristics and beliefs of every member of that group.  What forced diversity and group identity does is prohibit us from getting to know individuals as the complex individual that each and every one of us is.  And, it prohibits us from having a true dialog with any of the many and diverse individuals with whom we come in contact every day.  Our communities cannot then be held together by the common humanity that unites us, but instead become divided based on the superficial and assumed characteristics of competing group identities.

[Addendum:  an example of the danger of group identity and its resultant lack of individual thinking can be seen in the recent experiment in which students at George Washington University rejected the Trump tax plan when told it was from Trump, but embraced it when told it was Bernie Sanders’ plan.  When given the details of the plan and told it was from Trump, the students called it “evil,” said it only benefited the rich and that it is “wrong.”   When given the same details and told it was from Sanders, students said it was “amazing,”  "caring," and “so compassionate.”   This seems to reveal a mindset that anything Trump is bad and anything Sanders is good, suggesting a group identity/group think that dictates what one should think rather than encouraging individual thought or actual dialog.  This may be one small example, but sadly rather than being isolated or unique, it is an example of what occurs throughout our society on a daily basis as we give up individual thought and interaction to the dictates of a particular group.]

Is This Really What You Meant To Say?

"Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein. Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status."

This statement came nearly a week after the Weinstein allegations first appeared and so we can assume that there was plenty of thought put into its crafting.  Yet, note the qualifier about the demeaning and degrading acts: “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion…” Does this mean that there is some “fashion” – some time, place, or manner – in which it is acceptable to demean and degrade women?  That is what this sentence implies.

In a world where the media loves to play gotcha with every word and phrase spoken or tweeted by the president or his supporters, I hope that someone will pay some attention to this phrasing.  Not because it came from the former president or from a Democrat, but simply because of what it says. 

This phrasing says so much about so many things in our society.  First, its delay suggests that it needed to be carefully crafted so as to hit just the right tone and not offend the wrong people while at the same time showing disgust at something the majority and the media have pronounced to be disgusting.  This makes one wonder how sincere is the disgust itself.  Is it something that comes from the heart, or simply from an understanding of what is good for one’s political career or what one is expected to say?

That the qualifier phrase was not caught by the writers (I assume there were several) or the issuers of the statement suggests that demeaning of women is so accepted or ingrained in our society that one does not even notice such things.  It takes something truly shocking for many to even notice that women were demeaned, and even then it is only the shocking behavior that is perfunctorily condemned.

Such disgusting behavior is seen across the spectrum of our society, from those with all political views.  The Weinstein incidents probably should not be so shocking since they come from someone who is a part of the Hollywood culture; that is the culture that gives us a plethora of visual images of such degradation in our movies and on our personal TVs and media devices.  And yet those images reflect our culture, for Hollywood primarily gives us what we want – what sells.  Perhaps we should give some thought to why this is so popular with the masses.

The Obama statement does go on to say, “And we all need to build a culture -- including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect -- so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future."  Yes, we do need to build a culture filled with decency and respect, not to make such behavior less prevalent, but to make the inner characters of every person in that culture not inclined toward such behavior.  That is, behavior is an external, superficial reflection of what is within one’s soul.  It is not until we change that inner character that we can change the behavior that is its reflection.  And that character is something that some “we” does not just place upon us like some cloak; it begins with each child and the values they are taught in their homes.

Now I also note something else about the phrasing of this sentence.  It tells us “we” need to empower our girls.  That sentence says not only that girls are not powerful, but that their power comes from without rather than from within; that is, it implies that it is someone else’s job (whoever that “we” is) to empower them.  This image is itself demeaning.  I’m sure it was not intended in that way, at least not at a conscious level, but there it is, nonetheless. (And, since the statement came from both Barack and Michelle, we can’t forget Michelle’s recent statements implying that women are told what to think by men and that they all must think and act alike, with no mind of their own or ability to form diverse political thoughts and positions). 

Demeaning and degrading can take many forms.  I am happy to see outrage (even if late coming and even if perhaps not sincere) at the recognizably demeaning behaviors of Weinstein.  But I would be happier still if we paid more attention to the subtle and daily barrage of activities and words that present and perpetuate views that demean women, that suggest that they are somehow lesser in some way than men, that suggest that they need someone other than themselves to help them in one way or another to survive. 

We as individuals and as a society need to find that decency and respect, for women and for everyone, within ourselves and within our souls.  We all need to be alert to the many subtle messages that we hear and see, and to those that we ourselves send, that further a culture devoid of any decency or respect not for just women but for all our fellow human beings (for, if we truly believe that women are equal, then they are among all those human beings that we must respect, not needing of extra help, but simply of the same decency that everyone should expect).

So, let us say what we mean and mean what we say.  And let us challenge those who say something that, whether intended or not, furthers a culture that is demeaning to women.  Let us not be afraid to ask, “Is that really what you meant to say?”

A Conundrum for Columbus Day

As Monday is Columbus Day, I assume we will hear some discussion about continuing to celebrate that day as well as about removing statues of Columbus which some people find offensive.  I’m sure there will be plenty said about the pros and cons of Columbus and his legacy, so let me instead pose some additional thoughts about the removal of historical statues and documents more generally.

Here is a conundrum, posed to me by someone with far more knowledge of history and its preservation than have I.   Many people advocate for statues and other relics of history that are offensive to be removed from general public view and placed in museums.  This seems like a way to stop the material from being a constant reminder or upsetting aspect that interferes with one’s daily peace of mind while at the same time preserving it as an historical relic so as not to sanitize history.  Sounds good, right?  But, what if the museum in which the relic is placed fails to preserve it or bows to pressure that even as a part of an historical exhibit the relic is too upsetting to be displayed?   What does that do to our history?  What do we lose when we cannot find our history anywhere?

This puzzle is demonstrated most recently by the removal of the Dr. Seuss drawing in a Dr. Seuss museum (see my post dated 10/6/17).   The drawing, a caricature of a Chinaman, was found to be offensive.  The drawing appeared in the 1937 book And to Think that I Saw it on Mulberry Street.  This is the first children’s book of Dr. Seuss and as such one would think that it would have historical significance, especially in a Dr. Seuss museum.  Yet, it is not welcome there.

The complaint about the drawing described it as “a jarring racial stereotype of a Chinese man, who is depicted with chopsticks, a pointed hat, and slanted slit eyes.  We [those complaining] find this caricature of the Chinaman deeply hurtful, and have concerns about children’s exposure to it.”  (You can see a picture of the offensive drawing at the end of this post)

This drawing is presented in the context of a children’s story in which a child uses imagination to describe a world of things seen on the way home from school on Mulberry Street.  The child sees a cart and horse and imagines the horse as a zebra, a reindeer, an elephant and then adds giraffes.  The cart becomes a chariot, a sled, and a band cart.  This all becomes a parade with confetti from an airplane and includes a number of dignitaries and other figures including a Chinese man, a magician pulling rabbits from a hat and a man with a 10 foot long beard.

The reception for the book when first published was enthusiastic.  A review in The Atlantic described it in part “as original in conception, as spontaneous in the rendering as it is true to the imagination of a small boy.”  It was compared to a Goethe poem because it was “about a father and a son and about the exigencies and power of the imagination.”   These do not seem like such bad things to me and, while the drawing is a caricature of sorts, it has not been called offensive for 80 years.  Taken in context, it is part of a child’s imaginary creation; in my thinking, such imagination is something to be encouraged, not condemned.

The drawing is to be replaced in the museum by drawings from later books which are apparently not considered offensive.  But what happens when those drawings are deemed to be offensive at some time in the future?  And, here again, is the problem with eviscerating history because what once was not offensive today offends someone. The museum’s statement included the following: “This is what Dr. Seuss would have wanted us to do.  His later books … showed a great respect for fairness and diversity.  Dr. Seuss would have loved to be a part of this dialogue for change.”  Now, I am really not sure how the museum is privy to what Dr. Seuss would have wanted in regard to this drawing, but I suggest that if he wanted dialog then the drawing should remain so that it could add to the understanding necessary for true respect of fairness and diversity as well as true dialog.

“Museum” is defined as: “a place in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited.”  We need the unpleasantries from our past whether they are a drawing from an author’s first book placed in a museum dedicated to that author, or whether they are statues of people once considered heroes but now seen in another light. These relics are necessary to our understanding of the present and to our betterment of our future.  Yet if even museums cannot understand this and carry out their role to preserve even the offensive aspects of history, then in the end we will have no history and no basis on which to better our future.

Sanitizing Reality

Today, as usual, there were many disturbing stories in the news.  Many will be discussed ad nauseum.  But let me mention three that I find disturbing for their attempt to sanitize reality or turn it into something it is not.

I learned that a mural of a Dr. Seuss character in a Massachusetts museum dedicated to Dr. Seuss will be replaced because it is being called racist (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/06/dr-seuss-museum-mural-to-be-replaced-amid-claims-racist-depiction.html).  This is Dr. Seuss we’re talking about - the children’s books revered by parents, children, and children’s librarians until recently when Melania Trump attempted to donate some Dr. Seuss books to a library whose librarian was severely anti-Trump.

I also learned that a new holocaust memorial in Canada had absolutely no mention of Jews as being the target of Hitler’s “final solution.”  When this was pointed out after the unveiling of the memorial, a plaque which had simply stated that millions of people were murdered during the Holocaust was replaced to reflect the experience of the Jews.

A third story this week also involves an attempt to sanitize, though it may be somewhat more understandable in light of the current debates about removal of civil war statues.  This story involves the request to remove the Pittsburgh statute of Stephen Foster, composer of such songs as "Oh! Susana,” "Old Folks at Home,” and "Old Black Joe.”  This statue, which stands outside the Univ. of Pittsburgh’s Stephen Foster Memorial, was erected in 1900.  It portrays the composer with a Black man sitting below him playing a banjo.  There was a city hearing on removal of the statute:  of 126 written comment, 60 favored removing or relocating the statue and 19 advocated altering or adding signage.  80 people attended the hearing and about a dozen spoke, with the majority of those favoring moving the statue to a non-public venue.  (The population of Pittsburgh is just under 304,000). 

The above three news items all involve some sort of attempt to sanitize something from the past that is or may be upsetting to some people or some group or some segment of society today.  What they don’t involve is any attempt to understand the time, place, culture, or reasons that led to those upsetting acts or images; the news stories don’t involve this because when one simply wants to sanitize or remove something, there is no attempt to understand that something, or the time, place, culture, reasons, or people who created it.

Let me digress for a moment about my childhood.  I attended schools in which I had classmates of a variety of ethnicities.  Some today would refer to themselves or be referred to by others as “people of color.”  At the time, I just saw them as classmates with a slightly different skin or different hair or different foods in their lunch boxes.  I also had some Black classmates.  I did recognize that they were a different color, but that was about it.   I don’t recall grouping them into one identity; rather there was the one who was a wonderful singer, there was the bully, there was the one who was good at math, and even the one who for a period of time I referred to as “sister.” Identity politics was not the way we looked at the world; if we had, I might have assumed that all Blacks were bullies or out to get me because one was. But in those days we saw beyond group think and saw people as people. And, when something offended someone, we talked about it. 

I grew up in a predominately White world.  I was first introduced to the N-word when I was assigned Huckleberry Finn.  The beauty of that word being in that book was that our teacher could lead us into a discussion of not only the history of the word, but the history of the people to whom it referred.  It became an avenue to discuss slavery and the treatment of Black people following slavery and into our current daily lives.  That would not have happened had the word been sanitized from the book (and I know there was a movement to do so after my schooling ended; I do not know if the word appears in Huck Finn today, but I hope that it does so that current and future generations can learn what I did upon reading the book).

The point is, that having to face unpleasantries and worse from the past is an opportunity to learn about that past and all the people involved in it.  That some might find the drawing of a Chinaman in a Dr. Seuss book published in 1937 offensive is an opportunity not to cleanse it from our sight and minds, but an opportunity to discuss why one would have drawn that picture in that way at that time and why it is offensive.  It is an opportunity to understand history, people, and culture. 

The horrors of the Holocaust are emotional and upsetting, but they are not just another mass shooting.  Cleansing them to make them seem so again denies us the opportunity to understand and to learn from the horrendous philosophy of Hitler and the Nazis and the evil that it can impart on one identified group of people.

The image of the Stephen Foster statue is one that people of all colors might take offense at.  But the remedy to such offense is not to pretend it did not happen.  The remedy is to discuss it:  why is it offensive?;  why was it not seen as offensive when the artist created it and it was erected?;  what are we as a society aware of that we were not aware of then?

History, even offensive history, can provide us understanding, it can open dialog, it can help us from repeating ugly and horrendous mistakes.  It is that dialog that I remember having, not only in school when faced with such things as the N-word in a book, but when I or someone I know sees an image or a piece of history differently than the other.  Not until identity politics became such a driving force in our society did people seem so determined to be offended to the point of hatred of entire groups and then to cleanse all offense from reality.  

An act or depiction that might be uncomfortable now, but that was created in a different time and place is not an act of hatred directed at one group by all members of another group.  It is an opportunity to talk and to see beyond group identity.   And in order to do that, people must be able to talk with one another and discuss their different experiences and histories.  And our shared history, even when viewed differently, is one way to open that dialog and that understanding and to see people as people. 

Cleansing history may do away with unpleasant emotions and memories, it may give us another justification for hate, but it does not make for a healthy present.   We need those unpleasantries of history to remain with us as venues for understanding one another and making reality not sanitized but honest, genuine, open and, improvable.

About Gun Control

So, as always after a mass shooting, the calls for gun control begin. 

Now, understand, I am not a fan of guns.  I don’t like hunting; if I’m in danger I’m going to feel a lot more comfortable calling 911 or even just screaming rather than trying to unlock, load, lock, aim, and shoot a firearm.  On the other hand, I have been to a shooting range a few times and really enjoyed the challenge and competition of target shooting (in the same sort of way that one enjoys striving for and getting a strike in bowling; so maybe we could all just go bowling together). 

Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter whether or not I favor guns, because we have the Second Amendment which provides for the right to bear arms.  I don’t particularly like this amendment, but, then, there are people who don’t seem to particularly like the first amendment or various other parts of the Constitution.  I defend the Constitution to them, and so I do the same to myself for the Second Amendment, because certain parts of our Constitution are not more important than others.   We cannot pick and choose which parts of our Constitution we will enforce and follow – it all carries equal weight and as citizens we must defend it in its entirety.

But, here’s the thing – why do we only seem to hear the screams for gun control after a mass shooting. Why don’t we hear similar advocacy every day when we have thousands of shootings across the country and especially in big cities like Chicago.  Children are injured and die there almost every day from gunshots, so where are the screams for better gun control there and why not on a daily basis?  Better regulation of gun and ammunition sales to the people who use guns daily seems to make a lot more sense than trying to figure out a way to keep guns from the hands of a mass murderer who, until the time of the heinous act, appears totally sane and normal and who, until the act, avoids discovery of whatever plans and motives he or she might have.    

We have the Constitutional right to bear arms.  That right can be reasonably regulated.  So let’s aim our regulations at the everyday people who commit the everyday murders that kill a lot more people over the course of the year than any single mass shooting.   Personally, I don’t think we can ever create background checks that will catch all or even nearly all people who should not have guns.  And I don’t think prohibiting guns to the insane will prevent gun violence from those who appear sane until they suddenly snap.  And then there’s the plain fact that there’s probably already enough guns out there for every citizen to have at least one. 

So, what would I do? First, make it much harder to purchase ammunition.  I think it may be easier to buy a quantity of ammo at Walmart than it is to buy spray paint.  A gun is not going to be much good without ammo (and yes, I know there would be a black market and people could make their own, but it would at least make acquisition somewhat more difficult which might delay or even stop some gun violence).  I would also ban some of the types of guns that are currently available.  I would allow small pistols, etc. for self-protection, basic rifles for hunting, guns for target shooting.  Beyond that, do we really need to generally sell the warlike weapons that are now easily available? (I do realize that there are some good arguments for a Yes answer to this question) At least make then much harder to purchase with significantly greater restrictions than the basic guns.  

That’s what I’d do, though honestly I don’t think it would make much difference. People who want to kill with guns are going to find a way to do so.  I know it is a cliché, but the problem is not the guns.  We seem to have a growing number of people in this country who see violence up to and including murder, as a way to solve problems.  We seem to have more and more people who do not value human life.  We have a country that is filled with divisiveness and anger.  It is this sickness of the soul that needs our attention far more than, or at least concurrent with, revisions to our gun laws.