Peace Requires a New Identity – are we courageous enough to go there?

We cannot have peace until we first dismantle the identity groups that are preventing it.

In the context of a different discussion, Jonathan Sacks writes, “When, though, enemies shake hands, who is now the ‘us’ and who the ‘them’?  Peace involves a profound crisis of identity.  The boundaries of self and other, friend and foe, must be redrawn.”  (Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, 2002).

If one’s identity is to be the victim of another group, then if the causes of the victimhood are resolved, if one is no longer a victim they have then lost their identity.  The same, in reverse, is true for those holding the victimizer identity.   It logically follows that there must be a “crisis of identity” as the uncertainty of “who am I” unfolds. 

If victimhood via group definition is the only identity that one knows, then how will they reformulate a new identity?  Perhaps the idea that one who identified as the victim of real or perceived white supremacy will now assert their supremacy over that previously victimizing group is not as far fetched as those attacking Terry Crew’s comments would have us believe.  If one’s only identity is the label given them by their group, then how will they know any other sort of identity or behavior?

Here is a personal example.  About 10 years ago the institution at which I taught installed its first female dean.  My feminist colleagues who saw women as victims of male supremacy decided to have a gathering to which no men would be invited.  Rather than simply saying I couldn’t make it, I (perhaps foolishly) chose to stand up and say I believed the whole idea was wrong, that I did not want to do what we women for years had complained about men doing – excluding those of the opposite sex.  The gathering went forward, and from that point on I became somewhat of an outcast by those colleagues:  I did not have the right mindset for redefining the feminist group identity.  I was demanding individual identity and accountability rather than simply assumption of a new group mantle.

The point is that when the end of an identity group conflict makes us ask "who am I?",  we must be brave enough to find our unique and individual identities rather than just redefine our groups and their labels without addressing the hopes, hate, and fears that belong to each group.  If we do not, then the hate and fear is just perpetuated, though redistributed, and the discord continues.

Peace.  If we really want it we must have the courage to break the cycle of identity groups.  The mere existence of one group implies the existence of another - and thus the existence of an "us" and a "them."  

We must have the courage to stand up and say that the only group with which we each will fully identify is the one called humanity.  Beyond that we must be brave enough to say we do not need a group to give us an identity, that we will work against the existence of sub-groups that take away both our humanity and our individuality.  

We must be brave enough to say that we each must and will be defined by our unique individuality.  That individuality is a multifaceted thing that includes aspects of many groups, but in the end is defined by none.

As long as we let groups define and label us we will always have an “us” and a “them.”  When we resolve an issue between identity groups, we must not simply draw new group identity lines.  Rather, we must face the identity crisis that the dismantling of group identities will cause.  We must each be brave enough to accept ourselves and others as the individuals that we and they are.   Only then can we move forward as one united mass of humanity.

If Democrats' Response is One of Hatred, then What?

After the President called for a sensible, multi-phased, and bipartisan attack against the violence and hatred in America, what was the Democrats’ response?  To unleash more partisan and vitriolic hatred against the President, his supporters, and his suggestions. 

Sen. Corey Booker:  “Such a bulls—t soup of ineffective words.”  Rep. Tim Ryan:  “Fck me.”  Responding to his call to stop the glorification of violence and including as one of his points to look at mental illness, Sen. Elizabeth Warren responded, “White supremacy is not a mental illness. We need to call it what it is: Domestic terrorism. And we need to call out Donald Trump for amplifying these deadly ideologies.”  [We should note here that Trump condemned racism and white supremacy along with hatred.]  Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said, ““President Trump’s words today are meaningless.  We know his vile and racist words have incited violence and attacks on Americans.”  Presidential candidate Julian Castro accused the president of serving as a “national spokesperson” for white nationalism. 

Trump commented on the media’s responsibilities; the response of filmmaker Ava DuVernay was, “Nah. News coverage has got to start calling you what you are. A traitor. A liar. A racist. A coward. A fool.”  The Washington Post found criticism in counting of words: “The president used 105 words of his speech to call out the Internet and social media. He spent 80 words condemning racism and hatred.  He also used only 53 words to address access to guns, compared to 62 words on mental illness and evil.” 

The above are just a few of the comments that have occurred in the 3 or so hours following the President’s address this morning.  More will surely come.  And, they do not include the post address commentary by the media and pundits, most of whom decided that the President was lying when he denounced racism and white supremacy, reverting back to their narrative that he is a racist and he is personally responsible for the two tragedies in Dayton and El Paso.  Others focused on the one mistake in an otherwise fine speech – a one time use of Toledo, a different city in Ohio, when it seems that the reference should have been to Dayton.  Note, there has been no similar ridicule for candidate Biden referring to Houston and Michigan where it seems he meant El Paso and Ohio.

These reactions are in complete contrast to the virtue signaling of the Democrats.  They present themselves as warriors against a hate-filled society that is the sole creation of the President.  Yet, since the day that Donald Trump became president, we have heard a constant barrage of hate-filled words directed at him and his supporters.  We have seen Democrats encourage and some act out violence against the President, his supporters, and essentially anyone who does not stand fully with the Democrats.  Even before 2016 it was the Democrats who were using identity politics to foment hatred among the people of our country.

The Democrats have one solution to gun violence – more gun regulation.   While that was one of the points included in Trump’s plan [and, one must note here that Trump’s administration has done more than others to tighten gun laws as well as ban bump stocks], Trump astutely noted that "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun."  This statement (which underscores the reasons for the other points in the President’s plan of attack), seems to be especially offensive to the Democrats.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar said it was Mr. Trump’s attempt “to avoid truth.”

Apparently, for the Democrats it is easier to banish the means rather than to actually address the problem of causation.  Those that do consider causation at all are content to conclude that Trump is the sole cause; they seem to have forgotten the mass shootings and violence that occurred pre-2016, not to mention the hatred and gun violence that occurs daily all across America.   

The Democrats love to virtue signal that it is not them but the hated conservatives who foment hatred in this country. But the Democrats and their supporters call for hatred and violence daily.  They turn everything into a political weapon against Donald Trump.  The President is correct that beyond gun ownership there is a cultural problem, a social media/internet problem, a mental health problem, and a lack of unity or ability to address issues in a bi-partisan way for the good of the country. 

The Democrats do not want to work together to try to solve underlying social problems that lead to tragic violence such as we saw this past weekend.  They would rather use the violence to condemn a president they do not like; it simply becomes another weapon in their arsenal in their war to remove him from office. 

The President’s address this morning raised some valid points, issues and questions that deserve serious thought and consideration.  He is right that the country needs to come together and work bi-partisanly to address the hatred and violence.  But, when the reaction of the Democrats is to immediately begin spewing more hatred, then one wonders why even bother?

One Can Prefer One’s Own Culture Without Being Racist

Liking, even preferring, one’s own culture does not make one racist.  Racism is: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.  In that vein, a white supremacist is a person who believes that the White race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.  But, and this is mightily important, simply preferring one culture over another does not necessarily mean that one believes that culture is superior, it does not make one racist, and, if that culture is white, it does not mean that one is a white supremacist.

Let’s think about holidays.  Various cultures celebrate holidays in various manners.  In this country’s melting pot, the traditions of some cultures may have been assimilated into the cultures of others.  Nonetheless, those of particular ethnic backgrounds will celebrate a particular holiday primarily with traditions that reflect the ethnicity of their ancestors.  They prefer to celebrate that way for a variety of reasons, most of which do not reflect any sort of animosity toward the ways in which those with other ethnic backgrounds may celebrate.  It simply represents their particular preference.   Really, this is no different from someone preferring to live in the city or in a condo while someone else may prefer to live in a house or a tent or an RV.  The preference does not automatically reflect prejudice against those who prefer to live differently.

Here is, then, another key word:  Tolerance.  This is a word that seems to have been forgotten by many today.  It is the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.  Preferring one behavior, one course of action, or even one culture does not mean that one cannot be tolerant of those other behaviors, action, and yes, even cultures.  But, tolerance does not require that one like or approve of those things with which one does not agree, nor does it require that one change one’s own preferences to agree with those that one is tolerating.  And, sometimes, behaviors that are being tolerated cannot coexist; hence, in some instances, those preferring differing behaviors will self-segregate – into different communities, or even different countries.

So, when someone says related to both illegal and legal immigration that “in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” or that “how radically in some ways the country has changed” (see comments of Laura Ingraham 8/8/18), she is not necessarily making racist statements.  There are those who prefer the traditional Judeo-Christian western European culture of America.  Immigration of different cultures bring changes, and in some areas those changes are indeed drastic.  Some may not like those changes because they include the existence of beliefs or behaviors with which one does not agree.  One might prefer to be surrounded by cultures that reflect their own ethnicity rather than that of other ethnicities.  There is nothing racist about that.  It becomes racist only if one seeks to discriminate against those other cultures based upon race.

One can be against immigration and not be a racist.  Immigration is a complex issue that involves far more than the culture or color of those who seek to immigrate.  There are economic issues; there are issues of safety; there are resource and environmental issues.  There is the question of assimilation vs. coexistence.  There is the issue of a country’s basic existence as a country, a place with cohesive shared values and goals.

The United States has always had, and still has a most generous immigration policy.  But it is not wrong for one to expect those who seek to join this country to have some appreciation for its values and yes, its culture.  One does not expect an immigrant to want to come to a country and then to change the essential characteristics of that country.   America has always welcomed immigrants who appreciate the core values and characteristics of this country.  But, an unspoken piece of that welcome is that those joining our society will be tolerant of its existing culture just as they can expect a tolerance by the citizens of their own cultural backgrounds.  What I do not think they can expect is that the current citizenry necessarily embrace (as opposed to tolerate) their culture or give up their preferences for their own culture and traditions.

Today many Americans see an effort to completely remake their country, leaving no room for their own values.  When David Brooks seems to disparage whites who think being white is “part of their identity” (See PBS Newshour 8/10/18) he is condemning them for something that he and other progressives uphold and encourage in other races and cultures.  Imagine if we were to condemn Blacks for thinking that being Black is part of their identity –  we would certainly call that racist.  But apparently it is not OK to hold that same thought if one is White; rather, to do so labels one as white supremacists.  It is that sort of hypocrisy that offends many.

There are, indeed, many Americans whose heritage and culture are what is often referred to as White.  A pride in that heritage, a preference for the traditions of that culture does not make one racist or a white supremacist.  A demand that those with other traditions, backgrounds, or cultures tolerate rather than seek to abolish that “white” heritage is not an unreasonable demand.

I realize there are those who will see the above as some sort of code advocacy for white supremacy.  It is not.  White supremacy is not a tradition or value of white European heritage.  Yes, there are those whites who do hold racist or supremacist beliefs, just as there are those of every color and culture who hold such beliefs about their own race or culture.  But, the vast majority of whites simply want to be able to retain their traditions; they are fully capable of doing so while being tolerant of other traditions.  I am not sure that those progressives and others who love to condemn everything white are capable of doing the same.